Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Comic Book Resources (CBR)

Just wanted to note that it was discussed over on the Video Game Project and pointed out that much of their recent content has not been reliable. A quick summary with a couple of quotes:

> CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism

>This is very much rumor mill right now, but this morning on Twitter, CBR founder Jonah Weiland shared a post, shared by another former CBR editor, of the CBR account, which was apparently removed, claiming that most of the news editors who had not already resigned had been fired as the site moved further into AI-driven content.

I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the listing should be updated to something along the lines of "pre-2016 reliable, 2016–mid 2023 situational, mid 2023–present unreliable". While in the time before AI but after the Valnet acquisition it did resort to a lot of churnalism, it did have some alright columns that at the very least do have some good perspectives (like maybe [1]). Link20XX (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that'd be a fair statement for the listing DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Natural Aristocrat

I noticed that Thestylesclash (talk · contribs) has been citing The Natural Aristocrat in several articles. At the moment, I am neither for nor against citing this site, but I'd like to know if anyone knows better about the background of this site and whether it can be considered reliable. On the other hand, however, I have a slight suspicion of WP:CONFLICT regarding the user. Xexerss (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The website seems to cover a variety of topics that happens to include anime occasionally, so I think a more general discussion at WP:RSN would be better. Link20XX (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, On Japan Society's official Press Page (https://japansociety.org/press-coverage/) you'll find that they link to The Natural Aristocrat for the following three articles:

"Bill Gates talks Global Health at Japan Society NYC (Video)"

https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/09/22/bill-gates-talks-global-health-at-japan-society-nyc-video/

"Japan Society NYC: ‘Sailor Suit and Machine Gun’ Film Review"

https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/04/29/japan-society-nyc-sailor-suit-and-machine-gun-film-review/

"Japan Society NYC Film Review: ‘Fireworks Should We See It from the Side or the Bottom?’"

https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/12/08/japan-society-nyc-film-review-fireworks-should-we-see-it-from-the-side-or-the-bottom/

On Japan Parade's official press page (https://japanparadenyc.org/media-coverage-2022/), you'll find they linked to an interview The Natural Aristocrat did with George Takei:

“George Takei Interview: Japan Parade NYC Grand Marshal”

https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/05/10/george-takei-interview-japan-parade-nyc-grandmarshal/ Thestylesclash (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not expressing any opinions towards whether this website is reliable or not, but I do note the first link lists a WP:FORBESCON article and a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article which are considered generally unreliable and situational, respectively. The second link lists a website titled "Sailor Moon Fan Network", which would definitely not meet WP:RS. But anyways, just a list of articles that mentions every time an organization was covered by any website is not indicative of being a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The Natural Aristocrat has been sourced by websites like Yahoo, Express, and MSN just as a quick example:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cormac-mccarty-author-heavy-books-225042597.html

https://fr.news.yahoo.com/5-choses-%C3%A0-savoir-sur-nico-tortorella-la-nouvelle-star-de-the-walking-dead-135347521.html Thestylesclash (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yahoo is a news aggregator and just copies articles from other websites, which is no indication of anything. Link20XX (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The second provided link is an original article from Yahoo Entertainment France which sourced an interview by The Natural Aristocrat. Thestylesclash (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to evaluate reliability of source

Due to it not showing up on the current list, I'm wondering if everyone would be able to evaluate whether animecorner.me constitutes a reliable source. It is currently present on several pages, and is currently in discussion for possible use on another article pending an investigation on its reliability. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Its reliability was discussed before, although without a clear consensus. I personally am more leaning towards calling it unreliable. Xexerss (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some checking and animecorner.me is currently cited as a source on over 50 articles. I think that should lend some weight towards it being credible. Rockman1159 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's an indication of reliability. I mean, for example, a lot of articles continue to cite the Anime News Network encyclopedia, even though it's expressly listed as unreliable here. Xexerss (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, there are currently 262 links to NicheGamer, which is specifically listed as unreliable as a website on the video game project. So I'd agree that amount of links don't really add creditability, but are more of an indication of amount of views/popularity as a website.

On Anime Corner, as I mentioned here, it seems to be staffed primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant to use them if there's a better source, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives. Considering the niche nature of anime though and approved sources (such as ANN) also having inexperienced/younger writers without qualifications / EiC without journalism qualification / etc which seem to be used as arguments against in other areas, I'd consider using them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair to me, but I'd say that we should be thorough with their posts, as I recall that some of them were based on some tweets from randoms users and other unofficial accounts. As long as their reports are based on official sources, I agree with citing them. Xexerss (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've only been able to find one example (this one), though I suppose there may be some I'm missing. I'd suggest that it's relevant in that particular case too, as they're using multiple 'victims' affected as a primary source, rather than the 'aggressor' who'd be extremely unlikely to issue a public statement.

But yes, we should be thorough and take extra care if citing them. Their news posts seem to list the sources clearly, so it's just a matter of scrutinizing them. Interviews cite the interviewee and reviews are more a matter of extending a level of trust regarding accuracy of information and that it's a relevant person from a relevant source.

I did find one issue. I went through reviews of some titles I'm familiar with and noticed that while they got most things right about Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire, they said there's no fullscreen on PC which there is. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

COI notice

A few of the other writers/contributors do have some experience. From my memory, Jay Gibbs wrote for ComicsVerse and Marcel Kober who has written for the German-language Deadline Magazin publication (he did a Makoto Shinkai interview with them). I think besides some of those cases, ANN is a good comparison since I think a good number of the writers from there gained prominence/"notability" through their tenures with ANN rather than already having experience (even some of the older writers are probably in a similar boat), and I think it's a similar case here.

Re, the COI notice: I've contributed a few articles (interviews and reviews; also this one) to the website as a freelance writer, though I'm not part of the team itself. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fandompost

I suggest adding it to the list of unreliable sources per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by the project in the past. I'm not going to read through the entire AfD, but what ferret said about them not having a staff page is incorrect (see here, found under about and here) and they do list credentials for their staff in articles they write and their credentials were also discussed in the linked discussion above. Specifically, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion (too lazy to reproduce them all). Link20XX (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Link20XX Thanks. If it was discussed but not added to the ORS list, does it mean there was no consensus on its reliability? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It is on the list as "The Fandom Post". Link20XX (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just following up. I missed the About Us page at first and found it afterwards, to which I already replied at the AFD. I think this source is very close to essentially being just a blog for Beveridge at this stage, but we do treat some authors as sources in their own right. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add url (ex. fandompost.com) next to the names. That's what I was searching for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's how I missed it. I searched for "fandompost", but it's on the list as "Fandom Post". -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)