From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Summarizing consensus on WT:BLP#Reliable sources, Self-published sources[edit]

We seem to have three basic stands here, which I have given in long form and with a short tag:

  1. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material - no controversial SPS
  2. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article - no SPS
  3. Be extremely careful in using self-published sources. Always identify claims that come from self-published sources in the body of the article, and use them only when their encyclopedic relevance to the topic is unimpeachable. - no absolute rules

Trying to give a fair summary of each person's statements.

  • Crockspot - no SPS - "a major change in the policy that was not discussed with enough participation"; "instruction creep"
  • Cool Hand Luke - no controversial SPS "We discern weighty criticism by using what was cited in secondary sources, and it's especially important we do this in BLPs." "I actually think that only "derogatory" is necessary for the unique BLP concerns, but it is wise to include both per NPOV."
  • Wikidemo - no controversial SPS "The current version has been in place a month and was the subject of a valid consensus process."
  • Phil Sandifer - no absolute rules "self-publication is one aspect of reliability, not the whole game. It doesn't make sense to isolate it from the other judgments of reliability and make an absolute judgment"
  • SlimVirgin - no SPS "it's equivalent to allowing original research... If all I have to do to get something about you in Wikipedia is ... add it to my blog, then we may as well ... just allow editors to add their personal opinions about other people to articles directly."
  • Brimba - no SPS "“non-controversial, non-harmful, non-contentious material”? That is a subjective standard that it’s possible to have sincere differences of opinion about."
  • AnonEMouse - no controversial SPS "non-controversial material is by definition not harmful". "We have consistently been including expert self-published sources for non-controversial material on living persons in our articles, including our Wikipedia:Featured articles."
  • 2005 - no controversial SPS "The BLP text removed should be restored, and the V text changed, as this is what is commonly done and there is no logic in trying to alter that since it is a good practice."; "text should be similar to 'Self-published material may... be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article'"
  • Elonka - no controversial SPS "Non-controversial information is, by its very nature, non-controversial."
  • SBHarris - no absolute rules "there isn't much difference between "original research" and what you see in the average newspaper.";"present policy really makes no sense. It's just printed-material worship"
  • Nathan J. Yoder - no absolute rules "Not allowing an exception for expert testimony only runs counter to the purpose of 'reliable source.'" ; "something valid being in an expert blog doesn't necessarily mean it's of enough interest to write an entire book, write a newspaper article (required to be geared toward lay people), etc--doesn't make it less accurate."
  • GoRight - No opinion "I don't wish to take sides here, I just want a clear policy that I can rely on in future discussions."
  • Gmb92 - no absolute rules "If the act of criticizing a person's work causes harm, as you argue below, then self-published statements from experts would have to be limited to only positive comments. Thus, accuracy and comprehensiveness would certainly be heavily compromised."

Non-controversial is all right, but we can't say that in policy[edit]

  • Most material that is truly non-controversial, non-harmful, and non-contentious will work its way in simply because no one is going to challenge it, that’s the reality, it by default falls under IAR. Brimba 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ... if something in a BLP is truly harmless, it escapes the attention of both these policies. If it's not contentious, it needn't be removed per BLP. If it's not challenged or likely to be challenged, it doesn't need a source per V. SlimVirgin 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC) There's nothing contentious in these stats, and if there is — if they are challenged — another, non-self-published source would have to be found. SlimVirgin 11:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not see what the problem would be with using that source for this: jossi 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) And if someone editwars about Michael Jordan's stats published on that site, there other places where the stats can be found. jossi 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)