Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 307

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 300←Archive 305Archive 306Archive 307Archive 308Archive 309Archive 310

Is jihadintel.meforum.org a reliable source?

See these uses. We discussing meforum.org last year briefly with no conclusion about it, but this is a different related site. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, is this really a question that needs to be asked? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Completely unreliable. See [1]. I say that We should remove all citations to it, remove most or all claims that are only cited to it, and put it on the banned sources blacklist so that nobody will be able to add new links from it.
This should also be applied to the other aliases they use:
  • Israel Victory Project
  • Middle East Quarterly
  • Campus Watch (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)
  • Counter Islamist Grid
  • Islamist Watch
  • Jihad-Intel
  • Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
  • Legal Project (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)
  • Washington Project (needs to be distinguished from other organizations with similar names)
This will require some research. For example, citations to the Israel Victory Project may use the URL [ https://www.meforum.org/israel-victory-project/ ] -- making it clear that they are part of the The Middle East Forum, but they may use the URL [ https://www.israelvictory.org/ ], which only has a small light grey on dark grey meforum logo on the bottom of the page.
[[Also see Middle East Forum. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence of editorial review or fact-checking, and plenty of evidence of ideologically driven content that has little basis in fact (see the claim here about "suicide factories", for instance). As such I'd say they're completely unreliable, and a deprecation RfC might not even be necessary given that there's little a priori evidence of reliability in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • First of all we do allow WP:BIASED sources. It seems that it authored by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi also MEFORUM itself has editorial board.The opinion of these site should be attributed.--Shrike (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is... differently wonderful. "Jihad Intel educates law enforcement and the general public with intelligence on radical Islam" - hardly sounds alt-right at all then. No named contributors. Why would we consider this reliable? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    JzG, Did you actually looked at [2]? Shrike (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Shrike, yes. They go to great lengths to imply - without actually saying - that it has editorial oversight from the main site. Given that its mission is to push far-right "radical Islam" stuff, I think that's a bit of a red flag. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation although defunct, it is probably an acceptable source in some cases due being mostly written by an expert[3] and editorial review by Middle East Forum. The content is what symbols are used by jihadists, which is not super controversial as far as I'm aware. These websites differ significantly in quality and shouldn't be subject to blanket actions, for example Middle East Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal that simply takes a viewpoint not liked by certain WP editors. (t · c) buidhe 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe your expert has a wikipedia article, if its the same Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I already linked him above.He seem to appear on WP:RS quite extensively he not some fringe lunatic Shrike (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I still see no evidence of editorial oversight, I would be comfortable treating this as Al-Tamimi's defunct blog but I want to stress that Al-Tamimi would be reliable not jihadintel.meforum.org. Many of the entries don’t seem to as much articles as facebook style reposts [4]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

LivingInKigali.com

Hi all

Just wondering what people think about the website LivingInKigali.com? There are some things in it that would be useful for inclusion in the Kigali article, but I'm not certain if it's a reliable source or not. On the one hand, it looks like it's published by an amateur enthusiast - "I’m Kirsty, and I started this website as an attempt to fill the giant, gaping hole in online information about living in Kigali as foreigner". However, it also does publish maps of the city, and obviously there's editorial oversight by the founder and I suspect most of what it says is accurate. It is also mentioned as a possible source of information by sites which are reliable themselves, such as National Geographic and Fodor's Travel. Examples of what it might be used for at Kigali, include some annual events and festivals, maybe the food and drink section for cuisine (factual information of course, not the author's opinion on which are the "best"), and area guides to flesh out the geography section a bit. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I can tell from looking at that site that it is a commercial endeavor. That is, the author Kristy is most likely getting paid for writing glowing reviews of cafes and restaurants in Kigali. That doesn't mean that the information is inaccurate, but it means that some of it may be biased. Another problem is that Kristy doesn't reveal her surname so you don't know exactly who is behind the site. I can tell you that the site is a weak source. I'd say if you use it, use it with caution and only when it makes sense.ImTheIP (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: ah, good point, I hadn't considered the paid review angle. Thanks for the advice.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary discussions for a potential RFC on CNN and MSNBC

Discussion is moot, as Blueboar went ahead and opened RfC's on both CNN and MSNBC (both of which were closed per WP:SNOW). MastCell Talk 18:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that the RFC on Fox News has ended, I think it makes sense to have an RFC (or perhaps two separate RFCs) to see if the same (or similar) limitations should be implemented for CNN and MSNBC (the other US cable news outlets). Before doing so, however, I want to get a rough sense as to whether the community has any appetite for what could be another lengthy RFC so soon after the last one. And, if so, start discussion on how to neutrally word it. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe wait a bit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't see a point of RFCs for the sake of RFCs. Just because they are also cable news networks does not mean there has to be an RFC as well. FWIW, the last RFC on CNN in 2019 was SNOW closed. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because "Should CNN be deprecated or listed as generally unreliable" is blatantly a ridiculous question, I think any RfC on these sources is likely to be more nuanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I am definitely thinking of something more nuanced... NOT a deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
So something like "CNN (for example) should not be used for coverage on right wing politics" or "MSNBC is treated as generally unreliable on political reporting"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think "not generally reliable" is a more likely outcome than "generally unreliable", and would match the current status for Fox. The distinction being that the former suggests that the source may or may not be usable in any given situation, whereas the latter suggests that the source is unusable by default in the absence of a strong argument for exception. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
We would also want to discuss the reliability of the opinion shows ... similar to how we discussed Hannity, Carlson, etc in the Fox RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the Fox News RFC that just ended, I think we have already crossed that bridge. In fact, I would think that having an RFC on other outlets would help de-politicize that one... it would show that we are holding all outlets up to the same level of scrutiny. Blueboar (talk)
I believe CNN in particular is about as reliable as Fox News at this point. Recently they published a story claiming Kim Jong-Un was dead/in "grave danger" after a botched heart surgery which was later proven incorrect. Same with Chris Cuomo says "it's illegal to look at Wikileaks", the Covington MAGA hat kids, and their constant pushing of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. I don't know enough about MSNBC to comment on its reliability and I would have to do more research. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Except Russian collusion was outlined by Mueller, along with obstruction, Mueller just deferred to Congress and the DOJ on whether a sitting president could be indicted. Cuomo is referring to stolen emails and he is right, it is "illegal to possess these stolen documents" in the same way it is illegal to possess any stolen goods. Every news media ran with the rumours of Kim Jong-Un being dead, because rumours of his death and the story about the heart operation were coming from the same sources and backed up by sources within the US establishment; misinformation was rampant among even sources "in the know". Covington MAGA situation was a mess because of contrary reporting on the ground, and was a royal screw up by all concerned. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Chess, let's take one of those WP:CIR failures at random shjall we? The claim that CNN reported falsely over Kim's health is tendentious, and originate from Trump. CNN actually reported, according to a reliable secondary source, that "US monitoring intelligence that North Korean leader is in grave danger after surgery". Guy (help!) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe do some preliminary due diligence work off this page first so examples that are false positives don’t take up the oxygen. The RfC options can also be workshopped.
    BTW is there an actual problem to be addressed or is this just to have the appearance Fox wasn’t singled out? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we have undeniably reliable sources that regularly report on CNN or MSNBC presenting deliberate misinformation? I don't mean mere mistakes, I mean stuff like altering photos or conspicuously omitting relevant information. If not, bringing up an RFC on those networks just because there was one on FNC is false equivalence. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seriously? They are not remotely comparable to Fox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the epitome of false balance. No, this is a very silly proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The unwritten rule on Wikipedia is that right-of-center sources should receive stricter scrutiny than left-of-center sources. For example, contrast our policy at WP:RSP for the Daily Caller with our policy for Venezuelanalysis. The DC maintains an email address for corrections requests[5] and does correct when they are made aware of an error [6]. I am unable to find any mention of corrections at Venezuelanalysis. We don't say it, but the precedent is clear. Tread with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the specific way the Fox News RFC closed very narrowly, that the only thing that probably should have, as an "across the board' for all cable news channels, is general caution of using their opinion/talking head shows as RS for facts, just as we would not use their opinion columns on websites for facts. (Fox News' ones are just more "landmind"-ish in terms of claims). Anything else presented as a news story on these channels or via their websites, there's no strong reason at this point, given the close on Fox News, to seek to tackle them now, unless you can present a consistent bias on a specific topic area as with politics or science. Which I'm pretty confident there wasn't for these. --Masem (t) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as completely unnecessary "but both sides have to be formally considered" gray fallacy. CNN and MSNBC don't appear here every 3 months. Opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces. This applies to all opinion shows in any venue. Fox is special because they are blatantly and outrageously in the tank for whoever the Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump/anything remotely republican/anything remotely anti-liberal featuring known outrageously unreliable sources like James O'Keefe without any shame for doing it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think either RfC would result in any change in status but I think Fox being here every few months was more to do with a few editors trying to bludgeon the process rather than any inherent issue with Fox. I strongly suspect if Fox had been just as accurate/inaccurate but was left leaning we would have never had the last RfC. That is also why I think either new RfC would result in nothing. Some editors, myself included would see either of those sources as no worse than Fox. Since I put Fox in the generally reliable bucket I would also put CNN and MSNBC in the same bucket. An editor who put Fox in the unreliable bucket for partisan reasons is less likely to put CNN in an unreliable bucket even if they are shown to be 100% "as bad as" Fox. Net result, the close call that was the Fox RfC is just enough less close to call the thing "generally reliable". Still, the constant "Fox again" issues were more due to a few editors rather than new evidence time after time. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I am paying attention Sphilbrick. If you're alluding to something that I should be aware of, by all means, please point it out. - MrX 🖋
  • CNN and MSNBC are separate. An RfC on CNN is unnecessary (it's reliable). It may be worth recording the fact that MSNBC should be used only with attribution, I don't know. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It stands out to me that almost no examples of (supposed) problems with either source have been offered here (and the few that have been offered have mostly been rebutted as mischaracterizations on the offering editor's part and not problems on the outlet's part, e.g. them reporting like other outlets that some US officials believed Kim Jong Un was ill ≠ them 'falsely reporting that Kim was ill'); it does lead to the impression that RfCs are being proposed only out of a sense that (false) balance is needed. (If RfCs are held, I can't see a reason to conflate them, they're two different sources and each RfC is likely to attract a distinct large body of commenters.) -sche (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RfC only to see if there is any noteworthy issue with controversial event reporting - while I agree that Fox News seems to have lower standards these days compared to its liberal counterparts, both CNN and MSNBC should probably be assessed for the following separately (I've added my opinion of CNN & MSNBC):
  1. Non-political news: will be generally reliable just like Fox News (duh)
  2. Political: reliable for non-controversial events, must be examined for controversial stuff, will probably depend on how controversial the event is
  3. Talk shows and opinion pieces: only for attribution to the journalists involved (duh)
45.251.33.198 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose RfC, it seems petty. If a challenge to either comes up organically thats fine but otherwise lets leave them alone. As for François Robere’s superior iteration of the question... Carlson, Cooper, Cuomo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT RfC for CNN and the RfC for MSNBC should be separate. CNN is far worse than Fox News Channel, particularly its newscasts. NYTimes - "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation." Politico, mistakes a sex toy flag for ISIS flag; labels Alabama as Mississippi, NYTimes - "But the biggest damage to CNN has been self-inflicted — never more so than in June, when in a rush to be first, it came running out of the Supreme Court saying that President Obama’s health care law had been overturned. It was a hugely embarrassing error.", list of completely botched stories, Law.com "Libel Lawyer Lin Wood Settles Second Defamation Suit With CNN", 10 worst most embarrassing US media failures - "This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments", The Media's Top Lies, CNN refuses to correct error, CNN gave Class Relotius their "Journalist of the Year" award, then published an article with the headline Claas Relotius writing fake stories 'on a grand scale, and it goes on and on and on. Atsme Talk 📧 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear. This is going to be a very difficult RfC if this is an example of what we'll see. O3000 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose CNN RfC, open to MSNBC, although I've not seen any problems. This discussion seems pointy to me. Fox appears here often for good reason. CNN and MSNBC not so. As Horse Eye Jack said, if these sources come here organically, that’s fine. Otherwise, it is tit-for-tat. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Open to re-assessing these sources in response to specific concerns (as the Fox re-appraisal was prompted by their use of misleading digital image manipulation in their coverage of the Seattle protests). But as an exercise in reflexive false equivalence—which is clearly the framing behind this proposal—I'mma say no. We already do way too much of that. Also, note that policy and good practice already prohibit the use of opinion shows/columns as sources of fact, so we don't need an RfC to establish that for CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or any other outlet. MastCell Talk 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I might be mistaken but I think that came out after, not before the latest round of deprecate Fox discussions. Springee (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Lord, no. We just shot down one attempt to deprecate a noticeable percentage of perfectly fine sources used on the Wikipedia, now we want to do another one? People, your politics are showing, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think the intention was the opposite. If these were shown to be widely accepted as RSs then people won't try and act like perfectly fine sources are questionable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't know why we're having this discussion but RfCs are an integral part of the consensus building process which happens to be policy. Any editor who doesn't want to participate in an RfC is not obligated to do so, but we will have an RfC to rate CNN's reliability in the same manner we did Fox News and other entire sources that came before and that will follow. No source is immune from the rating system which began with the inception of WP:RS/Perennial. Also see WP:CONLEVEL. Atsme Talk 📧 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • OK... Thank you everyone for the input. I see that we have mixed feelings about even holding an RFC... but ENOUGH people want one that I think I will move forward on it. I need to think about wording now. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Note... and I will do two separate RFCs, so we can focus our attention on each outlet individually. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
There's actually pretty strong sentiment, arguably even a consensus, against opening RfC's on CNN and MSNBC right now. That's evident in the discussion above. Of course, you can choose to open them anyway, but I would strongly suggest that in your RfC statement you link this discussion, as participants should be aware that a majority of respondents here felt that the RfC's were unnecessary or a bad idea. MastCell Talk 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, but I have to ask: if you were going to go ahead and open RfC's no matter what, why did you bother starting this thread? You asked if there was support for these RfC's; the answer was a pretty resounding no; and then you're like, well, here come the RfC's. Of course you're within your rights to open them, but I don't understand the value of this piece of theater. MastCell Talk 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" O3000 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of "full of sound & fury, signifying nothing", but yeah. MastCell Talk 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If we must have a discussion about having a discussion, then the answer is "no". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose just as I did when the notion was thrown out there in the middle of the Fox News RTC as a clear example of false balance "whataboutism". This is pointless and a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For others like me, who don't live on this or related noticeboards, I'll assume that Wikipedia:FOX is the relevant RFC on Fox News that's ended. WP:CNN refers to "consensus not numbers" rather than Cable News Network and WP:MSNBC is a red link, so it seems we still need to have those discussions. This can of worms was opened, starting the ball rolling with a 2017 RfC that deprecated the Daily Mail and the ball was given a big push with the creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You may just now be realizing that it was easier to start that ball rolling than it will be to stop it. This is all something I've been uncomfortable about – the focus on the contributors (sources) rather than their contributions (news reports). But, at this point fairness and neutrality calls for an evaluation of all sources, as distasteful as that feels. Blueboar, please get on with it and don't let anyone intimidate you. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly how I feel. Don’t worry. I’ve been around here a long time. I don’t get intimidated. (Any perceived hesitation is just delay because I have been busy with off-wiki life). Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar I'll admit I do get intimidated, having seen that an editor can be banned in the blink of an eye and there is no reliable process to reverse it. I have been privy to an indirect warning that questioning the reliability of NYT can result in a site ban. Yet, in my normal activities as an editor, in under a year I witnessed 2 instances of egregious behavior by the NYT: printing a lie about an accuser of a powerful Democrat and failing to fix the error after being informed of it. If Wikipedians are - without justification - holding any media source (no matter their legacy) as untouchable, I find it hard to take any of this seriously. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Agree wholeheartedly with Wbm1058 just above: because the can of worms was opened, it needs to be applied evenly across all similar sources as a matter of course. I must note however, the closing of discussions has over time eroded from an evaluation of policy-based, accurate arguments (ignoring all others) to little more than a head count. News sources have indeed become partisan, and editors are as well. We are faced with a dilemma only solved by sticking closely to policy: WP:NHC Consensus is not determined by counting heads...The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Without strict adherence to policy, the RfC process is no longer valid. petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The RFCs were snow-closed (one by me, one by someone else and endorsed by me). These RFCs were never going to work - they were literally raised only because the Fox RFC was raised.

But there may be material for a more general non-RFC discussion raising claimed reliability issues that might be substantive. Can we try to have one of those? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem that the threads were closed, besides the fact that you only got the voices of those who are most active on WP. I'll remind Blueboar (though I'm sure he doesn't need it) that there is no requirement for consensus or approval from the masses to start any RfC, on any topic, at any time. And in my understanding, he didn't open this thread to gauge popularity of his idea, but to hear different arguments for whether it's too soon after the exhausting Fox RfC (an RfC which I assume did not go through an approval process before launching, because that's not a thing). petrarchan47คุก 01:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
We have held RfCs only for right-leaning media, though a massive number of respondents in the Fox RfC mentioned that Fox is no worse than [similar sites], and gave examples. Therefore, leaving the process with only Fox having gone under the spotlight means attaining NPOV is going to be even more challenging in some topic areas. But I sure don't blame Blueboar for letting it go. petrarchan47คุก 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
No... we just HAD two of these outlets “under the spotlight”. If that spotlight did not shine as brightly as you wished, or end in the result you desired... well, that’s your problem, not mine. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose But hey start an RFC if you want...but perhaps first ask yourself why? because people don't trust Fox? Is this like some kind of partisan revenge? Surely that is not what should be going on. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FOX talk/opinion shows

So the consensus on WP:FOX talk/opinion shows was that they should be treated as any other op-ed and existing policies on op-eds work already, correct? wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: incorrect, the secondary concensus at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News was "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions". (RSP entry) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
What are the existing policies on op-eds, and how does the guidance on Fox News talk shows differ from that? wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG are what you're thinking of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyediting the applicable WP:RSOPINION guidance: "Opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Per "Perennial sources", there is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. Therefore "Opinion pieces in Fox News may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." I don't follow how this materially differs from "Fox News talk shows should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions". The latter (the Fox-specific guidance) is more concise, but I don't see it as any stronger than the general WP:RSOPINION guidance. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I see no stronger and/or weaker guidance either of the FOX closure w.r.t. RSOPINION/NEWSBLOG. You need to show that the opinion has WP:WEIGHT to be included (which will likely be difficult for a Fox talk show in the first place) via consensus. --Masem (t) 23:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
wbm1058 I believe that is effectively correct. It isn't due to a consensus at WP:FOX since pundits weren't the subject. That means WP:NEWSORG applies as it always has: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Some Daily Mail opinions are okay too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are opinions, and today we're dealing with journalistic opinions that are being mistaken for statements of fact simply because of the long standing reputations some of the sources have carried with them to the internet. A lot of those reputations have waned, and I have demonstrated this phenomenom a few times now. Editors simply need to get up to speed and consider that our PAGs are still holding true, and we simply need to follow them as they relate to opinions, context and quoting. DUE is one of the few segments of policy that has become problematic because of bias and POV creep, and that's what causes the problems. If you get a chance, read this informative little article in the CT Mirror. Another good read is this WaPo article, and let's hope they'll return to practicing what they preach. Another woke source is the "joint initiative of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology Sydney": Globally, public trust in four key social institutions – media, government, business and NGOs (including academia) – has been in freefall. This ‘implosion of trust’ (Edelman 2017) has been observed in part in the migration of audiences from traditional news media (newspapers, TV and radio) to online and alternative news sources such as blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Oh, gee, I wonder whose been saying that all along? It's global and it includes all news media, and it has only gotten worse. Atsme Talk 📧 04:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, here's an example from the last 24 hours: a tweet from "NBC News" (not NBC editorial department). NBC News published an article with the headline "AOC backs Sanders for president — ignores Biden in brief remarks." It was updated to say "AOC symbolically nominates Bernie Sanders in 60-second DNC speech." And they say the "mainstream media" has a left-leaning bias! Hah! wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
In Greece, the sales of traditional newspapers have been in decline for years. For example, the recently shut down Sunday edition of Ethnos, traditionally one of the leading newspapers of the country. According to this 2012 article the average sales of the Sunday edition at the time were 115.670 copies per week. In 2020, the average sales had fallen to about 15,000 copies per week and it was still the third highest-selling among the Sunday newspapers. It shut down on August 9, 2020. Online newspapers and other news sites have become the preferred source of information. It is not as much a lack of trust in the traditional press, but the loss of their audience. I would expect similar trends in other countries. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wbm1058, the NBC tweet looks more like an idiot error than bias, or maybe it's so far left, it's off the map and I can't see it. Read the Fox report with the headline, AOC calls out ‘racial injustice, colonization, misogyny’ in minute-long DNC speech - does that read right wing to you? Looks like straight-up factual reporting to me. Atsme Talk 📧 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "idiot error" is a plausible explanation; I've noticed an obvious spelling error in a graphic on their Nightly News recently. Fox News report about her speech was fair, though they didn't note that her Sanders nomination speech ran 1:37. I'll assume the DNC allocated her a minute, but she ran over and the DNC was nice enough to let her do that. wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what is the question here? WP:RSP is already clear about Fox's opinion shows: Fox News talk shows... should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Seems pretty clear to me. There may be situations where we cite these shows—for instance, if we're describing the role of right-wing media in the propagation of dangerous medical misinformation about Covid-19. But these shows should not be cited as sources of factual information. Are we challenging that conclusion in this thread? If so, can someone concisely articulate their concern without devolving into rambling political commentary? MastCell Talk 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    MastCell, that seems to be based entirely on a local consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It wasn't covered by the broader discussion at WP:FOX. We just had broader discussions about CNN and MSNBC talk shows that concluded that they should be treated as any other op-ed and existing policies on op-eds work already. "Perennial sources" just has one green box each for CNN and MSNBC with each including the statement "talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces". It is not clear to me why Fox News needs to have green, yellow and red boxes, with the red box giving essentially the same advice about talk show content as given in CNN and MSNBC's green boxes. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying your concern. If you disagree with the local consensus, you can open an RfC to review it (although I think people may have RfC fatigue at this point). To your point, Fox News's opinion/talk shows were a major vector of dangerous medical misinformation and harmful falsehoods about the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g. [7], [8]). That seems to set them apart from opinion content at CNN or MSNBC. Given our ethical and policy-based responsibilities to provide accurate information and to avoid amplifying harmful misinformation, it therefore seems wise to treat Fox's opinion content with a dollop of added skepticism based on their track record. But in the end, if you want to overturn what you call the "local consensus", then an RfC is the correct route. MastCell Talk 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the reason for the different language is because we insufficiently distinguish between, on ends of the spectrum, poorly researched opinion-heavy talk shows and well-researched analysis that also includes interpretation and judgment. Using Fox and MSNBC examples, Hannity, Maddow, Carlson, and Hayes all have shows where they start with some facts and add analysis, interpretation, and frequently judgment in varying degrees. Where they differ most relevantly for this board is in the first two elements: the reliability of their coverage of the facts and the quality of their analyses. Their interpretation and judgment are unlikely to be considered reliable for much of anything, indeed. Wbm makes a good point that the practical difference between the "don't use Fox News talk shows for anything other than maybe attributed opinion" and "treat MSNBC talk shows as opinion" is negligible, but there's no denying we do talk about them differently on this board in a way that isn't limited to just their politics. I think it's because of their coverage of the facts and quality of analysis. An average Maddow show seems to just have more research and rigor behind it when they do a deep dive into a subject, and the interpretation and judgment may be more easily separated. Using an example of a topic I've seen covered by multiple of these shows recently, with a subject like confederate monuments, is there really disagreement about which of the four shows would put in more effort to make sure they got the historical facts right? I don't know if that means we should treat them any differently -- I'm just trying to put a finger on why we clearly talk about them differently even when we wind up treating them similarly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
To be blunt, I think we talk about them differently because we allow our personal political biases to affect how we view these sources. It is easier to forgive the flaws of opinion sources when we agree with the opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
So for the record, your critical evaluation is that Maddow/Hayes and Carlson/Hannity deal with facts and analysis in equivalent ways, and the only reason a good faith editor might not see it that way is if that editor is biased? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No... I think it does not matter whether one is better or worse... since we should not be using ANY of them. The policy is the same regardless of venue. My point is that we are letting our own biases shift how we express that policy when talking about different venues. We say “don’t use opinion shows for fact” when discussing all these venues, but we phrase that policy in different ways for different venues. That phrasing is a reflection of our own bias, not a difference in policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
These "opinion sources" don't just voice opinions. They also make statements that they purport to be factual. For example, Karen McDougal is suing Fox for slander because Tucker Carlson said "Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed. Two women [one of whom is McDougal] approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money." But those aren't facts; McDougal didn't approach Trump, much less threaten him. And the argument made by Fox News in the court case is striking: "despite Mr Carlson's statement that 'the facts of the story' are 'undisputed', Fox News's attorney, Erin Murphy, told the judge hearing the case that 'there's no statement that a reasonable viewer would understand in this context to state something provably false' – and argued that viewers simply do not consider Mr Carlson a source of factual news" [9]. It's possible that people talk about them differently because they differ in whether their purported factual claims are accurate, even if WP restricts the use of their commentary to opinions. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Not an issue... we ALREADY have multiple policies that say we should not use opinion shows for fact. The venue (Fox or MSNBC... CNN or CBS... BBC or ITV) does not matter. It does not matter if one is worse at fact than the other... what matters is that we should not be using ANY of them for fact, and should be cautious about using them for opinion.
The complaint here is more about how the policy is presented on the perennial list than any change to actual policy. The Policy is the same for ALL opinion shows, regardless of venue... but our presentation of that policy on the perennial list is NOT the same from source to source. That difference in presentation reflects bias, because the underlying policy is even handed. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault for not looking at WP:RSP before commenting. One difference is that CNN and MSNBC each has a single line (identified only as "CNN (Cable News Network)" and "MSNBC" in the left-most column), where the Summary column for each includes the statement "Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces"), whereas Fox has three lines (one for "Fox News (news excluding politics and science)", one for "Fox News (politics and science)", and one for "Fox News (talk shows)"), where the Summary column for "Fox News (talk shows)" is "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." I see that there was a long discussion on WT:RSP about the Fox entries, including whether to have 3 lines vs. grouping "politics and science" news with "talk shows." I agree that the text for the Fox, MSNBC, and CNN talk shows on WP:RSP should be analogous: "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should be treated as opinion pieces," and "MSNBC talk shows, including The Rachel Maddow Show and All In with Chris Hayes, should be treated as opinion pieces" (and I don't know what the titles of the CNN talk shows are). Do CNN aand MSNBC need to be split into 2 lines (news vs. talk shows) in order to also make the background coloration analogous? Also, shouldn't the legend make explicit what the colors are supposed to indicate? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
My initial inclination is to say yes, they too should be divided... the problem with that, however, is that we could then do the same for EVERY news outlet. Policy-wise, they should ALL be divided between news and opinion shows. That will make the list unwieldy. It would probably be easier to re-think the presentation of Fox instead. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I did a text search before writing my comment, and those 3 are the only ones that have notes about talk shows. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And that in itself shows a systemic problem with the RSP list, since the “don’t use opinion shows for fact” policy applies to more than just those three.
I think the omission stems from the fact that the list is based on summarizing RFC results... and these three outlets are the only ones that had RFCs that explicitly HIGHLIGHTED the fact that the policy applies to their talk/opinion shows. However, that does NOT mean the policy DOESN’T apply to other news outlets. I would be happier if we could make this clearer, without making the list unwieldy. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That makese sense that it varies with the specifc RfC discussion. I'm not familiar with a lot of the sources in the WP:RSP list. Are there other sources in the list that have opinion talk shows? I'm not sure how that page could be improved. I just did a text search on "opinion," and that appears often (in at least two ways: opinion pieces and opinionated/biased sources), and the wording for these is much more varied than for the CNN/Fox/MSNBC talk shows. Is it worth having a discussion somewhere about developing text to use uniformly (e.g., "subset X can be used for attributed opinions only, which must also be evaluated for due weight," with links to the relevant policies), and if there's consensus, change the wording throughout and add a note towards the top of the page specifying the agree-on wording for later additions to the chart? I haven't been around long enough to have a sense of whether that's likely to be productive. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on CNN

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per the Snowball Clause. There has been immediate and overwhelming consensus that CNN News is generally reliable in both of the categories set forth and that CNN opinion shows are already adequately covered by existing policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Endorsed - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Inspired by the closure of our recent RFC as to the reliability of Fox News, and after some preliminary discussion (here), this RFC seeks to assess community consensus as to the reliability of CNN in the following specific areas:

  1. news excluding politics and science
  2. politics and science
  3. talk/opinion shows

Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN news excluding politics and science)

  • (EC) Reliable. Routine news coverage is about as reliable as you can ever get for cable TV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There's kind of a default way that we handle news channels in general -- they're generally considered reliable, but not top quality. CNN has its moments of sensationalist garbage, but I haven't seen any reason to treat it differently than that default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • relible — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable. This is a waste of time and borderline WP:POINTy given that the discussion above already made it clear that there is zero chance CNN would be found anything but reliable. Nobody has presented any reason to doubt its reliability, and it obviously has an extensive reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but more generally the purpose of these RFCs is to assess sources that we have reasons to doubt, not to engage in pointless tit-for-tat theater. --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable and this shouldn't even have been brought here. Hopefully we won't have the New York Times or the Washington Post brought here as well. The fact that news sources occasionally make mistakes just shows nobody is perfect. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable per all the above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Absolutely. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable Generally reliable, meets WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable, per Rhododendrites, Aquillion and others. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Snow, sleet, and hail. O3000 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Same reliability as Fox News and MSNBC. There's very little that differentiates CNN from Fox News, except that instead of catering to Republicans, it caters to centrist Democrats. 20 years ago, I would have given CNN a higher rating, but faced with competition from the openly partisan cable news channels Fox News and MSNBC, CNN has also identified its target audience and caters to their political views. Just as with Fox News and MSNBC, I believe its factual reporting in its news section is mostly accurate, though just as with the other cable news channels, its choice of which stories to cover and which aspects of those stories to emphasize reflects its target audience's political preferences. The community decided, in the case of Fox News, that this sort of news organization should be used "with caution to verify contentious claims," and that "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of [its] coverage of politics and science." I argued against that decision, because I believed it was motivated by narrowly political considerations (keeping conservative American viewpoints out of Wikipedia and limiting negative coverage of Democrats on Wikipedia). But the community should be consistent and politically neutral, and rank CNN, MSNBC and Fox News in the exact same way. They are the same thing, just catering to three different political viewpoints in the US. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable in general as per above. Do not rush to use new articles in developing situations and BLPs though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable per Aquillion. Armadillopteryx 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable per above. Is there even any evidence of fabricated material? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN politics and science)

  • Similar to Fox, I think we should use CNN with caution to verify contentious claims. I think CNN is biased and opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CNN is reliable for politics and science. Unlike Fox, it has no history of (e.g.) climate change denialist talking points, COVID-19 insanity, promoting Russian talking points over Ukraine and other geopolitical issues. There is no evidence that CNN is anything other than an honest news gathering organisation. Its editorial lean is to the left of the centre of US politics, but that is as much an effect of the Overton Window as anything. Even if it were unreliable for politics (it isn't), it is still reliable for science. CNN is not the opposite of Fox, certainly not since Fox's Breitbart-driven shift to the hard right post-2015. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable in these areas per Guy's comments. There's no comparison here. It's false equivalency to suggest otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CNN is reliable for politics and science.Smeat75 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider CNN reliable for medical (per WP:MEDPOP) or other scientific content because it's not their expertise, but this is true of all mainstream news sources, including gold-standard sources like the New York Times. I would consider CNN reliable for politics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, with a (historical?) *minor* caveat on climate programming. A 2013 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that while 80% of CNN climate coverage was accurate, 1/5 segments contained misleading claims, and that these segments tended to be from panel discussions and interviews. This issue of false balance was quite common at the time, so though I think care should be used regarding specific CNN segments, I do not think this is an indictment of CNN climate coverage overall.[10][11] A 2019 Columbia Journalism Review article found that false balance remained an issue, but one that had shifted from (in our language) reliability to bias. Though promotion of climate denial is less common on cable networks, the amount of coverage remains low. In addition, the piece describes a disconnect between climate change coverage and the political solutions to it (such as framing the Green Ne Deal from a political angle alone). But again, this is a very specific detail, and it concerns bias more than reliability.[12]Jlevi (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for politics. Unreliable for technical detail in science and especially medicine. Reliable for non-technical news related to science and medicine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Until someone can write a book on deliberate misinformation being willfully published by CNN, CNN is reliable except where contradicted by policies like WP:MEDRS or WP:DUE weight from comparable but opposing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for science. Scientific claims should be cited to reputable journals, not news outlets. Is not MEDRS complaint for medical science (MEDPOP). You can probably use news sources for the mundane details (who, what, when, where, why) in science articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for politics per Guy. Reliable for science except where superseded by WP:MEDPOP, WP:MEDRES This section is only here because of CNN's critic Fox's long-standing anti-science(/reality) agenda inherited from the political and religious right it serves and from whom comes the shrillest and most hypocritical pearl-clutching. No history or pattern of rigorous misreporting as evidenced by Fox (and friends). GPinkerton (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (EC) Reliable. I don't see how stating that CNN is reliable for obviously lay science news reports could lead editors into thinking MEDRS or science RS suddenly now include cable TV... Their politics reporting is moderate, quite a lot less sensationalist than Fox, and they don't regularly prop up conspiracy agitators or act as a government mouthpiece. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable, i.e. do not carve out an exception for politics/science as with Fox News. All entries on WP:RSP fail stringent scientific sourcing requirements such as WP:MEDRS, and CNN isn't materially worse than the average mainstream news outlet, so there is no need to mention it like for Fox. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I'm fairly sure JAMA (RSP entry) passes MEDRS. Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • There's kind of a default way that we handle news channels in general -- they're generally considered reliable, but not top quality (e.g. it certainly doesn't meet MEDRS, but there's no reason to specify that because no news channel would meet MEDRS). CNN has its moments of sensationalist garbage, but I haven't seen any reason to treat it differently than that default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • relible, concur with Rhododendrites — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable and not biased to the extent that any cable news source can be considered such. The fact that it is reliable is trivial and already discussed above, but beyond that, nobody has given any particular reason to consider them WP:BIASED. This is a WP:POINTy waste of time created as time-wasting theater in response to the Fox RFC; in that case, we had extensive sourcing detailing how the network was originally created and has been run, from the beginning to the present day, to push a particular point of view. There's no such sourcing for CNN - it's considered biased by people who only trust Fox, because such viewers consider any network that wasn't specifically created to court their point of view to be "biased". That's not a point of view we can reasonably use when evaluating sources ourselves, since by that definition all sources would be biased (technically true, but WP:BIASED refers to a more specific and extensive bias that could taint their reporting, which is not present here.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable, per above, of course this wouldn’t discount MED guidelines. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Absolutely. (Retain MED guidelines where applicable.) Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable I agree about MED guidelines, and where it comes to science I'd prefer to use peer reviewed papers in some speciality subjects such as genetics and archaeology, not because of reliability issues but because we should avoid using newly released information until it's been discussed within the scientific community. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable Sensitive information already have stricture guidelines applicable to them, CNN hasn't engaged in widespread manipulation about scientific facts, unlike some other "institutions" and generally is reliable. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per Guy and others, with the usual caveat that specialized publications are preferable to general purpose news. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Same reliability as Fox News and MSNBC, as I explained in the previous section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Use with caution, especially when using new articles or claims about BLPs. Obviously attribute opinions and keep in mind the biases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per Ian.thomson. Policies like MEDRS always apply and generally have the same bearing on most, if not all, media sources. Armadillopteryx 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW reliable per above. Is there even any evidence of fabricated material? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable No evidence they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable, though obviously not MEDRS. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable: Of course, they do indeed have a point of view; practically all news stations do. However, they do not knowingly broadcast false information. 0qd (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (CNN talk/opinion shows)

  • CNN talk/optinion shows, including (but not limited to) Reliable Sources (Brian Stelter, Anderson Cooper 360, Cuomo Prime Time, and CNN Tonight, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC on CNN)

Is there any evidence they falsify material?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

3 hours and no response, I shall assume there is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So patient. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Like I said below, its was more then enough time at the Fox RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
TBH, at that point we've already been past several discussions of Fox, and a lot of evidence had already been presented, which served as the backdrop of the FN RfC. Not the same here. François Robere (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Kind of why I gave it only 3 hours, as we have been here before as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for snow close

There is a snowball's chance in hell of additional time changing the overwhelming consensus we are seein on all questions.

On User talk:Blueboar/drafts Both I and "The Other Guy" strongly advised Blueboar to delay posting this RfC until after the MSNBC RfC closed. I think the MSNBC RfC might be a reasonable test of the oft-heard complaint that we have a double standard for conservative and liberal sources, but throwing CNN into the mix despite it being head and shoulders better than Fox news or MSNBC is WP:POINTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I would snow close this myself as I see literally nobody (Blueboar included) expressing an opinion that is not already well described by the current WP:RSP summary, but as a non-admin I'd expect to be reverted. Additionally, it is not so long since past discussions on this subject. I recommend that an admin snow closes this. — Bilorv (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support WP:SNOW. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support SNOW close. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on MSNBC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per the Snowball Clause. There has been immediate and overwhelming consensus that MSNBC news is generally reliable in both of the categories set forth and that MSNBC opinion shows are already adequately covered by existing policy, and multiple calls for closure under the snowball close - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Inspired by the closure of our recent RFC as to the reliability of Fox News, and after some preliminary discussion (here), this RFC seeks to assess community consensus as to the reliability of MSNBC in the following specific areas:

  1. news excluding politics and science
  2. politics and science
  3. talk/opinion shows

Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC news excluding politics and science)

TBH what matters for us is their written stuff, I've never actually come across a citation to primetime television news. I'm sure they must exist somewhere on Wikipedia, but they're bloody rare. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC politics and science)

  • Similar to Fox, I think we should use MSNBC with caution to verify contentious claims. I think MSNBC is biased and opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a specific reason why Fox is considered unreliable for science, which is separate from the reason it is unreliable for politics. That reason does not apply to any mainstream site outside the right wing media bubble. Only the right has an issue with science. You need to split the question, because the responses are different. NBC is also reliable on politics. Only the opinion shows should be treated as opinion, and even then it would be absurd to equate Maddow to Hannity, for example. Read Blowout and Live Free Or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink. Maddow's book is painstakingly researched and footnoted, Hannity's is pure bloviation - the depth of his research is exemplified by the draft subtitle of the thing, which was a Google Translate word salad of meaningless Latin. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep. A 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists media study found that MSNBC had by far the best coverage on climate of the 3 networks we're discussing. They found that only 8% of climate segments included scientifically misleading claims, and that those segments "all overstated the effects of climate change, particularly the link between climate change and specific types of extreme weather, such as tornadoes."[14] Pretty good for 2013!Jlevi (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for politics. Unreliable for technical detail in science and especially medicine. Reliable for non-technical news related to science and medicine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, we're not assessing it per WP:MEDRS - all news sources fail that. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    JzG, then you have my answer. It is reliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless someone could write a book on willful misinformation from them (I don't just mean "I disagree with their presentation"), they're reliable except where contradicted by policies like WP:MEDRS or WP:DUE weight from comparable but opposing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable, i.e. do not carve out an exception for politics/science as with Fox News. All entries on WP:RSP fail stringent scientific sourcing requirements such as WP:MEDRS, and MSNBC isn't materially worse than the average mainstream news outlet, so there is no need to mention it like for Fox. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per KOH above. Again, this is an RFC without any suggestion that there is an issue other than POV. POV is not an issue of reliability. We trust reliable sources to present their POV with fact checking. We don't expect reliable sources to be neutral or absent of having a POV. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (EC)Reliable. Per Guy, the only reason we even have such "reliability for science news" sections in these RfCs is because of the rampant disinformation campaigns perpetuated by anti-intellectual media. Coverage by center and left-leaning sources generally pretty much lines up with lay interpretation of scientific consensus. Their politics are also reliable--echoing Guy, the alarmist lowest-common-denominator pandering by Hannity and other Fox commentators is just not comparable to the opinion shows on MSNBC. JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There were reasons why politics and science were separated in the Fox RfC, which makes this RfC seem like an odd exercise. As with Fox, lots of evidence/citations needed to show it should be handled any way other than the default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • relible — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, including for science and politics, at least to the extent any cable news source is. As above, they seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and nobody (that I can see) is presenting anything to call that into question. I would note in particular that I would not generally consider them WP:BIASED the same way as Fox News is - while for a time they tried to position themselves as a left-wing alternative, that was solely marketing (unlike Fox, which, as is documented extensively, was founded with a mission to push a particular brand of politics and has that as its overarching goal. MSNBC's overarching goal is to turn a profit.) MSNBC's branding was always more focused on its opinion section (as opposed to Fox, where it affects all coverage) and since then it has backed away from it and made efforts to court conservatives. When it comes to news, it's no more biased than any other cable news source. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, per Guy, JoelleJay and others. Specialized publications are always preferable to general purpose news channels; MSNBC is no different here. François Robere (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional considerations apply (for politics). In the 2012 election cycle, a study by Pew Reserch Center stated that Fox News and MSNBC stood out from the rest in terms of partisanship. MSNBC made up stuff for partisan reasons: MSNBC's in Trouble for Selectively Editing Romney's Wawa Moment, Politico: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks, The Slate: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Fail to Start a “Romney-Ryan” Chant. Journalist Dylan Byers had this to say in Sep 2013: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. -- Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. I don't know if they have improved since that, or if the Trump-era is just generally different for the whole media field, but Wikipedia uses hundreds of citations to MSNBC from that period for which there could a caveat in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the first survey you link has much bearing on this discussion. It talks specifically about pro-Obama or pro-Romney bias, which is not a reliability issue. It does, of course, point towards the need for attribution in at least some political contexts (which I think is generally accepted anyway). The other links you provide are potentially better proof, though I haven't reviewed them yet. I think the Slate article at least is pretty weak--check the update at the bottom. Jlevi (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That's like saying there is one commonly agreed definition of what constitutes a "myth" amrite? So while we are suggesting that the word "myth" is problematic enough to mark down MSNBC, we are in some serious trouble for any euphemistic reference. Koncorde (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable as no evidence is presented that they are not. Unlike Fox, MSNBC does not allow anti-vax BS, and COVID-19 minimalization. Regardless of its bias, MSNBC still comes down on the right side of politics, science, medicine, and history. -- Valjean (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (MSNBC talk/opinion shows)

  • MSNBC talk/opinion shows, including (but not limited to) MPT Daily, All in with Chris Hayes; The Rachel Maddow Show, and the Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Who's using them for anything else? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat as any other op-ed – Attribution should be required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Existing policy for op-eds covers this, this is pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Citations needed for claims that MSNBC's programming is comparable to Fox News in terms of accuracy, research, fact-checking, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Usable for opinion. As mentioned above, individual talk / opinion people have biases (many of which were well-known) and MSNBC has at times used them for branding exercises, but there's no reason that I'm aware of to doubt their general fact-checking and reliability sufficient to be citable for opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Existing policy for op-eds covers this, this is pointless. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW as covered by existing policy, per all of the above. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not use for facts. Can be used for opinions possibly if attributed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat as any other op-ed. Armadillopteryx 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat as any other op-ed. Reliable for attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat as any other op-ed, but recognise journalistic integrity is a thing Opinion is opinion of the person with the opinion. We should be clear that there is a difference between an "opinion show" / "talk show" (like Morning Joe) and a journalistic exercise which is presented by someone with an opinion (i.e. Maddow). There is nothing to suggest Maddow is in and of herself unreliable, or that she is presenting only her opinion rather than facts without any semblance of fact checking, that would require attribution any more than using most other news sources - however it is good practice to probably do so. Maddow and MSNBC talking heads in general are not associated with the fabrication of facts, or blatant misrepresentation (which is the accusation against Hannity and Fox in general). Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat like opinion shows. With kudos to JzG and Guy Macon (who originated some of the following elsewhere), MSNBC's opinion shows are as biased as Fox shows, but more accurate; CNN's are not as biased as Fox, but far more accurate than Fox for politics, science, medicine, and history.
Unlike Fox, MSNBC does not push Russian talking points, defend Trump's flood of lies, allow anti-vax BS, COVID-19 minimalization, conspiracy theories, and twisted history that favors the racists in Trump's base. Regardless of its bias, MSNBC still comes down on the right side of politics, science, medicine, and history, and quite thoroughly debunks numerous conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and the GOP. This whole RfC amounts to a vacuous "Is it okay to doubt that the sky is blue?" Duh! Who in their right mind asks that?
Several have called for a trout to the OP for wasting our time with this, and I agree. Unfortunately, my caution to them was written one minute too late. That several commenters have even entertained the false equivalency of claiming MSNBC and Fox are somehow on the same reality playing field is rather worrying, as the ability to vet sources for accuracy and connection to reality is essential here. Trouts for them would also be in order. Reality checks need to be waved in their faces. MSNBC bases its reporting and opinions on facts, and Fox bases much of its reporting and opinions on political talking points and extreme spin. The times that the Fox "NEWS" desk doesn't do that are often notable and worth reporting because they are the exception that proves the rule. The "opinion" shows are a disaster of gross misinformation. It is unsafe to even listen to them, as our minds work by first believing what is said, and then must use effort to debunk and change that mistaken belief, and that only happens to those with strong skeptical filters in place. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC on MSNBC)

I have added the discussion to CENT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence they falsify material?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 3 hours and no response, I shall assume there is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So patient. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Well its not as if over at the Fox RFC we did not find evidence in less time, just judging by the same standards.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You do not need to engage in Whataboutism. One of the two can reliable, both of them can be reliable, or neither. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not, I am applying the same standard, its why I asked and waited.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Then wait patiently, not just 3 hours. People might have gone to sleep or not woken up in that time. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Or people could have looked (its not as if this thread has not been active), moreover there is no requirement for me to even wait (or ask for evidence). Hell its not as if this was not launched yesterday with no evidence being produced to support it is it? Based on the evidence produced in the last 14 hours my "vote" would have been the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that we have an entire article devoted to MSNBC controversies... I think there is enough doubt about the outlet’s bias and fact checking to justify periodically ASKING the community how reliable it is in various situations. I don’t care what the community’s answer is... What I DO care about is that the question gets asked. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A concrete example of a misleading story by MSNBC is here.[16]. Different people can quite reasonably have different definitions of what constitutes a "no-go zone." It is entirely reasonable for MSNBC and other sources to say they don't exist and Fox and Angela Merkel to say that they do. Because different people can have different definitions, with plenty of room for gray areas, both may be correct in their own terms. What is unreasonable is for either to say that the other is promoting a "myth" by their position. A semantic difference is a more likely explanation. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • That is a perfect example for the headline RfC elsewhere, as the headline given to the video uses a term ("myth") that is not said once in the actual broadcast. In the actual content, the story presented examples of Fox news decrying no-go zones, followed by examples of Fox apologizing for those same statements. I don't think this example supports "misleading story". Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for snow close

Like the CNN RfC, this is another waste of time at best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an entry from MissingPortraits.Info be used as a RS

Source: http://ccgi.nehoc.plus.com/Sitters/sittersa-d.html

Article: Lionel Barnett Abrahams

Thre are few cited sources for Abrahams, and those give little detail. This source expands the available info significantly, but I am not sure it can be considered to be reliable. The info on the work of Abrahams in establishing the Gold Exchange Standard, and the connection of Abrahams with the early career of John Maynard Keynes would be highly relevant. Sources do confirm that Keynes worked in the India Office during the period when Abrahams was a senior official there, but none i have found specifically mention a direct connection between them. But those sources that I can check seem to confirm this. Some info on this site matches that in the entry from the unreliable Geni genealogical site. Any advice? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As the writer is not a historian and the site is not known for fact checking, I don't think that information not available elsewhere can be lifted from it and plunked down in our article in Wikipedia's voice. But I think the site itself can be mentioned. And I think assertions found at the site can be mentioned in the Lionel Barnett Abrahams article if any such material is clearly identified as having originated at the site called "MissingPortraits.info" with of course an WP:INTEXT link to that site. Pinging DESiegel Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Bus stop. Sinc I wrote the abovce I have gotten several additional clearly relaible sources, which i am using to expand the article. The subject proves to be a more interesting person than i ahd tho0fuyht, and the Keynes connection is now supported directly by clear RS. Some details mentioned in the "MissingPortraits.info" site are not yet supported elsewhere, although none of them conflict with any RS I have read, and where there is overlap the "MissingPortraits.info" site agrees with the other sources. Anything I use from "MissingPortraits.info" will be used with direct in-text attribution, as if it were a quotation. Thank you again. Most of it should in principle be confirm-able in late 19th or early 20th C newspaper archives in England, Particularly the death of Abrahams's son in combat during WWI. Deaths of officers were reported. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This interview

Does this interview from PC Gamer satisfy requirements for being a reliable source?

https://www.pcgamer.com/what-does-it-take-to-build-a-league-of-legends-champion/

Absolutely, PC Gamer is a reliable source for video game related topics. The claims by the designer should be WP:INTEXT attributed to him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks.—Prisencolin (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: YouTube

Consensus against implementing edit filter. Per bottom discussion, this may be revisited if concrete data on the frequency of good/bad Youtube links is collected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should YouTube be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (EDIT: Youtube is already subject to a XLinkBot filter) (Per the IMDb and Facebook discussions) to discourage misuse? YouTube is currently cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per YouTube.com HTTPS links HTTP links. YouTube is currently described at RS/P as:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (YouTube)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

  • Support edit filter These filters are intended to reduce misuse by inexperienced and new users, and are not a total blanket ban on YouTube use. Obviously per the RSP entry, videos by news organisations and similar are fine, but many other uses of YouTube are problematic, and are likely added by inexperienced users unfamilar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Adding these filters will discourage problematic additions of YouTube links to articles, while more experienced users can add YouTube links with discretion. EDIT: It's worth noting that any edit filter for YouTube would likely be a custom edit filter rather than the standard depreciated source filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 170,000 should have been the flag to stop this. Of course we're not going to have a warn filter for YouTube or deprecate it. We link it all the time. It's not a source, it's a platform, and it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources. See for example Killing of George Floyd which links to half a dozen videos or more. This deprecation thing at RSN is going too far. I find the growth of RSP in 2020 to be alarming. YouTube shouldn't even be listed at RSP. It's like listing "television" or "paper" at RSP. It's a medium not a publisher or author. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: I explicitly did not mention the word "depreciation" because it was not meant as one. One could make the same argument for Facebook, which there was consensus to add a warn edit filter for. Obviously the citations to YouTube videos for George Floyd are acceptable, but they should be added with discretion, which presumably many of the over 170,000 added links were not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes I would make the same exact argument for Facebook and Twitter, neither of which should be listed at RSP because both are platforms. You might not have used the word "deprecation" but a warn filter is a very obvious step in that direction. These RSN evaluations of publishers outside of actual content disputes are inappropriate. It's just not right for a small group of self selected editors to assume the role of a publisher review committee. As an editor, I'm not going to start making time to vote on the general reliability of every source under the sun. Personally, I do not recognize any of these RSN "generally reliable"/"deprecate"/"filter" threads as representing anything other than local consensus (with the exception of those that were properly widely advertised, such as Fox News). This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not the Publisher Review Noticeboard. We should only be discussing specific sources--that means individual works used to cite a statement in an article--and only in the context of the specific instances in which they are used. RSP should only list true perennials--meaning publishers whose sources are often discussed at RSN. Platforms like YouTube and media like social media shouldn't be discussed here at all, and shouldn't be listed at RSP. Deprecation and edit filters should be extremely rare steps that only happen with policy-level consensus, eg Daily Mail. I just don't recognize the validity of a dozen editors saying "not reliable" and then it's red at RSP and suddenly a hundred thousand editors are barred from using it. Sorry, that's just not valid process, and I feel like it's getting out of control on this board this year. At a minimum, warn filter proposals should be advertised at CENT. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I added this to CENT. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --

tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? As I stated previously, experienced editors are not affected by XlinkBot, and the edit filter is likely to be a custom one not simply the same as the depreciated sources filter. Hemiauchenia (talk)
Lindsay Ellis, Nicholas Moran, PBS Spacetime, PBS Eons CGP Grey, Baumgartner Restoration, Caitlin Doughty, Alton Brown, etc., etc., etc., Need I continue? those are just from the first page of my recommendations. "not likely to be" is not reassuring and even IP editors are allowed to link to actual experts on YouTube by policy. This just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is CGP Grey an expert in? I think his videos are interesting, but his "Americapox" video has recieved criticism for paralleling Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel which has been heavily criticised by historians. I don't see how he can be classified as an "expert" as he has no credentials in any of the topics he makes videos on. I don't see why PBS videos should be cited for facts either, they're again interesting, but they are not subject matter experts themselves and Wikipedia should cite the underlying source material. Nicholas Moran has no actual credentials as a historian either per this Military Times article. Lindsay Ellis is a media critic with a film school degree and therefore the question of citation is one of WP:DUE rather than of reliability. As for Alton Brown and Ask a Mortician, I think there are likely to be better sources for the information in that these would be relevant to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. PBS Spacetime is hosted by an astrophysicist, PBS Eons by the Curator of Collections for the Museum of the Rockies. Moran is a Lt. Col in the US Army and paid for his historical research which makes him a working historian despite whatever Military Times wants to say, and you implicitly recognize the credentials of Ellis, Doughty, Brown. Don't like those? How about an Oxford PhD in astrophysics or Baylor College of Medicine or the Harvard School of Public Health or a professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh or Freakin' NASA, for pete's sake. "I think there are likely better sources" is pure speculation and this speculation and over-generalizing applies to the entire RfC; rather than actually examining the sources, like we're supposed to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, almost forgot. CGP Grey is an educator, "What exactly" he is an expert in is...education. What are his videos? As it so happens, education. I find it richly ironic that a Reddit thread was cited for source criticism on RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think CGP Grey videos are unusable as sources. YouTube is WP:SELFPUBLISHed; being considered an expert sufficient to pass that policy requires more than just a breezy "oh he's a professional X." The requirement is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does he meet that standard? Beyond that, his videos generally summarize part of a particular published work (which he cites at the end), so you could just cite that work directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently CGPGrey being an "educator" makes him a subject matter expert on everything? WP:SPS states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

(emphasis not mine). CGP has no relevant expertise on the vast majority of topics he covers, and therefore isn't a subject matter expert. The specific reddit thread I brought up was from r/AskHistorians, which is notable enought to have its own wikipedia article and largely staffed by subject matter experts. As for the PBS stuff, it consists of simplified explanations for laymen and the production of web television like the PBS Digital Studios involves staff who are not subject matter experts, like researchers and script writers, who may introduce errors. Per WP:SPS again:

Exercise caution when using [self published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources

For what it covers we should be citing higher quality sources like review papers or high quality secondary sources like Quanta Magazine, the same principle applies to other creators you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, fine, I've stricken Grey because it's clear that channel is becoming a distraction. (Although I think from context you meant "...are usable as sources.") That doesn't refute any of the other 12 creators I linked and if I were so inclined I could find hundreds or thousands of Youtube creators that incontestably comply with the SPS requirements and clearly support the claim I made earlier about "many experts". The point is that blanket lumping these in with bad sources just because they exist on the same platform as BTS fanvids and 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (or whatever) doesn't actually comply with the RS policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) EC This is nit-picking at its nittiest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? WHO NIH NASA Nature BBC Smithsonian Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, respectively 1525, 639, 4932, 72, 11944 and 2890 videos. That is a exceedingly minor fraction of the material on YouTube (I thought I saw 1.3 billion video's on YouTube, but that was a wrong number, I now found 7 billion in 2017, of which these 6 channels would only make 0.0003% of the material, but now it is 2020). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to analyse on a case-by-case basis, but I dare to say that 99.9% of the material on YouTube will not be suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dirk Beetstra, except that he doesn't go far enough. 99.9% of the material on the Internet is not suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. I'm sure you all agree? So we should put in an edit filter for anyone adding any Internet reference whatsoever. Not ban use of the Internet, mind, just, you know, a warning. For experts only. Keep the others on their toes. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
GRuban, :-) a nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but totally missing the point. —Dirk Beetstra T C 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter and XLinkBot A good way to caution editors without banning or "deprecating" YouTube. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with everything Levivich wrote. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as overreach, there are many good sources in the official channels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. YouTube is a self-published source in almost every case, and the majority of citations are of the form "X said Y on YouTube, source, X saying Y on YouTube". This is always a terrible idea and a warn filter is entirely appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is, hopefully, a well-meaning solution in search of a problem. Over time YouTube has increasingly worked to reduce all manner of fraud and corruption it faces worldwide. Meanwhile it’s used by more and more entities as an official news outlet for their views. Let’s find actual problems first then get creative in addressing those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose because, as Levivich noted, YouTube is a platform not a source. ¶ Of course, if we required editors to create an account .... trout Self-trout   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, my concerns are echoed by many editors above, YouTube is a platform, not a source, it is home to many official news stations and professionals whose channels are perfectly good sources and who use it to widen their appeal. Also, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, in my experience when YouTube is sourced it is either to a reliable source which just so happens to be on the platform, as a WP:PRIMARY source, or as blatant self-promotion. The last instance is the only problematic one, and putting an edit filter on YouTube will not stop them in the slightest. Even if these problems do occasionally pop up, this is a massive overreaction to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as stated by many editors above Youtube is a publishing platform like a book, radio, television, etc. Editors should not be seeing warnings if they should be allowed to use Voice of America, France 24, or the BBC. As Levivich has stated above, this board and its perennial sources list has begun to overstep its purpose in the wikipedia community. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. YouTube is a platform. It's not a source, and YouTube videos are not intrinsically unreliable as sources. Increasingly, good reliable-source information is from video (e.g., news or newscast video) rather than print these days, so an edit warning is overkill in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a slightly parallel discussion on WT:V about what actually is a "self-published source" and in alignment with "opposes" here and discussion there, YouTube is not the publisher in these videos - it is the person that prepares and uploads the video that is "publishing" it and that's where the self-publishing needs to be addressed. For example CNN and other media sources have videos uploaded, which clearly have been through news desk editors, so these are published, but not self-published, and thus 100% fair game as a reliable source. On the other hand, CoolGuy99 talking about his favorite Pokemon would be a self-made video and self-published. While the majority of videos on YouTube are probably in this latter category, a good chuck are competely valid sources and thus using an edit filter is a bad idea. --Masem (t) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter and XLinkBot. I don't think Youtube can be RS, yes we can watch and listen to a historian's lecture there, but it's not paper. Where are reviews here? Some editorial hierarchy and control exist in the newspapers, while on YouTube it is mostly non-existent. If we consider a local TV news or CNN presented on Youtube as information source it is OR. Article, comment, interview etc, we can read and on these portals(CNN etc..) and use as a source. The whole world publishes some of its truth through Youtube and for controlling these informations we need an army of people. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • How can it be that this NYTimes video at YouTube, this WaPo video at YouTube, or this NBC video at YouTube are not RSes, or are OR when we cite them (as we currently do in several articles including Killing of George Floyd)? They have been subject to editorial review and have been published by a reputable publisher (NYT, WaPo, and NBC, respectively). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • His last recorded(TV, etc) moments and spoken words are OR, and his last moments and spoken words in some comment from a journalist published in newspapers are RS, but even this RS can be challenged by someone on Wikipedia. Ultimately only after end of trial we will know the specific facts. After these facts are published in some newspaper or some book then it is a quality RS for Wikipedia. I see it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Each video is narrated by a journalist and was published by "some newspaper", e.g. NYT, WaPo, and NBC. So this meets the criteria you are describing. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You see that journalist throughout video telling dozens of details and facts, but we don’t know if this details and facts are true. We'll know that in a couple of years when the trial is over. I'm talking about that. If the same is said in the article of that TV house (portal) it is RS although it is the same thing but in that case exist some visible editorial control, name of the journalist, responsible editor, date, additional confirming official sources in writing (police etc), etc. In the video reportage it may or may not be controlled, we do not know whether this information has passed editorial or the journalist has his personal conclusions. I look at the bigger picture(Youtube) and a million videos without any control, not only CNN and NBC. I'm from the Balkans, when we would start entering informations from YouTube there would be a mess on Wikipedia, and it is only for two or three countries. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 

  • Oppose both - As people have said, YouTube is a hosting site, not a source in itself. The individual videos hosted on YouTube are the sources. Some are reliable, some are not. Think of it this way: with printed texts an author and publisher (which affect reliability), and we have a bookstore or library where the text can be located (which do not affect reliability). YouTube is equivalent to the bookstore or library. It is where the video can be located, but is not the author or publisher. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
You raise a good point, @Blueboar:. Legally, Youtube only receives protection against civil and criminal actions specifically because it is not an author or publisher. If it is not an author or publisher, it is not a source as our policies define one, reliable or otherwise. Any discussion of Youtube as "a source" (singular) is predicated on a gross misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This reminds me of the whole debate that kicked off why the US has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because to distinguish between "distributor" like a bookstore that has no control on the content that is in the books it offers, and "publisher" which does. And I think our model that we're trying to get here is trying to get to that point as well. We want to tag things that are SPS where the person making the content is also the one that does the publishing (even if the "publisher" is a third party like Forbes.com or Amazon Book Printing services), and that we need to ignore the "distributor" like YouTube when it comes to that evaluation. (Again, tying to the ongoing WT:V discussion). There is a tiny tiny fraction of YouTube content that is made by YouTube employees (like YouTube Rewind) but that's less than 0.01% so not enough to call it an SPS. It is all on who is uploading and what relation they have to the act of publishing that content, if it has gone through what we'd usually consider appropriate for an RS w/ fact-checking. --Masem (t) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support both (well, addition of the EF and retention of the XLinkBot rule). Reliable content hosted there is very much the exception rather than the rule, and other hosts should be preferred for the small portion of reliable content when available. Video citations should be avoided anyway, in my opinion, since they're hard to skim, not easily used without a fast network connection, and may not be available captioned. On the rare occasions that the only reliable source for something is only available through that Web site, and someone new needs to cite it, can make an edit request to get around the XLinkBot. (Although if something's not covered in any textual source, it probably is undue weight to be talking about it anyway.) Otherwise this should help cut down the amount of those references. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support both for the same reasons as Goldenshimmer: 1) the vast majority of YouTube video are not reliable sources, and 2) even when a youtube video is published by a reputable entity, it's almost always preferable to use some other, written-down source as more verifiable and reliable. The current setup seems bitey because it reverts new users without giving them a reason. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Buidhe. I know it seems lazy to just quote the support directly above you, but it's exactly what I was going to say. I can't remember the last time I found a reference to a YouTube video that couldn't have been easily replaced with a more reliable source, a proper secondary source, or a more accessible print source. ----Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    • As someone who has written a featured article with such instances, not every interview or primary source is necessarily going to have a viable substitute. And as others have mentioned, reliable sources like the New York Times and Variety Magazine are on YouTube as well. While there are usually replaceable sources outside of YouTube, this is not the case 100% of the time. Definitely not enough to go nuclear and instate an edit filter, which should only be used for sites that have no business being cited under any circumstance. Darkknight2149 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. WP:RSP is not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the edit filter. YouTube is sometimes usable for interviews and primary sources, so the idea of an edit filter is kind of dumb. Darkknight2149 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A warning is fine for new editors using YouTube channels as a source. The majority of the warning's recipients will actually learn something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Warn filter would serve as an education tool for new editors. For clarity, no appetite to depreciate as there are clear occasions when it is the correct source to use, but it clearly needs to be cited with care. Best, Darren-M talk 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose autoreverting (removing) youtube links: A bot cannot decide the context of a post. As an occasional editor, tried to post a youtube link to a TED talk on the Wikipedia page about the speaker. TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation, and its overall mission to research and discover “ideas worth spreading.” This youtube link was not like an official music video, for profit, or controversial hearsay, as the speaker was the subject of the Wikipedia page, the primary source. The XLinkBot reverted (removed) it. Then I posted the same content by a link containing ted.com, which was happily allowed to let stand. I posted another youtube link of a TED talk, because not all TED talks are on ted.com. This was also reverted (removed), even though I was logged into my user account, which is older than 7 days. The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot/RevertList says, "The bot does not revert when the account is older than 7 days (except when the rule is on override)". So I don't know why it was removed. This sort of discourages editing of Wikipedia pages. A more technical issue with the bot is that if you add a youtube link, and in the same edit make a minor change to another entry, say to remove some punctuation, the bot removes both entries, without showing this on the history page. Another thing is that even though ted.com is an alternative site for this content, it seemed to serve the content slower, so youtube would have been the preferred link. Lindamarcella (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • TED talks are not reliable sources in many cases. They're reliable sources for what the person says but may or may not be reliable for facts depending on the topic and whether the person is a subject matter expert. New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
      • New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. What? Are you under the impression that new users don't understand the nuances of sourcing? You realize that new users aren't children or students? In many if not most cases they are scientists, researchers, professors or other professionals who already knew what a reliable source was and how to use and cite it long before they ever edited Wikipedia. Similarly, there are editors who've been here for 10 years and have less experience with sourcing than other people who aren't even editors at all. I doubt there is a connection between age of account and understanding the nuance of sourcing. Sourcing is a real world thing, not a Wikipedia only thing. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have editors who determine the validity of sources and of videos. New users have to fumble around as it is, learning the acronyms, policies, guidelines, and then learning that WP:IAR is a policy. All of this is inadvertently difficult. There are many youtube videos - tours of lakes, tours of businesses, interviews...this is the 21st century and people are not going to the card catalogue and using the Dewey Decimal System to find a physical book. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many individuals and companies have their own legit Youtube channels. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit filter, Support keeping it on XLinkBot (disclaimer, I am bot operator). Yes, there are MANY good sources on YouTube, many respectable publishers, news agents, libraries, repositories use this medium. Unfortunately, ALSO many people who upload material in violation of copyright do, and there are regularly copyvio links added. ALSO a lot of other people upload videos there (which is the far, far majority of the material): your personal movie of your dog is neither a source for wagging tails, nor a suitable external link on dog (I am sorry, the majority of material on youtube is not an RS for anything, and not suitable as external link). Then there is a lot of purely promotional material there (it is not so long ago that we had loads of spambots spamming links to youtube, up to a level that we had an adminbot block them). Then there are the regular cases of people who think that we are a repository of social media links. Links to youtube are needed, but should be used with care. It is good that we remind new users of those policies and guidelines. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • By the way, I totally agree with user:Levivich that youtube itself should not be on RSP. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • comment: I am just going to note here again: YouTube is not on the revertlist (neither the regular, neither the reference one) because of reasons of unreliability. It is on the revertlist because of it very often failing many other inclusion standards, including regular observations of spamming of YouTube, regular observations of linking to copyright violating material (including copyright violations of material which the original would be a reliable source) and material which is strongly discouraged in general. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We should not be going out of our way to discourage the use of videos as sources. There is nothing inherent in videos that makes them less reliable than print media. Like all potential sources, it depends on the originator of the source, not the type of source. Yes, much of the videos on YouTube are self published, but that doesn't matter. I acknowledge that inexperienced editors may use self published videos as a source, but if a user doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V, than they might use anything as a source. There's nothing about YouTube per say that warrants concern. Reliable sources can use it as a place to publish videos from their verified accounts, and non-reliable sources can use it as a place to self publish. That right there just about sums up the internet in general. Inexperienced editors are just as likely to accidentally include unreliable tabloids as a source. If anything, we should be more concerned with abuse of print sources, since in the mess of Google search results, it can be hard for an inexperienced editors to tell whether something is reliable or whether it's just a blog/tabloid. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • NOTE - There is another caution about using YouTube videos that may make a warning template appropriate... the issue of COPYRIGHT. If a specific COPY of a video is posted in violation of copyright laws, we can not link to that specific copy (although we might be able to link to a copy of that video on some OTHER YouTube channel.) This, however, has nothing to do with the reliability of the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Given the number of opposes for a warning, should there be a separate discussion about removing it from the Xlinkbot list? Without having given this too much thought, I think I'd oppose auto-reverting even while supporting a warning. Wouldn't many of the opposes also oppose auto-reverting? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Calliopejen1, you realize that the far majority of material on youtube is crap, spam, promotional etc. The reliable, useful material is a far minority of the material. Moreover, as I stated above, it is not too long ago that we had spambots spamming youtube (through the redirect service). People here are, imho unjustly, focussing on that little bit of good material, forgetting the spam, copyvio material and useless crap.
    I would like to see an analysis how often the bot reverts references which should not have been reverted (and how often the youtube references are actually copyvio), then I could be swayed to remove it from the revertreferences list. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that auto-reverting a new users comment is somewhat WP:BITEY as it is done with no warning, which is why I wanted to add the edit filter. However, if youtube links were enough of an issue in 2008 that they were added to the filter, they would likely be even more of an issue now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, the situation with YouTube has changed since then. E.g. most people nowadays have mobile phones with reasonably fast internet at reasonable prices so that they can stream video reasonable, in 2008 many people around the world were still using slow (expensive dial-in) internet where streaming video was not really a possibility (note, also the video size has increased since 2008, but they can be automatically downsampled). In 2008 the use of youtube by 'respectable media outlets' was minor, most was user uploads. Now it is extensively being used by BBC, NYT, etc. etc. Comparable, in 2008 advertising on YouTube was minor, now it is also extensively being used by advertising media, health fanatics, organisations with an agenda and similar. Yes, NYT and Washington Post use it, but they do not appear in List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos or List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels, nor are they even a reasonably representative number of the videos on YouTube. That will be worrisome if that is a reflection of the YouTube material that people will use as a reference on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Wikipedia would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ™ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter and XLinkBot I've seen YouTube links used way to much in the wrong ways myself. What minor legitimate uses there are the information can be gotten from better sources. For instance the New York Times own website if it's their video that someone is linking to. Most YouTube videos are also OR and primary sources. People seem to use them as sources indiscriminately though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Warning against using a source published on YouTube is akin to warning against citing a source published on the Internet. No one is actually citing YouTube itself. Just like when I am citing nytimes.com, I am not citing "The Internet", which came into existence a few decades ago. I am citing The New York Times, the newspaper with about 170 years of editorial history. When we cite a source on YouTube, we are citing a reliable publisher (e.g. NBC's Dateline) which just so happens to be using YouTube as its publishing medium. WP:SOURCES has good explanation on how to evaluate a published source. That is sufficient. No further red tape is required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There may be a case for placing restrictions on who can add links to YouTube (a type of general WP "semi-protected", used now for articles that are prone to vandalism). However, I've found links to YouTube very helpful, especially in the "External Links" section of articles, where they direct readers to, for example, authoritative talks by well-known experts in the field. In that sense they are not sources but more like further reading. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Youtube can be quite useful for interviews, vlogs, public domain film footage, and primary sources. I get that new editors misuse Youtube a lot, but this is too much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As has been strongly proven above, although it should have been common knowledge, Youtube is simply a media platform like any other; it can host unreliable or unuseable content, but it can and does host a great deal of useable reliable sources, which makes it an important academic tool for this project. Implementing a blanket warning against its use would serve to discourage and stigmatize its use which is unfair and inappropriate. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are a staggering number of legitimate usages of Youtube. I don't want to comment here on the broader ideological considerations Levivich notes, but the inaccurate warn rate would be so high as make this an absurd idea. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Nosebagbear, well, it seems to be staggering low ... XLinkBot has a rule for reverting YouTube references (not for reliability issues, but for the other issues often encountered), which it has not used for over a year. As I said earlier, some numbers from a non-acting filter would have been helpful. (Note that I totally agree that YouTube should not be filtered for reliability). —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Levivich, Eggishorn and many others above. YouTube is a platform used by both highly reliable sources and totally unreliable ones. No edit filter can reliable distingui9sh, and this will have a chilling effect on citations of valid sources hosted there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the reliability depends on the person/company publishing the video (e.g. is it a news company's official channel or a reputable educator who cites his sources? or is it just a home video with <100 views?) Félix An (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, YouTube videos can be reliable sometimes. Benjamin (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose many RS videos are now being uploaded to YouTube under official accounts for CNN, ABC News, etc. If there was a script that analyzed the YouTube video at the URL and checked for a "verified" account it could help to alert the user if it wasn't, although YouTube personalities and celebrities can also get "verified" and so that may not matter as much. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, video sometimes can be very verifiable (i.e. interviews). So a filter for the entire site would eliminate verifiable remarks by those interviewees. Note that such veriable remarks may not also exist on news sites, so there may not be an alternative for such videos. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reliability of a YouTube video is on a case-by-case basis. If the video has been published by a reputable news service, it should be treated as on par with other content from that news service. If the video is self-published it should be treated as such. YouTube is a platform, not a source in itself. An edit filter is too blunt an instrument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have said, YouTube is a platform, not a source. What matters is who is posting the video, not that they used YouTube to do such. Both proposals are overly broad and based on a fundamentally flawed premise. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above, it is a platform and not a source. In addition, I disagree that the number of videos that aren't reliable to not be a relevant fact. Some of them are not meant to be seen as a source at all- similar to the fiction section in bookstores. Some of them will only get seen by a few people and nobody thinks of going to Wikipedia and trying to use them as a source. Some of them are published by reputable organizations. Youtube videos should be looked at individually and not as a group.--Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose going with what have been said, YouTube isn't a reliable source. most videos on YouTube lacks on WP:V. Youtube channels can post bias and misleaing information and get ton of views. Putting youtube links into wikipedia articles will make wikipedia unreliable and possibly more will attract more vandalism. BGzest (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

Don't agree with how my earlier comments were hidden away, but I think you are on to something here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I archived it to avoid prejudicing this discussion, as I felt I worded it poorly. Would you like me to add your comments to this discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to add my comments here. I think this is a better proposal. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that YouTube has been on the XLinkBot list for a very long time (prior to February 2008) so its placement in this RfC isn't necessary, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think this is important enough to say: YouTube is not a source, it doesn't produce the content available on it, which comes from all kinds of producers, some reliable, some not. If in principle you can cite a film as a source (which you can), then it is irrelevant whether it is available on YouTube, broadcast on TV, available on DVD or wherever. The validity of a video/film source is surely down to the reliability of the producer. By analogy, you can obviously cite a book, and that book may be available on Amazon, but when you cite a book you're not citing Amazon. Despite the fact that Amazon sells reliable books (and some of them can be partially read online, and some can be downloaded free), this doesn't mean that all books on that cite are reliable since they also sell self-published books written by unqualified crackpots and conspiracy theorists. The same is true of YouTube. If you want to cite a film then surely you fill in the citation template with the producer, publisher etc, and it will be considered on its merits, as would a book. In which case surely if it happens to be available on YouTube then this is a plus, right? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

A lot of focus by the 'oppose' field above is 'it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources' (quoting the first oppose, User:Levivich, who is quoted a lot, and similar opposes are there). Note: I oppose a filter, but I think it should still be on XLinkBot due to other reasons than being 'unsuitable as a reference' (which it is not, and which is not the reason why it is on the revertlist).

But by the numbers. A number I could find (probably not reliable) is that YouTube hosts 1,300,000,000 (1.3 billion) videos. The New York Times has 9804 video's on their channel (about 0.00075%), and the Washington Post 15,870 (about 0.0012%). BBC (my guess) has about 12000 videos. Yes, I agree that there is quite some good material on YouTube, but I guess I am safe to say that good material is less than 0.1% of the material on YouTube is due to reliable sources. Except from some primary sources, the rest, containing personal videos of dogs, birthday parties, pure advertising, clickbait material, beach parties, copyvio material, etc. etc., is likely not suitable as a source, not even primary.

I do feel that above !voting is completely undue because of that. The above would have been a much fairer discussion if people would have presented an analysis of a non-acting filter for youtube references of a couple of days, and an analysis of the last 100 youtube reference reverts of XLinkBot (I found 0 in the last ~1500 reverts ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: the 1.3 billion I saw was not the total number of videos. I can't find any number for 2019 or current, I did find 7 billion in 2017 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-videos-are-on-YouTube-2017-1). You can divide the number by a factor of 5, e.g. it becomes 0.00014% for the New York Times if you take a 2017 number, the number in 2020 is probably different. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I think many Wikipedia editors have very little idea about how important maintenance of the edit filter is and how much effort goes into fighting spam and other problematic links, and I regret not providing adequate evidence based on this. Can you provide a link to the Xlinkbot feed for youtube links? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, there is no special feed, I got that from Special:Contributions/XLinkBot. If you limit to mainspace and look for 'Reverting reference addition(s) by' in the edit summary shows reverts by XLinkBot that were done because of the 'RevertReferences' list. If you then check if it is a youtube revert (further down in the edit summary) you can see what I mean. Most reference reverting is due to discogs, fandom, reddit, not youtube. If you ignore the references, you see things like diff, where the user is spamming their own YouTube channel.
That however does get convoluted because some newbies do not format references as classical references but just as inline links (see e.g. diff).
The above proposal gets even further convoluted, because people who reference to a New York Times report often link to the New York Times link that embeds the YouTube upload of the report (https://nyti.ms/2T981nS vs. youtube.com/watch?v=pdUzzXpWg8c). (In my opinion the former link should be used as it puts a context on the video ('Indian authorities say life is returning to normal in Kashmir. ...'), but then there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the latter). Dirk Beetstra T C 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
One of the use cases is avoiding paywalls. The example I've cited repeatedly in this discussion is Killing of George Floyd, where NYT and WaPo analyses of videos are used extensively as sources. We link to the official pages at NYT and WaPo, which have the videos plus some introductory text. But those are both paywalled. However, both NYT and WaPo uploaded their videos to YouTube, where they are available for free. So our citations link to both: the paywalled official websites, and the free YouTube videos. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, I agree to that solution as well, but I think hat many people will just link to the NYT link, Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority of videos on YT are not reliable sources. But that's also true for the overwhelming majority of websites. And television. And radio. Hell, go into a bookstore and the majority of books won't be reliable sources (the majority will probably be fiction!), yet we do not have filters for citing books or radio programs. Even NYTimes.com is filled with unreliable op/ed. But we don't add a filter for it. I don't see what good a warn filter for YT will do; it will only be an annoyance. Focusing on the platform is just the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how YT is different from any other platform or media. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree on Levivich basically: there should not be restrictions on the use of YouTube videos broadly, but obviously editors must be assure of the channel owner, their relationship to a reliable source, and other issues related to copyright before using a video, and with all that considered, maybe <1% of the videos on YT would even qualify as usable sources. But they do qualify. Blacklisting youtube.com thus is not right, but having an edit filter that takes one or two extra steps for editors that know what they are doing , is that reasonable, to prevent editors that don't know what they are doing from adding random YT videos all the time? It would be nice to have stats to know how bad this "problem" is - how many bad YT links are added to good ones, because I'm certain that it's far less than 99:1. If for every proper YT link addition we had to deal with 2 bad ones, that's probably not a point to add an edit filter, but 10:1 would be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Masem and Levivich:, exactly, but that is not what is done here. It is here bluntly stated by many that because there is some good stuff, there can’t be a problem. That is what I am now arguing, we ignore the point that we may have 25 bad insertions for each good one. We may have 25 good additions for 1 bad one. Even if it is a ratio of, non negotiable, bad copyvios to good links of 1:1 we here say: we don’t care, there is good stuff. We don’t know, so the plain argument ‘but there is good material’ wins.
I have done these stats once for XLinkBot for one site, likely youtube, on the external links. I don’t recall numbers, but I remember that 20% were copyvio.
This RfC feels to me like a poison test ... it can’t be bad, we have one survivor. We need numbers. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree, data > opinion, especially my opinion. :-D Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, for reverting references we don't have anything to go by, XLinkBot did not revert any youtube links that were properly used as references (i.e., within ref-tags) for over a year. For the other things, it reverted a youtube spammer just yesterday (Special:Contributions/Weeble69), and one 4 days ago (Special:Contributions/Anjyog), and someone promoting himself 5 days ago (Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). I know that there it sometimes reverts youtube links which were meant to be a reference (new editor not knowing how we format references; see e.g. diff), but the number of times that happens does likely not outweigh the number of spammers that get reverted, the number of questionable linkfarms in external links, marginally related youtube links, and copyright violations. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toronto Guardian

Is Toronto Guardian (not to be confused with The Guardian) reliable? This article is supporting basic factual coverage in Monica Pearce (currently at AfD). It looks like a blog or promo site to me, especially given that it describes itself as "reaching over 3 million unique viewers per month". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It has over 22,000 followers on its Twitter account yet its tweets almost invariably have no responses, It's https://www.instagram.com/torontoguardian/?hl=en Instagram account] receives some engagement in terms of likes but relatively few comments. It's definitely marginal in terms of establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hadn't thought to check follower counts. For comparison, blogTO—analogous site in terms of audience—has 670k+ Twitter follows. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks very like a tiny local news source. The blurry line between group blog and local paper ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
No. There is no indication that there is an form of fact-checking. The articles are contributed by volunteers as far as I can determine and no one involved in the site seems to have experience in journalism. That may change if they are successful, but in the meantime there are lots of other sources for culture in Toronto. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
No. As The Four Deuces says above, there is no indication of fact-checking. Authors on the site appear to be volunteers and it appears anyone can contribute if they email the site. Only one editor is listed in the "About Us" section and one person can't fact-check every article. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim with no source

I am having some difficulty at the article on the Grande Loge de France (One of several branches of Freemasonry in France)... the opening line contains a statement that the organization is the “oldest” masonic jurisdiction in France... a claim that I have repeatedly tagged as being dubious. Unfortunately, the tag is repeatedly removed. I have opened a discussion on the talk page so that this can be discussed, but the removers refuse to engage. What is my next step? Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It its unsourced remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed

copied from WT:RSP for discussion here - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard, I appreciate your copying it to the correct venue Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Increasingly cited in articles in India. LiveMint appears to be a mixture of syndicated press releases (example from Bloomberg) and byline articles (example). I am not confident that the byline artices are more than putting a byline on a press release, however. As a former PR person in real life I used to write articles in this manner and send them to jouranlsist for them to 'tidy up' before they put them in their paper.

Please can a discussion be held by wiser heads than mine in order to place this correctly on the list with a categorisation. The increasing use of this publication is concerning since it is being used "both ways" at AfD (example) and its reliability is in dispute. Obviously context applies, but guidance from here in the table is very helpful Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's annoying - I've found it sometimes useful. But I do know the sort of churnalism you mean - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Greetings. While an independent discussion on Livemint is surely good, this specific case I want to clarify that (the example being cited) is a syndication from this Bloomberg article which is a named article with a dedicated by-line and not a press-release. (additional link here). So, this is a syndicated article (from Bloomberg) that LiveMint has published, perhaps, with due commercial agreements for Syndication rather than a press release that has been picked up. Ktin (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

So... why not cite Bloomberg directly? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, They, i.e. LiveMint, are actually citing Bloomberg if you see here. Ktin (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ktin, no, they are not citing Bloomberg. They are taking a syndicated article from Bloomberg. There is a difference. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent, Yes, you are right. I agree. I meant to say they are 'crediting' Bloomberg. Thanks.
They are syndicating an article (not a press release) from Bloomberg and rightly crediting it. This is no different from any other newspaper syndicating from Reuters, AP, etc. I would assume the have the right commercial agreements in place to be syndicating these articles. And, syndicating an article does not necessarily decrease their reliability. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. The example byline article does not look like a press release, a company's press release is not going to contain an assessment on its own internal conflicts. The both ways use in the AfD looks fine to me, one is a passing mention, one is an interview and another is a not so insignificant mention, none of them look like press release but that's not the only factor to be considered. Livemint is just the online variant of the Mint which was founded through a partnership between The Wall Street Journal and The Hindustan Times, which is a 96 year old mainstream newspaper. From my experience at least, the Mint is much better than any other financial newspaper in properly attributing press releases which they attribute through HT Brand Studios. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Mint's assessment. Find them to very good at attributing press releases and advertorials. Definitely in the top three financial newspapers in India and reliable imo. Ktin (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable: Livemint is probably the most trustworthy source for business (and very often) general news in India. I would rate it higher than Economic Times or Business Standard or even Times of India (lol, that's pretty easy), as it has a solid fact-checking team, so says my journalist friend at Hindustan Times. I realise my personal experience is irrelevant in this discussion but whatevurrr... :) I have also observed them openly declaring conflicts of interest, and pointing out connections with parent group, on front pages under news stories. For example: a story on Domino's pizza had something like "Jubliant Food Group is the sister company of Hindustan Times Media (which owns Mint)" - because the husband of HT boss runs Domino's in India. Plus they always clearly point out "This is a paid feature", and it's not buried in fine print. They also issue corrections and apologies in print edition as well as online (like here at the bottom - "An earlier version of the story had erroneously mentioned ICRA when the SAT order was in the matter of India Ratings. We regret the error."). Not many online Indian news sites would bother with that after changing a thing. So Mint (print edition) or its online avatar Livemint is pretty transparent in that regard. Hope that helps! MaysinFourty (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Seems Reliable The fact it is a partnership of the Hindustan Times and WSJ is a good starting point, and they actually publish their code of journalistic ethics they try to follow. I would say that if they are repeating from a known RS that we should just source that RS first and foremost (as we should do when there's one story that originates it). --Masem (t) 17:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable as it identifies press releases and coi, no evidence of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems Reliable I had read a report some time back by the press trust of India. They rated Mint as a highly reliable source, I believe more so than any other Indian news publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable Reliable for domestic reporting on factual news, policy/political analysis. Questionable for international reporting (a lot of syndicated feeds) and entertainment news. Very wide circulation and reach in India due to the parent Hindustan Times' backing. - hako9 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307&oldid=1138648528"