Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 → Archive 70

Announcement: New report on Wikipedia's Reliable Source guidelines in English, French and Spanish

Hi Wikipedia editors & Talk page readers: I write to draw your attention to a new report by Art+Feminism on these guidelines, published in June 2021. The report uses an intersectional methodology to address to what extent are contributions from and content about marginalized communities affected by guidelines about reliability in three language versions of Wikipedia? Based on community conversations and interpretative analysis of the guidelines, the report describes the lack of rigor in the guidelines (citations are not required), the ways that the definition of consensus perpetuates exclusions and makes revisions difficult, and the role of Wikipedia trainers in scaffolding the experience of editing for newcomers. There are several recommendations in the report as well on how to tend to these findings and improve the way the guidelines are written and governed to be more inclusive. Spanish Wikipedias Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias Shameran81 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  • This is yet another critique of Wikipedia from the perspective of the "situated knowledge" theory, a movement that rejects the idea that objective knowledge or scientific truth can exist, and only values what people think is true, regardless of whether they are objectively or scientifically correct: subjectivity, itself, is truth and nothing else can attain the same level of truthfulness. See p. 11: We build on efforts in feminist technoscience to acknowledge that, epistemologically, knowledge is “situated” and knowers have a “partial perspective.” In other words, there is no such thing as purely “objective” knowledge because there are no pure, objective knowers. Rather, there are practices of knowing. We foreground asking “who is the knower and who is being known” in efforts to determine reliable sources. Understanding the circumstances and values through which legitimacy is conferred, and at what costs, is crucial to the effort to remediate asymmetrical structures of power. If that is your position, then an encyclopedia is by definition something you would not be interested in or would argue to be socially valuable. Situated knowledge theory is more compatible with an online forum than a project like Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Recent research. See also WP:NOTTRUTH.
We already have a policy that encourages users to speak up: WP:BOLD.
The critique The guidelines about reliable sources in English, French, and Spanish lack academic rigor, notably through the lack of citations to support the claims actually echoes a fascinating 2006 discussion I had the pleasure of discovering while looking for something else in the archives. Basically, the point is that a policy does not need sources, because a policy is based on a decision by the relevant community, and not an attempt at summarizing external sources. Laws do not have sources, because they are based on parliamentary votes. Similarly, Wikipedia policies do not have sources because they are based on community consensus.
As someone who was granted temporary NPP rights this week, I can attest that it's without a doubt the toughest job I have done on this project. NPPers have to make a high number of very complex and technical verifications in order to maintain standards, and I do not see how someone new to the project would be able to this job correctly. Let me just note, however, that since half of my family comes from a country that was subject to colonization, I take issue with the problematic assumption that I am somehow unable to carry out this task because I supposedly come from a "marginalized community" (p. 29). You can get NPP rights even if you are a minority, provided that you have demonstrated that you are a competent editor. There is no "job interview" prior to getting NPP rights, where an admin would get the chance of knowing which race you are or where you come from.
The report contains a large number of quotes and reported opinions, yet I see no indication that the sample used by the authors is representative of the Wikipedia community or of society as a whole. If I wanted to be a wise guy, I could ask "who is excluded from the methods and the samples used by the authors to reach their conclusions, including their Town Hall community conversations and close readings"?
All in all, there is nothing really new in this report: as always, situated knowledge theorist argue that we should lower standards and abolish WP:RS in order to foster inclusion, all based on the yet unproven assumption that the project's policies are somehow exclusionary. As I have argued somewhere else, the correct answer to the situated knowledge theory is not to abolish the standards that have made this project successful, but to encourage general societal progress, so that everyone—regardless or gender or race—can get an equal access to education and high-literacy, with the result that everyone could create reliable sources equally and could contribute to Wikipedia equally. JBchrch talk 18:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What I will acknowledge, however, is that Wikipedia is a very hostile environment for newcomers (despite WP:BITE) and that not enough is done to encourage newcomers to stay and learn. JBchrch talk 20:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that acknowledging that (some) knowledge is situated means that no objective knowledge can exist. If "Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation" (to quote the linked article), then statements such as "2+2=4", or "human life requires oxygen" are not "particular" to any situation. Acknowledging that some things are situational and most perspectives are partial (especially on complex subjects) does not mean that we cannot hold some universal facts in common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Bravo. This sums up my thoughts on these things better than my own attempts elsewhere. I'll add that this genre of paper reminds me of Maslow's hammer: when someone's sociopolitical philosophy and approach to social theory is singularly focused on diversity or changing societal power structures no matter what they are, then that viewpoint's answer to everything is doing anything, even radical changes, to try to achieve that. The fact is, though, that while diversity is good, to be frank, we should value more things than just diversity. In fact, dismantling RS changes what Wikipedia is into something else, so arguably we wouldn't even then meet the goal of diversity in Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the first things that immediately struck me about the report was a a graph taken from [1] that according to the authors of the report "shows how a smaller number of editors were responsible for contributing the most, and most recent, editorial changes." It does no such thing. It shows, for each year, the size of the article and the number of (all, minor, by IP) edits. To draw that conclusion from that dataset is wrong. Vexations (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We have a lot of big problems that need fixing that aren't getting fixed. Including that much of our "reliable" source stuff needs a nuking and reboot. And so good hard pokes are useful. But I think that the discussed premises of this particular poke are faulty. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have continued to think about this report and to re-read some of its passages and felt the need to share just two additional thoughts. Sorry for the WP:BLUDGEON.
  1. One of the main reason why guidelines are so strict is because Wikipedia has long history of being used to advocate for harmful causes, including nazism (see among many examples User:K.e.coffman § Problematic WWII content) and zoophilia (see among many examples Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latitude0116/Archive).
  2. I am extremely skeptical of p. 23. In my experience, many articles about artists are filled with outright promotional content. The sentence We are used to creating pages in the arts community indicates that this person does not understand the difference between promotional pages and encyclopedic content. Also, I would very much like to see the actual content that they attempted to add to the project, especially the content that was sourced to a catalogue. Because a classic example of content that I have encountered in this topic area is X Y is an internationally recognized artist whose works have been displayed at many prestigious exhibitions, sourced to a catalogue. Obviously, this cannot work. JBchrch talk 00:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch, I don't think our guidelines are so strict. Some of them are, and a few of those are even enforced more or less evenly. But most of the time, I think that the guidelines are loose (good luck finding any clear definition of what a reliable source actually is) or unevenly enforced (I could cite Twitter in a BLP and expect it to be left alone, but a newbie who made the same edit is very likely to be insta-reverted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Yes indeed, and I would go even further and say that enforcement of some policies is effectively inexistent in vast swaths of the project. And that's actually ok: rules are generally only useful when conflict arises. By the way, there's a similar problem in some areas of the law, where most of the litigation and case-law are about extremely unusual, pathological or crazy situations that almost never occur in day-to-day practice. But rules are often codifications of some higher moral or ideal values, which is why they are important in addressing the arguments made by the authors. JBchrch talk 11:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch, I wonder: Could we create a definition of a reliable source? An actual definition, not just a list of factors one might use to determine whether a given source is "reliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Interesting puzzle! My first reaction was to say that the criteria of having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would be a good definition. But then I thought: how would we then determine the reputation of a source? Well, the answer would probably be... from reliable sources — which would effectively lead us to a chicken and egg problem. An interesting thing I found in the Oxford English Dictionary is that one of the meaning of "reliable" (admittedly, in the context of statistics) is free from error. I like that quite a bit. Could it be that reliable sources are sources that are "generally free from factual errors"? JBchrch talk 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch, I don't think that will work, because you and I likely believe that everything we write here is "generally free from factual errors" (and we even correct our errors when we learn of them), but we still take it as axiomatic that editors are not a reliable source. This makes me think that "generally free of factual errors" is a quality we prize, but it's not sufficient on its own.
And yet – if I needed to write (in an article) about what a Wikipedia editor said or did, I would accept an edit on wiki as sufficient evidence.
And on the other side, even a source that is known to be false (Dewey Defeats Truman) could be a reliable primary source for certain claims ("The Chicago Daily Tribune once published this headline").
I have sometimes given a somewhat tautological response: Is this source reliable? Well, would you (or a reasonably well-informed person) 'rely on' that source, if it were a real-world question? That could lead to a definition along the lines of "A reliable source is a source that Wikipedia editors believe would be relied upon (or accepted?) by a subject-matter expert, if the expert was trying to support the statement/claim in question". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Apologies for my late response. I had to take some wiki time off to move from one continent to another (and recover from the exhaustion). I would have two comments in response to your proposal:
  • I am not sure that relied upon (or accepted?) by a subject-matter expert, if the expert was trying to support the statement/claim in question is an expression of the consensus around these issues. I can think of two counter-examples: 1) WP:MEDRS, whereas medical practitioners and medical publications often rely on non-MEDRS sources to source some claims; 2) the topic area of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, which I am pretty familiar with: the broad consensus on the project is that crypto-centric publications (such as Coindesk, Decrypt or CoinTelegraph) are generally not reliable for factual assertions, with editors holding that they are overly promotional of crypto projects. However, if you take a look at the academic literature on these topics, authors will very often cite these publications to source factual assertions. I think more generally — and loosely speaking — that subject-matter experts can cite shit sources because they have the expertise to determine which (and how) shit sources can be cited. But is it the current consensus that wikipedia editors should attempt to do this? I don't think so.
  • That's a whole subject, but I'm asking myself whether it's wise for the definition fo reliability to refer to the subjectivity of a group of person (wikipedia editors, subject matter experts etc.) as the standard for reliability, or whether it should refer to an objective/conceptual standard, such as "truth" or "factual correctness". Note that there's already elements of the former in the current guideline, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. JBchrch talk 21:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the point of MEDRS's "ideal" is that medical experts prefer to rely on review articles and professional-level reference works rather than other options. One wouldn't expect an expert to prefer a weak source that was cited in a good source over the good source itself. I don't know what sort of source an expert on crypto currencies would pick as their best, but maybe they'd prefer an academic or mainstream publication to a crypto-specific website? Or maybe we've gone wrong there, and have deprecated whole groups of sources because of their POV instead of evaluating their reliability. We say that reliable sources can be WP:BIASED (which includes being promotional), but our disgust with promotionalism sometimes causes us to reject such sources anyway.
  • I suspect that the definition of RS, in practice, is "a source Wikipedia editors accept". We might find that embarrassing, but it might still be true. Part of the difficulty here is that we use "reliable" in two different ways. This page was written for the "source that editors accept as being good for that particular statement (even if it might be entirely unacceptable for other statements)" kind of reliable. Wikipedia:Notability uses the same word to identify a group of sources that would generally be acceptable for most typical purposes, without considering RSCONTEXT at all. @SmokeyJoe has advocated in the past that WP:N talk about "reputable" sources instead of "reliable" ones. We might need to separate the "good source for this particular statement" from the "good source in general" aspects.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I heard my name mentioned!
Yes, simple word meanings. "Reliable" applies to facts and primary sources. Secondary sources qualify as secondary vs primary due to the transformational use of the facts, eg the comment on the facts, by the author. Comment is not quantified as "reliable". There is no doubt that the author makes the comment, or what the exact comment is. Even if the comment is analysis, the more reliable the analysis, the more factual it is, and the more primary is the information, and is subject to a second source verification of its factuality. The more subjective it is, eg comments like "persuasive and widely respected", the less the word "reliable" applies, and the more the word "reputable" applies.
Authors can be reputable. Publishers can be reputable. "Having a reputation for fact checking" feeds into this and keeps "reputable" tied to "reliable", so it is not a abandonment of reliability. It is a different way of looking at a source, one that is more suitable for reviews or opinions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, while you're here, you might want to take a look at the section on #The opinions of reliable authors below, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I just read this report, and found the encouragement for us to systematically rely on academic and professional sources for understanding what reliable sources are, as well as to understand systemic biases in published sources, to be a great idea. For example, the report says:

Participants, especially librarians, also noted the lack of guidance for editors on how to evaluate the range of sources of secondary information such as catalogs, databases, indexes, bibliographies, pamphlets, online magazines or press releases, which may be from institutions but are not primary sources, nor are unreliable simply by nature of being produced by an institution. [emphasis original]

Right now, our tendency would be to treat the type of publication, as an index of reliability, with a tendency towards skepticism for anything involved in commerce. But that may be a bad approach for the art world. How should do we know? Well by turning to established sources on the reliability of source material. For the example of art, that would include:

  • Ford, Simon (2015-05-19). Information Sources in Art, Art History and Design. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-095450-0.

Ideally, we would amplify this guideline, informed by such sources, so that there is much more clarity about who we can rely on. Alternatively, we could write in encouragement to editors to find subject-relevant guidance on the reliability of sources, rather than assume that genre or, say, university press publication, is the best guide.--Carwil (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that "catalogs, databases, indexes, bibliographies, pamphlets, online magazines or press releases" are not secondary sources under our definition, but primary sources - these types of works are not transformation of information in the form of analysis, critique, or review. (Online magazines may, but that's an independence/dependence issue). While we can use primary sources for supporting information, they cannot be used for notability particularly around commercial factors (per NCORP) to avoid promotion --Masem (t) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Carwil, if we changed this guideline to follow Ford's advice, what do you think would need to be changed? (Subject-specific recommendations are mostly handled in essays written by WikiProjects, e.g., as part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The opinions of reliable authors

@Peter Gulutzan, even though this phrase has been in the guideline for a number of years, I don't think it's a good one. We have no definition of WP:Reliable authors. A source is considered reliable when editors accept it as evidence that a given claim has been previously published elsewhere, in a manner that would make us feel comfortable relying on it for content in a Wikipedia article. No equivalent process would be logical for declaring a human to be reliable.

Also, we don't technically "publish" any author's opinions (we "include" what the author has published elsewhere), and we include far more than what's strictly considered an Opinion. I therefore thing that the sentence should be changed to say that "the views only of reliable sources" rather than "the opinions only of reliable authors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. An author is one aspect of a source in our normal reliability discussions. But can we also move the "only" before "the views" or "opinions"? The word order is a little grating.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't imagine that anyone would object to that minor change, @Andrew Lancaster. Would you like to do that now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the intent of that sentence - that we don't want interpretation and synthesis from WP editors, it feels that "opinions" or "views" should be augmented to be something like "analysis, views, and opinions...". Whether that is from a reliable author or a reliable source, that's a separate issue. --Masem (t) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I like this "analysis, views, and opinions" language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Masem, I don't think anyone objects to your suggestion of "analysis, views, and opinions". Would you like to make that change yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I have done that change only to the "opinions" thing. Nothing else. --Masem (t) 16:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I also support "sources" instead of "authors". "Source/sources" is very widely used and understood on this site and is appropriately a more inclusive concept. DonFB (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This is in reference to WhatamIdoing's revision today, which I reverted, noting that the current wording has existed since 22 May 2008. Suppose a source is a book -- I don't think that people generally say "this book has an opinion" or "this book has a view", they say "this book's author has an opinion", so the current wording makes more sense. Of course the source as a whole (publisher, editor, author, etc.) must be considered, but of course it is considered, the sentence containing "authors" is explaining that humans are part of the source deal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The quoted phrase "this book argues that" gives me 4.1 million Ghits. We might not normally use the exact phrase you suggest (for one thing, the idiom is that opinions are usually "held" rather than "had"), but we do seem to ascribe "analysis, views and opinions" to sources and not just to the authors (a sort of metonymy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sources are reliable, not authors per se. If an author is published by RS and later self-publishes something, that does not have the same reliability. "Views" is also preferable to "opinions", to avoid confusion with opinion pieces, and because views encompasses statements of fact also. Crossroads -talk- 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Any other comments on this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Books have opinions. Wikipedia has opinion. Usually, in flowing discourse, books are named by their author. On Wikipedia, “opinion” is customarily spelt “POV”.
I don’t think changing "the views only of reliable sources" to "the opinions only of reliable authors" is a substantive change. Is it just semantics? I think it is just writing style. Maybe I need to think about it longer, but coming in cold, the two phrases say the same thing. A source is a publication, and the concept of publishers blurs with the concept of authors.
Sources can be reliable, yes, that works because “sources” is an extremely broad term. Publishers aren’t reliable, that doesn’t really work, but publishers can have a standard of reliability imposed on what they publish. Authors are like publishers, more than they are like sources. Authors publish opinions that the authors think worthy of publishing. Authors are not sources of fact, or they shouldn’t be. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Add podcasts to user-generated content

A question on WP:TEAHOUSE arose on using a podcast as a source. After hunting around, I couldn't find any guideline about this.

In my view, a podcast is the audio equivalent of a blog, and should be treated the same way we treat blogs. That is, it can be reliable depending on the podcast.

I propose that podcasts be listed in the WP:USERGENERATED section of this document. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know much about podcasts, but they could have "established expert" value as sources or EL:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Just like YouTube videos, podcasts can be highly reliable and generated by independent sources with editorial control, such as British Broadcasting Corporation & here and similar media outlets, museums, universities etc. But equally they can be user-generated and totally unreliable - or all points in between. As always, the producer and the context in which the podcast should be seen are all-important. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
And editors should also be aware that even professionally made podcasts should still consider what the intent of the podcast is for. NPR makes lots of podcasts (Which are basically their radio shows, but the format is more "make for the podcast, but first broadcast by radio"), and there are ones that I would consider absolutely reliable like their "All Things Considered", but then they also make ones that are primarily for entertainment value like "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" that I would not use for any contentious claims at all. --Masem (t) 13:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Podcasts are not all User generated (or self published). Some are professional productions by well established publishers (more akin to traditional television/radio programs/documentaries), others (perhaps most, I don't know?) are not. (And yes, as with any reliable source, context does matter, too) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Like Nick Moyes says, pretty much like WP:RSPYT then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Fully support adding podcasts to lists of WP:SPS. Verifying a claim in a podcast would probably be annoying, but how annoying or not it is not a requirement for sourcing anyways. In the future I hope that transcription software will be more reliable/available on Wiki projects. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC podcasts and Nick mentioned and the NPR podcasts that Masem mentioned are not self-published, and therefore should not be added to lists of SPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I listen to very few podcasts. Very likely they're atypical podcasts; but anyway, most are interviews. I'd have trouble calling them "user generated": rather, a named, slightly/moderately known person interviews a named, moderately/well known person. (They could indeed be called self published; but I think we have to realize that publishing now isn't what it was just twenty years ago.) I rarely if ever cite them; mostly because they're interviews. (But also, yes, because they're podcasts: hunting for the relevant part, transcribing it, etc, is such a bore.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that "podcast" is about as useless a category as "video" or "website" for determining whether it's self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
After reading the discussion my initial question generated, I agree that "podcast" isn't a useful category. A podcast isn't inherently reliable or unreliable. A podcast is just a content medium. It's just information in audio form rather than video or text. There can be reliable podcasts just as there are reliable videos or websites or newspapers. And there are plenty of unreliable sources in any of those formats.
I retract my proposal about including podcasts in WP:USERGENERATED. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • CASE BY CASE - “Podcast” is a publishing medium, like “video” or “print”. As a medium it is neither reliable nor unreliable. The reliability of a specific podcast depends on who creates it and how they distribute it. Some will be highly reliable, others will be completely unreliable (and everything in between). Some will be subject to SPS, others will not. Some will qualify for the expert exemption, others will not. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Newspapers and other media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability

Hi all, I 'd like to make a suggestion: Adding the sentence "Newspapers and other media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability" as a bullet point at section #News organizations. This will tackle a couple of significant problems: a)Help editors stop wasting time in repeated discussion on Reliable Sources from authoritarian regimes. b)Stop misinformation spreading in WP (since the line between fiction and reality is blurred in media coming from authoritarian regimes) c)we as WP will avoid the fruits of poisonous trees not only in regards of reliability, but it will prevent us from using sources produced by inhumane means (not merely illegal, or even legal but inhumane nonetheless). My understanding is that already the existing guidelines are excluding sources from authoritarian regimes, my suggestion is just a clarification. Thanks, would appreciate any feedback! Cinadon36 12:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Meh… we would simply get debates as to whether the regime is “authoritarian” or not. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Lol, most probably, but getting out of these kind of debates should be easier because there is more literature on this issue. I mean, lots of secondary sources are calling N. Korea an authoritarian regime, but not so many bother to call their media as unreliable. Cinadon36 13:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      @Cinadon36, traditionally, we have considered a source (non-)reliable only in context. Do you think there are really no statements that could be made from an authoritarian source? Would you think all of them utterly unreliable, even for statements like "Paul Politician is now the regime's Grand Poobah"? Do you think they're likely to get that kind of claim wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi @WhatamIdoing: As in most unreliable sources, true statements exists in MUAR (Media Under Authoritarian Regimes). I am not proposing changing the policy/guideline. I am suggesting to clarify that since the context matter, MUAR should not regularly be used. MUARs typically misrepresent events in a Daily Mail way. Too much emphasis on certain aspects, silencing other aspects of a story and there s lot of sensationalism. MUARs are tools of the dictatorship and we shouldn't use them (exceptions apply) because they are generally unreliable and because it is unethical. Cinadon36 06:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
        @Cinadon36, help me out here. When you wrote that you wanted to "to make a suggestion", namely "Adding the sentence", you didn't propose changing the guideline? (How are you going to add a sentence without changing the guideline?)
        And when you wrote that "media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS", you didn't mean that media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS? Why did your write that they should not be considered reliable sources, if that's not what you meant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Firstly, thanks for your interest @WhatamIdoing:. So, I want to change the text of the guideline, but the essense of the guideline stays the same. My suggestion will help clarify how to deal with sources from regimes coming from dictatorships. Would you agree sources from North Korea or Taliban's Kabul should be mistrusted? [2] If yes, why not make it crystal clear at our guidelines? Cinadon36 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
          I suspect that many sources should be mistrusted, but perhaps we should back up to a different point. Your previous comment began "As in most unreliable sources..." If you overlook the caption I wrote for the black–white spectrum image years ago, I don't think this guideline actually believes that there is such a thing as "an unreliable source". There are sources that are reliable for certain statements, and sources that are unreliable for those statements. Consider also the FAQ: Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?, whose answer is "No."
          In that model (the traditional way this guideline has approached reliability, though not the way that the proponents of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources approach it), MUAR is reliable for some statements (e.g., that Pravda said something) and unreliable for other statements (e.g., that anything the Soviet propaganda system printed about the West is actually true). We don't need to "mistrust" the MUAR sources so much as we need to "use them appropriately". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I get your point @WhatamIdoing: and I mostly agree with it. Could we introduce it to the guideline somehow? I feel it is important to say something about MUAR. Cinadon36 07:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36, your suggestion makes me think about two changes.
First, I think we should change the caption on that image to say something like "No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement."
Second, what do you think about using MUAR as an example of when they are reliable? Maybe something like "Even state-controlled propaganda machines can be highly reliable for some carefully worded statements, such as when an official statement was made, what the official statement said, or which person held office. All media under authoritarian regimes should be treated by Wikipedia editors as if they were non-independent primary sources." The point is to say that yes, these could be reliable, but only if you use them in very narrow ways. We'd be drawing a tight little box around their use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes @WhatamIdoing: sounds great! Cinadon36 15:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll make the first change, as it's relatively unimportant, now. (That sometimes attracts people's attention. ;-)) Let's wait a few days on the second, to see whether anyone has any advice for us about it. If we don't get any objections by early next week, then let's do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: I was imagining that we'd put this information abut MUAR in the WP:NEWSORG section. Does that sound right to you? There are a couple of plausible locations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

IMO any blanket statement about a source is an over-generalization and IMO we should start eliminating that, not increasing it. Acrual reliability comes from having expertise and objectivity with regard to the item which cited it. So an authoritarian newspaper would be reliable for reporting n yesterday's temperature in the capitol but not on why a dissident was arrested or killed. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit looks harmless. The proposed second edit -- treat MUAR as non-independent primary sources -- looks like a blanket statement. I agree that we should not be increasing blanket statements in WP:RS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we should specify that MUAR are not independent of the regimes they operate under? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, yes, I think it is crucial. Cinadon36 17:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
No, I think we should not specify that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan, your edit summary said "Suggestion: Newspapers and other media from authoritarian regimes should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability". Do you think we should add that sentence, or was that just the section heading? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
That's the topic heading. WP:TALKHEADPOV says the heading should not "communicate a specific view about [the topic]" so my habit of stating the topic in my edit summaries caused trouble here. I opposed the suggestion. I opposed adding the sentence. I did not say so clearly enough. Sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The usual formatting for the section heading looks like /* Heading */. The MediaWiki software interprets the slashes and asterisks as being equivalent to [[#Heading]] (i.e., a link to the specific section).
Taking the model of "just because it's true doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be written in this (or any) guideline", do you think that media from authoritarian regimes are independent of the regimes? My mental example is Pravda during the 1980s, which I don't think could be considered independent of the USSR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
You're wrong, the usual way to format a section heading is to enclose inside ==s, but that's irrelevant. As for "not independent": A news org can be not independent of a democratic regime, not independent of its private owners, not independent of its subscribers and distribution network, and so ad infinitum plus moon phase. Mentioning it only for authoritarian regimes, whatever they are and whatever connection the news org supposedly has with them, makes it seem like non-independence is something special, which it's not. On the other hand, sometimes a news org like Al Jazeera can have considerable independence for non-Qatar coverage, although some people might have a "mental example" of Qatar as authoritarian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I meant the usual formatting in the edit summary.  :-)
I can't think of any normal media organization (e.g., a daily newspaper) in a democratic country that isn't independent of the state it operates under. Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: what you are saying is that because there is a liberal bias in WP, we should allow authoritarian bias as well? Cinadon36 06:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Stars and Stripes. Cinadon36: I said no such thing but WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that a newspaper that is actually owned and operated by the US government counts as "any normal media organization". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
If you'd ask for an example of a media organization that's partially or wholly dependent on a non-authoritarian state -- without arbitrary extra criteria -- you'd get a different example. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I asked for a "normal media organization". Government-owned media organizations are IMO not "normal media organizations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I dunno. This would, for example, make it impossible to source scores of a domestic football match in China, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: we should make clear that this kind of info would be included. MUAR shouldn't be easily used for political or historical articles or themes. They are totally unreliable. (Mimicking your example} the suggestion is to make it hard to source "Times of Taliban's Kabul" for statements on women's rights in Asia. Cinadon36 06:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This goes into the question of likelihood of fabrication. Media in authoritarian countries will probably have reason to fabricate political events with connection to the country. It *may* have reason to fabricate some domestic events, eg number of deaths in a collapsed tower or railway accident due to bad material in construction. It will generally not have any reason to fabricate the scores of a U17 cricket match, or the weather, or descriptions of a shopping mall, etc. We’d be looking for editors to make a judgement. I would prefer more along the lines of ‘specific advice’ than marking them all ‘generally unreliable’. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: that 's a valid point, I totally agree.Cinadon36 10:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thing is… we ALREADY SAY that media outlets that fabricate information or have a reputation for factual inaccuracy are unreliable - whether they originate from within an “authoritarian regime” or not. I don’t see a need to exclude based on where a source is published when we can already exclude it based on what is published. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    We have editors pushing to exclude almost every source from certain countries, basically on the grounds that these editors don't trust any source associated with (to name the biggest) China. This has led to some fairly stupid edits, like removing Chinese newspapers that were reliable for the specific sentence, because on the one hand, you have someone saying "RSP says everything published by that news org is 'generally unreliable' because all the media in that country is too biased", and on the other hand, you have someone else looking at the specific sentence and asking "Does anyone genuinely think that state-controlled media is going to get its own official's name wrong?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have another hobby in looking at the reliability and reputability of newspapers around the world. On the whole, Chinese newspapers are *more* reliable than Western papers. China Daily reports very factually, and rarely mixes opinion with factual reporting. Western newspapers, not just US newspapers, are in serious professional decay, and frequently invent content, padding their own versions of news already in the internet, presumably to cover for their lack of staff. On bias, the criticism of Chinese newspaper is on what they don’t cover, but that is not special to China. State controlled content is to be suspected for what they don’t cover, but false news, whether malicious or incompetent, is less a feature of state owned news. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: For western media there are lots of charts on the reliability and bias of each media. But what is most important, is their analysis. On the other hand, there are no data available on the reliability of chinese media. MUAR should be excluded for their analysis mostly. Plain facts can be used. Cinadon36 09:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Just run with "Newspapers and other media should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability".
    Western newspapers include notoriously bad cases.
    Also, there is a big issue of how used. Primary source or secondary source. Chinese newspapers are, on the whole, quite good as primary sources, for what they cover. Talk of "analysis" means that you are looking at them as secondary sources, and this is a question of reputation, not reliability.
    Also, newspapers are the lowest quality sources considered acceptable. If you can do better, you do. If you are relying on a newspaper editorial for analysis, for Wikipedia content, you are scaping low, and should not assume reliability at all, and should be doing explicit quoting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe:, you keep saying that Chinese media are factual, but thb I find that hard to believe. Can you back it with some evidence? Or at least, examples on how the cover/covered 1989 Tiananmen Square protests or Tibetan independence movement or Uyghur genocide. Cinadon36 06:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Of course, Chinese government newspapers are to be treated with suspicion on matters of Chinese national sensitivity. Any matter of any nation's national sensitivity is going to be an NPOV and factual-reliability challenge.
    An example of a Chinese owned newspaper article that reads 100% credible for facts is Today's article "Shenzhou XII spacecraft headed back to Earth"
    Compare todays FoxNews "Rep. Drew Ferguson: Biden's America last policies – Taliban, China, Russia are all 'building back better'". It contains a number of conentious value-laden statements that should not be accepted at face value.
    Then consider The UK Daily Mail.
    Newspapers should NOT be assumed to be reliable sources on the basis of coming from a non-authoritarian regime. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    So, you are making a comparison with western media that we already know they are problematic. You are not addressing the point that chinese media as not as reliable as Reuters, AP, BBC, theGuardian, NYT, WP, DW and other quality western media. But lets focus to the points we agree: MUARs should be treated with suspicion on national sensitivity issues (and in those issues shouldn't be considered RS). Cinadon36 07:51, 16 September 2021‎ (UTC)
    So why not just run with "Newspapers and other media should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability"?
    For Western media, you already have a list of quality examples. These, I assume, you have somewhere "strong evidence of reliability".
    For "media from authoritarian regimes", I think your real issue is that you are not familiar with them? I think that no media that is unfamiliar, meaning media for which you do not have evidence of reliability, should not be presumed to be a RS.
    If you discover a newspaper from an authoritarian regime, do not assume it is reliable. If you discover a new US newspaper, similarly do not assume it is reliable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Because MUAR are a special category, that are not reliable in national sensitive issues, as you admitted in your previous post. So, comparing them with western media, is whataboutism and they certainly fell short. Authoritarian media are the voice of the dictatorship and are not reliable in national sensitive issues and should be (not be ) treated as such.Cinadon36 08:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe, I don't think we could get consensus for "Newspapers and other media should not be considered RS unless there is strong evidence of their reliability". That flips the default from "a bog-standard newspaper probably got most of the facts right" to "assume they're bad until proven otherwise". The net effect is that we would be unable to use smaller newspapers, which means we would be unable to cite independent sources in (e.g.,) most articles about high schools in small towns and rural areas in the US. Consider a local newspaper such as Idyllwild Town Crier. There's an image in the article showing the front page. You want to update the city's article to say that in 2009, Benoit became supervisor. Can you think of any reason why we should treat that newspaper article as being unreliable for that statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think the proposal oversimplifies the problem and goes in the wrong direction. Reliability depends on whether the information is contentious, more than the assessment of the regime in control. Editorial judgement is required, not simple rules by nation. Better, is to take a case by case approach, improving and expanding the table at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm doubtful that RSP can be improved by any means short of eliminating the categorization entirely, and just leaving the links to prior discussions. In the RSP-related RFCs I've seen, the idea of RSCONTEXT appears to be either unfamiliar or unimportant to most of the voters.
    What advice could we give to an editor who is looking for decent sources, and who is unfamiliar with our standards here? Is there anything useful we could tell that editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think RSP is an excellent resource and can be improved as can everything, eg by:
    • making the explanations even better (they are already good)
    • adding more newspapers
    • Advertising it better.
    • More emphasis on use for noncontentious facts, contentious fact, individual vs contentious vs accepted opinion. Things like "editorial judgment" could use an essay (probably there already are some?).
    • Links to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RSOPINION I find unsatisfying. A subpage of greater detail referring back to the parent for explanation is unsatisfying. I think explanatory essays would be better.
    I do not think it would be improved by classifying newspapers by national regime. However, it might be correct to call a national newspaper reporting on matters of sensitive national interest as a self-published source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    MUAR is not based on nationality but on the specifics of the regime of each country. Cinadon36 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    If Idyllwild Town Crier (or Los Angeles Times, if you prefer a paper with more significant circulation) reports on matters of interest to the US government, it wouldn't become a self-published source. How could it? The reporter does not become the publisher just because the reporter is writing about a subject of national interest.
    It would also not become a non-independent source (which is what I suspect you meant to write), as the paper is not owned by, controlled by, or paid by the US government. This is in contrast to, say, Voice of America, which is funded by the US government, and which (despite their protestations about editorial independence) is not fully independent of its only real source of funding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe here. No newspaper can be automatically trusted on matters of national importance in its own jurisdiction. Most countries have laws governing those issues, such as the official secrets act in the UK. Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks. So as much as organs such as the Guardian and New York Times etc are very often good sources, there's no blanket statement that they are always reliable, any more than there's a blanket statement that the Chinese press is unreliable. I would oppose the change suggested as far too general, fraught with problems about what constitutes "authoritarian", and also a rule creep. Let's instead keep the time-honoured system of analyzing sources case-by-case, in the context of what it is they're supporting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru wrote: Any newspaper veering too far towards publishing material the government considered classified, would be stopped in its tracks. Well, not necessarily: cf. The Pentagon Papers. Government might want to stop the source in its tracks, but whether officialdom succeeds depends on what government, what judicial system, and what source; also, what era. U.S. papers did regularly self-censor at govt request during WWII, but much less frequently since then. DonFB (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers. Green=Reliable; Brown=unreliable. No. Way too clumsy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
“A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” Arthur Miller
Talking to oneself, about oneself, is a flag for concern.
I would not trust an untraveled American as an authority on American exceptionalism. Unreliable? Non-independent? Primary source?
I would not trust China Daily as an authority of reference on the merits of Chinese government policy, but I would accept it as an excellent reference for what the Chinese statements on their national policies.
Self-censorship is an interesting article to read. A nation talking to itself will be awkward on topics related to the national psyche. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I won't accept a quip from a playwright as evidence that newspapers are the same as talking to yourself about yourself.
I expect newspapers to be cited for news events, in the who/what/when/where range. I don't expect them to be cited for subjects better suited for scholarly analysis (e.g., American exceptionalism or the merits of a policy). I would accept them as sources for statements that someone said something about those subjects (e.g., "Paul Politician said the policy would make everyone richer than anyone else, and was promptly criticized for not understanding that not everyone can be above average"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Newspapers are good for facts, not for analysis. Chinese and Qatari newspapers are very good for factual reliability. If a worthy analysis appears in a newspaper, you cite it for the reputation of the author, not the newspaper, and even then, only for a short time, as worthy analysis is newspapers will republish better in books.
But back to the OP. The colours on the table at WP:RSP are not well predicted by the style of government of their home nation. The question of funding is more interesting, but more complicated to evaluate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Quotation sources

In the "Statements of opinion" section above the list of sources which shouldn't be used "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" includes tweets. Does that mean someone's verified tweets are acceptable sources in an article about the tweets' author? My question is prompted by "Tucker has blogged in opposition to social distancing measures and face masks, framing them as subservience to "arbitrary and ignorant authority".[24]" in the last paragraph of an article section on Jeffrey Tucker[1] where the reference is to an article where the author mentions a hyperlinked tweet which only refers to masks. In my view it would be preferable to replace "blogged" with "tweeted" and direct references to Tucker's social distancing[2] and mask[3] tweets instead of the secondary source.

If correct would it be OK to reference the tweets as I have here or in a different way? Mcljlm (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Tucker#Views
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1244302048004276224
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1256664581092651008

Context matters doesn't give much info

I feel like the section context matters need more information and gives more clarification in what it means when it says reliable depending on the context. I don't know the section comes off as vague.CycoMa (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's because you have to read it in context. Joke aside, I agree. One of the interpretative issues that I have seen on RSN is whether the relevant context is the Wikipedia article context (i.e. in which article [and section thereof] the editing takes place), the real-life factual context (i.e. the event or facts that are covered by the source), the media context (i.e. if Motor Trend, a RS for cars, started covering the China-Pakistan relations). JBchrch talk 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for such an important concept there is little or nothing on it in its section. A good explanation might be something like: The strength of provided sourcing is also determined by the expertise and objectivity of the provided source with respect to the item which cited it.North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and low-quality sources about BLPs.

WP:RSOPINION contains some somewhat unusual language that seems intended to summarize the relevant part of WP:BLP but doesn't quite say the same thing. RSOPINION says Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, giving the impression that this is an exhaustive list (and that otherwise generally unreliable sources can therefore be used as sources for BLP-sensitive opinion about living people, provided it is presented as an opinion.) WP:BLP, however, is much more broad, saying contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (and making no exception for opinion.) Therefore, I suggest that the list in RSOPINION be amended to read Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs, tweets, or other unreliable or low-quality sources as a source for material about a living person or words to that effect, making it clear that opinions about living people must be cited to high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

To avoid conflation of the issues (I can see editors getting possibly up in arms that SPS gets conflated with unreliable/low-quality), I'd just make two sentences. Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person. Similarly, never use unreliable or low-quality sources for material about a living person. but the point is very valid to include otherwise. --Masem (t) 04:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION and a change related to mainstream newspapers

Srich32977 changed a phrase in WP:RSOPINION long ago with edit summary = "Statements of opinion: improve syntax": from "mainstream newspapers" to "sources recognized as reliable". That is not a syntax change. I can't find a talk page discussion. Unless there was one that I missed, there should be consensus for this change. I oppose it. Any other support/oppose opinions? 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that it is predecated as "A prime example is opinion pieces from (mainstream newspapers/sources recognized as reliable)" I agree the change wasn't needed. Being an example, the specificity to newspapers was just fine. That said, I would probably clarify that those are opinion pieces from staff writers at mainstream newspapers as opposed to op-eds from non-staff. --Masem (t) 01:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Proposals to add restrictions about op-eds could surely be discussed in a different thread with mention of WP:RSEDITORIAL, but this thread will (I hope) be less controversial as long as it's only about reverting Srich32977's change from "mainstream newspapers" to "sources recognized as reliable". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I reverted. An additional possible consideration: this anonymous author wasn't certainly recognized as a reliable source but his opinion was certainly in a mainstream newspaper. The original was better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Todrick Hall’s Original Beautyand the Beast Provincial Life

The discography of Todrick Hall has errors. There was an original version of provincial life that has been replaced will Beauty and the Beats. But there is NO mention of the first. It seems someone is trying to erase that piece of art by Mr. Hall. What happened to that video? It’s been completely replaced with the newer lgbtq version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.6.143 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Some FAQ statements directly contradict to WP:V

Concretely, the statement

"Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
"No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

is WRONG. The policy strictly divides sources on reliable, questionable, SPS,, and Wikipedia's mirrors. The criteria of placement of a source in one of those categories are purely contextless. that means, e.g. some source that fit SPS criteria can never be considered "reliable" per WP:V. However, it may be appropriate in some context (and the policy explains that context). The policy doesn't say "in this context, SPS are deemed reliable", it says "SPS are always questionable, but in some situations they can be used". I think this answer should be removed as directly contradicting to WP:V, and some other answer should be added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you linked the page you're referring to. That quotation doesn't exist on the page associated with this talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at this page's FAQ. That is the answer to the qiestion "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?"
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
See also the very long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:V vs WP:NPOV.
More fundamentally, if we had a definition of what a reliable source actually is, then I think that these distinctions would be easily handled. If, e.g., "A reliable source is one that editors rely on to build Wikipedia's content", then "A questionable source is one that editors rely on to build Wikipedia's content only in very limited ways". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but "A reliable source is one that editors rely on to build Wikipedia's content" is not working, keeping in mind that WP:V says: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". That leads to a circular argumentation: "Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which are defined as the sources that Wikipedians are using for writing Wikipedia".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't especially enlightening on its own, but I think it has the important advantage of being true. You know that a source is reliable when the community accepts it, and you know that a source is unreliable when the community rejects it.
No other characteristic always predicts reliability. We accept as reliable sources any notable work of fiction, songs, paintings, tweets, self-promotional press releases, and more. Alternative medicine has cited an animated poem posted to YouTube by a comedian for years. It is a reliable source for the statement it supports. One might wonder if the article should care what a comedian says, but the source is obviously a reliable source, fully capable of proving that the quotation attributed to him actually did come from him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added in the original question and the "No, " part of the answer. It would seem a bit perverse to argue about text that says context matters, and then quote it out of context. -- Colin°Talk 09:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:V vs WP:NPOV there is a twisted over-long discussion trying to explain what some believe WP:V means, while avoiding what WP:V says. There are repeated claims that WP:V is "contextless", and that certain sources are always reliable (or unreliable) per WP:V regardless of what we might be using them for. It is claimed that it is only thanks to other policies (like NPOV or OR) that we are prevented from using them. No amount of examples to the contrary, or quoting WP:V seems to matter.

It is ignored that both WP:V and WP:RS mention context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). It is ignored that for a publication to be considered a "source" it must be cited by article text (or at least proposed as such for statements that may or may not be in final polished form). WP:V mentions "source" over 200 times and WP:RS over 300 times. We don't have policy & guideline on "Reliable publications", we have them on "sources". It is ignored that publications are complex beasts with multiple kinds of articles and even within articles there are multiple kinds of statements. It is ignored that WP:V frequently mentions "content" and "material [in Wikimedia namespace]" and "citing" and isn't just some discussion about the quality of publications in the abstract. I don't think it is useful for that discussion to spill over onto other pages. I actually think participants should stop and go clear their heads of it for a while in order to get a fresh perspective.

For what it is worth, this "WRONG" faq entry was added in 2011. Some humility about a considering that a major guideline FAQ was wrong for 10 years might be justified I think. Surely a more appropriate reaction on finding this long-lived FAQ entry is to reconsider one's position, rather than assume nobody else on Wikipedia has spotted this glaring mistake for a decade. -- Colin°Talk 09:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul seems to be taking in information and adjusting his views as the conversations goes on. I can't say that the rest of us are as good at that. Perhaps being overly convinced of our own views is a characteristic of Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

ERIC CLAPTON LIVE HISTORY book. By Christian Larsen and Marc Roberty says Clapton started using the Stratocaster as his main guitar in 1975. The Stratocaster use should be changed from end of 1969 to 1975. 1969 Eric Clapton only played Gibson Les Paul.


Change year of starting using Stratocaster till 1970 and as his main guitar till 1975. At the end of 1969 He did not use Fender Stratocaster but a Gibson Les Paul. The part written about Stratocaster is completely innacurate. PaulM1234a (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

The page looks outdated. Several sources and credits are missing. I see this with many artists. That's why I'd like to update it. Seandahna (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Two questions

Is there a list of sources that are considered reliable/unreliable somewhere? I seem to remember seeing that in the past week and I can't find it again.

Other question: if I do find this list, is Broadway World on it, and if not, can it be added? The link I reference in that sentence shows that anyone can use the site as a press release-type thing, and they'll just publish it. So probably not great for establishing notability. In my opinion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You want to look at WP:RS/P which are sources that have been discussed to affirm if they are reliable or not. This is not an exhaustive list.
For things like press releases, this is considered a primary source and while it can be used to confirm information, it should not be used for determining notability. Ideally if you're just needing it to source a few additional things that are already readily sourced to third-party RSes, then that's fine, but basing inclusion wholly on a press release is usually a problem. --Masem (t) 01:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the Worcester Herald?

I don't think this is a reliable source but want to ask here. The website has an official-sounding name, but it turns out there is no Worcester Herald newspaper. It was founded in 2014, and has been dormant since 2019. Going to their Facebook page reveal a ton of links to http://blog.flyorh.com/ - The "Worcester Airport Blog". What say you? Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

definitely not a reliable source. Note that apart from a few major newspapers, most cites to a newspaper are actually to an Associated Press or another national press service (which are reliable sources). Local newspapers are RS for local news. Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't even think it's a local newspaper, was my point. It looks more like a blog dressed up to appear as if it's linked to a local newspaper. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of transparency, I asked because it's used as a source in Wheels (2014 film), which I recently nominated for deletion based on sources all being paid / PR / promotional fluff. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is deadlinenews.co.uk a portal for press releases and paid publicity?

At first glance I thought it was related to Deadline Hollywood. It isn't. Appears to be its own thing in Scotland. It's being used as a source on an article up for deletion and I dug into the site a little [3] and found people can just submit and/or pay for "stories" to appear on the website. So I should remove that reference that uses that as a source, right? Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

this is the "source" that's being used. It's credited to "Guest", is dated September 6, 2021, and is about a movie that came out in 2014. Coincidentally, the movie's article Wheels (2014 film) was edited heavily, recently, by paid editor(s)/sockpuppets adding multiple promotional references like this one. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you've answered your own question. This is a 'promotional feature' (see the URL for the "Collaborative Post" icon at the stop of the story), on the website of a press agency that sells "advertorial space". Cannot be used to establish notability, and given its publication date, good grounds to look carefully at any other sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @AndyTheGrump:. If you wouldn't mind looking at [4] yourself - another editor told me it would look like I was trying to do a hatchet job on the article that I nominated for deletion if I removed sources, but the opposite is what happened - I nominated the article for deletion AFTER I researched all the sources and saw they were garbage. But I'm trying to tread carefully. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources: When relevant and appropriate

Have attempted to insert this text, and was instantly reverted by another editor (not surprised, as the popular dogmatism about never using unreliable sources is almost chronic in Wikipedia -- to the point of substantially undermining the validity, thoroughness, relevance and usefulness of articles.)

Here, for all to bash, is my suggested revision to the section on "Context matters." Before dismissing cavalierly, or dogmatically, please think through, carefully, consider it seriously, and comment respectfully:

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Reliable sources: when not relevant

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Unreliable sources: when relevant

Notoriety and publicity examples

Conversely, a major, but otherwise-unreliable, source -- if cited merely to establish notoriety of a topic -- is appropriate.

For instance, while the London Daily Mail, or the Xinhua News Agency would not normally be considered a WP:RS on the substance of a topic, noting the article subject's mention in those major-but-questionable sources may be relevant for establishing WP:NOTABILITY (extensive publicity in major venues, however unreliable they may be, nevertheless implicitly creates conspicuousness, and thus public consciousness, and thus notability), or it may be relevant as an example of a significant publicity event related to the topic, so long as the truthfulness of that publicity is appropriately debunked or validated with a regular reliable source.

Examples of the source, itself, and its declarations

Similarly, while a source may not be reliable, it may be referenced as an example of the nature of an entity's own publications, or its official public position on a matter (for instance, an article in an unreliable tabloid newspaper may be logically cited as an example of that publication's style and content, in an article about that specific publication).

Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has made a public declaration, or established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy.

The source's own assignment of recognition and titles

Finally, an otherwise-unreliable source, though a primary source, is the logical principal source of information on entity's own assignment of awards or titles.

For instance, while an activist organization or employer may not be a reliable source on a given person, it is a reliable source (indeed, the foremost source) on whatever awards, recognition, office or job title they have accorded that individual. So such an otherwise-unreliable source is an appropriate reference for their own internal assignment of honors and titles to that person (though an echo of their announcement in a conventional reliable source is a wise supplement, when available).

This is particularly significant for current events, as an organization's or company's or agency's website is far more likely to accurately report the current title of a person (or the current person assigned that title) than "reliable" secondary sources, which often lag far behind personnel changes, or simply get it wrong, if they report it at all.

~ Penlite (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I sympathize with everyone who opposes "dogmatism about never using unreliable sources", but are you talking about sources which some editors declare "generally unreliable" in WP:RSN discussions? As I read it, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS already opposes dogmatism. I believe that WP:RS shouldn't refer to essays or essay-class pages that support it, but don't see that as a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources: when not relevant restates CONTEXTMATTERS. Regarding Notoriety and publicity examples, there is simply no consensus that unreliable sources may be used to establish notability. I don't understand what Examples of the source, itself, and its declarations and The source's own assignment of recognition and titles means: these sources are not unreliable, they are just WP:PRIMARY. As for Likewise, a government entity's press release or official document is a relevant source to cite when pointing out that the agency has... established a regulation or law, or ruled in a controversy., this seems to contradict WP:RSLAW § Original texts which, while not a guideline, expresses some form of consensus in this area. JBchrch talk 14:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: You make a fair point: that some of the items i suggest, rather than "unreliable" sources, are instead simply WP:PRIMARY sources, and I suppose I need to move this discussion, in part, to the Talk page for WP:PRIMARY.
I just read WP:RSLAW § Original texts, and while it generally identifies my suggested official documents as WP:PRIMARY sources -- it does not explicitly specify them as forbidden sources (though they should surely be selected with care, to ensure they are currently valid, official and complete -- rather than, say, legislative pre-negotiation drafts, or unofficial statements posted on official sites).
If the source in question is one that editors are willing to "rely on" for the specific statement that the source is being used to support(!!!), then the source actually is "a reliable source" (for that specific statement). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence has an internal link at "reliable, published sources"...

...which is somewhat awkward since this is the page discussing RS. Looks like a case of WP:EGG, but I am not sure. Cinadon36 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It also feels like making circles, since the phrase "reliable, published sources" links to a section where it starts as ===What counts as a reliable source=== {{further|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} Cinadon36 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36: You're looking at the result of this edit by LittleBenW. I see that you removed the link and Mvbaron re-inserted. I believe that you are right. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Peter Gulutzan:, I also still do not really get the reasoning from @Mvbaron: and I hope he can elaborate a little further. He stated that "This is a guideline, the link points to the policy. There's no circularity there" [5]. But the circularity exists (this page links to Wikipedia:Verifiability when defining RS while WP V links here as "Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources") So someone who looks to learn about RS, he will be confused. If we have to link to the policy page, we can do it by other means. It is pretty confusing to have the argument of the predicate as a blue-link, when the page is dedicated to that specific phrase. Cinadon36 12:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure: This page is a guideline, the link points at the policy (this is explained in the next sentence in the lead). So: removing the link, in my opinion, is not an improvement, because it removes the relevant link to the relevant policy. That the policy also has a "further info" link to this page also makes sense in my opinion, because it's, well, further information. The circularity will always be there, no way to get around it unless this guideline is made policy. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability - and that policy links back to here. nothing really can be done here. Removing the link solves nothing in my opinion. Mvbaron (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I see now that LittleBenW is blocked so we won't get an answer from there, but I did look at archives and found nothing that suggests there was advance consultation. As you can see in the thread above this, I have had difficulty persuading Mvbaron that guideline edits need consensus, and Mvbaron's reply in this thread is unconvincing because there would still be linking from WP:RS to WP:V. I intend to revert in two days unless others step in first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
What? Don't threaten to edit war, you seem to be here long enough to know better. Not sure why you say guideline edits need consensus, of course they do (but see also WP:PGBOLD), hence you shouldn't reinstate a reverted edit just because you like it that way (= without consensus here). Also don't try to paint me as if I didn't care for policy, instead argue your case. My arguments are: (1) Removing the link is not an improvement. (2) removing the link doesn't solve the "circularity" issue. (3) the link is instead a good one, because it points to the relevant policy (guiding this guideline). there would still be linking from WP:RS to WP:V. answers none of my points. -- Mvbaron (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue as I see it @Mvbaron: (thanks for jumping in btw) is not the circularity, but the confusion created since we are bluelinking the argument of the predicate, which is the exact subject of this page. Placement of an internal link indicates that the article/WP-page discussing Reliable Sources is a different one. See also bullet point #3 at MOS:LINKSTYLE. "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" See also examples at MOS:BOLDLEAD. As of the circularity, it is true that we can not avoid linking to policy page, and policy page linking to this one. But we can avoid creating the circularity through bluelinking the boldface phrase which is the real problem. My suggestion would be to remove the internal link at the first sentence and add a template just after the title, that would create a sentence like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". There is no circularity problem this way, and yet the one page links to the other one. I think this would be an improvement. I hope other users will contribute to this discussion. This would be the best way to move forward. Cinadon36 06:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support for add a template just after the title ... like "This article is about the guideline, for RS are also discussed in Policy in page ___". That's perfect in my opinion. (Now I feel stupid pointlessly wasting time here when the solution was that easy) :) My only concern was the removal of the link to the policy from the lead alltogether. Thanks for making the effort and coming up with such a good solution. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Mvbaron:! Discussion is the key to improve WP! Cinadon36 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mvbaron:, I used {{for}}. That means the phrase "This article is about the guideline" is left out. It is because there are some other {{for}} at the top of the article. Are you ok? Or should we use {{about}} instead? Cinadon36 07:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
looks good to me, I don't have a preference between the two. Mvbaron (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Cinadon36's edit undoes Mvbaron's edit so all's well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
wut? I didn't edit anything, I reverted one and per BRD we came to a conclusion... Mvbaron (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I think of restoring as a type of edit, I acknowledge that others might not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cinadon36, I think you're looking at the problem narrowly. The biggest problem is that we do not actually have – anywhere – a real definition of what a reliable source is. We talk about how to figure out whether a source is reliable, and the circumscribed circumstances under which a questionable source might be considered reliable, but there is no sentence, either here or in any other sourcing policy or guideline, that looks like a definition.
Imagine that this page used the same lead sentence structure as most articles, so that it began: "A reliable source is..." How would you complete that sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: that is another problem you are pointing. Since this page is a project page and not an article, I believe that first sentence should include the affirmation that WP is written based on RS. Definition of RS, should follow. But that is another discussion. Maybe, more important, all claims of what is reliable or not, should be cited to ...RS [ie a source could be this one [6]) But again, that is a different discussion. Cinadon36 09:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Something approximately along the lines of "WP:V and WP:NOR prohibit editors from adding any material to any article if that material cannot be found in a published reliable source. A reliable source is (whatever the non-existent definition is)."
I don't think that we need to talk about NPOV in the first sentence, especially not in bold-faced type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Again, you are raising some interesting points, and I generally agree with your view. But they have to be addressed in a different section.Cinadon36 06:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_65&oldid=1061007985"