Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archives


Contents

[edit] WP:EL revisions

Please note that WP:EL has been revised... there is one section that may impact this guideline or the various rewrites being drafted:

Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:
2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

This is the first time that I can think of where factually inaccurate material has been discussed in such a explicitly negative way in a guideline. OUR guideline certainly doesn't (nor the draft rewrites that might replace it). Given this, Perhaps the time has come for us to address the issue of sources that contain factually inaccurate material as well.

I know that we have to be careful not to contradict the priciples expressed in WP:NPOV... but I think we could state something similar to what is on WP:EL. I.E. any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research should not be considered reliable. Any thoughts on this? Blueboar 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia needs some sort of quality-control mechanism. I'm a reporter, and if my source gives me bad information, I still get killed by my readers, even if it wasn't my fault the information was misleading. What do you think about banning political or religious propaganda as reliable sources, save for if we are discussing say Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Catholic, atheist propaganda, etc.? Propaganda doesn't require any factual basis to it, and my journalistic instincts say that a third-party, non-partisan source needs to be provided to verify any opinion-based claims. If you say that so-and-so belongs to a certain group, you had better have independed verification from a non-partisan source, such as a reputable newspaper, journal, etc., otherwise letting that slide allows Wikipedia's articles to degenerate to the level of trash and uselessness. With Citizendium on the horizon, Wikipedia needs to be competitive, or suffer Nupedia's fate. Contributors and readers will go elsewhere if they don't trust Wikipedia's content.--FidesetRatio 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On the change to WP:EL: Seems utterly misguided to judge this at the level of a site. By this logic, we can't link IMDB for basic info on the cast of a film because it may have inaccurate or misleading reviews; we can't link a newspaper because it runs misleading personals ads; etc. Surely this cannot mean what it says. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On FidesetRatio's remarks: Do I read you as saying that centrist, capitalist (and perhaps Protestant?) viewpoints are trusted and other viewpoints are inherently "propaganda"? Are you saying, for example, that we should distrust George Orwell as a source because he was a socialist? No thanks. The issue is intellectual honesty, not someone's politics. For example, I trust the BBC, Wall Street Journal, The Nation, and The National Review about equally on factual reporting, which is to say I assume them all to be trying to get their facts right, and usually succeeding, at least in outline. Conversely, I don't trust Fox News any more than Stalinist-era Pravda. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Third-Party Case

I'd like comment (and possible updates to this article as a result) on a strange case occurring on the Shah Rukh Khan article. In order to support the claim that Khan is of Pashtun origin (when other reliable sources state his Pathan roots), users have claimed that the term 'Pathan' is a way of referring to 'Pashtuns' and are attempting to use information on AfghanLand that supports this claim. As far as I can see this site only supports the view that 'Pathan' is a term referring to Pashtuns, and is not in itself a reliable source to reference Khan's supposed Pashtun origins. Am I correct in my understanding of WP:RS?

I was unable to find information on this article that can cater to this situation, so I would appreciate it if these circumstances can be discussed and the article updated if necessary. Regards, Ekantik 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forums as reliable sources

There are some fields of study where the best, current information is available online in moderated forums. A moderated forum is very much like a published journal because expert moderators review the material and challenge or correct any factual errors they identify. I see no reason why we should ascribe special power to paper over electrons. I've boldly edited this page to explain this. Feel free to revert if you think I've been too bold. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed there. A moderated forum under the meaning you're using is far different from the standard forum where I can post whatever I please. -Amarkov blahedits 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about fringe site citations

It is relatively clear that fringe sites may not be used to justify opinions/facts outside of articles about those sites/individuals themselves. I will bring a ficticious scenario first to isolate the issue, and would request that the issue be decided upon without reference to the actual article to prevent any subconcious bias either way. Assume it is notable that a person's work has been used by extremist sites to justify the opinions of those sites (the question here should only relate to WP:RS). Is it acceptable to use those sites' quotations of said person's work as a WP:RS, or must we find a secondary source stating that the primary source uses the persons work. For example. Assume (and for the sake of cordiality I will try and create a rediculous scenario) that the work of Winston Churchill was being used to justify discrimination against the non-indigenous population of Sumatra by the "Sumatran Supremacy Society" (SSS), and assume that is a notable fact. Can the webage of the SSS, which brings a transcript of a radio address by the head of the society, be used as a reference, or must another site (such as discrimination-watch or something like that) which brings the the fact that the transcript is quoted (or even less directly, that the SSS uses Churchill without direct quotes) be used? I think that in this case the site is not being used to justify an opinion or external fact; rather, it is being used to justify that the site/organization itself holds that fact, in which case it should be acceptable under WP:RS. However, there is a debate in the matter, and as such, we would like input here. Thank you. -- Avi 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the site is "fringe" but rather whether it is "extremist". A fringe site might be "People who Sew Buttons on Aspirin Bottles", but other than being perhaps a bit eccentric, there's nothing apparently harmful, obnoxious or insulting there. Your question above however isn't completely clear. Are you trying to bring the source to the page of Winston Churchill? Or are you trying to bring it to the page of SSS ? If the fact that SSS uses the quote in some odd way is notable and impacts on the biography of Churchill, then that could be brought to his page, provided its some sort of criticism/commentary on him, rather than on them. "Fringe" or "Extermist" is a matter of fine gradations. Wjhonson 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. To clarify, the question is to bring the fact that the SSS quotes Churchill's work to support their efforts on Churchill's page. So, if I understand you correctly, it is your opinion that if the fact that the SSS uses Churchil is considered notable in defining Churchil's effect and influence on the political scene, then quoting the SSS's use directly from the SSS page is acceptable, even if they are an extremist group? Or have I misunderstood you? Thanks. -- Avi 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue here is whether the SSS's use of Churchill's is an important and notable fact in a discussion of Churchill. This depends on two sub-factors: 1) how well known the extremist group is, and 2) to what extent they base their beliefs on Chuchill.
On the first sub-factor: If the extremist group is itself truely notable (with coverage in the media etc.), then it might be notable that they quote (or misquote) Churchill. If the SSS is a relatively unknown group then the fact that they quote Churchill is not really noteworthy.
On the second sub-factor, even if the extremist group is well known, it still might not be worthy of mention in the Churchill article. If the quote is a brief, passing quote, it is not really notable. Extensive quotation (to the point where Churchill has obviously played an important roll in developing the extremist group's platform) would be notable.
One final comment... extremist groups are notorious for either misquoting things, or quoting things out of context to support their view... it is always a good idea to check what they say against the original. Blueboar 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, I specifically worded the question in such a way as to focus on the reliable source aspect. Assume that notability is not an issue here, please. Thank you. -- Avi 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, the issue here is whether or not the SSS site itself can be used to show that the SSS uses Churchill to support their beliefs; no more, no less. -- Avi 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case, the question is whether their use of Churchill (or whoever) is extensive or just passing. If extensive, then yes... WP:RS supports citing Churchill (or whoever) as a source. However, I would still double check the original to make sure they are quotion accurately and in context. Blueboar 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, context is needed. A guideline is just that a guide, a recommended approach and not a dogmatic rule. I would suggest that you provide the link to to article in question, so that your question can be addressed in context.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar 04:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, jossi. However, someone interpreted the extremeist clause of WP:RS to be that regardless of notability one can never use extreme sites as sources outside articles about those very sites, and I disagreed saying that one cannot use those sites to support exogenous opinions, but one may use those sites to support the fact that those sites themselves do X, Y, and Z, even in other articles. Of course the notability is a separate issue, but I wanted clarification (and I seem to have obtained that) that if the notability of the extremist site using someone's work is notable, to bring the EXISTANCE of the extremisty site using that work in the PERSON's article is not a violation of WP:RS. -- Avi 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know what article in question it is, ...but I think I will leave it to Avi to tell you ..;-) .. anyway; as I have told Avi, I had a somewhat similar question here back in July; "When to quote "fringe" opinion": [1] From my understanding of the replies then, one should be very retrictive indeed, when quoting "widely acknowledged extremist views". Otherwise one could be opening "a can of worms". (Imagine adding critisism from LaRouche to each and every one who is on their current villain-list: LaRouche_Movement#Current_villains. Ugh.).
Another thing, by having direct links to the web-sites of those with "widely acknowledged extremist views" (say, the "Sumatran Supremacy Society"), we might actually increase the web-traffic to them. The "Sumatran Supremacy Society" will surely be delighted by that, but is this what Wikipedia should do? I think not. Anyway, Avi; as the others want to know the context: I think you should give it to them. Regards, Huldra 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The context is somewhat obvious if you look at my edit history. However, as I mentioned in the initial paragraph, I wanted to get answers unencumbered by bias (subconcious or otherwise, in any direction). Secondly, looking at the specific article in question, it will be very difficult to disentangle the notability issue from the reliable source issue. The question raised here is important enough that it should not be contaminated by other issues. Therefore, I did not ask for opinions about a particular article, but about the application of the WP:RS policy. There is a distinct and specific difference. The notability of the fact in question should be discussed on the article's talk page. The blanking of the facts using WP:RS as a reason seems to me to be a misunderstanding of WP:RS. -- Avi 14:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First off... WP:RS is not policy (much as many would like it to be). It is a Guideline, which is designed to give advice not lay down rules. We can amplify such advice on this talk page, but you should not interpret our advice as dogmatic policy. The policies that seem to relate are WP:V and WP:NPOV. That said... what you are talking about seems to be a case specific example. From what you have told us, someone is blanking information that you feel should be included in an article, and basing the blanking on this guideline. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:RS or not, depending on the specifics. I don't think we can offer good advice on this without taking into account the specifics of the citation and how it relates to the article in question. All we can say is that, in general, Fringe and extremist groups make for poor sources. As I said above, they often twist the facts, take things out of context, and misquote their source material. This is a major reason why the general rule is to avoid using them as a source. Since you have not shared what the article in question is, we can not tell whether this is the case in your particular article. Thus, it is something you and the other editors who work on this article will have to determine on your own. THAT said... It sounds controvercial enough that the material should probably be removed to the talk page while full discussion takes place. Blueboar 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As I remarked a few sections back, I think it is wrong to view this at the level of sites. For example, if (and this is not a hypothetical case) a white supremacist group has a collection of transcriptions of out-of-print, pre-1923 books, and there is every evidence that they are completely legitimate reproductions of the works in question (down to reproducing every footnote and indicating exactly where the pagebreaks are), I can't think why the site's politics should bear on the matter. Conversely, a site can be "mainstream" as all get-out, but intellectually dishonest. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My question isn't even that broad. I want to use the site's hosting a transcript of a radio broadcast of its leader as a source for that leader's use of the works of the article's subject. I understand the notability issue must be fulfilled, but I believe that WP:BLP's "poorly sourced" clause is not applicable, as this is the site talking about itself. Your questino is more intriguing. -- Avi 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Avi, let me see if I can parse out what you are wanting to do... If I understand correctly, you wish to use a transcript of a radio broadcast by an extremist group's leader to cite a statement made by that leader. If you wish to use that source in an article about the group or in an article about the leader, you have no problem. The leader of the group is a reliable source for what that group believes, does and says. However, it sounds like what you really want to do is to use the extremist site in another article ... one about a person who happens to be quoted by the the extremist leader in his broadcast. If so, I would say the source is not reliable, as the leader could be misquoting the person or taking the person's remarks out of context. And if the article in question is BLP, the bar for reliablility is even higher. Any third party statements about living people must be very well sourced indeed.
As an example: Usama Bin Ladin is a notable person... It is concevable that he might quote President Bush in a radio address. This radio broadcast might be considered reliable in an article about Bin Ladin, and even in an article about Al-Queda, but not in an article on President Bush. Blueboar 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for responding, Blueboar. I believe that my question is slightly different than what you state. I would like to use the fact that the leader of an extremist group quotes the subject of the article to show that the subject of the article is used as an inspiration/justification for certain extremist groups. No particlular statement is ever mentioned. I understand that extremist sites are more likely to "twist" particular statements to fit their weltanschauung. I agree that it is safe to say that most of these sites do not adhere to a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV, image:smile.png. This instance is different, IMO, and I am trying to seek a better understanding/consensus of this situation as relates to WP:V, WP:RS, and {{WP:BLP]], as I think it is a more common situation than I had first believed. Thanks. -- Avi 01:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well you have my view that it is not reliable. Take it for what it is worth. By the way, from what you just said, I also suspect that you may also have some problems under the heading of Original Research (See WP:NOR). But that is an argument for a different talk page. Good luck. Blueboar 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not contesting that the sentence in particular may have other issues, Blueboar, which is specifically why I did not reference the original article. I am not asking for absolution, as it were, for this particular edit, I am trying to isolate and pin-down the proper application of WP:RS in a case where I believe the current wording is weak and ambiguous. Whether or not the actual sentence remains in the article is ancillary, for the purposes of this discussion. The issue was, and remains, can the statement "X has been quoted by Y", sourced by bringing the source where Y quotes X, when Y is an extremist site, be deleted by WP:BLP for being "poorly sourced". I still think the answer should be an unequivocable no, as the single best proof of the fact that Y quotes X is to show exactly WHERE Y quotes X. Bringing The New York Times or NPR quoting Y quoting X instead strikes me as the equivalent of scratching your left ear by using someone elses right hand. Now, in this particular instance, issues of notability and original synthesis may remain (although it is more difficult for me to see that the very fact that the person has been quoted is an example of original synthesis, if all that is being done is stating that such a quotation exists, with no inference being drawn), but these are not matters for this page, but the talk page of the article, and perhaps the talk pages of those particular guidelines and policies. Once again, thank you for your input. -- Avi 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As Huldra pointed out at the talk page of the article in question (Naeim Giladi), the fact that a fringe group reproduces or quotes the subject on the article is not notable in itself. They quote many people. If no secondary source that meets WP:RS has mentioned that fact, the fact in itself is not notable and is not deserving of inclusion in the article, particularly since WP:BLP dissuades us from introducing material that may be seen as libellous. Asserting that the subject's claims are popular among neo-nazi extremist groups based on two passing references by neo-nazis in the fringe sites they control themselves or on a fringe radio broadcast, is WP:OR, as implied in earlier postings above ont his subject. A link is being made between the subject and neo-nazi groups based on less than compelling evidence (two passing references in the fringe media of neo-nazis themselves). Tiamut 11:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tiamut. Your comments are welcome, but it appears that you did not read the entire discussion before adding your comments. Atthe risk of repeating myself for the third time, the question posed here is not to find "permission" for the quote of the article in question, which was specifically left out for a reason -- it would have been polite to honor the request as Huldra did -- but to gain clarity in understanding in the application of the principles of WP:RS as it relates to certain sites. Your bringing in issues of notability is completely and totally out-of-scope of this question, and only serves to obfuscate the issue. As I have said around three times, those issues need to be handled on the articles talk page, not here. Here we are discussing ONLY the issue of using certain sites as sources in specific instances. I understand you have a particular feeling about this article, and understand why you may feel defensive, but your comments here, in my opinion, do not help the discussion of THIS issue. Please continue to discuss your issues with the statement on the articles talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 16:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But, I think that the notability issue is part of the evaluation. In order to know whether to include the statement "Y quoted X as saying Q" should be included, we need to know more than the fact that Y did actually so quote X. We must make sure that we are not unduly publicizing a libelous statement by Y about X, which means that at least one of the following statements is true:
  1. X actually said Q.
  2. X doesn't object to the quotation.
  3. Y's statement is of vital public interest.
  4. Y's statement has already been so widely publicized that further publicity matters little.
The last two questions are the notability issue. If reliable media have decided that the dispute is a public one, or of vital public importance, Wikipedia will take their word for it. If they haven't, then Wikipedia shouldn't risk becoming part of the problem. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the evaluation for the sentence in this particular article, perhaps, which I have never argued. But not part of the evaluation in using the "pooly sourced" reason for deletion. Notability and sourcing are two different issues. -- Avi 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's hair-splitting. I gave you the reasoning. If you want it in black and white, I quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of dubious reliability: "Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." That is not a guideline, that is policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is hair-splitting, but sometimes hairs need to be split; especially when the hair may be too thick to be useful. Thank you for your time. -- Avi 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester example

An example where the line gets blurry is tax-protester material. There are fringe books and websites that argue the position that Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never ratified. The position has been litigated and rejected so many times that the Supreme Court has recognized it as frivolous -- such an obvious waste of everyone's time that bringing it up can get you fined. When it comes to intepretation of the law, that's about as unreliable as a source can be. Yet, the popular influence of those positions is manifest. While there are articles on those self-published works and the specific fringe theories, an article about income tax or the 16th Amendment would be incomplete without mentioning the arguments and their refutations. The refutations do not include a full description of the arguments, so references to the primary source material seemed warranted. If you will, we interpret the rule as including sections about the self-published works within larger articles, where understanding the self-published work is necessary to an understanding of the topic.

In the case of a BLP, if Smith has accused Jones of incest in his self-published book, and the libel trial was a significant event, then the fact of the accusation is reliably reported, and it may be appropriate to cite the primary source. Or not, depending on a lot of factors. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Source W alleged the erroneous/fraudulent/libellous claim X, but this was rebutted by critics such as Y, and legally refuted in court case Z." For any such statement, I would expect to see a citation for source W alleging X, despite the fact that it would be (as just indicated) an unreliable source on the issue of the truth or falsehood of X, as long as it was reliable on the issue of W having alleged X. This would apply to any discussion of notable fakes, frauds, liars, misrepresentations, etc., e.g. the careers of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, or Clifford Irving's Hitler Diary hoax. There are online mythbusters who conscientiously cite (where possible) and then debunk fakery, such as Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, Barbara Mikkelson at Snopes.com, David Brock and crew at Media Matters, and the Annenberg Foundation's Fact Check. These are not "encyclopedic" sites, but they do exemplify how and when to cite unreliable sources. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:19, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Fiction as historical fact

During my time here, I've come into conflict with editors using historical fiction as sources. See here: Talk:Scottish pork taboo and Talk:Black Irish#Black Scots. It seems a no-brainer to me that one should never, ever use works as fiction as historical sources. Even if it sounds convicing, or it was written during the time. Authors are under no obligation to include accurate facts in their stories, and there is no clear dividing line between the fact and the fiction. I suggest that this article be updated to include a sentence making this explicitly clear.--Nydas(Talk) 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be safe to add the {{fiction}} template to these articles, until the fiction/non-fiction issues are resolved.
  • These things can be tricky and take considerable time to resolve, compare List of legendary kings of Britain: the problem there is that present-day historians are all agreeing that that article's main source (Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae) is a mixture of fiction and non-fiction, but that it is very difficult to separate the one from the other (e.g. it's impossible to label it "complete fiction", while, for instance, some real Roman Emperors, that in reality ruled Britain, are included in the list). --Francis Schonken 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And there's another borderline category: Bjorn Kurten's Dance of the Tiger was written to present his conjecture about the end of the Neanderthals. He's a paleontologist, but chose not to write it as an academic paper, because he doesn't think "just-so" stories belong in journals. But it's an interesting conjecture, and we should mention it (as Kurten's opinion).
    • Again, many historical novels have extensive end-notes about what is historical; those are often good sources: Claudius the God for example, or several of the novels of Gillian Bradshaw. An early novel on space-flight had a 60 page technical appendix.
    • I doubt Nydas is dealing with either of these; but we should be careful with wording. Septentrionalis 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And, just to further demonstrate how things blur, there are speculative essays by Larry Niven and Isaac Asimov that are oriented towards the writing of fiction, but contain some of the most lucid explanations (for a non-specialist) of certain scientific matters that I have seen. IIRC, the technical appendix referenced above fits into this category. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Much of this can be aleviated by proper labeling in the article. You should never state something from a work of fiction as fact. But you can state it as being the author's conjecture that is presented in a work of fiction. Blueboar 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
But, when a publisher includes a nonfiction essay in the same volume as a work of fiction by the same author, the nonfiction status is clear, and the author a qualified researcher, there should be no objection to citing the factual or critical material. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In the case of the Scottish pork taboo, it has been suggested that a footnote in the Fortunes of Nigel is a reasonable source. Opinions? Obviously this is more complex that I had first thought. However, I still feel that there must be stronger sources for this taboo, if it actually existed.--Nydas(Talk) 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sir Walter was a wonderful writer, but an indifferent historian. This is, after all, the man who gave us the howler bar sinister. I wouldn't rely on him for particulars, although he would be a valid example of notability of that (or any other) practice. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The notes to Fortunes of Nigel are definitely non-fiction; and many of Sir Walter's notes cite primary sources; but the warning is well-taken: as a historian, he is both careless and dated. Therefore insisting on a modern historian is probably reasonable. (But this is no worse than the dozens of articles which give Herodotus or Plutarch or Livy without any trace of secondary sources; so it may be best to settle for "Sir Walter Scott says..." which will warn the prudent.) Septentrionalis 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I notice that the dispute tag was silently removed from the page last week, but I don't think that means that the problems with it have necessarily gone away. Anyway, the rewrite seems to have stabilized lately and is looking pretty good, so I'd like to revive discussion about this again. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite. If you have any comments about it, let's discuss (or feel free to update it if you feel something needs to be changed). My hope is to (eventually) reach consensus to replace the current text of the page with this rewrite or something close to it. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it will need a few more sections dealing with how certain specific but common issues should be dealt with. But I agree that the re-write is an improvement. I also know that WP:ATT is coming close to being ready. For those who are backing WP:ATT ... I have a request:
I would like to propose that while you work on ATT, you also help us perfect the re-write. I know some feel that doing so would be a waste of time, since they feel ATT is the way to go... However, given that getting a new policy approved is a very difficult and time consuming process, I don't think we should wait for that approval. I would like to get a better version of the RS guideline up and running sooner rather than later. You can think of it as a "stop gap" until ATT gets approved if you wish. My point is that the re-write could use the input of all those who criticize the existing guideline in its current form. Blueboar 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the specific examples, my idea for that is that we could have a sub-page of WP:RS with all of these examples. Would that meet your needs? If so, I can work on that next.JYolkowski // talk 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That works for me... it is not unsimilar to the FAQ page they have at WP:ATT. Blueboar 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Things have been a bit headless so I haven't had time to really think about the rewrite.
I'd suggest that it does need to be supplemented with some specific examples to illustrate the concepts that have been outlined, we need to service the diversity of the editing community and acknowledge that some will need a lot of guidance where others won't. I also think that the work at ATT is glossing over the real issues of reliability in the bid to be all things to all men. It's a bit ambitious trying to encompass the content of two policies and a slack handful of guidelines in one easily readable article so it's going to need to be supported by other articles anyway.
With that in mind if we can agree the principles section, which does need a bit of refinement, we can port it across on the top of the RS article. After that we can get rid of the bulk of the specific examples and just have a choice few, either embedded or in a supporting article.
We'd probably need to identify an ongoing approach to how to embody the common law precedents that will emerge over time as well.
ALR 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As for examples, my opinion is that they should probably be left out in order to avoid bloat, although I think that brief illustrations such as "For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics" or "Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs ... published news media (The Economist) ... professional or peer reviewed journal (Nature)." are a good idea within the guideline themselves. The above illustrations are already there, so good work on those.
However, I would agree that there's definitely a need to have examples somewhere. So, I have created Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples and added a link in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite to it. Right now it's just a copy of some stuff from WP:RS and hence it's likely problematic in parts, but feel free to edit as required. I don't think the examples page has to be perfect, but any improvements would be cool. JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any further questions/comments/objections? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Since I've seen some good comments about it both here and above, and no-one's complained, I'll replace the current page text with it tomorrow unless someone objects by then (at least that way, if there are significant objections, that should surface them). JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stock exchange as source of information regarding a company

User:Elonka has rightly enough declared that The Westfield Group is lacking reasonable sources.

Is The Australian Stock Exchange website any better a source for information regarding the company, than the companies' own website? Is it a primary or a secondary source (given, it is just regurgitating the information companies have provided it with in their annual reports etc)?Garrie 03:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Westfield Group's website would be a primary source and the ASE's website would be a secondary source. As to which provides more reliable information... that is problematic. I would certainly use the WG's website to to cite what the company says about itself. The ASE is a possible source for what others say about the company. I would also suggest doing some research and see at what is said about the company in the financial section of what ever newspaper is Australia's equivalent of the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, FT, etc. Blueboar 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The ASE website aggregates material over a period and illustrates the view of the market as to the value of the firm over time. It doesn't discuss the reasons for that view which might be inferred from performance statistics but are more probably illuminated by some other form of reporting on strategic decision making. I'd suggest that reliable assessments of strategy should come from independent media sources as suggested by BlueBoar, probably more reliable than the firms own pronouncements about its strategy since those would be an item of competitive intelligence.
That said, I'd be cautious of running into OR issues about the use of financial information which requires a level of corporate finance knowledge to interpret and is subject to a lot of potential ambiguity, whilst accounting principles are explicitly stated, how they might be used is subject to opportunities.
I'd also say that financial accounts and the supporting notes has been audited and the auditor will have made a judgment on their reliability, which will be identified in the accounts as well.
I don't think it's as simple as is the source reliable, but is the source useful in the context for which it is to be used.
ALR 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Mainly I was looking for a simple reliable source to verify that the company is an australian registered company with identified chairman and board members. Regardless of what The Australian Financial Review have to say about a company - it will always be a snapshot and any article they write will be dated. Wheras if asx.com.au is used as a source then quite soon after appointing new chairman / board members the information will be updated. So I persoanlly tend to prefer it for straightforward factual information "chairman of the board is....", "turnover 2005-06 was $...".Garrie 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Another trying point - the fin's website is a subscription service only so I won't be citing it any time soon.Garrie 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In the UK we have [[www.companieshouse.gov.uk Companies] House, which is the register of LLPs, Private and Public Limited Companies. If there is an equivalent then that would be a reliable indication of the information you are wanting to include.ALR 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with general encyclopedias?

Scholars and professors warn their students away from general encyclopedias (like Encarta and Ency Brit) for good reason. These encyclopedia are strictly space limited and rarely have the space to explain the nuances, look at alternative explanations, examine the scholarship or provide citations to the primary sources or the scholarly literature. Instead they give a "least common denominator." They are adequate only when solid secondary sources are not available. Usually most articles are written or updated by staffers, not experts. (If it's unsigned, it's written by a staffer who grinds out so many words a week on all topics.) Some of the older Encyclopedia continue to be useful (they had more space to work with and it was more prestigious to write for them)-- such as EB 1911 (11th ed) and the older 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (all 3 are online). Rjensen 08:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed the phrasing slightly. Saying that encyclopedias are not reliable if secondary sources are available sounds odd: how does the existence of another source make a source less reliable? The point is that secondary sources are nearly always preferable. I can't see any objection to a tertiary source for incidental geographic facts, and I can imagine that some explanations might be more lucid than a professional scholar writing for other professionals, so I avoided the absolute. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Students are warned away from encyclopedias because they are not sufficient for in in-depth scholarly research, not based on their reliability. The reliability of the source must be examined in the same way as for encyclopedias as for any secondary source. There continue to be Britannica articles that are signed and written by known scholars, and my Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains only such signed articles and is a tertiary source. Some encyclopedia articles may be less reliable than secondary sources, but that is different from a blanket discouragement to always favor secondary sources. This is also an issue with the Wikipedia editor doing the interpretation of sources. We can with similar justification say that primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, but we must favor secondary sources because the anonymous Wikipedian is not necessarily a reliable interpreter. There is no justification for categorically disfavoring encyclopedias when the expert in the field, or even the merely intelligent encyclopedia editor, is more reliable than some Wikipedia contributors. —Centrx→talk • 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
General encyclopedias have been taken over by the salesmen, I fear, and most articles are now turned out by staffers or free lancers. A few are written by noted authorities, but those folks have severe space limitations and are usually warned to try to reach a "general" audience. The areticles are "reliable" in that they try to get the dates and spelling right, but they rarely provide the depth of solid scholarly books and articles. The point is that when scholarly books and articles are available, they should be preferred in Wiki. Note that there are many specialized encylopedias--like the Dictionary of National Biography in history or Grove's in music--that are really quite good and should be used. Rjensen 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some articles are still written by experts, and the encyclopedias of the past, like EB 1911, are still encyclopedias and tertiary sources. The reliability of a tertiary source must be examined in the same way as the reliability of a secondary source. Some are more reliable than others, but not because they are secondary rather than tertiary.
  • Even if an article is written by someone merely equally intelligent as the Wikipedia contributor in question, it is a standard, relatively neutral baseline that supports and corroborates other interpretation. This is also important for controversial subjects where it is easy for disputing editors to find various secondary sources that support their respective positions.
—Centrx→talk • 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
For 11 years I worked at a library near the headquarters of Ency. Brit in Chicago, and saw the freelancers at work. They were intelligent people who could write clearly and quickly. They were paid by the word (like $100 for 1000 words), and ground it out without looking back. They checked out a half dozen monographs but less often consulted the journals to see the multiple views out there. Their articles rarely mentioned the scholarly debates that raged on specific topics. As freelancers they did it for the $ and moved quickly to the next topic. Some were graduate students, but they were hired as generalists rather than specialists. Senior editors --who were not experts either--evaluated their text primarily for clarity; there was a premium on getting exact names, dates and places. Rjensen 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia editor could very well be using just one "more reliable" secondary source. The freelancer may not be doing good research, but favoring secondary sources over tertiary sources does not ensure that the Wikipedia editor is doing any better research. —Centrx→talk • 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The real key to scholarly work is to use multiple sources that support each other, and in most circumstance this is possible. If two credible sources disagree with each other, then that's when an evaluation of which is most credible becomes mandatory. All we can do as unpaid helpers is to ensure we determine through WP:V which sources are the best. All in all, there are no perfect sources. Encyclopedias should always be secondary sources of information unless there are no other primary sources available...and that's rather rare.--MONGO 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • err...you might want to find some other term than primary/secondary when discussing tertiary sources, unless I misunderstand your point. Leading/supporting sources of information? Robert A.West (Talk) 09:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources for bare facts such as names and dates and are frequently used as sources for stubs. While signed articles are written by experts and may be of high quality, most articles are written or updated by staffers. Such articles are strictly space limited and rarely explain nuances, look at alternative explanations, examine the scholarship or provide citations to the primary sources or the scholarly literature. Instead of settling for this "least common denominator" approach, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to use solid secondary sources and thoroughly explore the topic; however, some of the older encyclopedias continue to be useful, as they had more space to work with and it was more prestigious to write for them. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that reliability is not always a "yes or no" concept. First, some encyclopedias are more reliable than others. Second, most tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias, are obviously reliable up to a point. The key question is how reliable are they on a SPECIFIC point? In other words, it depends on what you are trying cite from an encyclopedia. For basic facts (such as who the Earl of Warwick was in 1425, or what the major exports of Iceland are) an encyclopedia might be quite reliable. For more nuanced information (such as what the root causes of the American Civil War were) an encyclopedia is likely to be less reliable (as they do not enough space to cover the issue in depth). And I am sure that we can think of situations where a given encyclopedia might not be reliable at all (for example, I seriously doubt that a German encyclopedia from the late 1930s would have a reliable article on Jewish people).
When it comes down to specific citations, discussion about the degree of reliablility, and whether or not to use it, needs to take place at the article level. We can not make blanket statements. Blueboar 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic and Jewish Encyclopedias

I have cut the reference to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia being an example of a reliable tirtiary source. This is not a slight on Catholics, or even a slight on the CE. The CE is an EXCELLENT reference for what it is. But: 1) The CE is not a general encyclopedia, but one specificly geared to Catholics. 2) The CE has a distinct bias, ie it presents its information from a Catholic viewpoint. The CE is an superb source if you want to know about this Catholic viewpoint (or at least what it was in 1913... it is outdated today), but it is definitely not reliable for presenting other viewpoints.

I did not cut the Jewish Encyclopedia, but only because I have never seen it. Based purely on the name, I would assume the same arguments apply... but without knowing for sure, I do not feal I have the right to cut it. Blueboar 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something "has" a bias should not disallow it. I realise that you were only removing it from the "general encyclopedias" section, however, it is definitely not an "un"reliable source, it just has one of the many viewpoints that are needed for an overall neutral viewpoint. even the old britannica has huge biases, however, it is still useful. Ansell 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's still a reliable source for Catholic subjects, and if we're going to give examples why not use that one? --tjstrf talk 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
COuld be used if properly attributed, and not used as assertions of fact, but of opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic and Jewish encyclopedia are wonderfully detailed sources that contain vast amounts of information not easily available anywhere else. Space limits seem to have been very generous indeed. Ditto the 11th EB. (My guess is that the publishers in those days wanted more-more-more, rather than today's less-less-less.) Whether or not a specific article should be cited is best left up to our editors who will read it carefully first. Rjensen 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I would use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia unapologetically for period-specific statements about canon law, liturgy, the organizational structure of the Church and so on. Also, one of the things that is valuable about the 1911 Britannica is that it gives strong positions. NPOV does not tell us to use only unbiased sources, but to do our best to ensure that the article as a whole is neutral. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
folks, can we focus on the original question... the issue isn't whether the CE and JE are reliable sources or not. The issue is listing them in the guideline - and more specificly listing them in the specific paragraph on tertiary sources. Prior to my cut, the paragraph in question read (I have put the key line in bold):
  • A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. However Wikipedia may be used as a primary source about Wikipedia, subject to the constraints above. Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources for bare facts such as names and dates. Scholars and professors warn their students away from these general encyclopedias because they are strictly space limited and rarely have the space to explain the nuances, look at alternative explanations, examine the scholarship or provide citations to the primary sources or the scholarly literature. Instead they give a "least common denominator." Usually most articles are written or updated by staffers, not experts. (If it's unsigned, it's written by a staffer.) They are adequate only when solid secondary sources are not available. However, some of the older encyclopedia continue to be useful (they had more space to work with and it was more prestigious to write for them)-- such as Encyclopedia Britannica 1913 (11th ed) the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
For the reasons I stated above, I did not think the 1913 CE belonged in that last line - so I cut it. Now, Does anyone know anything about the 1906 JE... Does it have similar concerns regarding bias and generality? (in other words, should we cut it as well?). Blueboar 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of Proportion

tbh we could do with a sense of proportion here, the section being discussed is about Tertiary Sources, not Encyclopedias in general. We could quite easily get rid of most of that text and actually add to the informational value of the paragraph.

I'll suggest looking at the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite page yesterday regarding sources as a model, it gets rid of a lot of the verbose cruft in the sources section.ALR 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extremist websites

Regarding the following websites; faithfreedom.org, answering-islam.org, and jihadwatch.org, in the reliable sources article, it says the following about extremist websites:

"Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution."

Since it says they should be used only in articles about the person and their activities, can they be consitered reliable for articles about critics perspectives on Islam?--Sefringle 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

These may be used in that case, but with caution, if only to present these orgs POV, citations are properly attributed to them, and never used as assertions of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Are the opinions of these organizations relevant to pages that are not about the websites themselves, considering the extremism that is obvious in their opinions? BhaiSaab talk 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The reader should know where a potentially controversial source is coming from on the political spectrum when a source is presented: liberal, conservative, Communist, Fascist, etc., in my opinion. Let the reader make up his or her mind over who is right and who is wrong in a controversy.

--FidesetRatio 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that faithfreedom.org, answering-islam.org, and jihadwatch.org are extremist. They are partisan, yeah, but they are no more extremist than, say, something calling for Sharia law. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media bias

Shouldn't this article say more about how to handle media bias in general -- newspapers, documentaries, etc? It cautions against citing the popular press in science, but I was a bit disappointed that there's not much more guidance about it in general terms. — jammycakes 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When lay journalists report about science, they frequently either misunderstand the findings, or twist the findings to fit their POV. That's my experience from having worked inside the newspaper field.--FidesetRatio 05:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear sentence

I removed the following as I can't work out what it's trying to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone.)"

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture ("Requests for clarification" section) --Francis Schonken 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's something missing from the ArbCom sentence, where you added dots. Perhaps with those words it would be clear? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what it means now. It says:
"2) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies. Therefore, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for 'bisexual "James Dean"' [56] — the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."
This isn't completely accurate as written. A substantial body of material might still be composed entirely of terrible sources. The sentence is therefore saying "the least terrible source counts as reliable, in the absence of reliable sources," but that's unworkable as currently written, especially for BLPs. Also, nothing in this guideline may contradict V, which is policy, and the unclear sentence does appear to contradict it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We have many articles on many subjects which are not addressed by scholarly research, particularly persons such as Elvis and other celebrities. In such cases the best available sources may be popular culture sources such as People. These sources are generally reliable, but are not of the first quality. It is inappropriate to characterize such a source as terrible. Fred Bauder 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Fred Bauder missed the word "might" in SlimVirgin's comment. The best available source might be an article in People, which is fine. In another case, the sources might consist of 700 anonymous newsgroup posts, and one newsgroup post with an author's name and email address; suppose the author is not a known authority on the subject. So this newsgroup post is the best available source, but it isn't good enough for Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I'll have to remember the phrase "least terrible"; I can think of too many occasions I would have used it. --Gerry Ashton 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My favorite description of an article is from Jimbo, when he described a page to a newspaper as "horrific crap." ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Re. "where you added dots": this is called ellipsis. The ellipsis replaced an example. As far as I can see the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case only cites examples that are not involved with WP:BLP. Point taken: the principles listed in the "Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone" case are probably not intended for BLPs. I'd still invite the ArbCom to clarify that point.
    • In that case we were addressing a person who is not living; however, his estate remains quite active, so there is still a reputation to maintain. In the case of living persons controversial material requires a good source. Fred Bauder 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I fail to see a contradiction between what Jimbo says and the ArbCom ruling. Seeing "contradictions" where there are none could be divisive. If you think Jimbo needs to overrule this ArbCom ruling, ask him. I'm wary about "hineininterpretierung" and second-guessing of "true" meanings of what Wikipedians say. If it's not clear, ask them. --Francis Schonken 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is free to adopt a stricter standard; provided they are willing to require that standard across the board. Our practice is to use marginal sources for marginal subjects. See for example BatMUD. The only source for that is the MUD's webpages and the personal experience of those who play it. I think that is probably OK. Fred Bauder 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet, and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

As written, this does not reflect our general practice. Fred Bauder 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It may not reflect your general practice... but it does relfect Wikipedia Policy... specificly Wikipedia:Verifiability where it says:
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Thus, either your general practice should be corrected to follow WP:V, or you need to convice the community that WP:V needs to change. This guideline, being a sub-page to explain an aspect of WP:V will follow along should WP:V change. Blueboar 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] are newspapers primary or secondary?

The article says "More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the London Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers." I thought newspapers were secondary sources--the articles are written by newspaper reporters based on original documents and interviews which are primary sources. They go through an editorial and fact checking process which increases their reliability, and the newspaper publisher weighs their relevance before deciding to use up paper and ink on them. So I think the quoted sentence should be edited to clarify this issue. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some information in newspapers may be more primary or secondary than other information. Actual breaking news, in which events and statements are reported, and investigative reporting, in which the journalist is doing original research, are rather primary. There is fact-checking and editing, but it may only be hastily done within a day, or not at all, and journalists may be premiering new information that may ultimately be proved wrong on further analysis, and most newspapers articles seek to present the he-said she-said sides of the issue and what happened very rawly. Other articles may contain, for example, summaries of current events that may extend back years and be based on a review of the collective primary sources on the subject, which would be more secondary. —Centrx→talk • 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Primary" and "secondary" are very elusive terms, for the reasons given above. It is simplistic to regard sources themselves as reliable for their information or not. We can say whether a source is reliably published—as you say, most newspapers meet the criterion—but the information within must then be scrutinised for its reliability. The terms "primary" and "secondary" don't necessarily come into that; but if you want to look at it that way, you could say that a scholarly book review in the newspaper is a reliable secondary source, whereas a self-penned article of the type "My secret fling with Sven Goran Eriksson" might be regarded as a dodgy primary one. qp10qp 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We ought also remember, and I apologize for beating this hobby horse again, but it's vital to writing a functional sourcing guideline, that primary and secondary sources are not ontological categories. "My secret fling" is a dodgy primary source for Sven Goran Eriksson, but a rock-solid one for an article on the author or the article itself. The scholarly book review is a secondary source, unless we're writing about the scholar writing the review, in which case it's a primary source. There is no source whatsoever that is always one or the other, which is why the categories provide little guidance on sources and mostly guidance on original research. Phil Sandifer 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how they are used. Works are not inherently "primary" or "secondary" any more than they are inherently "sources". When an editor choses to use a work as a source they can treat it as a primary source or a secondary source. The best choice of which way to use a work depends a number of factors. There is no quick answer to say "use newspaper as X sources". It is not that simple.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Our primary/secondary definition works well in 99% of the cases. That's quite adequate for a general Wiki rule. (Perfection seekers?--those folks don't lurk at Wiki) Historians long ago solved the newspaper problems and list them under primary sources. A newspaper, I suggest, is "primary" when the reporter is at the scene taking notes. Ads, editorials, obits and letters to editor are also primary. Most feature articles ("Old Days in Old Town") probably are secondary. Rjensen 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It really depends on the subject. I cannot agree that 99% of works which "summarize[s] one or more primary or secondary sources" should be used as secondary sources in Wikipedia. But I think we essentially agree that newspapers are generally used as primary sources but also contain higher qualitty articles which can be used as secondary sources.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the useful discussion above. There are some editors that keep placing newspaper accounts as secondary sources, as a way to assert that these accounts are at the same level of credibility of a scholarly book published on the subject. I would appreciate a paragraph in the guideline that summarizes the views expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative Tertiary Sources

The guideline seems to discourage the use of general encyclopedias like Encarta, but can we please expand on the use of authoritative tertiary sources like the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of Islam, which are written by scholars? It seems to be acceptable, but I want to be sure. BhaiSaab talk 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "tertiary" is in my opinion meaningless, though it attempts to indicate that a source is based on a secondary source that was based on a primary source, as if it is a sort of informational grandchild. In fact, some encyclopedia articles are, as you indicate, written by scholars who might use primary sources, while many books that this policy might regard as secondary sources are based entirely on other secondary sources.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with citing other encyclopedias, but my opinion is that one shouldn't do so unless one can't find a better source. Also, it feels to me a bit like poaching to cite, say, Britannica, though I have done it on rare occasions when that is the only source I can find for a detail (when doing so, I regard my cite as a stopgap until someone has the material to replace it with something better). Some articles in religious and other specialist encyclopedias, though, are written by named scholars who may even lead their field; don't be put off from cites to such sources—they will gain weight if you can name the particular writer. qp10qp 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, one must be careful when using Group Specific Encyclopedias (We keep using the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Islam, and the Catholic Encyclopedia as examples... but this extends to any enclyclopedia written with a specific group in mind, not just ones written for religious groups). These are wonderful, authoritive sources for citations as to topics relating to the group in question, but they are not always authoritive on topics relating to things outside that group. In other words they all have a bias that must be taken into account when judging its reliability on a given subject. Also, when using any tertiary source, make sure to use the most recent edition if possible... even statements about basic facts can become outdated over time. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia would probably not be a very reliable source for an article on Iraq (For one thing, it would call the area Mesopotamia, and tell you it was a province of the Ottoman Empire). Blueboar 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In these cases, I would argue that is possible (and probably very useful to our readers) to describe what such "partisan" encyclopedias say about a subject. For example, I would find it interesting to read the differences in presenting the Spanish inquisition between the Jewish encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. That is a wonderful example of how such sources could be used - Historiography (the study of how different texts present the same historical event) can be quite facinating. Blueboar 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite, again

As discussed most recently in #Rewrite above and ad nauseum above, a rewrite has been in progress for a little while. Since the comments that I've seen about the rewrite have been generally positive and no-one has objected to me replacing the current text of the page with the rewrite, I've boldly done so. Please discuss here if you feel the need to. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we have lost some critical discussions about Original Research, and Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources. They have to go back in. Rjensen 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem with doing rewrites on a separate page. Probably the best way to proceed is for you to add back whatever you think is important if you haven't already done so and we can work from there. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the material put back in by Slimvirgin earlier is probably already covered in the supporting FAQ, which rather neatly reflects the direction that ATT has gone. Personally I'd advocate taking all the specific stuff out and leaving it in the FAQ to keep this to a readable length and to illustrate that the content here is guideline and the detailed stuff is example.
Other than that I think it was a sensible time to port the material across, and given the amount of tinkering it seems that the foundation in the rewrite was sound.
Notwithstanding that I'm not convinced that the sources sections really needs to be any longer than it was. Of course if there is other amplification about OR which could go in then that would be reasonable, I'm not convinced at present though since most of the recent argument was pretty circular and inconclusive.
ALR 11:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What FAQ is that, ALR? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point?

Could someone please explain the point of this page? There is nothing in here of any use or importance that isn't in V or NOR; at least the previous version had subject guidance (not that I liked it), but the rewrite is even closer to V and NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, I've reverted because your lead seems unnecessarily long-winded. [2] What is wrong with or missing from the current version, in your view? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, can anyone say what the point of this page is and in what important ways it differs from WP:V? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The current version of this guideline, adds nothing to what is already in WP:V and WP:NOR. A guideline is supposed to guide editors in their editing endeavor. This page simply repeats V and NOR and adds some more details about non-scholarly sources at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well for starters it's somewhat pithier and less opaque than both. At present the policies make the big assumption that people actually know what they mean. Given that many contributors aren't intellectually mature enough to really understand the subtleties of the policies they need something to support the editorial process.
Slimvirgin, I note that you're the one that actually ported much of WP:V into this article, so I find the argument somewhat specious. Noting that you're wedded to WP:ATT as a panacea for the worlds ills one wonders what your motivation was for doing that?
It may be that the protracted discussion around this is exposing the need for guidance around research, information and knowledge within WP, of which reliability is one small part.
ALR 08:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying that Given that many contributors aren't intellectually mature enough to really understand the subtleties of the policies they need something to support the editorial process. is the 'wrong understanding upon which to write a guideline, and reflects poorly on you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you think that accepting that many contributors haven't yet finished their basic schooling isn't an appropriate mindset?ALR 15:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it takes our anti-expertise bias to a new level such that we can call ourselves "The encyclopedia made to be written by stupid people." Phil Sandifer 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to the encyclopedia written by multiple, mutually incompatible, committees and occasional tyranny :) ALR 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Archive?

Now that the re-write has been imported, perhaps we should Archive discussions that deal specifcly with the old version. Just a suggestion. Blueboar 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, this page is only 357 kilobytes. I thought maybe we could go for the record...  ;-) -- Visviva 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploit sources?

Exploit sources? What's that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple, if you understand what sources are and how their representation can be manipulated by playing one off against the other then you're better able to create a more meaningful and concise section of text. At present a lot of articles are verbose and clumsy, one of the ways to deal with that is by supporting and understanding of how data, information and knowledge interact.ALR 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Could you try and explain your reasons before making substantial changes to the current wording, so editors have a chance to comment rather than having to revert your changes? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

tbh I think that there is a balance to be sought between treating people as idiots and assuming too much of them, it appears that I'm now guilty of assuming too much capacity of other editors.
Anyway, with respect to the two edits which you've just reverted:
  • SV is complaining that this page conatinas duplicate material, the first edit removed a point which was clear duplication, since it was a verbatim copy of the policy.
  • The second reduced needless verbage whose quality was reminiscent of a schoolchild. The point was also clearly articulated, the main point of the section was brought to the top and the four points were articulated in clearer, pithier language. You'll note that my changes didn't change the substance of the section, merely sought to improve the informational content.
I'm very sorry that the change was too subtle for you to appreciate, although given the enthusiasm for reverting almost everything I've done to the language as it stands I'm of the opinion that it's the individual being addressed here, not the content.
ALR 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly and non-scholarly

I note that the section on principles has been split into two, asserting without substance that peer reviewed journals are inherently more reliable than anything else. The point of the principles section was to explore reliability as a concept when assessing sources, and these principles apply to journals as much as anything else. The separation is deceptive to the casual reader who doesn't understand research.

The peer review process doesn't actually include some of the principles, so they're not inherently more reliable for the purposes of encyclopedic description. I'd propose that it's removed.ALR 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I note that nobody has actually addressed this issue, in the absence of an argument to the contrary I would intend to remove the paragraph in the next 24 hours.ALR 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. I've tried to make clear that the assessment is required in all cases, but included the caveat that some scholarship is closer to reliability already.ALR 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your rewrite was an improvement. After all, I don't really see what the scholarly/non-scholarly distinction intended to contribute to the WP:RS guideline, as the proposed criteria are the same criteria that are used for assessing the reliability of academic writings:
  • A writing wouldn't be truly "scholarly" or "academic" if it didn't score high on the proposed criteria;
  • Any writing scoring very high on all of the proposed criteria, would to a certain degree be at least "scholarly".
In sum, imho the scholarly/non-scholarly distinction as it was originally added to the guideline only made that guideline more fuzzy/bloated, without really adding anything essential. --Francis Schonken 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely surprised that the change got reverted, despite the week long opportunity to comment on the suggestion. Notwithstanding thqat I'd like to see some reason for ostensibly academic sources being essentially allowed in without critical evaluation.ALR 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • A tip: next time you introduce the rewrite in the guideline, add "per [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Scholarly and non-scholarly]]" to the edit summary: avoids confusion;
  • Generally, I think that if a publication is "academic" or "scholarly", that eases the burden on the editor wanting to use that publication as "reliable source". It's more or less auto-defined to be reliable enough to use as a source in Wikipedia, without needing to go in the details. Nonetheless I'm going to list some examples here to show that the "scholarly" or "academic" epithets in some cases need a closer look, e.g.:
    • If a university professor is a poet or novelist, and has some of these writings published by a University Press, these are not automatically "scholarly" nor "academic" in a WP:RS sense;
    • When I was a student, one of our assistants failed his Ph.D. His doctoral thesis was without doubt to a certain degree "academic" and "scholarly". But I'd refrain from using such "failed" writing as a WP:RS;
    • An older version of WP:RS warned against "textbooks aimed at secondary school students" - at least some of such textbooks may nonetheless be described as "scholarly" I suppose;
    • Note that even when limiting oneself to strictly "academic" writings, this does not necessarily lift the need to apply WP:NPOV: whether or not psychoanalysis is scientific is primarily a discussion between academics and scholars, extending over a plethora of "academic" writings;
    • And similarly, note that Wikipedia:Scientific point of view is a failed policy/guideline proposal. Giving too much (or too exclusive) prominence to so-called "scientific"/"scholarly"/"academic" sources might go counter the equilibrium reached in established policy like, e.g., Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, recently confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Francis Schonken 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

It strikes me that much of the angst about this article revolves around the title. Inherently one cannot make a blanket statement about reliability hence the approach that was taken in drafting the re-write recently ported into the page, what we've done provides information to editors to alloy them to evaluate sources and make an assessment on their utility within the context of the articles being progressed. Should we think about titling the guideline to reflect that, something along the lines of evaluating sources or use of sources?

The page is progressing towards being an essay on principles rather than a guideline on practice, and so such a change in title might be a good thing.
The substance of objections to this page has always been that it is superfluous to requirements when we have the Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Resources policies in place. There will always be a place for supplementary advice about principles and practice for those who need more assistance (note the polite language), but in my opinion it is counterproductive to call this a guideline. That title, as you seem now to sense, is the reason your rewrites—indeed anyone's rewrites—draw such conscientious challenge.
qp10qp 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous version was a mess of different, and frequently conflicting specifics which lacked a strategic outlook or cohesion, indeed the lack of strategy is quite common in both policy and guidelines. My issue with the Verifiability and Original Research pages is that they're full of rather bland platitudes that assume understanding of the underpinning principles, that's a big assumption to make. So this is getting towards the stage where it illuminates some of the underpinning principles which the policies depend on, although there has been an addition of surplus and unrequired material which has just been a cut and paste from elsewhere which isn't aiding progress.
With that in mind I'm concerned about the psychological impact of how it relates to the policies, in fact there is a psychological issue around policies and guidelines as a whole anyway, again related to the absence of strategy. Where a debate is open to interpretation the information to support the debate needs a level of authority so structure the debate. Once this information is in place then we're in a position to identify how it relates to the policies, and indeed other articles of supporting material.
ALR 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional Claims

OK, given the above concern I'm unclear on how far this proposed change actually need explained, so if any of this comes across as egg-sucking instruction then please accept my apologies.

The section titled exceptional claims require exceptional evidence is a cut and paste from the previous version of this page, so the use of language is now inconsistent with the rest of the article and could use improving to put it in more a concise and slightly more formal way. My suggestion doesn't actually change the substance, just reduced the casual conversational tone. I would suggest that the title should change, along the lines of requires robust evidence or comprehensive. Exceptional evidence is meaningless in this context:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple, independent, credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

Issues which should prompt close examination of the evidence presented include:

* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by several news media channels.
* Reports of statements by an individual or organisation which appears out of character, embarrassing, unusually controversial or counter to a previously held position. The evidence presented should be corroborated to identify mis-quote or misinterpretation.
* Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. This may require a more detailed discussion to represent differing points of view but does require evidence. Particular care should be exercised where proponents claim the existence of a conspiracy to silence them.

What I've done here is:

  • Raise the point of the section to the top, then use the bullets to amplify, rather than having deconstextualised bullets leading up to the point.
  • Reduced the surplus verbage, individual bullets don't need excess padding, that's the point of bullets.
  • I have added an explanatory caveat to the statement section which highlights the risk of mis-quotation.
  • I've added the caveat that points of view which contradict the prevailing view need not be dismissed out of hand, but may require some discussion to highlight them and identify the discourse within the community.

Clearly the last point does have some potential to be contentious. It could be used to justify all kinds of fringe positions, but equally the current version provides carte blanche to ignore potentially significant positions within the discipline being considered.

ALR 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no much difference between your edit and the previous formulation, besides some re-ordering and change of words, with the exception of a significat change:
  • Previously: Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended."
  • Your edit: "Reports of statements by an individual or organisation which appears out of character, embarrassing, unusually controversial or counter to a previously held position. The evidence presented should be corroborated to identify mis-quote or misinterpretation.
You also deleted the section about BLPs without presenting any arguments for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This all works for me... the only caveat being that we should check what is said at Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.(which goes directly to this point) and make sure we are being consistant between guidelines. If they are in conflict, we should amend one or both guidelines to bring them into consistancey. Blueboar 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The last bullet could do with reconciling as you point out. It's a difficult one but I don't see it as something that we can make an absolute judgement on; it needs common sense and in some areas of WP that's sadly lacking.ALR 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, then keep it out of the guideline and wikilink to WP:FRINGE instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you intend to completely change Blueboars statement above my response, or was that a mistake. tbh it completely changes the sense of my comment immediately preceding.ALR 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Can you elaborate as to where you have an issue with that advice to editors?ALR 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing a FAQ

Recently I asked at Citing sources regarding citations for the article Roguelike but reieved no response. As the article is about a genre of games which is developed by the open source community, to what extent are blogs, personal sites, and newsgroups, able to be cited? For example: the best source for a definition of a roguelike would probably be item 1.2 from this FAQ. Garrie 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an official website of the open source effort? If so, you can use it as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Given that your question has at least two possible answers how can you possibly give an answer which might be useful?ALR 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Just noticed that it read of, not or. Must get a new monitor.ALR 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for non-scientific subjects

In its current incarnation the guideline seems geared towards scientific and similar subjects where extensive peer review exists and where there is less controversy. In religion, humanities, and general social subjects, either the peer review concept doesn't exist, or it doesn't (thankfully) conceal the existence of great differences of opinion among commentators. The guideline seems to provide little value for those subjects. Yet their ought to be some relevant guidance to offer. Furthermore, it is not clear that the weight that the article attributes to academic sources is always warranted. For example, in Catholicism, a statement by the Pope on doctrine really ought to get more weight than a statement by e.g. academic critics of Catholic traditionalism. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline uses "reliable" to mean "reliably published" and doesn't address weight and balance in articles. The best guidance on that is at Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. qp10qp 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Devil's Tree and related questionsa about Weird NJ

To wit, is Weird NJ a reliable source or not? JoshuaZ 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is a published magazine. Remember, reliablility (as we use the term here) relates to verification, not to truth. It is up to the reader to determine if they believe what Weird NJ says or not. Blueboar 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, however, that phrasing of the form "WeirdNJ claims" or "asserts" would be more appropriate. I do read the publication, and its distance from Weekly World News is .... uncertain. Septentrionalis 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Blueboar 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So what is the fundamental distinction between Weird NJ and the National Enquirer which is published but clearly isn't a reliable source? This seems to be at best an overly literal interpretation of WP:RS. JoshuaZ 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but what exactly is the issue here? It seems like The Devil's Tree is folklore so why can't a magazine based on folklore be used as a citation? MetsFan76 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weird NJ clearly distinguishes between rumors that people send in (if I included everything that's ever been published in it concerning, say, Clinton Road, the article would be impossibly crufty) and serious articles that IMO meet the standards I was expected to as a journalist (their first article about Action Park is cited so much in that article because it's the best one out there).
But aside from the info, it is IMO reliable because it's published regularly by a staff of people who use their real names. And they do attempt to get to the bottom of the stories people send in. Daniel Case 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt seem like WeirdNJ is anything like the Enquirer so it looks likes a reliable source. MetsFan76 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. JoshuaZ 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries....I guess there are gray areas when it comes to articles like there. Anything related to folklore will probably not be found in "encyclopedic" articles so magazines like WeirdNJ are probably the closest we can get. Either way, its a fun article! :) MetsFan76 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the National Enquirer can be a reliable source in some circumstances (say to back a statement that a particular movie star's messy devorce became a "hot topic" for tabloid journalism). In other words, while we may not find such tabloids reliable on what they say ... it may well be both notable and reliable that they say it. Once again, reliability is not a binary, yes/no concept. Reliablility often depends on both why and how the source is used in a particular article.
That said... I do have to wonder if a spooky tree in New Jersey is really all that notable and encyclopedic. Thankfully, that is an issue for another talk page. Blueboar 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] at what point reliability?

There are some sources delivered in the form of a weblog. Wired for example, has dozens of them. If I sourced something from Mark Jason Dominus's weblog in relation to perl, would that be reliable? How about Randal Schwartz? There are also other weblogs from prominent people. Bob Lutz has his own weblog as well. I would venture that something from Lutz is not exactly original research as it pertains to automotive articles. Additionally, there are many weblogs out there from sources like Kim du Toit and Heather Armstrong, which are often cited in the popular media (Ms. Armstrong appeared on CNN discussing "mommy bloggers", and is ranked highly in technorati. duToit has also been used in the media in relation to firearms/conservative leanings. What about Oliver Kamm? he is a public speaker and debater, and has appeared on CNN and numerous radio spots. So, when does a weblog become journalism, or so prominent that it can be assumed to be trustworthy. At least until shown otherwise. ... aa:talk 09:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

General concensus at wikipedia has long held that blogs are not reliable sources (except in articles directly relating to the blog or its author). It does not matter who the author is. This is primarily due to the lack of fact checking involved. If something that a blog says is notable enough, a more reliable source (such as a mainstream newspaper) will report on it, and you can cite to that reliable source. Blueboar 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But what then is the definition of a blog? Is a blog attached to a major newspaper a blog (in other words, do we expect that a blog has fact-checking mechanisms in place? Do we trust all newspaper articles to do so? There was a huge discussion on whether salon.com was a reliable source). What about an online magazine with a "blog format"? What about exclusively online magazines? I know some editors who wouldn't even think of online magazines as reliable sources because it's easy to publish on the web - should they be? (Right now in practice sites like IGN and Gamespot are used for game articles. But what about online comics magazines? Online webcomics magazines?) RS is such a headache to navigate. ColourBurst 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed... That is why we are attempting WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ as a replacement for V, NOR, and RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I would hasten to point that exceptions to this rule have been made. In particular, while in general blogs are not reliable certain "blogs" written by scientists and academics that also have an element of editorial oversight have in some cases been treated as reliable. JoshuaZ 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
One problem is that blogs are a relatively new form of journalism. Even in the world outside of Wikipedia, the jury is still out on whether all, some, or none are reliable. Concensus here is to say "none are... however..." meaning we make exceptions on an individual article level. My personal opinion is that MOST blogs are not reliable, but a blog that is attached to a reputable on line magazine, or is part of a reputable newspaper's webpage, should be treated as if it were an Editorial or OpEd piece... no different than an opinion piece in a print magazine or newspaper. The fact that it is on-line and in blog format should not bar it. However, others disagree with this view as it is often difficult to know if the on-line magazine hoasting the blog is reliable or not.
I would agree that the definition of a "blog" needs to be ironed out, and more discussion needs to take place as to whether some blogs are reliable while others are not, and if so which is which. My take?... for now, don't use blogs as a source... but keep nagging the community to address the issue. Blueboar 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would take issue with the claim that blogs inherently have no fact checking. Do any of us know for a fact that the blogs published by the New York Times, written by their columnists, have no fact checking? A blog is really just use of a particular formatting software, if something is published using other software, we shouldn't automatically assume it has been fact checked. We must consider the source, whether it is generally considered reputable. I don't think whether it's a blog is relevant, the other criteria listed in RS should be used to evaluate it. I also think that "general consensus has long held..." isn't something we should consider in regard to something as new and quickly changing as blogs. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would partially agree wit hMilo on this one. A blog from a prominent newspaper in which columnists express their opinions, could be used as material to describe the columnist's viewpoint, but not the newspaper's, and most definitively not as assertions of fact about third parties. As for blogs being just a "software", I disagree: Blogs is software designed for rapid commentary, a feature that makes them exciting as a publishing platform, but dangerous as sources for encyclopedic articles. So, blogs should not be used as sources unless there is a very good reason to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why certain facts can't come from a blog. If Roger Ebert writes in a Chicago Sun-Times column that he talked to Actor ABC and he said "XYZ" it will likely be accepted by wikipedia as fact. Why does that statement become questionable if Roger Ebert were to write the exact same thing in a blog on the Chicago Sun-Times website? If J. K. Rowling were to start a blog and on it wrote about writing Harry Potter, as long as we were certain that she really was writing it, why wouldn't that be a reliable source? She currently has a website and writes those sorts of things, and it is cited as a source in Harry Potter. If she started posting her content via blog software, would that make it less of a reliable source? I also disagree that content posted using blogging software is "dangerous". While the software is designed to make posting quick and easy, that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that all content posted with that software is inherently careless and free of fact checking. Just as it's illogical to assume that other content posted online is more accurate just because it does not use blogging software. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most you say above, Milo. But these are notable exceptions. As for your example about Roger Ebert, you may not be aware that newspapers do not stand behind editorially about what is written in blogs they make available to their columnists. This is similar to op-eds that are not reliable sources for anything else than the journalist opinion. Not the same as an article that was fact checked by the editorial team of the newspaper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source on that? And can you be sure that every blog published by a newspaper follows this policy? The rule should be written so that it allows deserving exceptions. And how would "fact checking" even apply in the case of something like a blog by JK Rowling writing about her own books? Does someone have to "fact check" a statement about what she was thinking when creating the books? Why would statements like that need to be fact checked, and how would that even be possible? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rowling would be an exception, of course. But we are discussing blogs in general. I would argue that 99.99% of all blogs would be ruled out as a RS for one reason or another. Those few that can be cited would be those of recognized authorities. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Rowling's website, even as a source about Harry Potter, falls under the "writing about yourself" exception as a primary source. ColourBurst 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No because self-published sources may be used in articles about those subjects and their works, by the way. In this case Rowling's blog may be cited in her article and in the articles about various Harry Potter material. SHE could not link them in, but another else could. Wjhonson 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Arguments, Accusations, Etc. of Partisan and Extremist Websites Should Be Discussed In Wikipedia Articles Not Directly concerning those Sites if Necessary

Partisan and extremist sites may not be reliable sources; however, they are important as providers of points of view that help to complete the picture of what people think about notable phenomena. Therefore, biased sites such as Stormfront.org are important in discussing topics such as anti-Semitism, seeing as it is, essentially, a site of anti-Semites. Likewise, sites such as saveamtrak.org may have valuable arguments in favor of Amtrak, even though not all of those arguments might be true or accurate or researched. It is in judging the merits of those arguments that reliable sources would come in handy, and of course there may be the case that non-reliable sources are the ONLY providers of some information, in which case one should look for as many points of view as possible to try to flesh out what people CLAIM they know (and it should be reported thusly). In conclusion, the arguments of non-reliable sources are potentially useful even though they aren't reliable. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see it now. "Scientists generally hold that the earth is not a flat plane, yet there are certain partisan groups that, while not reliable, provide useful information in evaluating this often-controversial question." BYT 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I could agree that Stormfront.org should not be quoted in non-Jewish view of Judaism or Criticism of Judaism, but maybe in Extremist criticism of Judaism. --Striver 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Often-controversial" is a weasel-word in the above context, and besides, it would be simple enough to say that "Scientists generally hold that the earth is spherical, although some partisans disagree. The Earth has been shown to be round by various means." Stormfront.org could be quoted in anti-Semitism articles as examples of anti-Semitism, and in pointing out biases some people hold against Jews. It's my impression that anti-Semites are out to criticize Jews, generally speaking, rather than the religion of Judaism itself. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an "scientific" "encyclopedia" like other encyclopedias. Like all other encyclopedias, It should only uses reliable sources. --128.32.47.130 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, common sense should be used to evaluate sources. I don't think the word change is necessary as arguing is an activity. Arrow740 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If we had common sense, our policies could be very short. If the fringe theory or extremist position is important enough to merit a section in a longer article, then it would be wooden to say, "That's a section, not an article, so we can't cite the group's own literature to describe its own position." The real question is whether the fringe theory deserves enough space to properly handle primary source material. In an article on Earth science, flat-earth theorists probably merit at most a sentence and a link to the main article. In contrast, the tax-protester theory of non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has wide popular influence, so a section is devoted to it (and its refutation) even though no respectable legal scholar believes a word of it. In which articles does Stormfront merit that much coverage? That's the real question. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School newspaper: info sourced given undue weight?

There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School#RFC over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all? Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Steve block Talk 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A school newspaper could be used as a source about that school newspaper, or the school itself, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Could I ask that you follow the link provided and read through the debate and comment there? It would help build a diversity of views and a consensus. Steve block Talk 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press/media releases?

What about these? Do they qualify as primary sources especially in the case of major organizations such as UNESCO, etc.? ekantiK talk 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It rather depends on what you'd be trying to use them for. Inevitably anything released to the media by an organisation will reflect a favourable view of the truth as they see it but should it be contentious then it would be useful to balance that with another viewpoint.
Clearly a lot of press releaases are along the lines of 'Dodgy gadgets limited is pleased to announce that geezer has joined the team' which is merely a statement of fact but would best be included as 'it was announced that geezer joined DGL on xxx (inlineref)'
ALR 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
They are certainly reliable for citing the fact that the orgainization said something in a press release. If phrased as "UNESCO stated in a press release: 'Blah blah blah blah... Text of Press Release' <ref> ref to UNESCO press release with date </ref>" it should be fine. Blueboar 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Wikipedia_talk%7EReliable_sources_715d.html"