Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#A_reliable_source_committee.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_noticeboard (in the future those links will need updating with archive links).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reliability or Verifiability? 2 Policy vs. guideline 3 Automatic archiving? 4 Debate over RS issues 5 Proposed template change 6 `Reliable' source(s) 7 Problem 8 This place is getting cluttered. 9 Archiving needed? 10 Magic Box? 11 Wikipedia as a Source 12 Make a chart or list of previously discussed sources as part of this article? 13 Time to archive again 14 Comments if possible?

[edit] Reliability or Verifiability?

Why was this noticeboard moved from WP:RS to WP:V?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Would whoever keeps moving this please stop? It is a subpage of the policy, and the policy is Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Slim, you have been reverted by multiple editors, so clearly there is no consensus to move. Your next step is to take it to WP:RM. Meanwhile, I'll clean up the mess left behind by all the moves by fixing the redirects and navboxes, and tagging the rest with {{db}}. --Edokter (Talk) 09:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as I have suggested in my edit summary. I have asked Slim few weeks ago why she moved it and was ignored, there was also no meaningful reply at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard, where I have also explained why RS title is better than V.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy vs. guideline

Please note that WP:RS is NOT A POLICY... it is a guideline. WP:RS is designed to support and clarify what is said in the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - which ARE policies - but WP:RS is not policy itself. Blueboar 12:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

True, although honestly I think this is mostly semantic difference lost on 99% of content creators who frequent this board :)-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! :>) ... WP:RS is somewhat unique... while it is "only" a guideline, it is usually talked about as if it were a policy. This is because the requirement to cite to reliable sources is a matter of Policy (repeated in WP:V and WP:NOR), while the determination as to what constitutes a reliable source (discussed in WP:RS) is not. I often wish we had picked a different name for this guideline... something like "Determining source reliability" (WP:DSR) which might have kept the constent attempts at "rules" making at V and NOR, where they belong, and foucused the guideline on giving advice. Oh well. Blueboar 14:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't fully grasp why WP:RS is not a policy: could you elaborate on that? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there are probably several reasons... some good and some not so good. The most important is that it clearly does not enjoy enough consensus to be promoted. This is both one of the most quoted and one of the most contentious guidelines in Wikipedia. Everyone agrees with the idea of requireling reliable sources, but few people agree on what constitutes a "reliable source". The guideline has been written and re-written multiple times (I have participated in at least three complete revisions) ... and each version generates heated opposition.

Some people want the guideline to reflect the idea that reliability is not alwasy clear cut, that some sources are more reliable and others are less reliable, and that the acceptability of the source often depends on context. (which is unsatifying as it does not help solve content disputes). Others want it to be a clear cut, black and white list... "this source is reliable" ... "that source isn't reliable" (which inevitabley ends up making the guideline an unmanagable list of POV examples and counter examples).

Then there is a vocal group of long time editors who feel it should not even be a guidline, much less a policy. There is probably some institutional annimosity involved in this... WP:RS started as a POV fork of the WP:V policy, and there have been those who think it never should have been created in the first place... and that it should be demoted or subsumed back into WP:V.

I suspect that any attempt to promote it would end up being shot down quickly. Blueboar 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I am concerned, we should try to concentrate on the bottom line: content creators need a definition of what reliable is, or otherwise we can delete the entire guideline, and maybe even WP:V along with it. I like recent changes, related to WP:ATT, which clarified some aspects of reliability (blogs, newspapers, usenet), and I like the examples page and this noticeboard which help with some specific cases. As a (primarily) content creator I had been involved in enough discussions about what is reliable and what is not to know that we need as clear definitions as possible (and yes, of course, there will always be murky borders and exceptions, but we need to strive to reduce them as much as possible).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree in concept... I just don't know if you will ever be able to get a stable page (Policy or guideline) on this... I don't think the Wikipedia community has a consensus for what is reliable. What they do have are several competing, overlaping but ultimately vague concepts of reliability... all wrapped up in a general agreement that they want sources to be reliable. I am beginning to think that each project/subject area needs its own quideline to define what is reliable for articles within that project/subject. Blueboar 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I definetly agree that increasingly going into details is needed (I just love the 'Generally acceptable sources' and 'Generally unacceptable sources' sections originally developed for ATT/FAQ); that said I haven't seen much contradictory ideas. Controversy may lie in some wordings, particularly related to exceptions, generalizations and such, but I think everyone agrees with the general principles that modern academic sources are the most reliable, and the father you get away from both of those adjectives, the less reliable a source is.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... feel free to edit. But don't be surprised by the reaction. Blueboar 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... I am content with the current look of WP:RS. Of course, it can be improved, but I want to see if the current version will prove more or less stable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic archiving?

What makes more sense here, 7 or 30 days? ←Ben^B4 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For now, 30 should be enough. I guess the same for WP:FTN, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ←Ben^B4 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tnx.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over RS issues

On the talk page of the Barbara Schwarz article there is a discussion over the Abusive Hosts Blocking List as a reliable source. It says about itself: “This page is a collection of resources and opinions others have posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw their own conclusions.” To me, that sounds like it is saying itself that it does not try to be a reliable source. (p.s. Sorry if this is not the right place to bring this up.) Steve Dufour 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a declared and very evident bias against her, referring to her as a "kook". Deserved though it may be, I do not see how it can be used as a direct source. If it links to court filings and postings, they can be used as justified in the ordinary way. It's not as if there were insufficients RSs for an article without this. DGG (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] `Reliable' source(s)

208.102.152.142 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Dear article editor/author, I am new to wikipedia discussion (not usage of articles) and perhaps this information is posted elsewhere on the site, but I have questions regarding `reliable' sources. I ask my questions because I may be interested in the editorial process of articles. 1. Who is an ultimate, unimpeachable, `reliable' source ? Is there a list ? 2. Is the President of the United States of America (or his immediate administration) considered an ultimate, unimpeachable, `reliable' source ? 3. Who affiliated with wikipedia has the ultimate authority to decide the questions above ? 4. Why does wikipedia allow posts of potential influence on articles to be anonymous ? 5. Do the editors (and/or authors) have the same priveledge of anonymity ? Thanks for your time, Greg Kramer 3116 Libra Lane Cincinnati, Ohio 45251 USA

Dear Greg. You can find out more at the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. To answer your question 1, no there is no list. The appropriate sources differ depending on whether the article is about history, science, popular culture etc. 2, depends on what the article is about. If the article is about the US government then official US documents are a good source but not the only good source. For example, a book by an unaffiliated expert in political science from another country might be a better source for some details. If the article is about solar power then the President of the USA is not an appropriate source - nor is the President of France - we are looking for books and papers by scientists and technologists. We don't use a principle of ultimate authority but try to get consensus. Did you have a particular concern? If so we would be interested to hear it. If there is something you would like to improve in the encyclopedia, please go ahead. It is very easy to edit. Also, you can easily set up an account, either anonymously or not as you choose. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

There has been a big problem with this page, starting which this edit here [1] which deleted a lot of posts. Haemo tried to fix it but did not restore all the post for some reason. I have tried again but have been reverted. I will begin again, but patience and/help gratefully received!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed things, but would welcome anybody who cares to check!! --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This place is getting cluttered.

People keep posting multiple threads for the same articles, which is a waste of space and a waste of people's time.

Therefore, I propose that the lead contain the following:

Please state what source is in dispute and why both parties claim the source is either reliable or unreliable. If there is already an ongoing discussion about reliable sources in a particular article, please post your comments in that thread and do not create a new thread. If you wish, you may create a sub-thread within the discussion about the main topic.

I could create a template to make this easier:

{{RSN|ARTICLENAME|SOURCE IN DISPUTE|WHAT YOU THINK|WHAT OTHER STHINK}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwhat (talk • contribs) 27 January 2008

This page is up to 533 K, even *after* User:Relata refero's emergency archiving job. For a noticeboard, 533K is gigantic. (60K is considered large for an article). I reduced the bot archiving timeout from 28 days down to 14 days. This is still quit a long timeout. Compare:

• ANI: 1 day
• AN: 2 days
• AE: 3 days
• COIN: 10 days
• BON: 14 days
• BLP: 15 days
• FTN: 30 days

If you disagree with a 14 day timeout (each thread will be archived 14 days after the last signed comment) then please comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your change will make things worse. The problem is not that the page is too large. The problem is that people keep re-posting new threads for the SAME topics and the SAME articles. There's at least half a dozen sections on Islam-related articles. This makes it ridiculous to have to pick through. Your proposal just makes WP:RSN smaller which doesn't solve the problem, since people are still going to keep doing the same thing they're doing, which means that the good stuff on WP:RSN is going to be buried under the same unnecessary threads about the same topics. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Has any thought been given to using the {{resolved}} template more widely? On today's noticeboard I see that only 7 out of 74 issues are marked 'resolved,' and none of those templates give a reason for resolving or the name of the person resolving. Use of the resolved template, though it may sometimes be contested, does make people pay attention to whether any progress has been made.

I was a participant in the transcripts thread, that went on way too long. It might have been closed earlier if anyone had felt confident enough to do so. Does anyone want to volunteer as an RSN patroller and serve as Mr. Heavy for closing things that are inappropriate? Naturally this takes consensus, but even having someone who would *attempt* to close threads would be useful. Some issues could be pushed onto individual users' talk pages if they go on too long. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, Ed. I didn't know there was such a thing as an "RS patroller." WP:FTN seems to be in similar shape.

I had an idea: Somebody should create a "daily digest" of the stuff posted here and on WP:FTN that is then syndicated across Wikipedia on userpages of people who want to keep track of it -- the kinds of people that care about Wikipedia accuracy (in other words, not these people). My first thought was to create a script to automatically cut and paste thread titles, but seeing how as people keep re-posting the same crap, I had another idea: We make a "FRINGE\BAD SOURCES signpost" which is edited manually, daily.

That would streamline things a lot better around here, instead of having so many people bring content disputes here and so poorly frame debates to the point that it's practically pointless to even read half the comments that are post here, since you have to inevitably read the full talkpage of the article they're describing anyway. One or two good editors picking through it daily could save a lot of people a lot of time, and allow us to more effectively fight the fringe. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to leave the 14-day timeout in place, that may clear out about half the contents of the noticeboard in the next bot archiving run. After we take a look at what items are left, we might be able to make a plan to keep threads from growing excessively in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, you're shrinking the noticeboard, which I find to be absurd. The problem isn't that it's too large. Again, please stop doing this without seeking some kind of consensus. The problem is that people keep re-posting the same stuff. It's GREAT that stuff stays up for 28 days, because then it gives people more of an opportunity to look at a broad array for WP:RS problems. I know that a lot of folks think WP:RS should be ignored, downgraded, or merged into WP:V. If you're one of those, I please ask that you cut it out. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC) See note below. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zen, you must have fallen behind on recent events. I didn't remove anything from the noticeboard, and you reverted my reduction of the timeout. Inactive threads are still going to be kept, preserved in amber, for 28 days. Some other people also expressed the view that 500K was too large for the noticeboard, and they did some manual archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry. Being a dick. I saw how WP:RSN was still so small and falsely assumed somebody restored the 14d thing.

Yes, and you're right. I guess it is too large, since WP:ANI is only about half the size that WP:RSN was.

Still, Ed, what do you think about having WP:RSN and WP:FTN clerks, which keep this place tidy? I mean based on what I said above: If users keep re-posting threads over and over on the same topics, a clerk could just move them all into one sections... If stuff is resolved, they could note that, etc.. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The term 'clerk' may inspire resistance, and refactoring is controversial. I'm just suggesting that any random volunteers could join threads that appear to meander and try to get the participants to focus on getting a result. Adding 'resolved' may sometimes do the trick. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, is it OK with you to add the sentence in quotes above, to the lead? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving needed?

The noticeboard has grown again. From a reasonable size of 105 kb on 28 January it has mushroomed up to 419 kb today. Either the same kind souls as before might do some manual archiving, or we can consider reducing the bot timeout (still at 28 days, but it should perhaps be 21, or even 14 days). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets see where 21 days takes us. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the archiving timeout to 21 days, since there were no objections. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot made a run last night, and copied nine items into Archive_4, but for some reason didn't delete them from the Noticeboard. I manually deleted them. Also, the archive counter wasn't set right (my duh!) so I had to move the newly archived stuff from Archive_4 into Archive_7. Let's see if it goes better tonight. Noticeboard got reduced by 70K bytes (yay!) EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Box?

A slight issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<copied to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Magic Box.3F> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia as a Source

Is it allowed if an article cites Wikipedia as a source? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 05:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in articles about Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Even in an article about Wikipedia, there should probably almost never be a citation to a Wikipedia article. Or, Blueboar, were you only referring to things like Wikimedia foundation press releases? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to a bit more than just foundation press releases. If you take a look at how the article Wikipedia cites certain specific wikipedia pages (not articles) you will see what I mean. That said, I think we are essentially saying the same thing. One should not cite one Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Any site that "ANYONE can edit" is going to have some reliability issues -- Avi (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask here a slightly more specific question? An article about a loaction (town/city/village) makes a claim about a person in terms of where they were born or where they have lived. This is questioned, and the reply comes back that since that person's name is linked to the wikipedia article about that person, and in that article the fact is referenced, there is no need to include the reference in the article about the town/city/village. I consider that one should routinely include a reference to the fact in the town/vity/village article as well on a few grounds that can be summed up with the phrase "a wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for a fact in another wikipedia article." Am I right? Now, is there any difference if the fact is not one about a person, but about something else? I consider there isn't. I think I may be correct here, but I'd like some comments in case I am not. Is there anything explicitly in any guidelines about this as I have seen an increasing number of similar issues crop up over the past few months. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your question, then yes, you are correct and a Wikipedia article should never be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. If someone is claiming they got a statement from another article that is referenced, then that reference should be confirmed then included with the statement in the second article. Wikipedia articles are never considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (the irony does amuse). Collectonian (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet I've been told not to put something in because it is in an article with a Wikipedia link. So maybe we shouldn't link? :-)Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Make a chart or list of previously discussed sources as part of this article?

In visiting here before I noticed discussion of a couple of sources I've wondered about - and have a feeling there are a bunch more if one looks at the archive. To avoid duplication (which has happened anyway, as one entry notes) - or unanswered questions when people don't feel like a rehash - why not create a separate page here called [/index] or something that looks like this. (Listing only actual debateable sources, not general discussions or truly nutty stuff.):

---

(Instructions: Add mediation issue and status to the table by copying the bottom template.)

INDEX OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES

SOURCE and LINK TO DISCUSSION(S)	RESOLVED (Y/N)
DELETED EXAMPLES TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH NEW VERSION BELOW

---

22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

We need something like that. The Skeptics Dictionary is another one which keeps coming up.Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATED FORMAT: What do you think? (Note: This from Archive #1) (Also note that this has been discussed more at [[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Make_an_index.2C_chart_or_list_of_previously_discussed_sources_as_part_of_this_article.3F| Talk reliable sources.)

---

---

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES AND ISSUES

(Instructions: Once discussions have been archived, add new source and status to the table in the same format, in alphabetical order.)

---

SPECIFIC SOURCES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

GENERAL ISSUES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

---

Carol Moore 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Time to archive again

I would do so myself... but I am not very good at achiving... would someone please attend to this. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments if possible?

I've had a query about the state of referencing in Miss Universe 2008 on here since June 2, that as yet has gone unanswered. Could anyone spare some time to look into it and offer an opinion? Thanks. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)