Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Verifiability (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 21 Archive 22 28 >>

Contents

Expand self-published to include self-produced

One thing I noticed is that self published sources does not cover self-produced material that is published by another party without independent analysis. Press releases and puff-pieces would fall into this gray-area. I would suggest we add something like "this includes self-produced material, even if it is published by another party without independent analysis" in the WP:SPS section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 September 2007

That is obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It's so obvious that I don't know where the rule is on press releases. I would generally only quote them, if no other source is available, for straight factual information that is the subject of the press release, e.g. the CEO of company X is Y. But why further strain the definition of self-published by adding a new concept like self-produced? Everything is self-produced at some level, right? Wikidemo 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, speaking of clueless, I finally get what this is about. You don't mean self-produced, you mean people making claims about themselves, right? Wikidemo 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Or, perhaps, organisations or movements getting proper publishers to produce books about their ideas, which are primary sources about the organisation or movement in terms of NOR, as we're discussing at WT:NOR. ... dave souza, talk 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC) corrected 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of the intent here, but I think with a press release, the source and the type of information needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. E.g., if Ford, a publicly traded company in the U.S. subject to SEC regulations, claimed they shipped 24,231 of some car in a particular month, I'd treat that as a reliably-sourced fact. If Ford claimed the cars were well-designed or improved the environment, I wouldn't treat those as reliably-sourced facts. -Agyle 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would personally suggest that press releases uncritically reproduced are not useful for any kind of information, due to questions of reliability. For both of the examples noted, CEO identity and product produced within a given month, SEC filings are generally reviewed for accuracy and the incentive of civil & criminal penalties discourages misreporting, lending a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" to the reports. They are of course some rare cases of gross misreporting, but such cases are notable and well-covered by independent reliable sources (for example, Enron or Adelphia Communications). For other claims, such as say a claim of a particular type of cloning or energy product, if actually worthy of note and accurate, they should be covered in outside sources (even if in trade or industry periodicals). Just some thoughts. Vassyana 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that Agyle is nearly right. High profile organisations don't tend to lie in basic factual statements, because they just wouldn't get away with it. Plus, sales statistics don't tend to have better sources than the company itself except in the relatively few markets with industrial bodies that monitor sales. SamBC(talk) 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
High-profile organizations will have better sources available for those claims, such as SEC reports and business news articles. Less noteworthy or prominent organizations will not have the same incentive to truthfulness due to less scrutiny, though SEC filings (for example) retain the same oversight and incentive. In fact, low profile businesses will generally have more incentive to provide accurate legally required financial reports, since they can less afford the penalties involved for misreporting. Vassyana 13:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrasal attribution

I was just looking WT:NOR where long debate is underway. I couldn't make heads or tails of the discussion, really, except that it revolved around the use of primary sources. I've had a thought about this page for some time that might have some bearing. A few months ago I added: "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. 'Jane Smith has suggested...')." I think this quite sensible and straight forward. My thought was to expand it. Namely, we recommend phrasal attribution for:

  • Primary source descriptions.
  • Otherwise reliable sources making claims about themselves (e.g. sales figures).
  • Where there is clear scholarly disagreement and the reader needs to keep the names straight. See here for a section that uses repeated phrasal attribution.
  • The news example already cited.

This doesn't have to be huge. Marskell 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording will probably take some work, but that definitely makes sense to me. SamBC(talk) 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest

In certain cases, readers should be directly alerted to the nature of a source, even where it is generally reliable. Phrasal attribution (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...") is the most effective means.

Phrasal attribution is required where:

  • A news outlet publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions. The writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed.
  • Organizations make statistical or product quality claims about themselves that have not been independently verified (e.g., sales figures and safety test results).

Phrasal attribution is recommended where:

  • There is scholarly disagreement between named individuals rather than generalized majority and minority positions.
  • Information is taken from a primary source. The older the primary source the more likely it will need phrasal attribution; classical sources should always be phrasally attributed, for example. See the No original research policy for further restrictions.

Phrasal attribution is not a substitute for actual citation. Rather, they occur in tandem. Marskell 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Phrasal attribution" isn't a real term - perhaps a clue we're inventing something that shouldn't be invented? In any event we should search for what it's really called and if it has no name, describe it in plain English rather than inventing another Wikipedia-only concept. By "phrasal" do you mean accompanied by a statement in the text describing the source? That's almost never called for and I don't necessarily agree with the examples. If I'm sourcing, say, a claim that Apple sold 1 million i-phones in its first three weeks on the market, I can just add a footnote after that claim that refers to the Apple press release, newspaper, or wherever it's from. That the company is making a statement about itself may or may not bear on reliability but shouldn't change the citation format. The "scholarly disagreement" question depends on the nature and tone of the article, and might encourage a writing style inappropriate for wikipedia, e.g. "Scherkunhamm et al. (1987) propose that the seat of consciousness is in the hypothalmus, whereas more recent studies (Patterson 1992, Gimlan and Frick 1994) suggest the organ has a "gateway" function; Gimlan and Frick (ibid) have questioned the reliability of Scherkunham's data set..." Be careful about adding policy requirements based on a priori reasoning about what needs to be sourced. A statement on the policy page that a certain, perhaps unnecessary, citation method and positioning is "required" could be a problem. It's usually better to leave citation decisions up to the case by case good sense of editors out in the field. Wikidemo 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought phrasal attribution would be understandable enough, while being concise. "In sentence attribution?" If an Apple press release says they've sold 1 million then simply say in the sentence that the claim comes from the company. Doing so for any claim of quality or efficiency strikes me as obvious—worthy of mention on policy. Ditto the news outlet situation. And the inappropriate style really isn't. There's no embargo here on mentioning the names of researchers. I don't really take your a priori point. (Perhaps you're up late with Kant.) These don't deal with hypotheticals.
In any case, the above was only meant as a start point to discuss. Marskell 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't want to be forced to disclaim in the prose that a particular fact comes from the company, or from anywhere else. Nor should we even encourage it. That's what citations are for. I also wouldn't encourage review-of-the-literature style essay writing here. One sees it sometimes and it always sticks out. It's also very hard to edit collaboratively. The a priori issue is that if you derive rules on how to write articles and impose them top down, one size fits all, without a broad survey of how articles are actually written "out in the field", you end up overlooking things. The decision on when and how to cite things is fairly subtle and rests on quite a few principles and matters of judgment. The most I would grant is a couple related points. Certain statements are less trustworthy than others based on their source. Untrustworthy statements are best left out entirely in favor of statements reliably sourced. However, sometimes it makes sense to repeat an iffy statement, in which case the article should indicate the context of the statement.Wikidemo 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong in attributing a claim to whomever is making it. In fact, this is widely used in Wikipedia, in particular with WP:SPS, or with controversial claims. "Phrasal attribution" can be simply called "Attribution". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
See for example John_Kanzius#Water-related_discovery, which reads: Philip Ball, a consulting editor at Nature and author of "H2O: A Biography of Water" debunked the concept of water being burned as a fuel. . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo, you would not be forced to do it everywhere. Only with the particular types of claims suggested. If I write "Volvo cars have passed numerous safety tests" and don't separate the company making the claim versus outside authorities making the claim, clearly a reader might be misled. On PETA it's suggested that they have 1.6 million members, according to themselves. No one knows for certain how many members they have—it's essential the reader is directly informed within the sentence about where the claim is coming from. Marskell 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of unclassified US Army regulations as verifiable sources

For disclosure, I am named in a dispute currently accepted for mediation.

Is there any reason why an unclassified version of any US Army Regulation (AR) is unacceptable as a verifiable source? Specifically, I am claiming that the downloadable versions of AR 220-1, AR 220-5, and AR 600-82 are acceptable as verifiable secondary sources when retrieved directly from www.army.mil as they are in the public domain as US government publications. The AR series of publication that are unclassified are available as PDF files. The ARs are endorsed by at least on senior general officer serving with the Headquarters of the Department of the Army (HQDA), and they would seem to be the most authoritative source on Army operations available. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it is a crime for active-duty service members to disobey those publications as they have the force of published orders, and while nobody outside the military appears bound by them, they do appear to be verifiable secondary sources (the military officers who drafted and/or approved them, or legislative acts relied upon for drafting, are apparent primary sources).

I am not not disputing any verifiable source that publishes credible evidence of military failures to adhere to those published ARs, or that any such refuting evidence exists; at this time, no editor has brought any such evidence forward in the dispute I am now involved in. Hotfeba 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You can seek advice about specific sources at WP:RS/N. Adrian M. H. 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
By the sound of it, on principle, they would not be a reliable source for what has happened, only for what the army says is allowed to happen. The Uniform Code isn't exactly broken rarely, now is it? SamBC(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
By the sound of it, they would be a reliable source to support assertions about what particular ARs say, or about what they do not say. -- Boracay Bill 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Wtmitchell & Sambc, speaking generally without finding the sources. They can be used to verify what they say, but what they say may not be reliably factual. The assumption that the Army's publications are the most authoritative source on Army operations may not be true for certain topics, due to secrecy, security, political or other issues; they're not a transparent organization. -Agyle 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have made a more in-depth request for clarification at WP:RS/N per the above recommendation; if you are curious, the mediation refers to the naming of the 3rd US Infantry article (see style adopted in the United States Army article for comparison). I didn't initiate the mediation request, but I do believe I have the verifiable sources to finish it. Hotfeba 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How to reference maps?

An editor in one of the articles I am now editing insist on adding a "citation needed" to a map. The map was created by a Wikipedian, who cited some - but not all - of the source on his map, which is a compilation of several sources. The map in question is Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920 claims names.png. Also, what to do in cases of maps which don't cite sources at all (ex. Image:Border-Lithuania-Poland-1919-1939.svg)? Can and should they be removed as "unreferenced OR"?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about maps created by users, in particular about controversial political subjects. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV#UNDUE are easily abused in these... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New guideline?

Hey, I came across this page, as it's a subpage of one of my acquaintances. He's thinking that it should become a guideline or policy, but I'm not so sure. I'm putting it here so that consensus can be gathered in one direction or another, but a great deal of the stuff is already alluded to in other policies, such as WP:CITE. My slightly biased opinion is that it should be included in the 'See also list, as an essay. You should probably comment on the subpage's talk page, rather than here. James-SugronoContributions 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How to make facts

It must happen sometimes that some unsourced assertion in wikipedia (whether true or not) is picked up by a journalist and then asserted in what is considered a reliable source like a newspaper (without mention of wikipedia). Wikipedia can then assert this new 'fact' with attribution. Is this how knowledge is born? 195.173.57.160 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's one way to perpetuate mistakes, but we cannot prevent sloppy journalism. Adrian M. H. 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Stephen Colbert, this is exactly how "facts" are born. And he keeps trying to make this point on his TV show, for some reason. It doesn't seem to have become a huge problem though, so my belief is that policies like WP:V are working well. Eaglizard 10:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know Stephen Colbert but ... Wow! I was reading a book last night and I came to a sentence that I recognised as lifted from a Wikipedia article written by...me! I was really quite pleased. Imitation, flattery etc. So, my point is not just hypothetical. The book is ISBN 9781905494750. The article is Nicknames for Dublin criminals. I believe that this kind of incident must be common. Wikipedia has now become the starting point for most authors' research and its assertions will often be repeated in print. Ironically, the more reliable that wikipedia becomes, the more authors will quote from it without attribution. 195.173.57.160 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding foreign-language sources

Hi. :) There is a question of interpretation of the section on foreign language sources that may suggest a need to clarify the wording of the policy. The discussion is at Talk:Sejny#Third opinion. Abbreviated, it boils down to whether the call for clear citation means quoting the original in its base language and providing the translation there. (See footnote #1 on this version of the article to see that implemented, if what I mean is not clear.) As I read the policy, clear citation probably means Wp:citation#Full_citations. If by citation, this policy means "quotation", the wording should probably be changed to clarify that, since "citation" on Wikipedia generally has the specific meaning. If it does mean citation in the WP:C sense, perhaps it would be helpful to wikilink "clear citation" so that bilingual editors can see an explanation of what that means. --Moonriddengirl 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the issue is that the citation is considered by some to contain controversial/fringe/undue claims, which would - according to our policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE - usually not make into the main body.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this one has not yet invited comment, I think I'll ask about it at village pump. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And answered at the pump. Blueboar 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT??

The Baseball-Reference.com is the GOLD STANDARD for baseball references, you bozos!!!! Garagehero 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


We need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes

People are deleting things based on policy regardless of whether they agree or disagree citing "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" so we need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes and "truth" is a fine criteria where there is no dispute and was in fact the original criteria for the content of the initial wikipedia articles. It was only with disputes over what is true that it became clear that it was better to argue over sources than argue over "truth". We need to be clear that we do not want people adding things they believe are true unless they believe there are reliable published sources for those claims because this is very useful in dealing with people who want to add what they saw with their own eyes and just KNOW is true. On the other hand we now have people going to the other extreme and deleting things that no one has even suggested might be inaccurate; just because it lacks a source (eg BLP's) and the fact that no one disagrees that it is true is held to not be an argument to keep it - and that's not useful behavior. I made an edit WP:BRD that tried to do this but was asked to come here and discuss. So what do you'll think? 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)WAS 4.250

Well, I personally think that the threshold is fine as-is. In general, if someone adds something without a source, I am not going to delete it unless it is contentious, defamatory, alters the meaning of the sentence, or is just plain wrong. I will, however, place a fact tag on the claim and request a source, either on the talk page, their user talk page, or in the edit summary (if I alter it). That said, this is my personal preference. It is certainly within an editor's purview to delete uncited claims. I think that this applies not only to disputes, but to anything. That said, things that are uncited do not necessarily need to be deleted, just tagged with {{fact}}. Perhaps some specific guidance is in order on what to do if something isn't cited? Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I also think that ordinarily deleting uncited claims represents a bad case of WP:BITE. Fact tags (and ideally notes to the editor for new material as well) should be used except in cases of WP:BLP or theories that seem wacky or otherwise contestable. In addition to its being more respectful to newbies, I also believe it's more in the interests of the project's goals. A user-written encyclopedia will inevitably be somewhat under construction. One that looks that way, with tags showing questionable claims visible at any given moment, is actually more accurate and reliable, in addition to being more harmonious, compared to one where all disputes are hidden away and revert wars are used instead. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As soon as the deleting editor deletes the statement, I would call that a disagreement as to the statement's truth. When they cite "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", this is probably due to a claim by the other party that the deleted statement was true, not to some disappointment by the deleting party that despite their own belief in the statement, that it has to go. Sancho 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on experience at WP, I wouldn't assume that. Objective editing on non controversial topics is relatively unlikely to be challenged. When there is conflict, there is usually some POV involved. In contentious issues, it is somewhat difficult for involved parties -- even with perfect good faith and the highest motives-- to distinguish properly between truth and what supports their own viewpoint. Although we may discourage editing by those with strong POV, it is generally just those people who will inevitably be interested in such subjects. DGG (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to change it. Its one of the few things that really keeps people who are trying to push POV in an article out. There is no information that is so important that we should let it sit in an article until a proper source is found. This isn't a race to who gets to add some tidbit of information they heard somewhere.--Crossmr 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Information may not be important, but people are important. This is a volunteer organization. We have to keep the goodwill of new volunteers. Simply deleting new user's contributions for policy imperfections does not serve this end. I revert for deleting sourced conduct, major restructurings without consensus, and highly controversial unsourced statements that make an article appear soapish, but in the absence of soap, hoax, or edits which themselves deleted sourced opposing opinions I don't believe reversion/deletion should be the first response to an unsourced statement. I think we have to keep our user community in mind and the project forgets it at its peril. --Shirahadasha 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves (part 1)

I propose that we change:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
    • it is relevant to their notability;
    • it is not contentious;
    • it is not unduly self-serving;
    • it does not involve claims about third parties;
    • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
    • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

To say:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, as long as the statement of fact makes it clear that the material was produced by the subject. E.g. in an article about Kevin Trudeau:
    • Unacceptable: "Kevin Trudeau lost over 45 pounds in 6 weeks."
    • Acceptable: "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he lost over 45 pounds in 6 weeks.[1]"
It is also required that:
    • such material does not involve claims about third parties;
    • such material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
    • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

— DavidMack 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to that. It's problematic in more ways than I would care to think, e.g. "The National Institutes of Health states on its website that its headquarters are in Bethesday, Maryland." Wikidemo 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Suppose we were outlining research critical of the NIoH; for NPOV we'd want to state that "the NIoH claims it helped reduce death rates from stroke.[2]" Right now the guidelines do no expressly allow that. — DavidMack 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Also oppose. No need to write policy to compensate for cluelessness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd note that removing the first two points adds significantly to what's allowable:
  • Removing the "notability" point would allow "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he was born in 1950 in a Kentucky farmhouse" in his biography, if he did state that, even though that's not relevant to his notability.
  • Removing the "not contentious" point would allow "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he is the son of George W. Bush and Cleopatra," in his biography, if he did state that, even though the claim is implausible.
This is a good example. If Kevin Trudeau, or Goerge Bush or anyone, does make implausible claims on his website, it may be important to quote him. — DavidMack 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Both sentences would be verifiable, but may be inappropriate for other reasons. The remaining bullet points in the revised section, aside from "doubt as to who wrote it," could also be omitted, if verifiability were the only concern of this section. -Agyle 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the way it stands now there is no provision to state basic facts about an organisation based on statements it claims about itself. E.G. "Some researchers state that Alcoholics Anonymous excludes the poor. On its website AA states that "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."[3]."
Personally, I think if the source for a statement is explicitly attributed in the sentence (as in DavidMack's "acceptable" example), is properly cited as a reference, and the source can be checked (e.g. it's a website, or a widely available newspaper/magazine), then it's reasonable to consider the explicitly-attributed text (that says "According to....") to be verifiable whether the attributed source's claim is true or not, and whether it's about a third party or not; the only one of the six points I think is important is "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." It may not be suitable for many other reasons, like being unimportant to the topic, being presented in a non-NPOV way, being synthesized into original research, or the topic itself being unworthy of an article, but if it says "according to...," and that can be verified, then it should meet the verifiability requirement. I think the list of six requirements are important when you're not explicitly attributing the source, and instead treat the source as a reliable source in itself, as in DavidMack's "unacceptable" example. -Agyle 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Thank you for the discussion. I argue that it is essential to quote self-published sources in many cases, for example

  • Senator John Doe asserts that he was never convicted of a felony.<ref>''John Doe: my Life In Politics''. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 100.</ref>
(It would be unacceptable to say "Senator John Doe was never convicted of a felony", since we have to make it clear that John Doe said it.)
  • World-renowned violinist Jon Daue has called himself "the greatest musician of the 21st century".<ref>''Jon Daue: my Life In Music''. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 101.</ref>
  • It is the policy of the American Institute of Racial Harmony to exclude people with ginger hair.<ref>"The problem with Gingers" (pamphlet) American Institute of Racial Harmony, 2007.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Uri Geller states on his website that a paper in the journal Nature proves that his skills are genuine.<ref>http://www.uri-geller.com/unlimited.htm#bio</ref>

So I propose this amendment:
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • contentious or self-serving items are presented as statements that were made by the subject about themselves;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

— DavidMack 20:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't see any good reason to change the wording of this section. Self-published sources are problematic. If a subject cannot be adequately covered using secondary sources, then there is probably a notability problem to begin with. - Crockspot 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No comment on the proposal per se, but your objection seems odd... there may be plenty of coverage to establish the notability of the subject, whilst not covering all relevant material that may come from self-published or self-authored material (an autobiography tends to be self-authored, or claimed as such, but not self-published). SamBC(talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To take an extreme example, in an article on human rights in the USA, it would be important to make reference to the Constitution. If you don't allow self-published material, we'd have to write "Smith says that the US constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizure" This applies to smaller organizations, and is a problem in the article Alcoholics Anonymous, where some users are claiming that AA policy is self-published and therefore irrelevant -- please read the examples above before nay-saying. — DavidMack 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion resumes below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

University Presses

I believe this line:

"the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses"

should really be by intent:

"the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed books published in university presses."

If so, I would request the change be made. ThreeE 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is what it means. University press books have a very high degree of rigour, but I don't believe that it is actually the same as the peer review process for journals and conference papers. SamBC(talk) 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd think ThreeE's intent is that university presses can publish all sorts of unreliable books, from fiction to highly controversial theses. Whatever the source, some common sense still needs to be applied to the reliability of the source for factual information. A univ.-published feminist tract might say that renaissance sculpture is a form of mass rape, a claim that Wikipedia shouldn't present as a fact. ThreeE, I think there's an implicit need to apply common sense regardless of the source, and while maybe that should be described a bit more, "peer-reviewed books" seems like an odd addition. -Agyle 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
My concern here is that the policy calls out "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" as particularly reliable sources. To your point, this isn't the case for non-peer-reviewed books published in university presses. That is the point I am looking to clarify here. Your point is close to what I am trying to say. I don't think the policy intends to treat non-peer-reviewed books published by university presses as any more (or less) reliable than books published in general. ThreeE 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with peer-reviewed in that case is that the process university presses use to review books simply isn't the same as the process used to review journals, as I understand it. Maybe some books are reviewed in that way, but there are plenty that rigorously reviewed in other ways that are still more reliable than the typical mass-market popular science book. I haven't personally come across the sort of publications Agyle describes from university presses, only published by the university themselves. I don't know if that's the confusion, or if I just haven't come across them and people like OUP do publish theses and so on. I think that might need clarifying - are we really talking about university presses, or just things published by universities, and is that distinction well known? SamBC(talk) 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The question that I raise is what kind of publications does this policy intend to call "particularly reliable." I believe that the policy intends to grant this status to publications that are a) peer-reviewed by b) a university or discipline community. I don't think this policy intends to grant this status to, say, yearbooks published by a university press.
University presses are of varying qualities. They also have multiple lines of publications; on particular, they often concentrate of local history of their region, and local authors, and these books may not have the same general interest as their other imprints. But it is usually possible to distinguish the book popular from the more scholarly works. That said, some commercial imprints have as high a reputation, and similarly use peer-reviewers. it is generally possible to tell from the introductory matter what the status is. DGG (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. SamBC, just as an example, see the Michigan State University Press; in addition to fiction, there are also personal memoirs. While their focus is on uncontroversial, scholarly works, you can find examples of controversial, biased writing. Of course you can find peer-reviewed journals that are dubious too; I was dealing with an article the other day that cited the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, which operates outside the realm of established science (to put it politely). -Agyle 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the following change be made:

From:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

To:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed works; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

This emphasizes the peer-reviewed part without overly implying the reliability of university publications in general. ThreeE 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse this solution. -Jmh123 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have problems with "respected publishing houses"
  1. They aren't actual houses; if we are going for this, change it to read "publishers"
  2. I'm sure every publisher has someone who respects them. Without a firm definition of what "respectable" means, this will only cause problems.
  3. "In general" already covers your objection. The vast majority of books that come from a University press are reliable. If there is an exception, it is likely to already be noted somewhere.
— BQZip01 — talk 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
BQZip, I see you reverted ThreeE's changes. Perhaps you might suggest a new "To:" section? 216.85.6.131 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. A new "To:" section? What exactly does that mean? I reverted the changes because a consensus had not yet been reached (a single person's feedback is not a consensus). — BQZip01 — talk 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
ThreeE offered "From:" "To:" language. Rather than just revert, why not modify his suggestion? Seems more constructive... 216.85.6.131 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. This is a policy and changes should not be made lightly nor without consensus (which he does not have). Therefore the change should not have been made in the first place.
  2. I already stated that his concern was already covered with the words "In general" and a change was unnecessary. He has not yet responded.
— BQZip01 — talk 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't if the university publications are reliable, it is if they are the most reliable. This seems to be a fair assertion for peer-reviewed university publications and the point of the statement. It doesn't seem to be the point of the statement to claim that all university publications are the most reliable. In fact, I certainly would object to this claim as others have commented here. ThreeE's proposed wording does emphasize this. 216.85.6.131 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Comment: I'm concerned that there may be too narrow a focus on academic publications, which are only one example of reliable sources. WP:NPOV requires representation of significant non-academic points of view where relevant to the subject. For example, Moshe Feinstein and Ovadiah Yosef, represent pre-eminent contemporary scholars and judges of Jewish religious law whose opinion would be significant on almost any topic in that subject, yet they did not tend to publish their opinions through academic journals and university presses. We've recently had some people claim that only academics can be reliable sources even on matters of religion, who appear to be using this policy as their basis. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there are other reliable sources out there. We should be open to other sources, especially those who are experts within their own field. Sources need not be academic in order to satisfy WP:V. — BQZip01 — talk 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources doesn't insist just on scholarly publications, but I think it's fair to consider them generally more reliable. In the particular examples of Yosef's and Feinstein's views, they seem significantly covered in academic journals and reliable-sounding reference books, from a scan of scholar.google.com and books.google.com. Their views that made it there are a good indication of which are considered significant, and are probably more useful for inclusion on a topic. Latitude on sources depends on the topic; People Magazine (a silly weekly U.S. magazine on entertainment) could be unreliable on a scientific topic, but reliable about a cartoon episode. :-) But if you're dealing with a contentious religious topic (I have no idea if you are), it's probably better to rely on more objective sources for the topic, like peer-reviewed journals on religion, or books by respected scholars or authors that cover a topic with a variety of views, rather than, for example, just one view. -Agyle 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty here is that religion is a subject-matter, not just view. I think this would be a little bit like suggesting that historians and literary theoriests ought to be preferred as reliable sources on law to constitutional lawyers. Doubtless lawyers, as applied professionals constrained to a mentality where historical and literary documents are analyzed for purposes of constructing arguments about present-day issues to courts that have limited persuadability windows, don't have as broad a background and can't be as objective or entertain as many different views as historians or literary theorists. There is certainly some overlap in subject matter. But while it's not quite as extreme as using mathematicians to determine who is a reliable biologist, being an expert in the broader topic doesn't automatically convey reliability in the narrower one. Other Orthodox rabbis would appear to be the relevant peer group for determining who is a reliable Orthodox rabbi, despite the fact that, like lawyers and other professionals, the entire subject-matter operates in a mode others may find constrained. Would you rely on a literary theorist if you had a legal problem? Of course the phrase "Talmudic argument" implies, whatever its other sometimes pejorative connotations, entertaining a multiplicity of views. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Is this mean only verifiable real facts that are absolutely true articles can exist in Wikipedia?

If so why do you include articles which are open to discussion, and even hurt many people? --Obsteel 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The opening sentence of the policy reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Please take a better look over it. Vassyana 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question as to "why", here's the short version: "truth" is nearly impossible to verify...and even then, there will still be some who deny absolute facts. Since this is an open source encyclopedia, everyone's opinions would be valid and WP would be in a constant state of turmoil. By adding a simple layer of protection (it has to have been published elsewhere by a reputable source), it avoids lawsuits (hey we didn't say it, they did) and removes the onus of credibility to the publisher/author. If something is quoted from the front page of the New York Times, we can assume it is at least somewhat reliable. If it isn't, other published sources will likely take great joy in destroying the piece and the opposite side of the argument can be placed along side the original leaving the reader to decide for himself/herself. — BQZip01 — talk 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean anything like that. I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies thoroughly, as you spend a lot of time advocating actions violating those policies, such as your suggestion to remove all comments contrary to "the Turkish point of view" from Wikiproject Turkey. Unfortunately, your reading may be hampered by language difficulties. Please consider removing the en-3 tag from your user page -- you're at most en-2. -- Jibal 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Jibal, I assume you are talking about Obsteel and not me.
  2. Assuming good faith, his question was a valid one. Your comments seem overly hostile for the given question, unless WP:AGF does not apply for some reason.
— BQZip01 — talk 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

www.constitution.org

I notice that about eighty times[4], that the source www.constitution.org is used as a reference in Wikipedia. I am curious about the opinion of other editors about whether this source meets the reliable source policy. While at first glance the website appears to be scholarly and impressive, when you look deeper it appears largely anonymous and without reliable publication process. Also, there are indications that lead me to guess it is a blog of user Jon Roland and to some extent this also may be a policy question of WP:COI. What is the consensus opinion of editors on the question of the reliability of this source? SaltyBoatr 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be worth addressing to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. JavaTenor 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, moved to here: [5] SaltyBoatr 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion

I have put comments markers around:

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[1]
ththis should be seen as an attempt at good advice, but it is not formal policy or worded as such. Personally, I think the different sentences contradict each other. If it applies aggressively to everything, it can not especially apply to something, and there is a difference between "pseudo" information and information suspected as being "pseudo" I suggest the proper place for this is a footnote. DGG (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
I wholeheartedly agree that the unlikely cult of personality around Jimbo shouldn't cloud our thoughts or our policy pages. Sometimes it seems that most any uneventful thing he sends ends up as a non-sequitur on a policy page. On the other hand, he really does have a lot of insight, and the predictable anti-Jimbo hating (I use the word in the kind, pop sense) goes too far. Perhaps we should simply develop a "Jimbo quote" template.Wikidemo 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Jimbo, I believe new Wikipedia editors would experience undue WP:BITE if their content was summarily removed unless it conformed completely to sourcing requirements. Moreover, disputes about the reliability of sourcing are often connected to content disputes. Wikipedia will be a more WP:CIVIL place if people can discuss sourcing disputes rather than respond by reverting. Articles on highly visible topics may be different, but on ordinary articles -- even very controversial articles -- tagging rather than removing material as the initial response to sourcing issues is more likely to lead to resolution of disputes in a manner productive to the project, both in terms of reducing tensions and in terms of improvement to the overall quality. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's another problem with many Jimbo quotes. They can't be taken literally. He's an idea man more than a nuts and bolts policy pragmatist, and in that role he is prone to overstate a point for emphasis. If you read this closely, he is riffing off of "random speculative...pseudo-information." To suggest that all unsourced information should be aggressively removed rather than tagged is utterly counter to the actual way things work here. The quotation complicates things more than it explains them, especially for the uninitiated. Wikidemo 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording change

This policy article says, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.". I suggest that "third-party" be changed to read "supporting". Wikipedia itself, of course, is not a third-party source. Other open wikis are third-party sources. The issue does not revolve around their third-party-ness but around their fitness to be cited as supporting sources. If this change is made, a similar change needs to be made to the WP:RS guideline article. -- Boracay Bill 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If another Wiki is being cited as a third party source, you would expect their (secondary) sources to be included in their article / page. If they are, then why not just cite those? If they are not cited on the other Wiki, then it shouldn't be used as any kind of source, because it could have been made up by anyone. Neil ☎ 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Web sites

I don't know if in one of the many archives already here it was debated (i'm pretty sure it was).

We in wikipedia have lot of web links that are used often as sources, also because not everyone has the possibility or the will to buy an appropriate book to couver the issues, and moreover, web sources are available to be checked by all, including erroneous or bad-faith statements.

Now i want to ask to you the 'ufficial' position. It's blatalanty obvious that there millions web links here in wikipedia, and not necessarly they are links to universities or whatever 'istitutional'. In stead, there are many sites that talks, as example about history.

Now, that's the problem: in wikipedia as verifiability how these sources are handled? It's natural that they are widely used, but still, is correct to contest this or that site? As example, in F-86 page there are in references, at least 40 links. Tell me, is it right, how it appears to be in practice, to cite these web sites?

As example, the site : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html is contested in F-86 page datas. I cannot understand how because a site is 'unusually giving his book sources' it is not allowed to be cited! So if that site gives only datas without sources used, it would be more acceptable? Differently to many other sites this one has one specific author, is well known (over 300,000 visits in http://home.att.net), and offers a list of sources to verify freely his affermations, in a work that is meant to be a sort of encyclopedia. This could be 'unusual', but it is not difficult to recon it as way more reliable than usual web sites (used as well) are. Moreover, the site owner is an author also in paper world, with two books and some articles published. So, to me it looks far more reliable than thousand web sites used freely as sources or link, or whetever.

Moreover, Joe Baugher is present also here in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Baugher ( 'who is also notable for his series of articles on aviation') and if you search him in the web you'll find http://it.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-mdp&p=Joe%20Baugher%20aviation no less than 2,560 results, mainly related to world aviation.

In fact, he is one of the most known and widespread authors in web aviation articles. So tell me, what's the point to take out him from wikipedia aviation articles, when he is in fact one of the most quoted aviation authors in the web? This is not the blog or personal site of some obscure 'author' without identity or affidability. He is in fact both known and well accepted in the web about aviation world--Stefanomencarelli 11:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tatters

Dear contributors, as you may be aware Google books are being used widely recently. However Google books has not only visible abstracts (several pages like this) but also and restricted view (few words of sentences, like this (text in right corner)). Such books' tatters being increasingly used as well. However such limited view makes impossible to see not even a broader context, but sometimes it is impossible to verify and even see the text. For instance, my newest experience regarding such tatters - [6] (please see, right corner - white space without any text). It was stated by contributor who used this source that actually there are such text poetka polska Karolina Proniewska (1828—1859), nazywana z litewska Karolina Praniauskaitė, notably contributor used these taters as primary mean and not original book with full text. Another example - from this tatter contributor suggested that there are such text Karolina Anna Proniewska urodziła się... w rodzinie szlacheckiej, we can see some similar words there but not all as was stated. And this is not English source as well. So does such practice with presumed text of Google books qualifies WP:OR and meats WP:V standards? M.K. 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

Are images subject to verifiability? For example, if I take a picture of someone that I claim is the president of an organization, do I have to back that with a citation? ThreeE 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No.Wikidemo 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think this one is more of an "it depends"... normally images do not need verification. This is because it is usually obvious and uncontested that the image is indeed what it purports to be. But, if someone raises a reasonable challenge, contending that the image is not, in fact, a picture of the president of the organization as you claim, you might have to defend your contention that it is. It does not happen very often, but it could happen. Blueboar 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology change proposal

I thought that I had made this proposal here recently but I cannot find it in the article history. This is a second attempt.

This policy page says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."

It occurs to me that, though Wikipedia itself is not, other open wikis are "third-party sources" relative to Wikipedia and to the subject of any particular Wikipedia article (right?). It also occurs to me that the answer to the question of suitabllity of open wikis as supporting sources turns not on the third-partyness of the source but on the questionable reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight which grows out of the openness of open wikis. Consequently, I propose a terminology change here to something like: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as supporting sources."

Incidentally, related my point above, I'll mention that there is a discussion at WT:RS#Wikitruth_as_a_reliable_source regarding (some?) closed wikis as possibly being reliable sources. -- Boracay Bill 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

What about mission statements? One editor said that mission statements are "basically a sales pitch" and should not be included. Other users have expressed similar views. I am unsure and was wondering if the following text should be removed from the Campus Watch article in accordance with this policy?

Founded in 2002, its website states that it: "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."

Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO (in my humble opinion), I think the phrasing is perfectly appropriate when used in an article about itself as long as the source of the text is clear in its source (i.e. "XYZ's stated goal is ABC, DEF, GHI, etc."). — BQZip01 — talk 04:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a mission statement is acceptable and likely essential to include, as long as it is clear that it is self-published. The current wording does not allow self-published quotes at all. The proposed change below allows missions statements.
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • contentious or self-serving material is presented as self-published;

It is also important to be able to include quotes like "Senator John Doe asserts that he was never convicted of a felony." — DavidMack 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This goes to the reason for including the self-serving or contentious material self-published by an article subject. A statement by Sen. John Doe, even if clearly described as self-published, should not stand for the proposition that John Doe was never accused of a felony. We need better sourcing than that. But it can stand for the proposition that he denied an accustation. Likewise, a company's mission statement should not be used to describe what the company does. That's notoriously unreliable. Rather, it may be quoted to say what the company's mission statement is. I understand the point of allowing self-serving statements by an article subject. There are quite a few good reasons, e.g. a company reporting its number of employees or retail locations. The key is that we should not allow unduly self-serving statements. The word "unduly" implies a flexible standard that depends on the circumstance. The proposed language, by contrast, places no limits on the nature of self-serving statements. That would seem to permit the messy problem of spam-style articles, as long as the spam is attributed to its source. We shouldn't repeat press releases or advertisements, sourced or not. Wikidemo 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you suggest some alternate wording to allow on appropriate self-published statements? There are mission statements. And absurd statements like "Uri Geller states on his website that a paper in the journal Nature proves that his skills are genuine," which may then be debunked.
This is an important issue for me. Some editors are insisting that mission statements are self-published and therefore inadmissable. — DavidMack 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
An orgainization's mission statement is indeed self-published... and thus should only be included in an article about that organization. I think the question here is really whether a mission statement is "uduely self-serving". That probably needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I don't think we want to change the policy to allow all mission statements. Some mission statements are going to be fine, others will indeed be "unduely self-serving". Blueboar 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A company's mission statement is mostly for internal consumption and by definition not self-serving in a PR sense. There may be some exceptions. Nonetheless, it's not very encyclopedic or helpful. Most people don't feel like they have to read a mission statement to understand what a company is. Does anyone really care what the Mission Statement is of Microsoft, or Boeing, or Exxon? I think it's incorrect, and a little sloppy to repeat a mission statement of an advocacy organization as evidence of what the company actually stands for or does. That's best established by what they actually do, as established by reliable external sources. But in a few cases a company mission statement is probably useful if it's identified as such. Probably not in the lead or introductory part of an article, but in a section related to what the company thinks its mission is. Wikidemo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. So far I have failed to come up with wording that gains consensus, but the current wording is obviously not adequate. Mission statements may sometimes be relevant, as may unduly self-serving statements. For example, here's a quote from the article Kevin Trudeau: "According to Kevin Trudeau, the book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." Under the current rules that statement is not allowed, but it is certainly essential to that article. I'm asking for help. So far I've had my edits reverted without comments on this talk page. Can those who reverted my changes please make a constructive suggestion? — DavidMack 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No reply to my request. I shall return to my cave and emerge later with more concrete examples. — DavidMack 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example for the cave. I just tried to de-POV-ify the Center for Consumer Freedom article, with these edits. In doing so I removed the editorializing outside the quotes. But I left in a lot of self-serving material the group put out on press releases, websites, mission statements, planning documents, etc. So we have a whole bunch of POV statements, most or all clearly and correctly sourced to the organization that is the subject of hte article:
  • Promoting the "right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves" (i.e. dismantling consumer protections on theory of caveat emptor)
  • "those groups and individuals who would protect us from ourselves." (i.e. those who support consumer protection laws)
  • "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists" (i.e. anti-consumer protection lobbying group)
  • "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice'." (i.e. oppose anti-smoking laws)
  • Name change because "the anti-consumer forces [were] expanding their reach beyond restaurants and taverns [and] going into your communities and even your homes" (i.e. expand anti-consumer protection lobbying beyond hospitality industry)
  • act "wherever they try to take away your consumer freedom". (broadly oppose consumer protections)
  • "a growing cabal of food cops, health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know what's best for you, [who] are pushing against our basic freedoms." (i.e. people who support consumer protections)
  • "stand up to malicious animal-rights activists ... who claim to 'know what's best' for you." (oppose PETA)
Should these be removed or refactored? I think they're all a nice touch. Anyone who agrees with the organization will support them either way; those who don't will clearly understand them as the company's own rhetoric, not Wikipedia's editorial judgment. And seeing the company's own words probably helps rather than hurts one know what they are up to. Just my opinion, and I'm not sure what this proves, but perhaps a useful example.
-- Wikidemo 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, all of us edit on the shoulders of others; please don't slight those who edited before you. Flowanda | Talk 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Wikidemo. That is clearly relevant and NPOV material that would be disallowed by the current policy. Let me know if you come across any more examples. — DavidMack 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as references

I'm going through a similar thing in the Art of Living Foundation (AOLF) article. I found it the other day in need of some attention. It read mostly like an ad for AOLF. Some users were regularly removing the Criticisms section of the article, pointing out that much of it is inadequately sourced. I pointed out in turn that the article as a whole is mostly inadequately sourced (primary citations for the most part).

I set out to do my share of helping out by trying to track down sources for material in the Criticisms section. I did find a couple of non-self-published sources, which will be helpful, but under current policy much of the section will need to be scrapped (as will things like the mission statement--which I see as helpful--in other parts of the article). However, I found a lot more of what, imho, is quality information in the form of people's first person accounts, e.g. this one, of how they were treated by the organization. This information is, however, located in blogs and comments, making it off limits. I realize, of course, that it would be not ok to use those accounts as sources for a statement like "The Art of Living Foundation discourages student questions concerning its techniques." But how about "Some people have claimed that, as AOLF students, they were discouraged from asking questions concerning courses and techniques." If not, how about sourcing them for "Various first-person reports can be found on the internet in which people claim the Art of Living Foundation discouraged them from asking questions concerning courses they have taken." If not, it seems like there is good information going to waste there. Shouldn't there be some way to get it onto Wikipedia? I'll try to come up with an explicit suggestion in a few days. I would appreciate others trying to do the same. --Floorsheim 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with the topic of self-published sources in articles about themselves. You want to allow fatual statements that ABC blog said XYZ. Not possible -- too many garbage blogs. — DavidMack 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it come down to notability then--whether the blog is notable or not? Certainly some are, certainly some aren't. Certainly some are, as a reference for certain types of statements, and not so as a reference to other types of statements. Granted what's going on in the case of the article I'm working on is a little different from yours, but to me, the two issues are very closely related. They are both cases of a general phenomenon: it seems that, sometimes, information coming from self-published sources is appropriate and valuable for Wikipedia if included in the right way, and that the policies governing their use could use a little adjustment. --Floorsheim 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Blogs in general are not reliable sources. There are of course complications. The simplest one is when the blog entry is written by the subject of an article, in which case they can be used as a source about themselves (this itself has other exceptions. If someone is notable and he has a blog that says he is the reincarnation of Julius Caesar we don't need to report that as a fact). For example, the New York Times runs what it calls "blogs" which are subject to standard editing and vetting. So we need to be careful about the labeling. In general, very few blogs in the traditional sense of the word are notable, and they are notable only in the form "According to notable blog X". A good rule of thumb for this sort of thing is that the person should be notable enough to have an article and should be clearly a relevant expert. Even then, one should only use such sources sparingly. As to the Art of Living example, given the critical nature of the information and the non-notability of the blogs in question, it is very hard to see how they could be mentioned. One might have better luck having some mainstream newsource do an article about the criticism and then come back here and use that a source. JoshuaZ 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is going off on a tangent. "Notability" as such isn't relevant to whether a blog entry makes a good source. But some blogs and some authors are more reliable than others. Saying that all blogs are unreliable is like saying that all video is unreliable. Blogs are just a medium. The reliability of the content is what is in question, not the format. The real issues are who is writing the piece, whether there is any editorial control, etc. Wikidemo 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed except to note that relevancy of opinions matter. Some opinions are more relevant or notable than others. This is not just based on whether or not there is some oversight. For example, an editorial in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal may be worth noting for a claim. A similar one in the local newspaper west-nowheresville population 40, not so much. JoshuaZ 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with statements like "blogs are unreliable", especially in policy statements is that it discourages critical thinking about whether a given blog is reliable in the contex of a particular article. Newspaper may in general be more reliable than blogs, but in specific cases a blog can be (verifiably) be right and a newspaper (verifiably) be wrong. I'm missing a sense that these rules are rules of thumb, rather than pronounciations handed down from heaven. --Martin Wisse 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see this as a fundamental choice:
Q1: What is wrong with being conservative and relying just on 'most reliable sources'; those with fact checking and a reputation for oversight and accuracy?
A: You loose the ability to use many potentially 'right' sources (like some blogs). And, you get an encyclopedia with a reputation of using (sometimes) poor sources containing crackpot ideas.
Q2:What is right...?
A:You get a smaller encyclopedia with a mainstream trustworthy reputation.
Which do we want, a larger encyclopedia or a better reputation? SaltyBoatr 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well put. I think the tendency certainly has to be toward the latter. But I also think it would be a mistake to try to make an absolute principle out of this no blogs thing. Certainly there will be cases in which it is very clear that a blog source is ok. Currently, we have that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I agree with that. However, I am not satisfied that this is the only case of when a self-published source would be appropriate and valuable. I think the issue is in need of further elucidation. Both in the form of examples of when a blog source is ok and when it is not as well as guidelines for ascertaining which is the case as different circumstances come up.

In regard to the latter, I've been thinking about the issue from the standpoint of WP:OR. There, we find "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." It seems to me the extension should be one of the guidelines regarding blogs and other self-published material. Any statement in an article sourced by a blog should be non-interpretive and readily verifiable by a non-specialist who reads the blog. Furthermore, from a WP:NPOV standpoint, material sourced by blogs should be non-controversial. Furthermore, from a WP:NPOV standpoint, statements in an article pointing to a self-published source as their means of verifiability should not be subject to doubt or dispute as to their validity. This would mean, in most cases, sticking to "Blog X states that...". Additionally, there should be a WP:NOTE consideration: Is the fact that "Blog X states that..." relevant to the notability of the article?

What are the thoughts of others? --Floorsheim 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "it is relevant to their notability"

I removed this bullet point as it appears to be in contradiction with the "self serving" prohibition. If statements about something's notability are not sourced from elsewhere they are clearly self-serving. - CygnetSaIad 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted someone who rolled back this change, apparently under the mistaken assumption that policy pages are somehow special. If there is any argument about why this should not be removed, I'm happy to hear it, but please don't just revert for the sake of reverting. Have a look at Template:Policy, and note that it doesn't say "check before editing." While common sense dictates that sometimes, in contentious cases, we do that, Wikipedia:Be bold is pretty central to the whole Wikipedia concept.
CygnetSaIad 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this has a very interesting relationship to a nearly identical formulation that covers a different (but overlapping) scope of material in WP:BLP. To do this intelligently I think one has to consider both sections.Wikidemo 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Barry Bonds could write in his blog "Man, I fucking hate baseball" (hypothetically) - it's relevant to his notability (playing baseball, mostly) but not noticably self serving. WilyD 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That example would only be appropiate if Mr. Bond was notable for "fucking hat[ing] baseball." In that case, we'd want something more from him than his word on his website that he was famous for it. The presumption would be (still talking about Bond) that whatever it is that he's notable for would be established elsewhere, and his opinion as above would be found on his website. Perhaps if we had some better examples? - CygnetSaIad 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Just glancing at this. The bullet point is concerned with whether the info is relevant to the person's notability, not whether the info is the person's notability. In the Bonds example, farking hating baseball may not be his notability, but it would be relevant to it. I'm with Wily on this one. --Floorsheim 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The example given seems, with respect, borderline nonsensical. Is the suggestion then that anything the person stated on their blog that related to whatever they were notable for is valid for inclusion? That is to say, since Bond is famous for baseball, anything he says about baseball on his blog can be quoted? If that is the argument, it appears to utterly sidestep the notion that the items included in an article should be encyclopedic in nature.
CygnetSaIad 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but let's suppose that Bonds made a comment in his blog to the effect that using steroids helped him hit more home runs. Now that would be directly relevant to his notability, and yet it would not be self-serving. Blueboar 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Something like this. For instance, if Scott Tremaine includes an anecdote in his blog about how he likes ice cream, that's not relevant to his notability and should be excluded. But if he includes an anecdote about how he developed his love of astrophysics after his grandfather bought him a telescope (hypothetically, I have no idea) then that is relevant and might be included. Relevant to just means "on the topic of the thing(s) they're notable for". This is what it *means*, anyhow, and why its not redundant. As an actual example, I used Peter Goldreich's page at the IAS to source that he was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold, when all the other sources used the more generic "graduate student" or just "student". A science's Ph.D. supervisor is very relevant to their notability, so this is the kind of exception we're making. WilyD 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, thank you both, the better examples have made this more clear to me. - CygnetSaIad 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Open wikis

Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Wikitruth as a reliable source, Jossi and I have removed "open" from the line prohibiting the use of wikis as sources.[7][8] It implied that closed wikis were allowed even though they fail the basic verifiability standards since they are almost certainly self-published and are inherently unstable. We couldn't think of a counter-example: a closed, stable wiki written by experts or published by a proper source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you were rushing out to get to that tent - Jossi removed "open wikis", not simply "wikis". A similar change may be appropriate here, but removing "open" and leaving "wiki" in implies the software platform is the problem - when it's the self-published nature of the information that is at issue. -- SiobhanHansa 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium is I think a counter example.It's stable enough to cite, contributing is open to anyone who registers whose identity can be verified, but the approval of final versions --what they call "editing"--is conducted by subject experts. I do not think material there can be said to be "self-published"--at least not the part in the approved versions. DGG (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As Citizendium is a tertiary source, it would be better to cite directly the source they cite, or at least cite the direct source "as cited in Citizendium". Of course that is only applicable to these few articles that have been "approved", otherwise it would not be a verifiable source, same as Wikipedia itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's not part of Wikipedia either. mike4ty4 04:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just mentioning that as of this writing, the project page says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources." -- My understanding of the present consensus is that it should say: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia and/or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.", right? -- Boracay Bill 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I would go on to comment (per the preceding section) that Wikipedia clearly cannot be considered a "third-party source" in any case since Wikipedia isn't a third party within the context of Wikipedia articles. The question here is whether it is appropriate to cite Wikipedia and/or other open wikis as supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, regardless the correct or not citing Wikipedia, this is what happens dozens times every day in millions sites and blogs. It's a matter of time and also journals and books will started to use it, perhaps this is already happened.--Stefanomencarelli 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing by editors who happen to be webmasters to copies of verifiable sources copied on their sites

I propose the following clarification:

It is acceptable for an editor to cite to a reliable source not authored by him, previously published by a reliable publisher elsewhere, a copy of which also appears on a website for which he is the webmaster, without having to omit the link, especially if there is no link available to a reliable site to which he is not a contributor.

Jon Roland 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about Convenience links... and we already have guidance on those. Blueboar 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This suggestion is "creepy".1 - Jehochman Talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The concept of "convenience link" is all but deprecated, and people have not been updating or paying attention to that page for a while. Links can pretty much be divided among source citations and external links these days, and what used to be called a "convenience link" is more or less what an "external link" is. In Wikipedia-speak, anyway. I think the proposed language goes without saying. It's not self-published or anything simply because the editor is the webmaster. The only issue is conflict of interest. If you're going to have an external link rather than a source link, the only impediment would be linkspam, which is indeed a valid concern. Is the editor adding external links to his own website because it truly helps the article, or simply to promote his website? It's best to be careful, and for the most part count on third parties to add those links. But that's a discussion for WP:EL. Wikidemo 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1A pun on instruction creep. Today is Halloween.

Sources not in English

Hey, this is less a request for change then perhaps a request for clarification. I've been working on some articles that cover universities in Korea. This can be problematic because many tend to seem POV/advert with statements like "In general, the students of (some) University are well known for their rigid attachment and strong unity, as well as for their easy and loyal incorporation into the societies to which they belong." This statement is then sourced in Korean only (one of the 3 sources prompting the user to download a ".doc" file which I'm afraid to do). What is the procedure here, then? I know that lacking an English sources doesn't preclude having sources in another language, but are the only options for a non-(good) Korean speaker to (a) leave the statement alone (b) constantly find laymen to translate? What happens if a user who likes the language just adds another source? Thanks Epthorn 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


TO be realists, i would remind that there are 7 billions humans all around the world, and english is the standard language of let's say 1/10. Wiki.en is a sort of magnet for foreigners like myself, and many arguments have no sources in anglo-saxon world (that tends to think to be the only to have 'culture') so a bit of 'common sense' there must be. We are far away to be 'hunified' in the english glory: german, french, italian, oriental languages etc. etc. have immense amount of stuff to display. Also in wiki.en, that is not wiki.swaili or whetever. Foreigners with foreigner language sources must be previewed, in the well and bad they contributes also in wiki.en.--Stefanomencarelli 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Of course, I understand that there are many sources out there that are not in English, wiki.en or not (though luckily the most authoritative of those tend to be translated into several different languages). Let's take another more common example. Let's say that a user puts up a statement of fact on wikipedia and backs it up with a source. Say someone says it is a "fact that the genocide of Armenians is a hoax." and cites several sources, none of them in English. Or if a user denies the existence of a nation/ethnicity (say, Bosnian or something) and cites sources not in English. How should users who cannot read such a language act? Should every instance demand the attention of a user who can translate? In the meantime, should such statements be 'verified until proven unverified'? I'm not trying to advocate a position, but I have been trying to figure out what should be done with an article that appears POV but has citations to outside links that are completely in a different language. Epthorn —Preceding comment was added at 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- Looking at WP:RS/N there is a discussion on sources- is that the preferred method when finding a source that is in another language? Epthorn 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ephthorn, I think what you are concerned with is what is being said in the article, not what language the source is in. Some of your examples are a bit extreme. If an article said that it was a "fact that the genocide of Armenians is a hoax", I would seriously challenge that statement as being POV, no matter what language the source was in. However, if the article said something like: "(Author X) has concluded that 'the genocide of Armenians is a hoax'" and that was cited to a non-english source, I would say it is probably a verifiable statement. Essentially what I am saying is that POV is POV, no matter what the language. And verifiability is the same. In most cases, you should assume good faith and accept that the source does verify the statement. However, if you have good reason to think that the source has been mistranslated, is being represented inaccurately, or has taken out of context, then you need to contact someone who reads the language and get them to double check what the source actually says. Blueboar 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have shot myself in the foot using those extreme examples. A more realistic one would have been to actually use a real incidence I saw where universities' articles were all saying one was more or less prestigious than the other based on sources in Korean. I like to assume good faith in a user, but sometimes it's hard to assume good faith in sources, especially in a (surprisingly) charged environment like universities. Rarely were the citations "author X from journal Y"... instead they were to news websites. It can be difficult to tell which of these is reputable, unfortunately, just as I'm sure it might be difficult for a non-American to know that tabloids are not. I take your point however... and I'll try to enlist some help by native speakers when possible if there is no way to get a similar English source. Thanks- Epthorn 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... in that case, I would assume that the sources do verify the statement, but ask questions as to their neutrality and reliability on the talk page. Finding someone who lives in Korea, or visits Korea frequently might help. Blueboar 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, 'use common sense'. I am working in aviation and i don't act in 'hot arguments' like Genocides. I talk simply with stuff like: i have aircraft datas, but i have problem because i have italian written sources. Sadly, often the web english sources about are not available or without or obsolete datas, so even posting with the maximum precision is difficult that these are accepted without any discussion. I don't think they not must be verified, but if i have reliable sources (books, magazines) and want to contribute in wiki.en, how i can act if someone starts to no believe to my datas, being not 'immediatly verifiables'? The funny thing is also that sometimes (see my first post here) these datas are verifiable with internet sites well known. But wait a moment: with a double strike ('you must have both written sources and english sources) even with the case presented above, i have still troubles to be accepted. I ask to you: if i want to add contributes in articles in wiki.en, i am in fact obliged to buy a english book, or the wingpan of an aircraft can be reported reliably also with a italian or whetever magazine (of which i provide reference, to search it eventually)? Just tell me.--Stefanomencarelli 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy clearly allows for non-english sources: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
The issue here is not whether we can use non-english sources. It's what to do if you have a concern or question about a non-english source. All you can do if find someone who reads the language and ask them evaluate the source for you. It is not all that dissimilar to the difficulty of double checking a questionable statement cited to a rare or out of print book... it may not be easy to check (you have to find a library that carries the book). But that does not mean you can't double check it. The statement is verifiable... just not easily verifiable. There is a difference. Blueboar 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will just have to try and find/pester Korean native speakers as to the verifiability (especially the notability) of sources. Thanks, Epthorn 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, in this particular issue, i found a direct confirm: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html, one to one matching my numbers given. Is it accounting for a double checking, considering that Joe is one well known and appreciated editor in aviation articles (and even book and magazines)?--Stefanomencarelli 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That site you mention is a personnel website. It is not acceptable for wikipedia. Any Joe Schmo can make a website to put any information up. Epthorn 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
However, in Stefanomencarelli's case I think the contention is that Joe Baugher isn't just any Joe Schmo... but a recognized expert in the field (correct me if I have the argument wrong). There are exceptions that can be made to the "no personal websites" rule if this is the case. This sounds more and more like a NPOV issue than a Verifiablilty issue. Suggest you raise it there. Blueboar 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite error 8; No text given.

Is there a specific template that would alert editors to this problem more specificlly? As of right now when ever I am spoting those errors the only template that would fit the spot of the problem is Template:Failed verification. Now what seems to cause most of these Cite Errros if the use of named References and its transclusion over and over again. Whenever someone makes an edit of a section and ends remove the base reference of this the same transclusion of that same named reference becomes a cite error 8. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to write a bot to fix this problem automatically, by fishing the old reference out of the page history. Perhaps put this idea on Wikipedia:Bot_requests?—greenrd 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Verify = To Make True

This stuff about "verifiability, not truth" violates wikipedia's own policy against weasel words. To verify means "to make true". Wikipedia uses that term to mean that an article can be "made true" by providing reliable references. To say that it's "not about truth", is not true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood. Wikipedia does not claim its articles are "true", only that the content is verifiable to published sources. Verifiability, in our case, refers to ascertaining the correctness of a text in comparison with a provided source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "to make true" the words in the article in reference to a source. I understand that. But the policy is (ab)used to say "it's not about truth", which is not true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You probably mean that some people are confused about the meaning of this policy. In these cases is best to be armed with lots of patience and kind manners and tell these people to get clued about the real meaning of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That wording is very carefully worked out. The problem is that "Truth" is ofen hard to determine. POV often defines what is "true". So we rely on verification (in the sense that it is "true" that a source says something). It does not matter whether something that is stated in a reliable source is "true" or not, if that statement is relevant to an article, we can include discussion of it in our article. The amount of space devoted to that discussion is determined by WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and a host of other policies and guidelines. Blueboar 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
His point may have something to do with this: Even though we say that what goes on Wikipedia is precisely what can be verified by outside sources, the whole point of that policy is to try to make sure the truth gets represented on Wikipedia and not something else. To suggest that our intention here has nothing to do with expressing truth is a little bit misleading and maybe somewhat "weasely" as well. --Floorsheim 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at all... let's take an obvious, if extreme example... There are all sorts of scholarly books (accademic texts from eminent theologians) that state categorically that "Jesus is the Son of God". But is this statement "true"? To a Christian the answer is "yes"... it is the "truth"... but to a non-Christian the "truth" is something different. What can be verified, however, is that eminent theologian X states that Jesus is the Son of God.Blueboar 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a tendency to use its own definition of words like "verifiable" and "consensus". While literal definitions may be at odd with our policy, we do make an effort to make it clear what we mean. 1 != 2 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources

AnonEMouse has made a change which I think is quite significant and ought to be discussed first. [9] The current policy is that no self-published sources are allowed about living persons, unless in articles about themselves. AEM has changed this to no self-published material that is derogatory etc. But as that's in the eye of the beholder, it's a controversial change. Also, no positive self-published material is currently allowed for all the obvious reasons of no fact-checking, third-party verification etc. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should be changed back. I wonder if there was some policy creep in BLP, it seems he copied it from there. This is quite a big change. Self published sources have generally been forbidden in BLP articles, except when published by the subject, and even then the restrictions are pretty severe, for example, no claims about third parties. This change doesn't make a lot of sense. - Crockspot 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's been changed at BLP, it should probably be changed back there too, unless there was a clear consensus. But even if there was, I'd say NOR, V, and NPOV are the core policies, and that BLP has to be consistent with them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be changed back. Self-published sources are the main source of problems, and I'm increasingly convinced that we should limit the use as much as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the BLP language. This is no change at all. This part of policy is seated in BLP, not WP:V. WP:V is concerned about verifiability overall, and WP:V does permit material self-published by an "established expert". If there is a higher standard for living people, that standard is to be found in BLP, not here. This section references BLP as where the rule about BLP is coming from. The BLP policy was changed after considerable input, deliberation and discussion, among well-established Wikipedians, and represents consensus.Wikidemo 10:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the discussion. It's at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 16#Non-controversial information, proposed. I see now that the number of participants there was fairly light, although the arguments were cogent. I'll self-revert, but if anyone wants to open it up again we should do that on BLP. By discussion, please, not revert warring. Let's see what we can decide, and then make the two pages conform to one another. Wikidemo 10:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out that BLP was derived from V, NOR, and NPOV. We need to avoid this kind of go ask mom/go ask dad situation. V, NOR, and NPOV are the core policies. BLP is a combination of those policies, with some extra restrictions added in. - Crockspot 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to show that WP:BLP is derived from and/or subordinate to WP:V? Even so, I don't think that proves what you think it does. The "extra restriction" seems to be the special rule for BLP. BLP is also considered a fundamental policy, and when intepreting things the specific overrules the general.Wikidemo 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
BLP may have been originally created due to discussions that took place on the talk pages of V, NOR, NPOV etc. But it is definitely not subordinate to WP:V or any other policy. It is a policy in its own right... and one that comes very close to being a fourth "Core Policy" (I think the only reason it isn't listed as being "Core" is that it deals with a specific subset of articles and not all articles in general). Blueboar 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're drifting a bit. This wasn't a fly-by-night change, I took this by the most high ranking, toughest WP:BLP person I could find, User:FloNight, to get her advice, waited a week for her, then took it on WP:BLP for another week, and it's been there for a month. This is as close as we get to Wikipedia:Consensus. But let's pretend I didn't; I'm willing to talk it through anyway. Mom, Dad - or, rather, SlimVirgin, Crockspot :-) - here's what my original motivation was. I know you're both thinking of politicians, and similar figures that have plenty of coverage from highly reliable sources. Well, that doesn't change; anything controversial still needs cast iron sources. That's not what this is about. This is about non-controversial information. We have a large number of articles on athletes, television producers, minor movie stars, and such, for which the best sources are fan sites, because the major newspapers just don't cover them in depth. The fans go out and get interviews with their stars, and put them up on their web sites, and those interviews are as reliable information as exists. And, they're not controversial - no one disputes the information in them. The fans are experts. These articles are often Wikipedia:Featured articles, and they use plenty of sourcing from exactly these self-published sources; but using a blanket "delete everything, no matter how non-controversial" would gut a lot of our most respected work. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_16#Non-controversial_information.2C_proposed lists examples of Wikipedia:Featured articles like that: KaDee Strickland, Miranda Otto, even Jackie Chan -- and there are plenty of others. That's what this is about. I know you two regularly write about politics, and are thinking about how this will apply to personal attacks. This won't. This isn't about politics, or attacks, or other inherently controversial information. This is about the rest of the Wikipedia, that is taking collateral damage from the blanket prohibition on what are often the best possible sources for some of our best articles. There is a lot of non-controversial information out there in the Wikipedia, that we also need to think about. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are also self-published sources more reliable than fan sites, and topics even less controversial than sports figures and minor celebrities. An organization may publish its own website and have information about its current or former executives and associates. A noted person or expert might mention on his personal / professional website who his or her teachers, colleagues, or influences are. A business/tech blog by an respectable expert might mention the name or birthplace of a company CEO, or what year they founded the company. One example I use is that chefs write blogs where they mention ingredients, techniques, recipes, other chefs, and others they encounter in their travels. It could be a simple statement by Chef X that Chef Y recommends adding ingredient A to dish B. There is a huge amount of mundane sourcing of uncontroversial information, and the fact that it relates to a BLP and happens to be self-published should not rule it out. It simply falls back to ordinary verifiability standards and finding the most reliable source for things.Wikidemo 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


I think this debate highlights the split between users who see us as enyclopedists, and those who perhaps see us more as journalists.
An example above of a non-controversial use of an SPS is Chef A saying on his blog that Chef B uses ingredient X. If a responsible newspaper were going to publish this, they'd contact both chefs. You don't mention someone's name in a newspaper without making an effort to contact them.
We don't do that, because it's OR. We could phone Chef B and ask whether he does use that ingredient, but then how do we show that we did that to the satisfaction of all future readers? And so on. I won't go through all the problems with OR here. And we can't say "it's all right in this case, but not in that one." We have a blanket ban on OR for very good reasons.
Because we can't do journalism on Wikipedia, we use trusted third-party sources who (we can only hope) have done it for us. This is especially important when it comes to living persons. What we're saying with these blanket rules is that we can't trust every one of the million (or whatever) Wikipedia accounts to get the nuances right every time, and that living people are too important to mess around with. Therefore we say no self-published sources on living persons, even if the source seems fine, even if the information seems harmless. If it's worth mentioning, and if it's safe to publish it, a third-party source will pick it up. So we wait until that happens. When it comes to living persons, we value caution over completeness. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that we are, again, missing the important point that good editorial judgment is not something that can be forgotten. Policy pages describe certain principles that we ask editors to abide by, and cannot address each and every specific content dispute across an enormous variety of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, is that an argument for a broader ban on SPS but allowing IAR at editors' discretion, or for a weaker ban but counting on editors' discretion to avoid unwise edits? Slim, that's very helpful. Of course I think a responsible newspaper would fact check for all matters, BLP or not, whether from an SPS or not. They like to check human sources - confirming witnesses and independent experts - not just published research. All OR of course. Not sure what that proves. Wikidemo 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not laying any blame on improper consensus gathering here. It's just that the consensus that was gathered has now evaporated. I agree with SV's take that this comes down to what Wikipedia is. Journalism, or an encyclopedia? Self published sources have been prohibited for living persons for as long as I have been here, and the reasoning behind it made sense to me. Nothing there has changed, it doesn't matter if the subject is a sushi chef or the President. Sometimes we have to sacrifice content for verifiability. As Jimbo has said many times, it's better to have nothing than to have something poorly sourced. - Crockspot 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Crockspot, I've shown evidence that our best articles have been using self published sources for living persons as long as you have been here, and still are. A self-published source is no less verifiable due to being self-published, no harder to verify due to that. SlimVirgin, I entirely agree that we need to get it right, but if the information is harmless, it, well, won't do harm. That's what harmless means. The only way to really enforce "living people are too important to mess around with" would be to ban all articles mentioning living persons entirely. Allowing non-controversial, non-derogatory, verifiable information from self-published sources is less harmful than allowing controversial information from non-self-published sources, isn't it? If the information seems in any way harmful, it can't be used without non-self-published sources. Again, you seem to be focusing only on your hammer, and seeing everything as a nail. The articles you two deal with are politicians and activists, and I think you can't really imagine that there could be such a thing as non-controversial encyclopedic information. Really, there is. The overwhelming majority of biographies in the Wikipedia are simply not controversial. They're actors, and producers, and writers, and scientists, and yes, cooks, and the worst, most controversial, thing that can be said about them is that they played a role badly here, r wrote a story badly there, or messed up a dish. Scandals are not the rule, they're the exception. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not so. Self-published comments have always been fair game when they are by the subject. There are certainly good reasons for this. The author is an expert on the subject, for example, but I think the principle reason is to avoid libelous material. Autobiographical SPS is harmless, though not any more verifiable than third-party SPS. By the same token, carving out non-controversial, non-derogatory third party sources should also be harmless.
I agree with Slim Virgin when she talks about the distinction between an encyclopedia and journalism. Certainly we should not weave a controversial dialog, as User:Phil Sandifer suggests, from self-published sources. But I think they can be used to confirm some non-controversial details, much like primary sources are allowable in limited circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the primary/secondary source distinction has (finally) been driven out of WP:RS, and I see no mention of it here either.
It is difficult to express just how utterly disheartening it is to see these debates recurring. This is, in all seriousness, something we should have settled over a year ago when WP:RS got tagged as a disputed guideline because of how abominably poor its guidance was. The problem then was an attempt to make sweeping generalizations about sources that did not consider particular cases. That is a recipe for bad writing.
As I have said many times before, sourcing claims is actually really complex. It's a major component of college courses. We cannot write a good policy that attempts to make sourcing decisions for thousands of articles. Any such policy is going to repeatedly and serially make bad decisions and lead to bad articles. The best we can do is outline principles on which good sourcing decisions would be based. This will not magically lead to good articles, but it will at least cause the problems with articles to be bad writers instead of bad policy. Phil Sandifer 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Two other questions, and forgive me if I'm asking the obvious or going off on a tangent, but have we carefully defined anywhere what a self-published source is? And what does it mean to use in a BLP? BLP information could appear in any article, not just a biography. Is the converse true, that not all information in a biographical article is considered to be about the person in question for purposes of the sourcing requirements? 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A small anecdote: one of the best sources on Robert Hooke is Robert T. Gunther's Early Science at Oxford. It is cited by all the modern biographies, notably 'Espinasse. I have Margaret 'Espinasse's old copy of Gunther. It is slightly polemical in its editorial introduction, but awesomely complete and well referenced. It is - you knew this didn't you? - self-published. It's not about the medium, it's about who said it, what their expertise is, the medium, and thus the degree of fact-checking. This was Gunther's magnum opus, his life's work, he put his heart and soul into it, and he was probably the foremost authority on scientific history in Oxford. Blogs? Fluid, chuck-away comments, usually, but not all self-published sources are blogs. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No hardline distinctions

Slim, I thought we were done advancing hardline and white line sourcing distinctions across thousands of articles without any regards to individual cases. Sometimes self-published material belongs in a BLP. It needs to be handled with editorial discretion and care. You can't solve problems on individual articles from a policy page - you can just lay out principles for doing so. The wording you advocate would mean that Michael Moore can't easily be quoted in George W. Bush, Neil Gaiman's comments on his blog about his lawsuit with Todd McFarlane aren't valid sources, J. Michael Straczynski's Usenet postings about Babylon 5 can't be used to describe events about the production of the series beyond what he personally did... and that's just the three I can think of with 2 minutes effort.

We really, really need to stop making white line content policies with the expectation that they will apply universally to thousands of articles. Sourcing is complex and requires a lot of judgment based on individual details of a particular situation. You cannot Taylorize it, no matter how much you try. Phil Sandifer 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, as before, I recommend that discussions of sources be handled through a guideline, not a policy, keeping the policy pages simple. There will always be fact situations that represent exceptions to any simple statement on these matters. Statements that attempt to cover all possible or even all likely cases can only do so by being overly complex, as bureaucratic rules (which tend to expand to cover exceptional cases) tend to be. Beliefs that it is possible to construct rules that cover all possible situations tend to result in chimeras. See Zipf's Law and the Pareto Principle for a more theoretical explanation. Guidelines, which claim to cover only the general case and permit exceptions, are Wikipedia's way out of this dilemma. So is WP:IAR, but I think in general it's better to create guidelines when we know we'll have lots of exceptions than to create policies and then ask people to ignore them. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I share your concerns, but I think the agreement we eventually came to on BLP is a wise and carefully-tailored exception. It's true that even positive claims pose a challenge for verifiability, but the unique concern for biographies is about controversial, derogatory remarks. For this reason, criticisms from political blogs must be removed, while useful and enlightening biographical tidbits should stay. I think that User:Phil Sandifer actually misreads the current compromise when he talks about piecing together criticisms from Neil Gaiman and Todd MacFarlane. This is synthesis from controversial self-published sources, and should be forbidden under either policy. In many other cases, third-party blogs do not make controversial or derogatory claims and should be tolerated for much the same reason we tolerate autobiographical SPS. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, in the event of the lawsuit between Gaiman and McFarlane, Gaiman's publicly made accusations about McFarlane's conduct are relevant. Note that this would be preferable to the current situation, where that lawsuit is described mostly from Gaiman's perspective without any sourcing. A well-written paragraph on this, though, could easily read something like "Gaiman claims that McFarlane *quote from Gaiman's blog*. McFarlane claims *any relevant McFarlane quotes, though I'm unaware of his public comments*. The courts ruled *cite a nice little news story here*." That's a very good overview. But it depends on self-published sources. And, notably, one that does not depend on those sources will not be as comprehensive and NPOV. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that if no one has ever written a secondary source on the respective views of Gaiman and McFarlane, that they might not be suitable for an encyclopedia? I'm sorry, but your interpretation completely guts the qualification that SPS claims must be non-controversial, non-derogatory. We can always quote an SPS by name, and it's non-controversial that X blog said Y, but controversial SPS claims just don't belong in third-party BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to break this discussion off into it's own section, since it's not discussing either the "no self-published sources about living persons at all" position or the "non-controversial only" position that we reached on WP:BLP. "No hardline distinctions" is a third position, but the consensus for it needs to be established separately, and I don't want to let the argument over it interfere with the discussion over "non-controversial only". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a good number of secondary sources. Pretty much all of them use the blog entries as major sources, meaning that they are inferior accounts in that they summarize and cut down on material that is readily available to us in a more complete form. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I know there are, which is why I found it such a strange example. I think that would be allowed as a sort of primary-source quoting. In any case, secondaries, not self-published sources, should outline the article. In cases without secondaries, we should not use the material. We're free to quote Moore's opinions on Bush, but only when someone besides Moore has taken enough notice to repeat them. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
But this is bad writing - and, in fact, is why the primary/secondary source distinction needed to die in WP:RS (and, mercifully, has died. Praise Jesus.). Secondary sources are vital for establishing what we are so unfortunately calling "notability" these days. But they are not the best sources for citation in all cases. Secondary sources are what tell us that we should report on what Michael Moore or Neil Gaiman says. But the primary sources remain superior for the actual act of reporting. Phil Sandifer 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is bad practice to attempt to change policy, based on a specific content dispute. I have witnessed this many times in policy talk pages, and my experience is it does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I see it a lot, where someone is frustrated with a specific policy that is hamstringing them on a specific article, so they drive a policy change that will allow that info, but the wider ramifications are disastrous. I have learned to let those content bits that I want in fall by the wayside, because it may keep one article from being marginally improved, but the greater good is served. - Crockspot 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, there is no content dispute on this issue that I am aware of or involved in - it was the real-world example that sprung to mind. Or, more accurately, one of a few real-world examples that sprung to mind. While carving out exceptions for particular cases is indeed unwise, not considering particular cases in creating sweeping policy seems a far worse idea. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
the guidelines , the policy are intended to serve the goalof producing an encyclopedia. The point is not whether things meet formal rules--the point is whether they are indeed meeting the basic standards of NPOV and V in their basic meaning. The interpretation of policy is in the hands of the peoplewho edit WP--that's us, and its based on our judgment and common sense and discretion. If we were produced WP by a AI machine, then we would need definedrules for the automaton that writes it. But we are producting it ourselves, and if we can show what we are doing is fair and honest, this is what is really required. DGG (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in practice policy is often applied rigidly. Our best policies resist this. Our worst encourage it. This approach encourages it. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

I have never liked that line - too many people think it means that things just need to be verifiable, and it doesn't actually matter whether they are true or not - I realise what it actually means is "something being true isn't enough - it has to be verifiably true".

I would like to suggest changing that opening line from "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to "For inclusion in Wikipedia, information has to be not just true, but verifiably true", or something similar. Thoughts? Neil ☎ 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against. It would make many editors think they can remove well-sourced material just because they are personally convinced that it is not true. PrimeHunter 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there really a large number of people who go around adding information that they personally believe to be false, but verifiable? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the change, because it would allow people to simply claim things are false and remove the content. This is a problem we've had before on many articles where we've pointed to this and said "If you really think otherwise, get it published somewhere and we'll note that". Tampering with this could lead to many problems. JoshuaZ 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur with JoshuaZ. --Coolcaesar 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If we tried to determine "truth", then we would be committing original research. Unless we has a source to verify it was the truth... well you see we are back at "verifiability" again. 1 != 2 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If you come across some fact that you think is an "untrue" statement (I will assume it is cited), one way to deal with it is through attribution. Change it to a "statement of opinion"... as in: "According to Source X such and such is true<citation to X>". This makes it a "true" statement (it is true that the source does indeed say this and it can be verified that the source says it)... but informs the reader that it the truth behind the statement is simply the opinion of the source and may be in doubt.Blueboar 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. 1 != 2 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I agree my version isn't great either, but there has to be a better way of wording it. Verifiability is how we know something to be the truth, it isn't instead of the truth, and the current wording is confusing some users (see my talk page, for example). Neil ☎ 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I coming here to bring up a new proposal. I've long been against this wording, but not because of the "truth" thing. Rather because it suggests a bar for inclusion that is significantly lower than it often is in reality, and creates the misleading impression that any verifiable information is game, yet this is blatantly wrong. Policies and guidelines, like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) and Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE) are designed specifically to raise the bar higher, because a random collection of information, even if it's all verifiable, does not an encyclopedia make. I'd suggest that it be called a "minimum" criterion for inclusion, perhaps with a footnote to acknowledge the fact that the actual bar is often higher. As for the "truth" thing, there are some places where "truth" might be more important, such as biographies of living persons, where false information could potentially cause significant real world harm. However then we run into the problem of Wikipedia being or not being able to fairly determine truth, and that gets sticky. Wikipedia is here to report on things, to give preexisting knowledge to the people that is free as in freedom, not just price, but not to create new knowledge (like finding out new "facts" for example, researching to discover "truth"). What do you think? mike4ty4 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not adequately discussed in the article is testimony of an editor who is a direct witness to events. For example, there is a book that can be cited, Jonathan Karl, The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America's New Militias, HarperCollins, New York (1995) ISBN 0061010154, which contains an error, a quotation of a speech I made at a public event that was actually delivered as a printed handout. Short of gathering affidavits from other witnesses to the event, it should be possible for the editor to make a correcting comment based on him having been a witness, without that being rejected as "original research". This might usefully take a tag, "statement of personal witness" or some such.

Articles are almost entirely edited by nonwitnesses, but we need to allow for the participation of those who have been actual witnesses. Perhaps we could provide some system for filing images of verified affidavits for witness statenents. Jon Roland 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on a battle that several editors have been engaged in over a section of a living politician's wiki, I, too, have a great concern over this "Verifiability" issue. I'm finding that editors are more interested in "published assumptions" than "verifiably accurate statements."

It reminds of me of George Orwell's book, Animal Farm. A conversation sticks out in my mind where the pigs, who had taken over leadership of the farm animals, write out their "constitution." One of their "planks" was this: "All are equal, but some are more equal than others."

For instance, a reporter writes an article in a reputable newspaper and includes a false assumptive statement: "Even though [organization] is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, [it has engaged in political activity]..." Next, some Wiki Editor grabs this sentence out and places it in a Wiki about the now-maligned organization. Yes, it's "verifiable." But, No! It's inaccurate! In fact, the opposite is true. Non-profits are not forbidden from political activity. This is easily verified by a cursory review of non-profit law. So, I suggest that this is a false statement and shouldn't be included in the wiki, despite the fact that a newspaper published it. But another editor then cries foul and says, "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth. It cares about verifiability." If that's the case, then Wikipedia is useless! Does anyone else see the problem here?

The very word "verifiable" means "found to be true." The Latin /Veritas/ means truth. My concern here is that this "Wikipedian Verifiability Threshhold" is suggesting that, like in the Communist USSR, "verified lies" are "more equal" than factual information. Am I wrong? Araphel 04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Verified truth would have much more weight than verified lies. The point of the threshold is to require that some reliable sources be cited. If there are none, then whether truth or lies, it is just a useless unverified waste of bytes. - Crockspot 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wrong about what? If a "reliable" but transient source (like a newspaper, where errors are incredibly common) errs and it is published as fact, despite the obvious falsity, then is picked up by a more permanent source, such as Wikipedia, then the Wiki is utterly useless. That's my point. Araphel 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Suppose a major US newspaper quotes a prominent world leader, but will not say where or when the statement was made, or who heard it, or who translated it into English. Does this satisfy WP Verifiability? Or how about those "news" stories sourced from unidentified "officials"? It seems that if these are repeated often enough they become "notable" and therefore can be referred to in WP even if they are total fabrications - they are "verified" by citing numerous newspaper reports. Fourtildas 05:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating clearly what is understood, but not stated

I would purposed that we change the line “Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.”

by adding in the word “reliable”, as thus:

“Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.”

This line was originally added by SV on 16 December 2005 under the heading “When Adding information” which read:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed.

Since that time, WP has aged or matured, and the need to cite a source and thus avoid OR is more or less covered under WP:OR, while Verifiability speaks to the quality of a source, rather than the simple need for one.

This is particularly noteworthy under the section title “Burden of Evidence”, as the burden spoken about is that editors provide a “reliable” source. Brimba 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We should, if we are tinkering this section, note also that it is querrelous and disruptive to demand sources for material you do not doubt the accuracy of. This misuse of the fact tag remains a favorite of rules-lawyers and trolls, and should be disclaimed explicitly. Phil Sandifer 18:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that an editor does not doubt the accuracy of specific material in an article, does not mean that our readers would not doubt it either. When I come across an article about which I know nothing about, the only way for me to accept the material as accurate, is to check if it is sourced or not. Material that is verifiable, if challenged, should be supported by a source, so I do not see the need to dilute this important distinction. As for Brimba's suggestion, I see not harm is explicitly declaring that the source needs to be reliable, as per WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the notion but the wording (can one word be a "wording"?) needs fine-tuning. The problem is that "reliable" is used in at least two senses on Wikipedia - one as a threshold, one as a scale, from absolutely unreliable to unimpeachable. If we simply say that information must have a reliable source, it is likely that some people will impose an incoherent standard of reliability when the issue is actually pretty subtle - you know, extraordinary claims requiring extra reliable sources and all that. I would say "sufficiently reliable" but that would only confuse people more. Any thoughts on wording? Wikidemo 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody but me have concerns over the wording or is everyone happy simply adding the word "reliable" as proposed? I just made a friendly (I hope) revert so we can make sure there's consensus. As I was saying we my concern is that some people would take the new wording as a more permissive standard for deleting content. But it's just a concern, no strong position. Thx. Wikidemo 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Translated works may require some context, not just the original words being translated

I hope this addition will not prove controversial, as I just added it to the non-English source section. But if it is, I realised its importance recently when a highly POV editor added some criticism to a BLP. The word-for-word original text he supplied appeared to back up his interpretation, and he was complying with WP requirements in citing it, but when the surrounding text was considered it showed that the original author was writing in a wry, even affectionate tone, and to take it literally would be quite wrong, unfair to the author and to the subject. Rumiton 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is covered under WP:UNDUE. — BQZip01 — talk 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't followed any discussions about translation recently, but is there any reason now to shift the focus to the intention and point of view of the author rather than the accuracy of the translation? They both seem a little obscure but the new one perhaps more so. I'm thinking of a very matter-of-fact kind of sourcing, say that a particular castle was built by King X in year Y and had Z rooms, located Q kilomters outside of city R. What difference does it make what the author intended? The point is to get the facts right.Wikidemo 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this addition is important and I approve of it. Here is a prime example: The present President of Iran was alleged, by the bulk of the US mainstream media, to have said that he wanted to wipe Israel "off the map". Some have interpreted this as meaning he wanted to nuke Israel, or something like that. But others have argued that in fact, what he really meant was that the present Israeli regime is illegitimate (e.g. let's say, because it is essentially a European colonial settler state that denies the "right of return") - and therefore the *state* currently ruling over Israel and its occupied territories, should be replaced by a more legitimate state. I don't want to get into the details of this argument, but whatever your views on this matter, it is clear that the intention of his statement matters a great deal to the veracity of the translation, politically and indeed for future historians.—greenrd 23:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A similar example occurred in 1956 when Nikita Kruschev famously told the west: "We will bury you." The right wingers had a ball with it, rendering it word-for-word into English, and using the "clear threat of nuclear attack" to justify the massive defense build-up that was taking place. But the speech was about economic and social competitiveness, not warfare. In the context a better translation might be: "We will leave you for dead." If Wikipedia had existed then, history might have been changed. Rumiton 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the actual intent behind the statements of dictators promising the destruction of Western nations has to do with the legitimacy of a translated source. Even in the original example, any source using a "wry" or "affectionate" tone that has to be decyphered is not an entirely reliable source. That goes to the assessment of non-English sources as reliable, not the accuracy of the translation. I just don't see what the intentions behind a journalist working for Le Monde have to do with anything, any more than the intentions behind a Wall Street Journal reporter. - Wikidemo 10:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that when an unbiased translator is sincerely pondering which word or expression to use from perhaps 5 dictionary alternatives, the intention of the original author has to be the decision-maker. It is his or her thoughts that are being conveyed. Biased translators might try to overrule this. Seeing more of the original context lets the reader decide if this has happened. I agree that the "wry" and "affectionate" writing was not a useful source for Wikipedia, but without reading more of the original, the reader would not know that it was wry and affectionate. It could be presented as straight information, which is what the POV editor did. Rumiton 11:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We do have to remember that Wikipedia has other Policies that may come into play here. The problem comes with our knowing what the intent of the author actually was. If we (wikipeida editors) try to interpret what that intent was for ourselves, we end up violating WP:NOR. To avoid this, we need reliable sources that talk about the intent. If two or more reliable sources offer contrasting translations or contrasting views of the author's intent, then we may have a situation where WP:NPOV comes into play... we may need to discuss both views. I don't think this is something we can summarize in one or two sentences in a Policy. It needs to be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that other policies come into play, but it seems to me the reality is that Wikipedia editors do need to sift information, to exclude extraordinary claims, and to produce a work that presents a neutral and coherent statement about a subject. Our understanding can never be perfect, but getting the best possible grasp of a source's message is a part of this. It is surely not Original Research. Is it? Rumiton 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I also feel that if we need to look for sources that talk about our sources we are facing a difficult journey indeed. Rumiton 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We must be careful. Reasonable people can differ on the meaning of a message. If there are reliable sources offering different interpretations, we have to acknowledge that. We cannot offer our own interpretations, but have to rely on reliable sources. Yes, we have to sift through available information and decide what is pertinent to an article. But, trying to decipher what someone 'really' meant is not part of our mission. -- Donald Albury 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly see the need for care, really I am advocating more of it, not less. As an example -- the page on the German religious figure Kurt Krenn contains an unsourced, presumably translated attribution: "I can do whatever I want." It isn't OR to say that this creates the impression of a petulant, arrogant old man. I would like to see not just the exact German words he spoke, but the context in which he spoke them. (I should declare that I have worked professionally for some years as a German-English translator.) Rumiton 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say the problem is that there is no source. If a reliable source is cited, the reader can judge for themselves. It is not our place to question the accuracy of the translation. If the translation is disputed in a reliable source, or another reliable source offers a different translation, then we cover the dispute. But, we do not ourselves (the editing community of WP) decide whether or not a given translation is accurate. -- Donald Albury 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We would also have to distinguish between English sources that contain translated quotations, sources that are translations of non-English versions, and translations performed by editors.Wikidemo 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Party

In the policy the following statement is made:

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Can I first say that I completely agree with this sentiment and would like it to be followed through on everywhere on Wikipedia. I would however question its location. It basicly seems to sum up the content of the primary notability criteria (which I also completely agree with). My point is in terms of verifyability in some cases reliable, third party sources are probably not needed. I'm thinking particularly about articles on fictional topics (Although I'm sure there are other example) where the original text or comments from the author are often given to verify a statement. I personally do not think that such articles (which are pretty prevelant) belong on Wikipedia because they do not meet WP:NN but I do not see how they actually break with the verifiability requirement. Elsewhere on the page it only mentions the need for reliable sources;

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"
"Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

and in these cases surely the first party sources are the most reliable. Whilst I agree with the third party part of the statement I think it belongs elwhere (it is already made clear in WP:NN). Additioanlly as this statement basicly sums up what is in WP:NN and is part of a policy page (whereas WP:NN is only a guideline) it pretty much makes the notability criteria pages and subpages redundant. Just my thoughts. [[Guest9999 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Proposal: "Reasonable Person"

I am seeing a potential issue creeping up here and would like to nip it in the bud. Can we work "reasonable person" into this policy somewhere? Otherwise, 99% of this encyclopedia is about to be nitpicked to death. I would name names but I don't want to be seen as making personal attacks. I just see this becoming a big bruhaha with little good coming from it. spryde | talk 13:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, every policy statement on Wikipedia has a reasonableness caveat built in; repeating that all over the place will not deter the unreasonable people. They will just insist that they're reasonable. I know all about assuming good faith and trying to work together, but if someone goes too far with the rules and wikilawyering they might have to be reigned in with peer pressure and the consensus process. I don't mean to shut you down, though, because I don't know specifically what you're referring to. Where would you propose to add a reasonableness qualification? Sometimes they're still useful against that background. Wikidemo 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I disagree - I think we have a number of people who just do a poor job of recognizing that we are not a process-based project, and that principle trumps literalism in interpreting policy. A few statements that actively caution against overly programatic use of policy pages do not seem to me to do harm, and are wonderfully useful things to be able to quote when telling people to stop being silly. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My contribution history in the realm of Egypt air might shed a little light the who and the what of the situation. I am wondering if I am on the outside looking in or missing something. spryde | talk 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to stop beating around the bush. Someone is using WP:V to bludgeon people over the head for minutiae such as abbreviations. He has started his work at MS and states he will continue (He removed Master of Science from the MS disambiguation page because there was no source for the use of the abbreviation). A few of us (1,2) have expressed our concerns to him but he keeps going back to using WP:V as a weapon. My feeling is that WP:V should apply to the overall article (verify to a reasonable person what we are saying is true) and explicitly to details that are controversial and likely to cause grief for someone or something. I do not think it applies to every single detail in an article. I just want clarification if this behavior is ok and if so, how far is it allowed to go? Would ever word and term need sourcing and justification in every article? If so, this tediousness of this project will kill the participation of just about any good faith contributor in my opinion.
My personal feeling is that Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. covers this part of the policy but others are not interpreting as such. spryde | talk 12:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You could say "reasonably challenged", but whether this will convince unreasonable people is an open question... --Itub 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, please, please add "reasonably challenged". There are editors who seem to do nothing except pepper articles with {{fact}} tags and snarky edit comments. (Example - note the substantial reference section already included in the article.) Multiple attempts on the user's talk page to get them to be reasonable have been dismissed with "thanks for your concern." Granted, not all the citation requests are unwarranted, but it seems like a big chunk of them are made just to stir up trouble rather than any reasonable doubt about the material tagged. -- Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this policy (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. [[Guest9999 12:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Encyclopedias

Could we get language here or in RS discouraging the use of other encyclopedias as sources? I don't mean banning since having some reference is still better than nothing, but it also strikes me as a special sort of dumb when facts in Wikipedia are referenced to Brittanica and the like. See also: [10] -- Dragons flight (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see WP:PSTS... a subsection of WP:NOR that discusses this. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I've always thought our primary-secondary-tertiary classification did more harm than good, partly because the distinction is arbitrary and is inconsistent between fields. My experience in scientific literature is that the view of p-s-t is much more like this than the Wikipedia usage. -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In which case, you may want to get involved in some of the discussions going on currently at NOR... the wording of the PSTS section is being reviewed. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Googlebooks as sources

Hi. Id anyone able to point me at information which states what our policy is on using Googlebooks as sources, and how citations from them should be formatted? Thanks SP-KP 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been using them for awhile. Use the "More about this book" to get the core bibliographic details. That + {{cite book}} keeps me fed with nice references. Now, the books themselves still have to pass WP:RS and such. Don't go citing Mein Kampf in any old article about how people should be treated without fully understanding what you are doing :) spryde | talk 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you got some examples I can take a look at? SP-KP 18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Google books is a wonderful resource that opens up so much more material for us, that and New York Times and others putting their archives online. Is it best to link to the main page about the book, or the page of your citation? I've been linking to the main page on theory that people might want to look at the book first before they flip over to the page, also that the pages Google chooses to show and how they show them might be unstable. Wikidemo 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Look at my new article :) spryde | talk 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you did it quite right there. You were correct to cite the actual book, but then you should also have given the link to google Book Search, so that other people could conveniently find it. DGG (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, everyone, keep in mind that ProQuest and InfoTrac are available at most public libraries in English-speaking North America. If your local public library has the sufficient tax base (and most do) then they will offer proxy access so one can search 100 million articles without leaving the house. Sure, InfoTrac and ProQuest pale in comparison to LexisNexis but are a lot better than what's available on the public Web. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Let's discuss here. I can explain in a bit why we shouldn't be creating our own fork about how to interpret policies vis-a-vis guidelines, but following the consensus model, anyone who wants to propose why we should include such a statement, can we talk about it here? In the meanwhile, I'll point out that we have a whole policy page on this meta-issue at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The interplay between our policies and guidelines is a lot more complicated than saying that if there is every any contradiction the policy is primary. That observation, without more, often leads to fallacious reasoning, edit wars, etc. So let's talk. Thanks. Wikidemo 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is suppose to be a master/slave relationship between WP:V (master), WP:NOR (master), and WP: RS (slave). With recent editing on WP:RS this relationship has either broken down or been dispensed with. There are now significant conflicts between WP:V and WP:RS (newspapers, self-published material, etc.); WP:V is suppose to be the framework, WP:RS in theory is the fleshing out of that framework without significant conflicts developing between them. That is no longer the case. What better way to foment edit wars than to have two pages in conflict over rules covering the same subjects? Retaining Marskell’s caveat restores the master/slave relationship, and avoids edit wars, and in no way increases their likelihood. I also realizes that some have taken the position that WP:RS is independent of WP:V or has become more than a guideline, however, the community consensus differs on those points; If they want to argue that point, let them please come here and put forth their reasoning.
What Marskell put into words is not new policy or a change of policy. It puts existing policy into clear language, something that is sorely needed if we are to avoid edit wars, and policy disputes. Brimba 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the proper resolution would be to fix the guideline so that it does not contradict the policy, not to add unnecessary wording to the policy. - Crockspot 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WD that such a caveat is ill-advised, and have reverted. I would not object to a similar caveat being added to WP:RS, if fixing the guideline would be too big a job to take on. - Crockspot 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree that WP:RS needs fixing. "Master/slave" or "prime/secondary", etc., is fine if you need a two-word summary. But the relationship is quite a bit more complex. Guidelines provide detail. They address application and interpretation of policy. They list examples. And so on. We have a whole policy page on what guidelines are and what policies are. If we try to simplify it into a single short sentence we miss a lot of the detail and people get this wrong. Very, very often people think that simply because policies are superior to guidelines they can ignore the guideline and use their own interpretation of the policy page. However, the guideline does have consensus status. If you think the guideline isn't right you should fix the guideline. You're not free to simply ignore it because (you claim) it contradicts policy. Other people have worked hard on it and they believe it does not contradict policy. The best way to say this is to say something on the guideline page like "This is a guideline. There are policies on the subject. For the relationship etween guidelines and policies see Policies and Guidelines. Wikidemo 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And by the way, per WP:BRD, please don't edit war over this. The language is a new proposed addition to the page that clearly doesn't yet have the universal consensus required to become a policy statement. If you edit war on the policy page you're just going to get the policy page protected and that doesn't help anything. Take a deep breath. If your argument wins we'll update the policy page in a day, or two days, or five. I'm not going to be stubbord, and I don't think anyone else is. Just saying it needs more time for talking. No emergency, okay? Wikidemo 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We have had massive problems with WP:RS, which many people believe it to be a policy when it is not. The policy about sources in this one: WP:V. If there is anything in WP:RS that contradicts this policy in any way or manner, RS needs to be fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the lead of WP:RS:

This page is a guideline, not a policy: The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people.

That says all what needs to be said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. If someone feels they should add something here maybe we could make a similar (discreet) comment near the link to WP:RS saying this is the policy, that is the guideline, and we all know who is boss....but without trying to summarize in too few words what a guideline is and what a policy is. Wikidemo 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what was in there after my edit yesterday? Personally, I think RS is unfixable. We've been fixing it since '05. I think a clear statement that this trumps it is needed here, which is why the caveat was added. Marskell 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, with everyone here suggesting changing RS if there is contradiction, I went ahead and did so with three divergent paragraphs. But that just made the redundancy more obvious, so I cut it. I think we need to systematically decide what belongs here and what belongs there. Marskell 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The situation with people thinking WP:RS is a policy not new... I have said this before (most recently during the debates over WP:ATT), but it is worth repeating ... WP:RS is essentially in a class by itself. It is a guideline that has the impact of policy. The problem stems from the fact that the concept Reliable Sources (ie that we must cite to them) is indeed policy - it is repeated in three of our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). But the application of that concept to our articles (ie determining what constitutes a Reliable Source) is not policy. In any discussion of the status of WP:RS, we have to make a distinction between Reliable Sources (the concept) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (the guideline). I once suggested that WP:RS should be renamed to something like: "Determining if a source is reliable" (WP:DRS ?). Then we would not have the problem of using the same two word phrase in both Policy and Guideline. It would be clearer to editors that the concept is policy, but the application is not. Blueboar 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
“ We have had massive problems with WP:RS, which many people believe it to be a policy when it is not.” That statement goes to the heart of the problem. At the top of the page it says “content guidelines”, something that it is directly lacking -guidelines, where are they? It functions instead as a forth pillar, and importantly, one in which if you strike-out at changing WP:V to say what you want, take it to WP:RS, and make the change there, then cite that instead. If you read through recent changes that have been made to WP:S, there is little that supports policy as dictated by the official policy pages.
I see three things we can do:
1) As a community, make a concerted effort to improve WP:RS, in particular by adding material that acts as guidelines by supporting existing policy’s. In an ideal world this would be the preferred option. However, everyone already has so much on their plate, that despite the desire to do so, this is not likely to happen.
2) Merge WP:RS into WP:V + WP:NOR , and replace WP:RS function with WP:V/faq, WP:NOR/faq, and maybe WP:BLP/faq. Again, not likely.
3) Add a caveat that makes clear that when conflicts exist, WP:V takes precedence.
Brimba 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so terribly opposed to #3, I just think any caveat needs to be at the guideline, not the policy. (It seems that there already is such a caveat). If people still can't figure it out for themselves, then we educate those users directly as the problems arise. We can't account for every misunderstanding of policy statements with more policy statements. It would make wikipedia unworkable. I also suspect that some of these "misunderstandings" are not actual confusion, but attempts to game the rules to either get a pet source included, or (tinfoil hat time) to destroy the rules themselves, thus destroying Wikipedia. It's not like there are not websites out there full of very intelligent people who are bent on bringing WP down. I am more and more of the mind these days that all core policies should be permanently locked down with full prot, and any changes made are executed by admins, after full discussion and hashing out of the text on the talk page. - Crockspot 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there is little question that much of what goes on is gaming the system. And yes, I too wear a tinfoil hat. There is clearly an element here protecting its turf outside of WP. A caveat already exists on WP:RS, but one that is weak enough that someone can easily be intentionally blind to it. Brimba 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am totally opposed to Brimba's 1. Good-hearted attempts to add to RS are what has constantly fucked it up. I agree with 2 but suggest moving incrementally: systematically go through the page asking "does this make more sense on the policy page?" and "is this redundant with the policy page?" If the former, move it; if the latter, cut it. With this done I expect RS will be a skeleton and it will become clearer what's always been true: we don't need a reliable source guideline. We need a crisp verifiability policy that covers the central questions but doesn't try to legislate for every eventuality.
I also agree with 3 for the timebeing, but it's just a bandaid. I don't see why a caveat can't be on the policy page. Higher courts dictate to lower courts. It was this, incidentally, that brought me here; if the caveat had been in place the argument would have been easier. -- Marskell (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, it's a toxic band-aid. There is a rather significant problem on Wikipedia with some editors who beleive that "policy trumps guideline" is an excuse to ignore guidelines when editing pages, or boldly edit guideline pages to their linking and then edit war over their changes, based on an often mistaken conclusion that the guideline page contradicts their often idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. The fact is that guideline pages often say something different than the policy page. Many people are not clear-headed enough to distinguish between a genuine contradiction on the one hand, and an extension, interpretation, or application on the other. There's also the point that when you find a policy page and a guideline page on a similar topic you can always imagine hypothetical examples, or extreme interpretations, whereby the two come up with contradictory results. That does not mean the guideline page is wrong or even that the policy page should prevail. Sometimes it means the example or the interpretation are faulty.-- Wikidemo (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I just edited the section in a way that I think accomplishes the goal of warning people not to contradict this page, and referring people to rather than trying to summarize the difference between policies and guidelines.Wikidemo (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't ignore stable, useful guidelines that accord with policy. I don't ignore LEAD, for example, which is one of our best guidelines. I do ignore RS. I don't refer to it and don't point people to it. It's a moving target and at any given time it's liable to be divergent from V. As of yesterday, RS did not include newspapers in its list of reliable sources, suggesting instead that "Mainstream newspapers and magazines are of varying reliability." This wasn't an extrapolation or explanation of V. It was a contradiction. Should we qualify newspapers as less than reliable? Maybe, but we should do it here, if we do.
Your latest edit seems fine to me. Marskell (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! That's my wording you're objecting to in RS. In my defense it's an improvement on the prior version[11] and it's probably true. But I'm the first to admit not everything I try is a good idea. Also, this points to two distinctions that RS makes and are not as clear here at V: first, whether by source we mean publication, author, or article, and second, whether by reliability we mean a minimal threshold for inclusion or we mean a relative judgment on how authoritative the source is. But that's a whole nother matter, as they say, and will be moot if we merge RS into V. Wikidemo (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agenda-driven citation challenges

Note: adding sub-heading in middle of old post to avoid disrupting policy discussion because this is a side issue- Wikidemo 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with both Jossi and Phil Sandifer, the intersection of their points being that while obvious information ("Africa is a continent", "The sky is blue") don't need sources, and people should not use sourcing as a ruse to accomplish POV deletions, information that a reasonable lay reader unfamiliar with the subject would not automatically know should be sorced, even something so obviously true and universally accepted as "The atomic weight of Hyrdogen is 1". But that example at least is an obvious case of fix it, please don't delete it just because you don't like lightweight gasses. Wikidemo 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that what is being asked touches upon a larger question, that being: “What rules can we write that with effectively deal with editors with extreme viewpoints, who insist that their version of the “truth” be the official WP version of the truth.”
Such people edit Wikipedia, but their loyalty is to some cause outside of Wikipedia, -they have no loyalty to Wikipedia itself. To them Wikipedia’s value resides in its ability legitimize “truth”, their version – truth as they see it - , and they generally edit Wikipedia to promote their version at the expense of any other; or they edit to censure information that undermines or counters their arguments.
That is one of the most fundamental problems facing WP: How to handle extremist when they hijack WP to achieve their own ends. At this time I unfortunately have no new wording formulated that I could point to that would help eliminate POV edits. The change I have proposed clarifies existing policy, without change it, moving much beyond that means changing or expanding policy, and I would rather finish this first, before tackling that. Brimba 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a problem, but have unwwarranted verifiability challenges risen to the point where the issue merits anything formal on a policy page? We may want to preserve healthy and frequent challenging of citations because even if the motive is lopsided (e.g. a conservative challenging all the facts in an article about a liberal politician) it still leads to more careful sourcing and thus a better encyclopedis. In my opinion it's only when the challenge is completely tangential that it's useless. Wikidemo 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, I'm unconvinced we want every statement sourced, and I'm unconvinced it's possible to write a good encyclopedia with a line-by-line sourcing approach. Certainly this approach would be disastrous for philosophical topics like Jacques Derrida. (And, to be clear, for almost any remotely advanced philosophical topic this is the case - simply put, there is a direct correlation between the degree to which a source tries to sum up opinions in an easy-to-read format and the degree to which a source sucks in these fields. These articles are much better written by a group of people with some expertise in the area hashing out compromises among various perspectives on the topic. To write them as a source-by-number project is suicidal.)
That is not to say that sourcing is unimportant - it's very important. But it is very easy to make an article worse through overzealous obsession with sourcing. The demand for sources must not be used in ways that is destructive. This involves more than just giving time for sources to be found - it involves figuring out where sources improve the article and where they are needless hoops to jump through. I have no sense that it is possible to come up with a good rule of thumb for figuring out which is which, however, which is the problem. But we need to make sure that the difference between the true statement - unsourced information may be removed from the article, and one should expect to have to provide sources for an article - and the untrue one - that unsourced material should always be removed from articles or challenged. Demanding a source is an option editors have, not an obligation or a duty. Phil Sandifer 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Uunsourced material should always be removed from articles when challenged. This, of course, within reason and by the application of common sense and good editorial judgment ... which is the spirit of this policy. 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
Said spirit is often poorly understood, however. This is something that is often forgotten when we write many of our content policies - from little things like MoS up through notability guidelines and all the way up to the fundamental ones like this. We need to write these to minimize the damage that a Taylorized killbot rules-lawyer can do with them, because said idiot is going to take them and go running. And said idiot will be painfully time consuming to shut down - far more so than an idiot who doesn't get that some guy's LJ is not a sufficiently reliable source for the claim that Brad Pitt is gay. Phil Sandifer 03:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Taylorized killbot rules-lawyer" ?? Brimba 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Taylorized killbot rules lawyer. Learn something new every day on the policy talk page.Wikidemo 07:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Phil: We cannot define policy based on people that are clueless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. The issue is that the Taylorized killbots are both more clueful and more difficult to deal with than merely idiotic POV pushers. Policy that resists them is more important than policy that resists people who we can plainly see do not understand or care about the basic goals of the project. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to mention that advanced philosphy is far from the only the field in which well-accepted sources explain things in dense technical jargon that may be incomprehensible to a lay person and hence any encyclopedia article that attempts to unpack the jargon and explain in some sort of comprehensible English is either using poor sources or is doing some sort of secondaty analysis or synthesis of them. It's quite common that rules that are good at to deterring dishonest/non-cooperative people can have disasterous results when used as models for how honest/cooperative people should do their jobs. Rules perfect at preventing harm are generally equally perfect at preventing good. Effective designs have to make some compromise in power to prevent the former in order to permit the latter. Taylor believed developing of rules could ensure quality and uniformity of product, but of course W. Edwards Deming proved him wrong in this. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to find a wording that says what we actually do? If anyone really went around and challenged everything without a RS, about three-quarters of the content of most articles would disappear. (Even if we challenged everything without a source at all, it would be about half. Given that proposals to delete articles lacking RSs were defeated repeatedly, I dont really see how the statement matches reality. DGG (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers

Just in case any eyebrows are raised (I don't think this should be a surprise or overly controvertial), I removed the assertion that newspapers are de facto reliable sources in line with a qualification I made some time ago at WP:Reliable sources. Rather than debate whether they are or not reliable in general, I feel it is safer simply to allow each usage to be debated on its merits. Spenny 12:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Other WP policies can be applied to individual cases. Rumiton 13:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see mainstream newspapers have been restored as sources. I am inclined to argue this. Most newspapers carry "color" and "fluff" articles from time to time which do not reflect the serious intent of the paper overall. If we leave this in the policy it opens the door for any of these articles to be quoted, since "It was in the NY Times." Seem to re reliable because there are too many caveats. Rather than debate the issue on other policy pages, I want to leave the issues on RS. Therefore the safe way to deal with this is let it not be said on other policy pages that mainstream papers are reliable sources. The alternative is dragging the caveats around - not pretty.
Mainstream is not a well defined term either. The danger as it reads is that a summary article on an issue in the press can be given the same stature as an in depth scientific study. RS addresses that, hopefully appropriately. By leaving it there, the door is open to good press articles. Each sourcing needs to be considered appropriately, and we should not leave the door open to Googling editors to search out quotes to support dubious points of view. Spenny 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The guideline at WP:RS seems to have veered off into too much emphasis on subjects covered by peer-reviewed journals. Newspapers are indeed a suitable source for many subjects. This needs to be discussed here and consensus established here. This is, after all, a policy page, and WP:RS is a guideline. -- Donald Albury 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a bit WikiLawyerish for my tastes - the RS guideline is prominently linked here and clearly is intended to form part of the definition of the policy. Reliable sources needs to be discussed across all the policy pages. For example, I have already had this discussion over at NOR without any particular dissent being raised (in fact strong support was expressed), and had the change in place at RS without any dissent being raised there. However, moving on. I'm sticking to my guns because you have not said anything that contradicts what the change means.

Mainstream newspapers may be a reliable source for some subjects. Newspaper and magazines have various different forms of articles from straight and neutral reporting through to opinion pieces of dubious veracity. Newspaper articles will rarely have the stature of academic works. With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view. The publication of the same facts in several newspapers is not necessarily proof of reliability due to the way the news industry works with common agencies and self-published press releases.

Is there anything there that contradicts newspapers being a suitable source? In terms of verifiability, we are saying something closely allied to the NOR test, not simply that you can find it said somewhere, but that you need to find it said somewhere that has credibility. We are interested in these tests because it is possible to use press articles to contradict mainstream views with crackpot theories. Simply put, you cannot say "the mainstream press is a reliable source" without significant qualification of what mainstream means (across the world) and what elements of newspaper articles are sound and which ones should be treated with care. The "nutshelling" of newspapers into reliable sources by this policy page is careless and allows it to be argued that because some extremist gets to write an opinion think piece, our work of verification is done. There is more to it, unless verification is work for automatons. I am concerned because it is used to put forward biased points of view which can be quite difficult to counter.
At the moment in the UK, the Independent (very much in the ranks of quality newspapers) is running some stories on the "Being fat is good for you" theme, being some topical research that popped up over the last week. They have had to publish a retraction today that the scientist they suggested had said "bacon sandwiches are good for you" did not actually say that, though their article did have that flavour (groan!). You will not find that retraction on a citation that someone chooses to use pointing to the original.
I'm just saying the wording needs to be careful, so if you have a better wording that concisely says that newspapers may be suitable with some care, then fine, but don't simply revert. Perhaps you should revert yourself in good faith? Spenny 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not wikilawyering to ask where the consensus was established to eliminate newspapers as reliable sources. I haven't found that yet. Of course newspapers, just like books, must be judged individually for reliability. I would also note that even if a consensus is established somewhere for something, such consensus cannot override policy. Policy is changed by consensus after discussion of the policy. -- Donald Albury 12:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not eliminated newspapers as reliable sources, I have just made a qualification. This wording has only been in place since 5th July when there was a long and heated dispute about this new section of wording. However, the consensus of the dispute was very much that you had to be careful about the press, so I don't think it is fair to claim consensus of the current wording either.
I am also not overly happy with the suggestion there is only one mechanism to establish consensus. It is reasonable to make a change, as I have done, and wait for it to be challenged. There has been no challenge, so we can take that as a possible indication of consensus. I made a BOLD edit and highlighted it as such on RS. It is one of my hot buttons that people use 'no consensus' to avoid change, rather than 'for reason X, Y & Z I disagree' - albeit with a caveat that you can demonstrate some evidence of consensus of your reasoning.
Moving on, it is clear that mainstream is not well defined, and it is clear that newspapers contain a wide variety of different sorts of articles. This should be addressed. While there may be a technical distinction between RS and Verifiability, the common sense approach is to recognise that Verifiability depends upon the discussion in RS. I think there is strong consensus that newspapers are a special case that need to be treated with care rather than lumped in with a list of scholarly works as if they are of the same veracity. I would rather deal with that in RS rather than bloat this page, but alternatively it could be dealt with in some form of nutshell. Read what the wording you have reverted to says and implies. Why would someone want a policy that thinks journalism is of the same merit as scholarly research? I strongly believe that there are very sound reasons for qualifying the press differently.

So, is there a nutshell you would find acceptable to address concerns? How about:

Mainstream newspapers can be a sufficiently reliable source for some subjects. I wouldn't want it put stronger than that, though it leaves the question of how it is addressed to elsewhere. Spenny 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus yet. To further discuss the policy, I note that the wording is: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals (etc)... and mainstream newspapers. Although "in general" slightly reduces the approval rating, I cannot see that newspapers belong in that rigorous company. Rumiton 13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The page says "The most reliable sources" NOT just "reliable sources". Mainstream newspapers are oft times reliable, but less so than books, say, or scholarly journals (even less so than Nature, although the mind boggles at how that's possible). Textbooks should be preferred to newspapers. WilyD 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that newspapers are never the most reliable sources. For example for many news items they are the only sources. If one wished to write an article about a coal mining disaster that happened in 1909 a contemporary news paper may well be the only source. As to this mantra that articles in journals good other sources bad, it depends on how well received and how often an article is cited in other journals, not that it was published in a journal. One has to read between the lines in these policy statements, or we have to write much more detailed and precise policies. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are sometimes, or even often, reliable. The point is being made that they require a lot more scrutiny than the other publications mentioned in the same sentence. And could that mean they should not be in that sentence? Rumiton 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it concisely Spenny 15:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Where do books get sources when covering historical events? Newspapers accounts are one of the primary sources.
Newspapers are not normally the place o find in-depth detailed analysis, which is the realm of book and specifically textbooks. Why? Because it takes time to gather the experts together and do the analysis. When someone looks through a newspaper they are general looking for timely and accurate information concerning current events, especially anything that would impact the reader’s life directly, or carries an interesting human interest angle. Newspapers, wishing to retain readers, respond by carrying timely information that the reader can rely upon for being accurate, without being “bookish” in nature. Textbooks even more so then regular books avoid covering material that is not yet settled. To do so would subject the book to being out of date too quickly. This means that textbooks and newspapers carry information that is largely exclusive to themselves; the overlap is not significant. To have a healthy body you need both fruits and vegetables, as each supplies a slightly different form of nourishment, likewise to keep WP healthy you need both the timeliness and wide scope of newspapers, along with the depth and detailed analysis provided by books.
I am not sure how many people when given the choice between relaying upon a textbook or a dated newspaper would chose the newspaper, assuming there was indeed a conflict. Certainly it could theoretically happen, but how often? Let’s avoid letting therorycraft drive policy, and not assume that mainstream newspapers and newsgathering agencies (Reuters, Associated press) are suspect until proven otherwise.

( Philip just stole the thunder from my opening line, I should have posted quicker, blahh :) Brimba 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, PBS. It might even be that blogs are the best sources for some information (if we got into really strong pop culture). The point is that newspapers are an amalgam of all sorts of things and so a little bit of brain power is required. This is the knot that NOR has got into with trying to categorise sources so that there is some magic formula to include or exclude opinions. There is not a magic formula, there is reasoned consideration and that's about it.
I think the interesting tangent you bring up with say, an old coal mining disaster, (is it notable if there is no other source than contemporary newspaper articles), is then you have to accept that you may not be dealing with reliable sources, but the best available sources (and policy does not address this concept, or it does with excluding it via NOR). That is another little hobby horse of mine: all sources are of variable reliability and it is ultimately a judgement call to decide how much weight to give their viewpoint. There is no reason why we should not exclude best available sources, though we may later fail the NOR test in using them. Still, each case should be considered on its own merits.
I am all for reading between the lines, and that is why I wanted newspapers removed from the list without it being in any way meaning that they could not be a source. By including in the list, it was a de-facto acceptance of the whole amalgam of what is in a newspaper, rather than a considered view. Spenny 15:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are using "reliable" as a threshold for what is allowable to use, then nearly all newspapers are clearly reliable sources and it clouds the issue to say otherwise. We cannot broadly rule out mainstream media as legitimate sources; hence, by default they are reliable enough to pass the filter. If by "reliable" you mean the degree of reliability, there you get into all the subtle issues and applications of choosing sources that belongs in WP:RS, not here. Keep in mind that a "source" can mean any of three things: the author, the publisher/publication, or the specific article. Reliability is a factor of all three. Books and scholarly articles are not necessarily reliable either. There is bunk, misinformation, agenda, viewpoint, and error in all writing. Wikidemo 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll make a stronger statement. An academic understanding of the world is not necessarily any more valuable or encyclopedic than a journalistic one. That's a cultural bias I'm not sure I share (and one I think Wikipedia studiously avoids).Wikidemo 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree to a meaningful but not total extent - though some of this is also subject specific. Academic opinions of Jacques Derrida matter a heck of a lot more to us than the (constantly poorly-written) journalistic accounts of deconstruction. And I think that a demand for an academic focus on popular culture articles (where possible) would be a great way to enema the lot of them. But on the other hand, there's lots of topics that no academic understanding exists for. And we should be aware of that. Phil Sandifer 00:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo, I don't agree that "A scientist says" incantation should have the the credibility it is often imparted with so I am with you on that. However, that misses the point, that being that newspapers are not simply a source of facts, they are mixed up sources of opinions, sources of entertainment, sources of misinformation, and understood to be so in the real world. It is not purely about the unreliability of journalists seeking to add interest to a story, but recognising there are different types of source within the one product. Perhaps this is another one where I read too much into the misnomer of the policy: not reliable sources, but acceptable sources. The problem is that related policy is written on the assumption of reliable means unquestionable in our context (verifiability over truth). If you step away from reliable to acceptable, you have to look at other policies and question whether they have allowed for enough intelligent questioning of sources.
I think I'm just having an Emperor's New Clothes sort of day on policy - they don't really seem to do what it is hoped that they should do. 6 months ago, RS didn't try and be so prescriptive on what a reliable source was, it just suggested the general attributes. It got tightened up and some oddities got introduced (in my opinion). Backtracking to a less specific version might resolve the concerns. Spenny 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been studious on WP:RS to differentiate between sources as authors, publications, or specific articles. If we're simply considering the publication side of it, then a newspaper passes the muster in a way that, say, a blog does not. If we're considering types of articles, then clearly an editorial, man on the street interview, or letter to the editor is nearly always unreliable for most purposes. I don't know Derrida well enough to know whether he gives a fair account of what deconstruction is all about, or the work of other deconstructionists, beyond merely espousing his own theories. You certainly wouldn't want to quote an academic feminist on what feminism is. In the hard sciences people are constantly putting each other down and saying each other's theories are unsupported, wrong, not original, plagiarized, etc. The folks in the history and philosophy departments often have a better grasp than those in the science department on the subject of the progress of science. In the soft sciences they have the same debates we do here about what constitutes a "genocide" or whether an economic policy caused a recession or not. And people often blather in fields they don't know - Francis Crick used to say some awfully controversial stuff about the nature of reality and consciousness, and even get published in journals for it. I'm not putting down academia here, it's one of the great achievements of humankind, just pointing out that you cannot categorically assume reliability there. I don't think we can ever get to a cookbook approach, reducible to one policy + one guideline, that can teach people how to do good nonfiction writing. I think Spenny makes a great point, which is that the best we can do is sometimes harness people's own abilities, knowledge, and common sense to guide them to a decision, not spell it all out for them.Wikidemo 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted, Derrida very much is deconstruction - he has followers who have expanded on his work, but there are no anti-Derridean deconstructionists as such. He's a particularly interesting case here because newspaper accounts of his life were so serially wrong, right up to his frequently-condemned obituaries. And so to rely heavily on newspaper accounts for his article really is a poor choice. This, mind you, does not amount to an endorsement of a purely academic view on all articles. But it does seem to me that the academic view is one that should always be singled out for particular respect. Phil Sandifer 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful. I think we may have to distinguish among several things that people in the creative academic disciplines do: 1) produce works, 2) make statements about themselves and their works; 3) study and comment about their discipline and the works of others, and 4) describe the world in some way. There is an analogous division in the sciences and history. Some academicians are great at wearing two hats, one where they are trying to contribute something important, novel, even provocative, and the other where they are fairly describing the best accepted wisdom of their colleagues. I remember listening to Robert Venturi lecture on city planning, landscape architecture, and even the philosophical and cultural underpinnings of postmodernism. He was utterly encyclopedic and unimpeachable in his knowledge. And then he went out and designed a bunch of buildings that look like lego sets. If you quoted him on the difference between 18th century French and English gardens, or on why an important city should have statues, you would be solid. If you quoted him on where to put a bench in a hotel lobby you would have a bench in the wrong place (in my opinion). Wikidemo 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This statement seems too strong to me: " Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources." We need to be careful about using words like "never" in a policy. I think there are extremely rare situations where these columns would be appropriate sources, just as there can be extremely rare situations where a Wikipedia talk page is an appropriate source. For example, suppose an important political figure writes such a post and signs it, and this post is later discussed in various reliable sources. The post itself might serve as a primary source for information about what wording appeared in that post. I would change the wording to "Posts left on these columns by readers are not reliable sources." (A crumpled-up piece of paper found on the street is not a reliable source, but if a crumpled-up piece of paper found on the street becomes an important piece of evidence in a murder case, then it might be widely quoted in newspapers, books and even in Wikipedia articles.) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We should never accept a reader's post to a newspaper blog as a source. Among other reasons, we cannot even be sure who the poster is. Now, if the newspaper goes to the trouble of identifying the poster and verifying that the identified person did indeed post the message in question, and reports such in their publication, then we can cite the published report. As for your crumpled piece of paper example, if such ever became an important piece of evidence in a trial, we could cite reports about it that were published in reliable sources. The piece of paper itself would never be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree and still maintain that there are (very rare) situations where a blog, Wikipedia article or talk page, etc. can be a primary source for a Wikipedia article. First of all, it might not be necessary to verify who wrote it. We could write, e.g., that the leader of one country demanded an apology (according to reliable sources) after a post appeared on a blog (or Wikipedia talk page etc.) with the name of the leader of another country at the bottom. Secondly, consider this situation: suppose a newspaper verifies that a post on its blog is by a certain prominent person, and publishes a story stating that the post at a specific URL on its website is by that person, but not quoting it word-for-word; and suppose numerous other sources quote the blog and many misquote it; then in that case, the blog itself could be the best primary source for the exact words of the blog. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(I seem to have accidentally deleted the above comment. Glad its been restored, especially since I agree with it. 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
If there are such exceptional situations, which I do not believe exist, these can be discussed in the article in question. We do not need such exceptions defined in policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine: my proposal is not to define or mention these rare exceptions in policy, but to modify the wording as I suggest above, i.e. to "Posts left on these columns by readers are not reliable sources." which also has the advantage of being very slightly shorter than the current wording. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs only applies to self published blogs

There is a presentation at DRV asserting that WP:SPS blogs under this policy means only self-published blogs.[12] A careful reading of the Verifiability policy shows that such an impression is not unreasonable. You might want to clarify this. -- Jreferee t/c 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

References to Wiki Talk pages

Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had a number of citations pointing to the article's own talk page, which I've now removed. However I cannot find a statement in black and white stating why this is wrong. The article in question still has links to archived discussions on its talk page (e.g. to a Reuters story that does not exist on the Internet), although these are inline, rather than being citations per se. What's the official line here? 12:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't refer explicitly to talk pages in general; it's a form of self reference that we don't permit. The fact that the article was referring to the talk page for citations doesn't exempt it from this general principle. And we especially can't use our own talk pages to archive an original translation of a Reuters story, then use our copy as a reference. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sentence in the part about self-published sources

The policy currently (and since a long time) says that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;"

This seems to me like a very bad use of self published sources. All indications and claims of notability should be sourced to independent sources, it is way to easy to claim that you have done X or won award Y or invented Z in your own book or on you own website. I can't see any instances when a claim relevant to someones notability should be accepted if the only source we have is a self published source. If no convincing arguments to the contrary are given, I propose to remove this sentence (the bulleted part, that is, the rest of the sentence is of course needed to keep the text intelligible). Fram (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, that's not what that bullet point sentence means. "it is relevant to their notability" doesn't mean "it establishes their notability", it means "it matters to the reason we have an article on them in the first place". This is to avoid going off on a sideline: "Joe Schmoe, the famous physicist, spent three pages on a long rant on his personal web site, where he explained how wonderful he thinks Christina Aguilera is, and how overrated Britney Spears is." In general, secondary sources will avoid going off on this kind of sideline; if Schmoe is famous for physics, they will only write about his physics. But personal web sites, self-published sources, will often go off on these unrelated rants, since they are, after all, personal. Our articles shouldn't follow them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The part you're looking for that says we shouldn't write Schmoe won the Nobel Prize just because he says he did, is "it is not unduly self-serving;" - separate bullet point. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I read it the other way around. Hmm, either it needs clarification or I need better reading skills :-) We'll go with the latter for the moment! Fram (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse has the correct interpretation. - Crockspot (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed DGG (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RS merger specifics

There is discussion at WT:RS regarding merging the guideline back in here. Currently, seven people have commented and it's 7-0 in favour. I think it should be a step-by-step go through. For instance, this policy doesn't actually mention plagiarism and copyvio but it probably should. I'd like to collapse this RS section into a couple of sentences and add it here:

"Wikipedia insists on reliable sources both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in articles."

Any objections? Marskell (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the current bold climate, I think I'll just go ahead and do this. Clearly, copyvio is a matter of policy and not just a guideline advisement. Marskell (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly object. If you did it It will mean such a major change in many of the sections that it would be better first to try to work out a proposed merge on a subpage. For one thing, is it to be a Policy--then most of RS is over-specific. or is it to be a Guideline, then it downgrades the policy nature of this page. In this case, it eliminates all the other RS information on plagiarism and copyvio. (Unless you simply suggest we have such a paragraph here in addition to whatever might be merged or not merged. DGG (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As it stands, most of RS is gone. There wasn't much to it, even before we started going through the sections. WRT copyvio, it's already a matter of policy that we cite sources to avoid plagiarism, isn't it? Nothing particularly groundbreaking about saying so on our main policy page. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
DGG, there is nothing in this page that is not already covered in WP:V. Rather that speaking about merging we should be speaking of redirecting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there will always be a place for more specific guidelines--where do you suggest they should go? DGG (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples can be refocused. It was forked out when RS was bloated last year and has been in limbo. I think it should be cut down and only mention the sources that come up most often: the file-sharing and social network sites, IMBD, blogs etc. Marskell (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In practice, most people cite to WP:RS, WP:N, and the many (many) off shoots of WP:N. It would be nice to attempt to give more focus on WP:V since it is a policy. -- Jreferee t/c 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. The concept of reliable sources is of utmost importance, that surely we should have a guideline page. It use to have information to help users determine reliability of source types (e.g. YouTube, wikis, ...) I think some of that could come back (from the examples page, but a lot of the examples page is poorly written and not that helpful). I have some suggestions on how to make the guideline page work well, rather than doing away with it or making it a disambiguation page. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Guideline_page_-_proposal. --Aude (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Journalism/MeriNews

Apologies if this has been raised before, but is citizen journalism acceptable as a reliable source? MeriNews is an India-oriented news site that may function as a source for news not covered (or adequately covered) by major news channels. To be honest there isn't much professionalism with mainstream Indian news sites which presents a problem for India-related articles on Wikipedia. The MeriNews site itself seems fairly professional in terms of reportage and writing style, although I have spotted one or two articles that fall below what I would consider an acceptable standard.

So my question is: Would MeriNews be an acceptable source to cite in Wiki articles if they are used judiciously accounting for an NPOV style of writing? Thanks, Ekantik talk 01:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MeriNews, IndyMedia and such sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The concept of RS refers to publications with reputable fact checking that these sites do not have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Peainful

Hello. Currently, the Naruto (a popular Japanese manga and anime series) task force is having a discussion about whether to call a certain character Pein (a direct translation) or Pain (a slightly altered translation based on pronounciation) on the Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto) page. As the majority (or rather, all but two or three) are fanboys and fangirls of the series and follow anything that websites that translate the series say (they say Pain for pronounciation), most believe Pain is the official translation. Unless the Japanese producers or VIZ Media, which translates the series to English, give an ifficial word, there isn't an official translation. As such, most of the members are split apart on this. As this discussion revolves largely upon this policy, I ask if someone here could give their opinion on whether or not there is a verified official translation for the character or not. You don't have to do this, however, but it was nice to take the time to read this anyway. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is a better avenue to taking care of this situation than this talk page. - Chardish 19:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Really?

As I wander the ether world that is the Wikipedia I find numerous articles that are well-referenced and complete with citations and yet some editor has tagged it as unworthy for lack of sources. I visit other niches in the ether to find long texts without a single citation and not a line of criticism. I read one article about a particular church denomination which was full of bias, and noted in the discussion for the page that no one wanted to correct or edit the copy since the church was known to be litigious. Another less threatening church had their entry deleted after a month or so due to lack of sourcing. Say, where does an entry for a new church get sources? And, no it wasn't my church, I'm an Episcopalian, we have 400 years of sources.

As I read comments from "editors" I find that in a goodly number of edits, the editor is simply ignorant of the field being edited and so is demanding sources for what should be common knowledge in a particular field.

It is one thing to require sources but it is quite another to apply the policy haphazardly, and absurdly. LAWinans 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to satisfy the experts in a field, it is to present information that is verifiable to all readers, no matter how little they currently known about a subject. Now, Wikipedia is not perfect, it is after all a collaborative effort by volunteer, and the quality of the encyclopedia varies from article to article, and within any given article from day to day. Nevertheless, verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia, and it states a goal to which we all should be striving every time we edit Wikipedia. As for "common knowledge", please see the essay at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. -- Donald Albury 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
...The point of this was for it to be made clear whether illegal fan translations (yes, they are illegal, only VIZ translations are legal) are official or not, not whether Wikipedia is the most perfectly-perfect site on the internet. -_- Because about 1/2 of the series isn't in English yet, fans in English speaking nations rely on translations on the Internet (such as www.saiyanisland.com ) to know what's going on. The question is simply whether they are official or not. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

altering cited information

An editor altered a cited sentence, making it no longer match the cited source. The new sentence more closely matched his POV. (See "doctrines" and "foms" [13]) Surely there's got to be a policy against altering cited information. Can someone point me to it? Leadwind 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a Policy statement on this, but it is certainly not the right thing to do. As I see it, you have two options... revert the statement back to a version that matches the citation, or request a citation for the new version. In either case, you should raise the issue on the talk page and discuss it. Blueboar 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, Lima has no intention of discussing this with me on the talk page. He's been mucking with my work for a long time, and I'm familiar with his MO. Leadwind 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vandalism says, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So I would say that deliberately altering a cited sentence to change its meaning can be construed as vandalism. However, I do believe that these changes are often made out of ignorance of our policy rather than malice. Revert the changes and leave a notice on the user's talk page ({{uw-unsor1}} is appropriate for a first offense}. If you are convinced that the change is being made maliciously, revert and warn for vandalism. -- Donald Albury 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Lima is not deliberately compromising WP. He thinks he's protecting WP, and the truth, from me. I wouldn't call it vandalism. Leadwind 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's no stated policy against altering cited statements, is there some sort of conduct cop that could give him a warning? He won't listen to me.

Also, shouldn't there be a policy against altering cited statements? If I had missed his edit, then other readers would have been misled into thinking that his wording had RS backing. Leadwind 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding numbers

I'm pretty sure I'm correct here, but can I please have a third opinion at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Why do we include distance? The gist is that the bridge log includes the total mileage in each county, and the distance from each bridge to the previous county line (ignoring the occasional milepost equations, which are listed). Therefore, you can easily calculate the distance from the start of the route to each bridge (and therefore each interchange that includes a bridge). This is perfectly verifiable, right? Thank you. --NE2 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth?? Say what???

This is quoted like a mantra, but Wikipedia DEFINES "verifiable" in terms that have no reference except to objective truth. For example: it DEFINES verifiable as "reliable" and from "established experts" and from sources "with a reputation for accuracy". Well, the words "reliable" and "expert" and "accurate" have no meaning unless we're talking about truth-relatedness. Truthiness, as Colbert would say. So what's with the "verifiable, NOT true" crap? Is somebody just trying to confuse things? There's no room for a NOT in that sentence, if the said definition of verifiable is to be used. Would somebody like to explain what point is trying to be made in this statement, at such labor? Cause I'm obviously not getting it.

Getting no response on NOR, so have decided to post here also.SBHarris 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" is a subjective concept. What one editor might think is "true" may not be "true" for another. Thus, we require "verifiability" instead. In other words, you can't put something you "know to be true" into wikipedia. You can only put statements that are based on what a reliable source says is true. Alternatively, you can not delete something that is cited to a reliable source just because you think it isn't "true". Hope that helps explain what is meant. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The very definition of a "reliable source" is one that tends to report the truth. Are you trying to say you can't put in things you "know" to be true, but only things from a source which you "know" to report the truth? What's the difference? The epistemological problem remains. It's just covered up a step. SBHarris 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Many editors want to add unreliable (and often unpublished) statements they claim to know are true. This policy is important to prevent that and justify deletion of such statements when they have been added anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You might get further by substituting "prominent" or "well-established" for "reliable" in thinking about the problem. For example there are many prominent sources for things like creationism that get discussed in articles, even though by most objective standards some of their claims are simply untrue. Really though, verifiability is about maintaining a reasonable working environment. Ultimately, we do want to create an accurate and factual encyclopedia. But rather than trying to decide individually what the truth is (a task most Wikipedians are unqualified for on most topics), the founders made a compromise. Rather than seeking to discover truth for ourselves, we would work to report on the truth as currently represented by prominent and mainstream sources. That way editors only have to worry about the verifiability of ideas (a much easier task than determining objective truth). Unfortunately, this doesn't completely work in practice, and principles of truth-judging ended up embedded back into RS and NPOV. As for the mantra, well I suspect that some people just like silly mantras, but the underlying principle is that Wikipedia editors are (primarily) charged with reporting on opinions rather than forming our own. Dragons flight (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You can think of it a bit like an approximation to Google's page rank except for points of view rather than web links; there's no infinite regress in page rank. We want the points of view, written by people that many other points of view hold to have reliably good points of view, particularly if they in turn are said to have reliably good points of view. The page rank algorithm decays the weight of the links, so there's no infinite regress, and the wikipedia follows that approximate process also.WolfKeeper (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I view this as being a pragmatic policy rather than an epistemological one. We can spend all day navel-gazing and questioning the Nature of Truth but it doesn't help write an encyclopedia. What does help write the encyclopedia is to frame content disagreements in terms of what is supported by which sources, rather than what is "true". Friday (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The point, quite simply, is to shift editors' focus from what they think is true to what they can verify. You are right that an unscrupulous or self-absorbed editor could cloak articles with the "aura" of verifiability by selectively citing sources that support the editor's viewpoint. But in a collectively-edited encyclopedia, that type of bias tends to get weeded out fairly quickly. It's not perfect, but the emphasis on verifiability at least has the benefit of taking personal beliefs out of the equation. We can't stop people from editing based on beliefs rather than sources, but they usually can't get away with it for very long. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. We really, really need an FAQ if only to answer this concern. Wikipedians are not in a position to determine the truth value of material; we can only find that a reliable, third-party source has declared something a fact (or has not). That's it. Is the third party reporting true statements? That's not our concern. We verify what has been said about what is, not what is. (You think that's confusing?—It's not.) Marskell (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to say that NPOV stands for notable POVs, and I believe that this is essentially where the thrust of the wikipedias core values are coming from; and the verifiability constraints are to do with checking that the POVs we collect have verifiably been noted by people or organisations that are themselves noted.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The 'not truth' bit isn't saying we don't want truth, it's saying that we prefer verifiability as a sufficient and necessary condition, not truth as a sufficient and necessary condition, because of the practical issues that brings (how can you prove you've got truth- you can't unless you can verify it, in which case verifiability is more fundamental).WolfKeeper (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept is very simple: Just because something may happen to be true does not automatically mean that you can jam it into an article. You have to back it up with a citation to a reliable source that verifies the fact. In practice, this really does not apply to simple truths, like "the Earth is a spherical planet". No one is going to challenge such a fact, but it IS a verifiable fact that CAN be sourced if challenged. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it SHOULD be sourced, if challenged with no argument. — BQZip01 — talk 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The very definition of a "reliable source" is one that tends to report the truth., not really... A reliable source is one we can tell our readers it has a fact checking process that is acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. It has nothing to do with the concept of "truth". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A novel interpretation of the English word "rely," there. Or are you suggesting that the important thing, is that we can rely that it has been through a 'fact-checking process," rather than rely upon a better probability that it actually contains facts, and not falsehoods, thereby? But why should we care if the one action does not produce a higher likelihood of the other state? If we do not believe that fact-checking is more likely to produce factual statements? If you do believe this, it is the product you care about (the truth), not the process as such, for itself. If you don't believe this, then this worship of the process itself is a waste of time, and really has no defense. For I can think of many other better ways to waste time, if you're going to assert that this is what fact-checking is. SBHarris 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And just how do you calculate the probability that a source contains facts and not falsehoods? We cannot rely on anyone's gut feelings about what is true and what isn't. We can't rely on testimony from anonymous posters (and we are all more or less anonymous in here). We can't rely on appeals to higher authority, either. What we can rely on is that a source we cite has a reputation of exercising due care in gathering, checking and publishing 'facts'. It is my firm belief that we will produce a more usable encyclopedia by citing reliable sources then we ever could by trying to decide what is 'true'. -- Donald Albury 20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm stuck in several struggles with an editor who supports his church's take on the truth against the verifiable judgments of experts. We can agree on what's verifiable even if we can't agree on what's true. The "not truth but verifiability" statement allows people with different ideas about the truth to agree on what goes into WP: that which is verifiable. In theory. Leadwind 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"The very definition of a 'reliable source' is one that tends to report the truth" (Sbharris). Not quite. I think reliability here is more about acceptance, being relied upon by many people. Reliable sources are sources that are accepted by many people as being reliable, authoritative, etc. The published opinion of a university professor on a subject that he specializezs in, for example, is reliable because he is respected among the specialists of the subject (being a professor and having published in some academic journals), and the academic society of the subject is respected in the greater society. To use philosophical jargon, it's intersubjective recognition rather than objective truth. --Saintjust 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think of it like this: verifiable information isn't going to get you laughed out of a university classroom. It might be wrong, but it's accepted as true. Thirty-five years ago, you could find a reliable source that said that a child's self-identified gender is determined by social cues, not X and Y chromosomes. Or that living things are divided into 5 kingdoms (currently 3 domains). Maybe Moses really really did write the Books of Moses, but no one's going to take you seriously as a nonsectarian Bible student if you say he did. Leadwind 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
SBHarris: 'The very definition of a "reliable source" is one that tends to report the truth.' You're right. The statement that WP isn't about the truth is an exaggeration meant to be shocking and edifying. WP uses RSs precisely because, as you say, they tend to report the truth. Sometimes they get things wrong, especially in the details. The fact that they're imperfect doesn't mean that we stop using them. It means that we acknowledge that we're not finally sure of the truth, just of the current version accepted by the experts. When an editor says that the experts are wrong about, say, purgatory or the redaction of the Torah, the WP answer is "so be it." Leadwind 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Leadwind: When an editor says that the experts are wrong about something, he is engaging in original research and/or injecting his own point of view. Both are deprecated in Wikipedia. -- Boracay Bill 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi SBH! Have thought carefully on this to date, and the epistemology you raise is indeed valid and well-established in many expert philosophical texts, and might be well suitable first for insertion in the general articles on epistemology, truth, etc., as a start. The Abolition of Man comes to mind as a source. I've intended to assist in this sort of edit when I get more time. Significant numbers of experts conclude there simply is no standard for knowledge that does not ultimately rely on a concept of objective truth or objective good.
There are weaknesses to the implementation here. A PageRank system can be gamed (and escalating such a fight, better protection vs. better hacking, is unwise): in our case that means that when our community judges some view the more dominant or "majority" one, it may well be an untrue view. (Not to mention our judgment of its majority status may independently be untrue.) Further, Jimbo stated specifically in 2003 that "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancill[]ary article." I read that as: all the significant viewpoints may well be untrue (i.e., by mistake, not by censorship), but we don't have the scope to originate otherwise insignificant truth claims here-- we must wait for them to become significant.
In this apparent dilemma I take consolation in this: if any particular real truth is significant, by definition we will be able to source it significantly, even as a minority view. If a particular real truth is "extremely small minority", then there are many and much better ways to propagate that truth besides WP. As you seem familiar with the nature of Truth, you will recognize its capacity for propagating dependably in both cases. Someday the debate between "Absolute truth exists" and "it absolutely doesn't", silly as it is, may be better understood here and we can agree on a better mantra. These particular flaws I mention-- aiming, as they do, for those with distaste for epistemology-- ultimately resolve themselves in favor of NPOV being an acceptable statement of purpose for WP, and NOR and V being acceptable guardrails on that purpose.
The earth is not spherical, it's oblate spheroidal with fractal irregularity, and Bereshith was not written by Moses, he compiled much older texts. Am I a sect? John J. Bulten 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source reprints reliable source

There is a good bit of discussion going on at Mediation Cabal, RFC, and Mediation request regarding using an unreliable web source that reprinted a Saturday Evening Post article. The Saturday Evening Post article is fine as a reference for the material and a proper cite journal tag has been created for it (acceptable for Verifiability). However the dispute is to use the web link to an unreliable web site in the reference (url=). The option of adding "format=reprint" was brought up in the Mediation, but we're entering into a gray area on policy. Please comment. Should this link be included in the reference? Should we link to an unreliable source that reprints a reliable source, making it easier for a reader to verify the information or should we stick with a direct reference to the reliable source, which may be more difficult to verify (purchase, library, or web search)? Morphh (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

On a brief scan of the arguments, I think the link to the reprint ought to be provided, along with some mechanism (e.g., "format=reprint") to make clear that this isn't the original. No one seems to have suggested that the reprint is inaccurate, and providing a link is better than suppressing it.
After all, the editor who originally added the citation could have just stated that it came from the Saturday Evening Post, without a link. I doubt that anyone would have known or questioned where he found the article. Instead, he helpfully provided a link to a source, and while any reprint could be erroneous, there's no reason to believe that this one is. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly one should always add the link for where one actually found it--doing otherwise isnt really being straightforward. A convenient source for possibly difficult to access material is always helpful, though of course the original is what is authoritative. The true original sources is always necessary-- due to the possibility of selective quotation , in BLPs, for example.DGG (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the source that is used should be the one that the information came from. If you didn't pull it from the Saturday Evening Post, then it isn't from the Saturday Evening Post, it is from whatever source you got it from. If you have seen both and the reprint is accurate (remember WP:AGF), then the link is fine with a note explaining it. An alteration to the template is beside the point. A source is only as reliable as the ACTUAL source, not the purported source. — BQZip01 — talk 05:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point, we do not have any evidence that this is an actual reprint. We're assuming that this dubious site is reprinting the real article. Morphh (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a classic conflict between immediatism and eventualism. The immediatist says that the source needs to be perfect, and if it's not perfect then we must not use it. The eventualist says that any source (as long as it's not clearly wrong) is better than none, and eventually another editor will come along and replace it with a better one.
Well, I'm an eventualist. You'd be surprised how many citations are indirect, and no one yet has said that this source is inaccurate. Wikipedia doesn't have a "reprints not allowed" policy. Go ahead and use it, as long as it's accurately cited as a reprint. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, you have got to be kidding. This flies directly in the face of specific guidance on the subject.
Jimbo Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
From WP:CITE#HOW "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear."
In short, your opinion does not coincide with WP policy or guidelines. I am not saying that you are wrong for having such an opinion. It is as valid as mine, but only as an opinion. It does not coincide with the consensus of the editors on this website. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the source. The whole debate arises from a misunderstanding of what a source is. A source is a particular published work. Sometimes people use the word more broadly to mean the publication, or the forum, the author, etc., but the verifiability policy is all about source material, not who publishes it. The source here is a Saturday Evening Post article, which would generally be reliable (but sometimes you have to be careful with material that old). I would cite the actual article, and as a courtesy use a link to the most accessible legitimate place on the Web where it appears. Being at Google books doesn't make it any more or less reliable than being on the web somewhere else. If someone wants to challenge that the version linked to is an inaccurate reprint they may, but that has nothing to do with verifiability and sourcing. The Jimbo quote has nothing at all to do with this issue. The CITE example seems to be on a different subject as well. It goes to the question of what happens when author X "In book A, author B says C". It says you can cite this for the proposition that author B said C in book A, but not a citation for C, which would suffer from hearsay-like problems. That's different than a simple reprint of book B. Everything we look at on the web, and in print for the most part, is a reprint of something. Wikidemo 09:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
How about WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it?

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

-- Boracay Bill 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I think that guideline is about a very different issue.Wikidemo 09:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it really? You say above: "The source here is a Saturday Evening Post article", but has the person citing the Saturday Evening Post article actually seen the Saturday Evening Post article, or has he seen only an online web page purporting to host a reproduction of the article? If he has seen only an online reproduction, his source is the website on which he saw the online reproduction, not the Saturday Evening Post. He could cite his source as something link "unreliable.com, quoting the Saturday Evening Post", but it would be improper to cite his source as "The Saturday Evening Post". -- Boracay Bill 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, clearly. If he has read the reprint he has seen the article. You're just looking at a computer screen either way. The source is the article. The link is to one instance and format of that article. It's not a quote or summary, it's an online version. We get this all the time with findarticles, google books, AP stories, etc., not to mention interview transcripts. If anyone doubts the authenticity of the online copy they're free to check it out. The guideline is not about online versions, it's about one source making claims about what another source says. Wikidemo 14:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he has seen what purports to be a reprint of the article. That is what he must cite, i.e., "article so-an-so" in such-and-such magazine, as found at [www.unreliable.com this site]". If I have seen the source in a hard copy as well as on-line, I make it clear with "article so-an-so" in such-and-such magazine, also on-line at [www.unreliable.com this site]". We may need to be clarify how to distinguish between when an on-line link is offered as a courtesy, and when the on-line link is the only version of the source that the editor has seen. that's just being honest with the readers. -- Donald Albury 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the same as any online viewing. In general, nearly all citations on Wikipedia collapse this information into a single citation and simply state the article details. We have a series of citation templates that are more than adequate to the task, and that more people ought to use. The url link makes clear where it was found. There's no dishonesty. It's all there in the citation link. And again, any question of authenticity of reprints is a completely separate question than the reliability of sources, which goes to things like bias, fact checking, authoritativeness of the author, and editorial oversight.Wikidemo 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't the same. Some web sites are known to misquote material from otherwise reliable sources; tax protester web sites, in general come to mind. (I'm not saying the specific Saturday Evening Post quote is necessarily wrong, even though it is on a tax protester web site; it's just that many of them confabulate quotes from USSC decisions, or quote from a minority opinion as if it were the court's decision, etc.) Most of the citation templates have a format tag, and the documentations suggests format = reprint. I think the appropriate tag would be format = disputed reprint, or in extreme cases, format = reprint {{dubious}}, and let it go at that.
In other words, I agree with Donald Albury; but we need to have information in the citation templates to distinguish the cases. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<< I would argue that using a convenience link to an unreliable website, is bad practice and should not be allowed. These unreliable websites in some cases not only misquote the original sources, but are often accompanied with commentary and critique of the source in a manner that renders in doubt the usability of the quoted source. I would say "no". Do not add a convenient link to a website that otherwise would never be used to in support of encyclopedic material, that does not comply with NPOV, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it. We're talking about convenience links? The issue causes some confusion because people confuse convenience links, a rather obscure and not-often-considered subject, with external links on the one hand and reliablen sources on the other. As I understand it a convenience link is a helpful link to a free, online, publicly available copy of the original location where an article may be found where the original is unavailable. Well, what makes a convenience link trustworthy or not for republishing an article in its entirety is a somewhat different set of issues from what makes a source reliable or not for standing for a proposition. I'm pretty sure the CITE link addresses the second, not the first. The only guidance on convenience links is an essay that has had very little use or traffic of late. Ideally it would be a direct link to a major site that publishes the entire article, with attributions, full sourcing information, and no commentary. Wikidemo 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about reliability, for the most part, I believe. I should have been clear that when I use a convenience web-link, it is to a site run by the publisher of the newspaper, magazine, etc. that I am citing from a printed issue, or perhaps the university one of the authors is affiliated with (and this does not extend to blogs created by professors on university sites). It would not be a good idea to provide a web-link to a 'reprint' on an unreliable web-site. Giving the impression that a web-site is reliable because it 'reprints' an article from a reliable source is misleading. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the situation here, has anyone paid the $25 to buy the Saturday Evening Post article, or otherwise have access to the actual article from them? or is the reprint the only source consulted, and no one has looked at the actual article? If the latter, the cite is not based on a reliable source. If the former is the case, then the citation is okay. But, I agree with Jossi and Arthur, that we do not need the convenience link to a non-reliable, highly partisan source such as the example here. People are perfectly capable of using Google, if they want. Or finding the article through the library, or paying the fee to get it from the Saturday Evening Post. --Aude (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hypothetically speaking, what if someone does spend the $25 or goes to the library, or otherwise finds a more believable reprint. Would it be okay to provide the convenience link after verifying that the online version is correct? If so how would an editor vouch for it, with a comment in the markup code? What about sources that are in-between for reliability. For example, legitimate, solid companies often put reprints of news articles on their "in the news" page, or as press releases. I would be very surprised if a company would alter the article contents given how much trouble they would get it if caught. Blogs may do the same, and assuming they're not copyright infringements I don't see the problem there. The copying of the article from an original digital source to a blog is probably a stronger link in the information chain than the accuracy of reporting in the first place, or the accuracy of the use of the source by the Wikipedia editor. There's content control on a blog too, in that a solid blog gets critiqued, and one that misprints articles will get trashed. That's very different than a personal website or some kind of fringe advocacy site. Wikidemo 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. In my experience most bloggers do not understand how to obtain articles from reliable databases like InfoTrac, LexisNexis or ProQuest, even though such databases are available at practically every university campus and at most public libraries. Even fewer have basic library skills, i.e. the ability to look up a journal on WorldCat and then actually track down the hard copy (this is necessary for the huge number of old publications that have not yet been scanned in).
Thus, the chance that a blogger will catch another republishing an altered version of an article is small. Furthermore, the republication of the entire article on a blog would be a copyright violation (and hence illegal) unless the article is in public domain (published before 1923) or the blogger has obtained an express license from the publisher or author of the article. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with New York Times Co. v. Tasini. Copyright applies just as well to electronic documents as it does to paper. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned the copyright concern. What I'm thinking of for intermediate reliability are, say, the articles accessible from the self-published blog-like "in the news" section of OpenTable's corporate website[14]. Most are still available from the original publisher, in which case that link should be used. But here and there you'll probably find some articles that are not available for free or without subscription. I really doubt that a Benchmark Capital company, would misquote a news story. Many or most companies, PR firms, etc., have similar pages. Historical societies and museums republish old articles. Product companies reprint old articles to explain the history of the food they're selling (say, where pasta shape X came from). When you start looking into it this is pretty common. It's good to keep records where things come from. But in terms of allowing the source or not, otherwise respectable people reprinting articles that aren't available on the net is very low on the list of where errors in Wikipedia come from. Wikidemo 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No one has purchased or otherwise verified the Saturday Evening Post article has been accurately reproduced on the questionable website. I have verified that the title of the article and the author did publish in the stated issue, but the content of the article itself has not been verified. I've searched the web and have not been able to find another reprint published. Morphh (talk) 22:21, 04 December 2007 (UTC)

Can newspapers/magazines be self-published sources?

In WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves it says to use self-published sources it must be releveant to their notability and must not be unduly self-serving.

Daniel Pipes, the founder of Campus Watch, is a journalist, among other occupations. Pipes has written two articles, one glorifying and praising Campus Watch’s intentions, and another refuting a criticism about Campus Watch. One of the articles was a opt-ed opinion article published in the The Jerusalem Post and the other was published in FrontPage Magazine. A user keeps adding these two articles as citations on the Campus Watch article. When I state this is a WP:SELFPUB violation, he says the sources are not self-published because the newspaper and magazine are not published by Pipes. Are these articles self-published sources or are they not considered self-published because Pipes wrote them, but didn't publish them? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

An editorial written in a third-party newspaper isn't self-published. But it is unreliable. Most op-eds are unreliable for most purposes, other than to simply establish that a particular person held or voiced a particular opinion.Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Getting to the article itself, if you cut out the intermediate layers the first quote in question is a self-serving statement by an organization of its own methods. It is cited correctly in a way that makes that clear. However, the encyclopedic value is extremely low, and has no place in the lead. It would be better just to say what the organization does. It's also an unremarkable quote, and utter balderdash. Academics certainly do get critiqued and Campus Watch is hardly the first "think tank" advocacy group to do so. The second quote is equally empty, but correctly cited. It's basically a simple denial. I believe it is okay to point to a place where an organization denies an accusation, and use that to support the claim that they denied the accusation. That's using the op-ed as a primary source per WP:PSTS I think, but that's an acceptable thing if you can't find a secondary source to say that Campus Watch denies that particular allegation. As usual, my opinion only. Your mileage may vary.Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Such an op-ed is clearly WP:SPS, and FrontPage was recently held as questionable (I may disagree). But I think the proposal below for resolving this situation has merit. John J. Bulten 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)