Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Upgrading The Daily Wire's rating to No Consensus WP:MREL

I have read through the past discussions about Daily Wire. Since the last discussion, Ben Shapiro has stepped down and John Bickley PHD has become the new editor-in-chief. The Daily Wire now has a few investigative journalists, which makes part of the company a publisher of first reported facts. The Daily Wire has now a commitment for accuracy and retraction here - https://www.dailywire.com/standards-policies . I do understand that Daily Wire has failed a few climate change factchecks, so asides from that they're reliable, in conjunction with the referenced fact check fails for other subject matters a few years old. These factors show changes for the better to improve the journalistic integrity of the entire company. Huff post has political as questionable and everything else reliable, even when they are rated the same for factual reporting. Couldn't we split the talk shows and the independent journalism like Huff Post? Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Titaniumman23: The way to do this would be a request for comment (RfC) on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you're interested in breaking out different reliability on different topics, see the current Reliable Sources noticeboard for a an examples of how to structure the request. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur w/ Titaniumman23 Buffs (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Gold Derby

Goldderby.com has been referenced 371 times on WP, mainly in articles for actors/tv series/movies and some awards+noms list, but is not on the list of sources. I found only one mention of it in an archived discussion from August 2011 where it's reliability (or lack thereof) was not addressed by the editor who responded to the query. I could not find an About section on its website, but did find bios for some of the writers via their bylines. Its WP article indicates ownership by Penske Media Corporation, who own several other accepted sources on the list, but ik reliability isn't automatically inherited so I'd like surefire confirmation that it is (or isn't) an acceptable source before using it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site

How should we categorise the World Socialist Web Site, a socialist news website owned by the International Committee of the Fourth International? While they have a clear Troskyist slant and bias, they have also covered a range of international issues that have attracted international coverage including the 1619 Project (where they played a key role in rallying opposition), the Pike River Mine disaster] in New Zealand and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Are we allowed to cite the WSWS in articles? Is is safe to use articles from them if the story is covered by other more reliable and less partisan media? Just wanted to get some clarity on the issue. Andykatib 12:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andykatib: You should ask this on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the list of Perennial sources. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will raise the issue there. Andykatib (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

CNN Credibility

Why is CNN listed as a reliable source? It’s pretty widely accepted that CNN is not a credible source of information, as with Fox News’ status, partisan media outlets cannot be considered as reliable sources on the subjects of Science and Politics, but that disclaimer has been omitted for CNN.

Pretty clear indicator that there is a lack of objectivity on what is and is not considered reliable, Since when did we start letting the political ideologies of editors dictate a site which is supposed to be objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.174.97 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

On "why", here is the latest discussion on that: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#RFC_on_CNN. If you check the CNN entry at WP:RSP you'll find links to 16 earlier discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why these are not on spam list?

Why Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and other social medias not on spam list? GogoLion (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Twitter, FB, etc have occasional uses as WP:ABOUTSELF. Reddit and Urban Dictionary fall under WP:USERG (like WP itself). WP:RSP and WP:Spam blacklist are different things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

Would someone please take the time to summarize the results of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine? fiveby(zero) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: anyone who closes that discussion should also keep in mind the 2019 RSN RfC on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_256#RfC_on_sciencebasedmedicine.org — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

CBS not listed

CBS is not listed. Shouldn't it be listed?

(I'm glad I found this list!) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

no, if something is uncontroversially a normal news organisation, we generally don't bother listing every single one in the world - so this list is for when there's been some controversy in practice - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's enough WP:RSN discussions (2?) about it to justify an inclusion here, but someone has to dig them out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've encountered several people who get their news from sources that I consider to be unreliable. I say "Watch ABC, NBC, or CBS at 6:30", but they don't believe those sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about Elan magazine

Hi, i would like your advice on the following sources. Elan magazine : https://www.elanmagazine.com/ I dont know this magazine well and neither your criterias for evaluating a source. Kind regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about Wall Street International

How is this magazine rated https://wsimag.com/ ? Nattes à chat (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat, I can't find an about-page, but per [1] it seems like a group-blog (WP:BLOGS). However, WP:RSN is the right place for this kind of question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Should Drudge Report be listed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Daily Wire

Daily Wire's entry was added without any formal support for such inclusion & blacklisting. I absolutely concur that it should be included as a partisan source (they openly state this), but to say that it engages in promoting conspiracy theories or otherwise misleading articles at a rate above, for example, the NYT is absurd and inaccurate. It should be listed as WP:OPINION in many cases. The rationales listed for such exclusion are of a hyperpartisan nature and without backing. Snopes is also self-published and definitely has a leftward tilt. When you look at what was published, virtually all "errors" are matters of opinion (Example: Did people start to dig up a grave? Or did they merely take a shovelful of dirt near the grave and encouraged others to do so until it was dug up"? I mean...you're really splitting hairs if you say that's not "starting to dig up a grave"), were cited to another source that later retracted and DW did the same, or are simply matters of opinion. Buffs (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Wire's entry meets WP:RSPCRITERIA and it's not blacklisted. Snopes is not "self-published" and the errors were all matters of fact (well matters of false facts, to be precise). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Which part of RSPCriteria does it meet?

• "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past" - I see only two with very skowsh participation. That's at least arguably NOT a "significant discussion"
• "RFC" I see no RFC at all, certainly not one with a conclusion

Which ones were "errors of fact" or omission?

Snopes was a husband and wife team for a LONG time...while they've expanded, they are still self-published, IMHO. (Full disclosure, I've had conversations with them when they were in their first decade of operations). Buffs (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability. Here's discussion #1. I count about 8 editors arguing the source is unreliable and about 5 arguing the source is reliable. A few others argue the source should be used with caution. Here's discussion #2. I count about 5 editors arguing the source is unreliable and 0 editors arguing the source is reliable. Here's discussion #3. I count about 5-6 editors arguing the source is unreliable or undue and 0 editors arguing the source is reliable. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, entirely uninvolved editor here. And I agree with @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's assessment of those discussions. There is clearly consensus in favor of marking The Daily Wire as generally unreliable. I believe the RSP entry is in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec x too many) The number of !votes total in the last 2 discussions (even counting repeats) doesn't even come close to the total !votes in the first discussion and many are repeats. No one pinged previous participants, so I find it suspect that this is an appropriate conclusion.

Second, and more importantly, many of the initial !votes indicate a simple hostility to the site with zero regard for content with nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations and ad hominem attacks

"The site regularly publishes false and misleading stories" Accusation, no evidence

"Lacks reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" Accusation, no evidence

"An extremist website" Accusation, no evidence

"Has no reputation for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. That its editor is a Breitbart castoff is troubling; that its content is largely Trumpist apologia is telling." As noted (and ignored), Daily Wire and Shapiro regularly criticized Trump ESPECIALLY after the post-election fiasco. He's hardly alt-right (the FBI arrested someone from the alt-right plotting to kill him and he was the #1 target of alt-right attacks for several years).

"Generic partisan hack website" straight up ad hominem

"The editor-in-chief and founder of the Daily Wire is the former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News, a website renowned for publishing hoaxes, conspiracy theories and falsehoods." Accusation, no evidence. He was A former editor and left as their quality deteriorated.

To his credit, one editor (only one) posted links to Snopes and FactCheck. But when you look at the articles cited, you'll find that Daily Wire either deleted or updated every single one once new information became available just like the NYT and hundreds of other "reliable" sources...

criticism article removed Example of repeated story. Note that the problem was that the article didn't specify that this wasn't found by Carson himself, but by an entity that now worked for him as the Secretary of HUD and that it wasn't done at his direction. Things that happen in agencies are credited to their leaders all the time even if the leader didn't have a direct say in the matter. It happened with Biden. It happened with Trump. It happens with literally every President and Secretary and their respective departments. But, as stated above, the article was removed, as you'd expect from a reputable news source.

criticism article referencing PowNed.tv and was filed under commentary which is commentary on the work of another, not a news story.

I would also argue that many of these editors have a hyperpartisan/hostile agenda against conservatives in general and their opinions are far from objective and should carry less weight. One even proudly displays that he was "previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation [into Trump]"

Lastly, I don't agree with your count these. Of those that offered clear opinions on the first one:

1. Avoid (8)

BullRangifer (now known as Valjean)

Snooganssnoogans

K.e.coffman

MastCell

Rhododendrites

Aquillion

Guy

NorthBySouthBaranof

1. Use Caution/Partisan/Depends on context (5)

Sangdeboeuf

E.M.Gregory

Icewhiz

Springee

Patapsco913

1. Ok to use (3)

wumbolo

Lionel

XavierItzm

As such, it seems to me that the result of the first discussion (without discounting any opinions) was, at a bare minimum, not conclusive. When you throw out those that are openly hostile toward conservatism or didn't cite any sources for their opinions, it's much closer to Partisan... as the outcome.

The second had Blueboar voicing support for Use Caution and mostly the same opposing people offering the same opinions. Another editor offered criticism of the opposition, but did not voice a clear opinion. 5 against.

The third (started by an IP that went straight for WP discussion pages...pardon my skepticism that this was a real anonymous IP), but most of the discussion focused on whether using the source was appropriate as a primary source for a specific article or whether it was undue weight. Multiple people said an RFC should have been started to properly assess whether it should be on the WP:RS perennial list. That's hardly support or opposition. Buffs (talk) 04:11, September 27, 2021‎ (UTC)

• Not RS for anything other than its own opinion in its own article. The status quo version is fine. -- Valjean (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any articulated reason why the RSP consensus would be changed. Has The Daily Wire radically changed its reporting or its editorial structure? Has its reputation in general changed? I took a look at the site and it seems to be the same mix of conservative opinion and clickbaity partisan "news" articles as it always has been. Sample headline: "Taliban, After Praise From Biden Admin, Hang Man In Town Square; Pin Note To Chest." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Or hey, look at this wildly homophobic article published three days ago, which claims that a gay school board member spends much of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education (as if, you know, gay and transgender issues aren't part of education), and describes an acclaimed coming-of-age novel with positive reviews from an array of mainstream sources as "gay porn" because it GASP describes gay youths talking about sex. (Remember, heterosexual youths talking about sex is normal and OK. But if they're gay, it's DANGEROUS PORNOGRAPHY!) It's like a throwback to the gay panic defense era - "OMG gay people exist, and our children are reading about them?!" Congratulations, TDW, you've successfully demonstrated how unfit you are to be a reliable source. Nothing has changed here - the evidence is crystal clear that The Daily Wire is still clickbaity partisan extremist claptrap, now with even more homophobia inside. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found this discussion on RSN, in which editors generally appear to have agreed that subject-matter experts in the field of climate science writing for Climate Feedback were reliable for the claim that the Daily Wire was misleading a number of times when writing about climate change. This discussion isn't linked on the Daily Wire's entry and I am not certain of whether it would be appropriate for me to add it, but I think it's supportive that the Daily Wire has been misleading on topics that aren't a simple splitting hairs over a matter of opinion the way Buffs has described. --Chillabit (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it not news that a man was hung by the Taliban right after Biden praised them for their cooperation? Your apparent disdain for anything conservative is getting a bit tiring. Vox has no less "clickbaity" headlines from my totally biased opinion, but they are considered reliable (no criticism of democrats on that page, criticism of GOP=yep).

As for that specific passage, it wasn't just graphic descriptions of gay sex that were the problem, but graphic depictions, depictions of sex with minors, and depictions of sex between minors and adults (not all consensual) and it's apparent acceptability in a school library. General libraries have much more leeway than school libraries, but the depictions of sex (regardless of homosexuality or not) in this context are illegal in most jurisdictions. Your assessment is far from accurate. Buffs (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The discussions seem to have been pretty clear-cut to me, but if you need more sources, it's pretty easy to determine how useless the Daily Wire is as a source. It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([2]) but also eg. the election ([3]), Greta Thunberg ([4]), climate change ([5]), and the George Floyd protests ([6]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([7]) and as unreliable ([8]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([9][10][11][12]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. If anything, based on the sources I found in a quick search, I suspect that a full RFC would result in full depreciation rather than merely marking it unreliable - unreliable sources are ones that lack valid fact-checking or editorial controls or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As I said in some of the previous discussions, that is certainly true, but the bigger problem is that academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Leave as is - Regarding the reasons given for removing or upgrading its reliability: without any formal support for such inclusion & blacklisting - there was [for inclusion]. and it's not blacklisted. It was absent from this page for over a decade. I would argue that's a higher precedence - this page hasn't existed for a decade. at a rate above, for example, the NYT is absurd and inaccurate - This makes it hard to take the rest seriously.
  Regarding why it's unreliable, beyond what's been linked above, here's a little more:

Paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences uses a methodology which puts Daily Wire in a category of "low-quality sources" with InfoWars and Breitbart.

Paper by the German Marshall Fund: "Daily Wire—a prominent “instrumental media”11 or biased site that takes on the appearance of a news site without applying journalistic standards or attempting to report accurately". Also "Fringe media sources and clearly mis/disinformative stories dominated top news stories for this narrative, including Voice of Europe, Big League Politics, and the Daily Wire"

Daily Wire is a staple in Oxford's Weekly Misinformation Briefings about covid-19. Too many to link here -- just do a google scholar search for "'daily wire' 'coronavirus misinformation'". e.g. "A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements—nearly 8% of all engagements of junk health news sources received last week—celebrated Trumps false claims of success"

More important than any of this, however, is that I'm seeing anywhere in this thread an argument providing evidence that it is a reliable source for statements of fact. The entirety of the argument seems to be an exercise in wikilawyering and edit warring. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have started an official RfC at WP:RS/N#RfC: The Daily Wire, so this discussion is now redundant. Feel free to !vote there and copy your arguments from this section to the RfC. -- Valjean (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)