Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Enforcement

I notice people saying on the page that its decisions are enforceable. Is this true? If so, what about other noticeboards? Is this information given anywhere (e.g. policy/guideline pages)? Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Enforceable" is a strong way of saying that consensus reached on this board is evidence of consensus. THF (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What is "enforceable" is WP:Identifying reliable sources (WP:RS) and our other polices and guidelines. What this page helps determine is whether WP:RS needs to be inforced in a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What people were saying was that, if this noticeboard decided something & local editors ignored the decision, the matter could be dealt with at ANI.

As to your more general remark, I have been complaining in various fora for well over a year that WP has no effective procedure for enforcing content policy & so resolving content disputes. Nobody has ever replied by informing me of any such procedure, so I've gone on assuming this was right, until I came across those remarks. What I'm trying to find out is whether there is in fact such a procedure. That is, is it possible for any content dispute, after adequate attempts have been made to resolve it by discussion, to be effectively dealt with; e.g. refer it to the appropriate noticeboard (will it always reach a consensus?), & if necessary get their decision enforced at ANI? Is anyone going to give me a straight answer? Peter jackson (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution for as close to a straight answer as exists. There is de facto enforcement of content disputes in certain subject areas where admins are both active and the vast majority share the same point of view: e.g., climate change articles, where admins will enforce their point of view without bothering ANI. There are vast swaths of Wikipedia that are effectively owned by individual editors or cliques that disregard written content policy with impunity, simply because it is so exhausting to try to get them to conform to policy, and not enough people with authority care about the subject area to override the walled garden consensus. Sort of like those areas of rural Utah that still engage in polygamy. In general, whether ANI will get involved at an early stage will often depend upon how politically correct the offending editor's point of view is. THF (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a serious battle sometimes. Few editors are interested in putting in the effort to deal with people who push a specific POV against policy. Wikipedia does have procedures as THF mentions to deal with these disputes but it is exceedingly time consuming.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you seem to have the same impression as I have. However, your remarks still don't make clear whether the procedures can actually be expected to work in principle if somebody wants to put the time & energy in. To be more precise:

1. If an RS question is raised here, will a consensus be reached?
2. If so, & if the local clique ignore it, & if somebody raises it at ANI, will admin enforce it?
3. Same questions for all the otehr NBs, especially POV, which is the most important.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I my limited experience "no" they will not enforce it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "It depends." A POV-pusher insisting on unreliable sources promoting conspiracy theories will be quickly blocked if she is interfering with articles that an administrator cares about. Someone trying to get a global-warming article to comply with policy has a Sisyphean task even if you could get a consensus on a noticeboard that the status quo is wrong. My personal view is that Wikipedia is enough of a mess that it's better for one's mental sanity to avoid the articles where cliques reign and focus on identical problems that will exist in thousands of other articles. Feel free to email me if you want advice about a specific article. THF (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at the overall picture. Both of you seem to be confirming my existing impression that there's no generally effective system. That was what I concluded well over a year ago. As the system is fundamentally flawed, I don't edit articles, though I do still comment. Maybe that's inconsistent. Peter jackson (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing by cliques, now often abetted by those with administrative privileges, is pervasive and institutionalized in Wikipedia. Correcting this fundamental flaw in the production of an unbiased encyclopedic treatment is something that can only be done at the highest levels of this medium. I'm not optimistic at all in that regard.

That being said, I would invite anyone, in deference to their obligation for administrative oversight, who is of the opinion that this wikipedia concept and process hasn't, perhaps, been corrupted beyond redemption and is in a position to make a difference, to have a go at making a good faith edit or 2 via an icognito account in one of the numerous politically charged and contentious articles that MIGHT be perceived as supportive of a right of center position. I'm confident it would be a rather rapid, perhaps eye-opening, experience. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't want people making edits in support of any political position, whether it is perceived as right or left is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not the place to push your viewpoints. Dlabtot (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't want people making edits in support of any political position...

Of course not, nor was I advocating that for anyone but someone at a higher level than even administrator. However, in reconsideration, it's not really necessary anyway. The MO is rather readily apparent. All it should take is a bit of observation. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? Is it in any way related to the reliable sources noticeboard? Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is...or I wouldn't have appended my comment.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I must assume you are trying to make some point with your oblique, cryptic comments. What is that point? Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to choose words carefully and to express my thoughts as clearly as I can. I did my best and can do no better. I guess you'll just hafta try harder to work through your confusion. Re-reading the thread might help. Then again, if you're simply having a bad hair or wrong side of the bed type day, the floor is yours...Over and Out. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unable to express yourself coherently. Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I have altered the automatic archiving from 8 days to 5 inactive. This page is currently a monster at 575 kilobytes. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is still a monster. I propose replacing MiszaBot with ClueBot III as an automatic archiver because it can accept more options. For example, it can be told to archive material that has been marked resolved in addition to automatically archiving material that has been stale for a certain number of hours. Whether we change to ClueBot III or not, how would others feel about adjusting the stale from 5 days inactive to 4 or even 3? (Does anybody know if either ClueBot III or MiszaBot can be set not to archive entries without responses?) Alternatively, would it be a good idea to consider subpage transclusion for lengthier discussions? Barring objections, I may inch the archive down to 4 days, but would hate to lose listings that have received no replies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the page is a monster because of archiving issues... I think it is a monster because of the nature of the topic... the simple fact is discussions about the reliablility of sources often last a long time and require a lot of space. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think moving the archive to 4 days inactive would be a bad idea, then, or more a matter of applying a bandaid to an open jugular? :) Do you think subpage transclusion would help, or are we more or less stuck with the status quo? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... Four days is pushing it... It does not happen often, but I have seen one or two cases where a question has gone unanswered for about that long... only to have a discussion suddenly start up. To be honest, I don't really mind this page being as large as it is... so I don't see it as being "stuck" with the status quo. Is tweeking the archiving really needed? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might not, but from what I understand it can be a problem for some people. :) I know it's not an article, but Wikipedia:Article size says, "With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all." If this is true, this seems like it could prohibit some users from taking advantage of the forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot proposal seems a good idea to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made my best effort to switch over to ClueBot III, with the same "stale" parameter as MiszaBot was using for now. This will permit automatic archiving of sections tagged {{done}} or {{resolved}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest archive was to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard58. I've attempted to fix it so that it follows the previous format. I've used an underscore instead of a space in the last position, so hopefully ClueBot III will know to treat it as a space instead of ignoring it. I'll move the improperly archived content into the proper page shortly. Reach Out to the Truth 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This kind of thing never goes exactly as I expect it to. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection... just don't see a need. If others do, that's fine. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is personal opinion an appropriate title for an RS/N discussion sub-section?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed contains a sub-section entitled "The last time I will waste my time on WND". As the RS/N is attempting to address WND's status under WP:RS, doesn't this sub-section title abuse the process by injecting undue prejudice and affording undue weight to a single editor's opinion? That title itself, after all, gets listed in RS/N index. Hardly appropriate I should think. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not inappropriate for those who disagree with you to express their opinions. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that everyone understands that every post is a matter of each editor's personal opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the design concept of noticeboards, a sub-section title is hardly the equivalent of an individual comment. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot and Quest... this was not something to get worked up about. But if it will make Jake happy... we can make the sub-section title less personal. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly appreciate that you might consider my happiness to be relevant, I had frankly hoped for a bit more substantive consideration of the issue...and, just perhaps, a corrective edit free of snarkish peeve in the edit summary. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should sub-section titles be any different than section titles? Editors routinely put their personal opinions in the section titles. Most of us are smart enough to realize that's just one editor's opinion on something. Personally, I try not to do it, but I don't think we can stop other editors from doing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor with a contrary view can always express it in a new section "I'll continue to use my time productively on WND!". Yeah, nothing to get worked up about. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. Dueling sub-section titles. That should certainly serve to enhance reaching some reasoned consensus. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's on RS/N then it's likely already passed the point of obtaining consensus by involved editors. I can't see the difference between dueling sub-secttion titles and dueling paragraphs. Indeed it might make it easier for a 3rd party to see the positions and POV of the editors! Depending on the context it's likely a bit juvenile, but that's nothing new around here :-) --Insider201283 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Archival of ongoing RS/N - Reversion

User:Dlabtot archived an ongoing discussion in RS/N which I have reverted. Comments are solicited as to the propriety of such an edit. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are really determined to continue your filibuster, go ahead. Dlabtot (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A "filibuster", by definition, precludes response or dialogue. It is rather ironic (perhaps even amusing) that you would opt to characterize, in such a manner, my contributions to this RS/N given the subject of this comment section. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Application of "Resolved" Tag - Revert

I am reverting the inappropriate application of a "resolved" tag by User:Hipocrite to the WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed RS/N. IAW the Wikipedia guidance for use of the "resolved" tag, while the template is primarily intended for application within a "talk" environment, it's application to "notice board" discussions is reserved for "...admin processes to note that an action item reported to a notice board has been dealt with...". He, therefore, lacks the required authority to apply this tag to an ongoing RS/N article. Comments on the propriety of this edit are welcomed. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edging close to disruptive. I suggest that if you are unwilling to listen to the consensus of editors telling you that your proposed source is unreliabile, you are likley to be restricted from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this comment section is the Wikipedia propriety of your edit adding a "resolved" tag to an ongoing RS/N discussion. User comments in that regard or on my reversion itself are both solicited and welcome. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He added the resolved tag because the issue has been resolved. There's nothing wrong with that - we do it here all the time at RSN, especially when there exists an overwhelming consensus that one or two editors refuse to accept. Dlabtot (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A "resolved" tag is simply a visual note to other editors that a discussion seems to have reached a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with any editor adding a "resolved" tag if he/she thinks an issue has indeed been resolved. Editors do not need to have any "authority" to place a "resolved" tag on a discussion.

That said, a "resolved" tag does not "close" the discussion. The tag is not "official" in any way. If another editor wishes to reopen or continue the discussion, he/she may simply remove the tag and continue the discussion. What would be improper is to edit war over the tag by adding and removing the tag repeatedly.

And that said, continuing to push for something if there is a clear consensus against it can be considered disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with any editor adding a "resolved" tag if he/she thinks an issue has indeed been resolved. Editors do not need to have any "authority" to place a "resolved" tag on a discussion.

While you are certainly entitled your opinion, I will, again, refer you to Wikipedia guidelines for the use of the template within a "notice board" environment (emphasis mine)...

"This tag can be (and is) also used in admin processes to note that an action item reported to a notice board has been dealt with..."

I believe the criteria and authority for use of the "resolved" template within a notice board environment is rather clearly deliniated, your opinion that there is "nothing wrong with" this use by any editor, regardless of Wikipedia authority to do so, notwithstanding.

"If another editor wishes to reopen or continue the discussion, he/she may simply remove the tag and continue the discussion."

I respectfully suggest that the employment of what might be a legitimate (and Wikipedia recommended) edit within an appropriate (and deliniated) environment such as talk, is simply not applicable to an administrative level determination (and placement) of a "resolved" tag within a "notice board" environment.

And that said, continuing to push for something if there is a clear consensus against it can be considered disruptive.

I appreciate your counsel and the spirit in which it is offered. Perhaps you might wish to consider the following comments from the RS/N before arriving at a determination that some "clear consensus" on WND RS/N has been attained and that any further dialogue on the topic might be non-productive or, perhaps, deemed "disruptive"...

User:Xenophrenic: "Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion." and "...we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking."

User:Niteshift36: If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable.

User:Beyond My Ken: "If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability..."

User:Biophys: "A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author." and (quoting user:Xenophrenic) "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources.

User:Squidfryerchef: "There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source." and "...it appears some examples given that were supposed to show WND as unreliable actually don't."

User:Momma's Little Helper: What is the source for the claim that it has a poor reputation for accuracy?

And "that" said, further remarks on this issue are neither related to or appropriate in this discussion. You are certainly free to offer any observations you might have in that regard either on my talk page or in an environment designated by Wikipedia as more appropriate for those type of considerations. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RSN is not an admin process. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does, as does this discussion. Assuming that any user, regardless of Wikipedia assigned "rights", is free at their discretion to place or remove a "resolved" tag within any "notice board" discussion to be a correct reading of the recommended template usage, then my allegation of "impropriety" is incorrect and I will certainly acknowledge that and retract it, and offer an appropriate apology to you for my incorrect allegation. In the interim, please feel free to consider my deletion of your tag placement as a reflection of my disagreement with your opinion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting the "closed" tag as well. We might have to agree to disagree on the result of the discussion, but the archiving should happen per the normal process; a bot takes it away after 7 days of no further discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we don't usually add resolved tags to sections. In fact, I just checked the most recent archive[1] and I don't see a single section marked as resolved. Generally, we leave discussions open until they get archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We now have people adding resolved tags to other sections too, like the debate over Twitter that was still ongoing. Better nip this in the bud now. PS sorry if my reverts got confusing, its difficult with a page of this size. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally agree with Squidfryerchef, but I'm behind him 100% on this one. We don't normally mark discussions as resolved and we rarely ever close them. We simply allow them to go archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. I never use the tag anyway. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent for doing this. Especially when the so-called discussion is not actually productive. One current example - but there are many more in the archives. In a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's neither surprising nor unexpected that it is challenged, but the suggestion that it is in some way inappropriate or unprecedented is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That was closed by you. Not to mention that the question wasn't appropriate for this noticeboard. It was originally ask at WP:V where someone gave them bad advice and referred them to this noticeboard.[2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I closed it. Because it was disruptive. Just like the filibuster about WND. Not sure what your point is. Dlabtot (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My points are that a) you cited yourself to justify your actions (circular logic) and b) the situations are completely different. The latter question doesn't belong on the WP:RSN whereas the former does. In any case, if you think someone is being disruptive, isn't the proper venue for this complaint at WP:ANI? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why am I suddenly very tempted to slap a resolved tag on this thread. Seriously, do we usually note that discussions are resolved on this noticeboard?... no. Does that mean doing so is "against the rules"?... no. Is it simple enough to remove a tag that is prematurely applied?... absolutely. In other words... you are all making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Placing a "resolved" tag may be something more than a "mole hill". From this talk section (emphasis mine & tags inhibited)...

I've made my best effort to switch over to ClueBot III, with the same "stale" parameter as MiszaBot was using for now. This will permit automatic archiving of sections tagged {done} or {resolved}.

--JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was invited by JakeInJoisey to weigh in here. If "resolved" tags are being used inappropriately, the automatic archiving can easily be modified to ignore the tag. OTOH, if a ticket is marked resolved and archived early, it can also be brought back to the noticeboard, if the problem is not a frequent one. Resolved and closed tags do allow tickets to be closed early when they are no longer needed, for instance when the original questioner is satisfied or consensus is obvious or, as with the one currently on the board, when it is the wrong forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Leaving aside further consideration of the Wikipedia propriety of the tag's use in this case (though I believe resolution of the question would be worthwhile), I have already suggested within the second WND RS/N that both of these RS/N's might better be hosted within Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. That being said, while I didn't author either RS/N, both discussions appear to be progressing. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate move to subpage / Archival

One of our editors forked the WND discussion off to a separate page. I believe this is inappropriate, as we don't have subpages for any of the other sources we discussed, and this was by far not the only disucssion we had on WND. The funny thing is, the bot would have archived this automatically by now, but with all the attempts to move this discussion around, the clock keeps being reset. Can somebody who's a admin revert those changes and speedy the subpage? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been at least one previous attempt to close this pointless discussion but somebody reverted it. At the moment it is occupying over one-third of the entire page. I've had some success in dealing with situations like this but obviously it could only work if everybody agreed to the move. No "clock" is being reset; the archiving bots depend on timestamps in the text. What keeps the discussion on the page is sheer bloody-minded determination in the face of consensus. --TS 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me to be a pretty blatant attempt to wear down the other editors through obstinate persistence. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the prevailing "obstinate persistance" is the persistance of those asserting WND's "unreliability" declining to provide cites to demonstrate same. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put the whole discussion into an archive box in an attempt to close it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand that "FACTS" that might support a valid and legitimate "consensus of WND unreliability" are, thus far, non-existent and that BOTH of these RS/N's call for a resolution of that question and NOT a resolution on specific cites? Shouldn't assertions of WND "unreliability" be subject to the same level of support VERIFIABILITY mandated by WP:RS? This is, as suggested by another active participant, the ONLY forum in which to resolve this question. How, in the name of the spirit of WP:RS could you even consider shutting it down? Are you aware that active discussions are underway in BOTH RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to continue arguing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that moving the discussion to a sub-page was inappropriate (archiving, on the other hand is acceptable). I also agree that continuing the debate is becoming disruptive... and the disruptive behavior is happening on both sides of the argument. Looking through the archives, at multiple discussions on this topic, it seems clear to me that there is a strong consensus that each and every citation to WND needs to be assessed individually... that WND may be either reliable or unreliable, depending on the specific statement that WND is being used to support. In other words... we have refused to issue a blanket statement on this issue. Both sides in this debate need to accept this and move on. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. My opinion on this is fairly represented in Table of contributors views below.Biophys (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that moving the discussion to a sub-page was inappropriate (archiving, on the other hand is acceptable).

The archival of both of these RS/N's is not only almost unprecedented (the prior attempt by User:MastCell rejected by a consensus of those who chose to respond), but User:David Eppstein has now cited User:MastCell's rationale as the basis for yet another attempt to shut this discussion down. And what is the purported User:MastCell rationale?...

Per MastCell, we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material...

I have prepared the following table reflecting what I believe to be a fair and legitimate representation of contributor's views within the 2 WND RS/N's... Comment retracted JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RS/N - Contributor's Views

RS/N's: WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed and Worldnetdaily, again UserName RS Facts Can be RS Facts RS self only Unsure / No Opinion Not RS Facts Hate Site Cites? Comment User:Jon Osterman File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png "Is it an RS or is it a conspiracy/hate site?" User:Hipocrite File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png Lack of "...reputation for fact checking and accuracy" and "WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for facts." User:Niteshift36 File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png ...to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. User:Xenophrenic File:Check yes small.png Offers prior "consensus" and ; "I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards." User:Beyond My Ken File:Check yes small.png "Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it." and "If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability,..." User:Wikidemon File:Check yes small.png It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes... User:Woogee File:Check yes small.png Offers prior "Consensus" and "WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself." User:SaltyBoatr File:Check yes small.png ...seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". User:JakeInJoisey File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png Shouldn't the same WP:RS mandates for "Verifiability" be applied to an assertion of WND's failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability"? User:Dlabtot   see Dlabtot's comments User:Biophys File:Check yes small.png Quoting User:Xenophrenic: "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". "No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources." User:Squidfryerchef File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png "There was no consensus to only allow WND for opinions." User:A Quest For Knowledge File:Check yes small.png "I don't have an opinion on the reliability of this particular source." User:Weakopedia File:Check yes small.png "If the contributors here have evidence of a consistent lack of fact-checking at WND they should perhaps edit the article with some reliable sources instead of referring back and forth on noticeboards..." and "I don't think WND deserves the reputation it has here for consistent inaccuracy." User:KillerChihuahua File:Check yes small.png "If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or not notable..." User:Blaxthos File:Check yes small.png "Nowhere close to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"

Given those stated views, does anyone believe that the assertion of "a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..." is credible or defensible? Notwithstanding the question of the very propriety of archiving an ongoing RS/N, this archival attempt is unfounded in its purported "consensus" assessment and I am reverting.

In addition, I have renamed this discussion section to reflect the archive issue as well. Comments welcomed and appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: An attempt on my part to protect the integrity of my contribution, a product of my own composition, has been rebuffed by the Wikipedia petition process and the petition itself characterized as "spurious". Given the apparent lack of protection now afforded to my own work (or, apparently, to anyone else's for that matter) and the subsequent edits made to that work by individuals other than myself, the above contribution is no longer mine and I both disavow and relinquish any claim to its authorship. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors speak for themselves; your characterizations of other editors viewpoints is not helpful, and speaking only for myself and my views, not accurate. I agree with Hipocrite below. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did speak for myself! My words are accurately portrayed above and I don't see a problem in them being above since this is a talk page and I am free to correct the situation should I desire.

A large part of the discussion about WND could have been avoided by reliably sourcing a good article on them. Wikipedians have been discussing whether WND was a reliable source while at the same time Wikipedia has been an unreliable source on WND. At some point one of the scores of people involved in this matter should actually try and justify their claims of WND being a consistently unreliable source by reliably sourcing those claims for the article itself. The way to end the debate on the reliability of WND is to have an article on them proving one way or the other their reliability. Weakopedia (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

At some point, one of the scores of admins on this page should just tell JiJ that he is being disruptive, and any future attempts by him to disrupt RSN will result in immediate blocks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have taken myself off of this chart, as it misrepresents my views. The simple fact is, we can not issue a blanket statement about WND, either reliable or unreliable. We need to judge each citation individually and see if it is reliable as used. Both those who are arguing that WND is reliable, and those who are arguing that it is unreliable seem to want to skip over this important point. The question "is WND a reliable source?" is a flawed question... such questions must be focused and rephrased as: "is WND material X a reliable source for particular statement Y in specific Wikipedia article Z?". Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, what I said to JJ applies to you too: this talk page is not the place to discuss your opinions on the reliability of WND. It is ok to discuss whether the closure of the thread is appropriate, but not to continue the thread here. Please do not take part in JJ's ongoing filibuster. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I appear to have misrepresented your views, and an opportunity to clarify or correct was one of the rationales for alerting you. As I now understand your position, you are simply not inclined to offer an opinion on the current RS/N based upon the manner in which the question is framed. Very well. That being said, do you believe that David Eppstein's archival assertion,...

...we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material...

...to be an accurate summation of the content of these RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Discussing our opinions as to the reliability of sources is exactly what this noticeboard is for. Ah, wait... I see what you mean... talk page vs. noticeboard itself. OK. sorry about that. But I think my comment does apply. I am in favor of closing and archiving the thread, both here and on the actual noticeboard... I am in favor of that because we can not answer the question as phrased... because we can not issue a blanket statement one way or the other. If JJ wishes to ask a more focused question (along the lines of: "is WND material X a reliable source for particular statement Y in specific Wikipedia article Z?" that would be different. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that JakeInJoisey has asked me to come here to restate my opinion about WorldNetDaily. When I look at policy I see that a reliable source is judged by its reputation as a publisher for fact checking and accuracy. According to my judgement, World Net Daily has a lousy reputation in this regard. Also it appears that JakeInJoisey here is out-of-line with the consensus of the other editors. Over the last few years I have noticed a general trend here at Wikipedia towards an upgrading of the quality of the references, and a general increase in the reputation of Wikipedia being a 'high quality' encyclopedia. Therefore, I think it part of a natural progression away from poor reputation sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my note to you on your talk page was as a courtesy to advise you that I had attempted to represent your position as an element in consideration of the propriety of David Eppstein's archive of this RS/N. Given the above table, do you believe that these RS/N's represent "...a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..."? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to sort through this sophistry. Let me say that I believe there is a consensus that WND as a publisher does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "sorting through" sophistry can be taxing. While I was hopeful that you might be able to "sort through", perhaps, 2 sentences within your available time to discern the actual question, ah well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My position among the consensus is already well known: WND should not be cited for anything factual, and also probably shouldn't be cited for opinion and WND-centric content either, as it is likely to be fringe, non-notable or irrelevant even if accurate. However, I've been just as guilty as JakeInJoisey in keeping the discussion active, hoping to further clarify the basis for the obvious consensus. I strongly disagree with Blueboar's contention above that "we can not issue a blanket statement about WND, either reliable or unreliable." We can issue such a blanket statement about other news sources, such as The Wall Street Journal, so why not about WND? I don't think there should be a wishy-washy gray area where Wikipedia editors of differing opinions (and sometimes agendas) get to argue for the occasional use of sources considered to be, even somewhat, less than reliable. A publication should either meet Wikipedia's RS standard, or it does not. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read WP:RS, we make it clear that even generally reliable news sources have to be assessed on a case by case basis. The wishy-washiness you object to is a long standing (and necessary) part of the guideline. It is necessary because context and specifics always matter. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable source, or a perfectly unreliable source. If you look through the archives of this notice board, one constant is a request for specifics when it comes to "is this reliable" questions. now you know why. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS, and I believe you have misread. It makes clear specific news stories (even those in the most reputable news outlets), and not the publishers themselves, may need to be assessed on a case by case basis. But we aren't discussing a particular story here, we are trying to determine if World Net Daily can be included in this category: Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. (WP:RS) You see, the question is not whether one news story in WND is accurate, but whether Wikipedia should even be citing news stories from WND in the first place. As I look through the archives of this noticeboard, one constant I observe is that the reliability of WND cites is raised repeatedly, while cites to WSJ are not. Now you understand the actual issue we're addressing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But that depends on what we are citing WND for. We need to look at the exact statement that is being supported by something from WND. When we use sources at the lower end (and I would agree that WND is at the lower end) we can not simply say "this is unreliable and be damned". Even if WND is not reliable in most circumstances, there are going to be exceptions. For example, WND occasionally includes contributions from notable conservative commentators who have viewpoints that should (or even must) be included per WP:NPOV. These are at least reliable for statements of opinion. But we can't even call it completely unreliable for statements of fact because WND is at least somewhat likely to be accurate when it comes to stating facts about conservatives and conservative viewpoints. This is what I mean when I say we have to examine each citation as used. Yes there is going to be a lot of crap... but there is the occasional pearl among the swine. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what we are citing WND for? We are citing it to support content in our Wikipedia articles, which automatically taints our articles with the same reputation. By your logic, any source can be reliable sometimes, so it is okay to cite personal websites, blogs, self-published books, Youtube videos produced by Johnny659022, etc. (as long as we look at each case!) - because certainly there must be a "pearl" in all that crap. No, there is a reason we don't do that at Wikipedia. If there happens to be accurate information in WND worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia, then you'll also find it in more reputable, reliable sources, which can be cited. Same thing with commentary from individuals; if it appears only in WND and not in reputable sources, there is probably a good reason. Wikipedia takes great pains to relieve us (editors) of the burden of fact-checking by instructing us to cite only reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You appear to be reversing that core policy by saying we can cite unreliable sources as long as we editors do the fact-checking on a case by case basis. I'd much rather adhere to Wikipedia's policy. (WP:SOURCES; WP:REDFLAG) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We are, as I believe you understand, seeking the same end...a credible, VERIFIABLE resolution to the question of WND RS. However, the more immediate problem is the declaration of an alleged "...consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..." and the premature archival of the RS/N's. Now, the purported "Consensus" may be your position, but do you believe that statement fairly reflects the deliberation thus far in these RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Forum Notification

I have created this sub-section to isolate this issue from the ongoing and as yet unresolved issue above. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IAW Wikipedia policy, I am making note within this talk forum that an editor is persisting in editing content I have personally added to this discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IAW Wikipedia policy, I am making note within this talk forum that another editor has now joined in the effort to edit content I have personally added to this discussion. This latest edit equates to the third revision of my original contribution. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IAW Wikipedia policy, I am making note within this talk forum that a third editor has now edited content I have personally added to this discussion. This latest edit equates to the fourth revision of my original contribution. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My lord, get over yourself. –Turian (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake, when you created a chart representing (and in several cases misrepresenting) the view points of others, it ceased to be purely "your" contribution. It is absolutely appropriate for others to correct such a chart so that it accurately reflects their views. You have already been warned not to revert it again. Are you trying to get blocked? Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that what all that's about? My goodness. I don't have a dog in this fight, but Jake, if you create a chart categorizing other people's opinions and they disagree with your classification of their thoughts, they most certainly have the right to correct the reflection of their own opinions. LadyofShalott 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant to the topic of this section and I am attempting to use appropriate Wikipedia process to address it. However, as to the premise of the argument being offered, my content was presented in a fashion designed to augment and facilitate understanding of my assertion. Whether I "table" it or I "type" it as a contribution to this discussion, no editor has a right to arbitrarily edit what are STILL my comments. Had I elected to present the exact same data, only in typewritten format, would anyone defend the editing of THAT content? I will reserve any further comments pending outcome of the Wikipedia process currently in progress. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The presentation does not matter... when you make a representation of other people's views (essentially quoting them) they have the right to correct that representation. And yes, if you had written this out in text, I would say the same thing. To be honest, I find your objections a bit disingenuous... You seem to object to some edits to your chart, but not to others (I note that you did not object to my removal of your mischaracterization of my views). Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't recall "mischaracterizing" Blaxthos at all. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake, if you don't want other people editing it, leave it in your sandbox or another page in your userspace and provide a link. Once it is out of your userspace, it becomes subject to that warning you get every time you edit. It starts right under "save page" FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I think that your chart is helpful, but you can't realistically expect other editors to not modify what's being said about them. Some editors, justifiably so, have very nuanced positions which are difficult to summarize sometimes.

That said, several editors have stated that they don't like giving blanket statements about a source's reliability. I don't know how helpful this will be, but do you have a specific example? If so, include the source, the claim and the context in which it is being used. I don't know how helpful this will be, but that's generally how we approach things on this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

I give little credibility to the fancy chart above, as it does nothing to reflect the dozens of editors who have in the past consistently rejected WordNetDaily as a reliable source for anything beyond their own opinions. They do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I've seen this asked and consistently answered many, many times over the last five years. It is plainly clear that JJ refuses to accept consensus, and is here to right some Great Wrong(s). I propose that his continued campaign to make this an argumentum ad infinitum be treated as disruptive behavior -- stop feeding the trolls, and move on to WP:RBI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of removal of dissenting opinions, and/or cherry picking opinions to (mis)represent consensus is unacceptable. I've consistently made my opinion on this subject known, and I think the fact that JJ went so far as to try and remove dissenting opinion only validates my point above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake has been blocked for 48 hours. I think we should just archive all discussions and pretend this never happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Archival "Summary" of RS/N

While I believe the manual archiving of this RS/N to be both unwise and premature, I have amended the manually applied "archival summary" to reflect what I believe to be an accurate summary of the RS/N content. Please note that the "summary" is unattributed as I believe it should reflect the consensus opinion of all contributing editors.

Comments on suggested edits to this "summary of RS/N content" by interested editors are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No... this has gone on long enough... Jake, you are over reacting to every perceived slight, and your continued harping on this has gone well beyond annoying... it is now firmly on the disruptive side of the line. Drop this or I will report you for admin action. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the rest of us... I suggest that we leave the summary as Jake has edited it... move the damn thing to the archives, and be done with it. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions Archived

I have archived all discussions from 27 Feb to today into Archive 3. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bot. The project page needs bot archiving but this page doesn't. Dlabtot (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How to encourage editors to ask better questions?

What is the url or isbn of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion?

Even though we have very clear instructions at the top of the page, stating that editors should include the details and context needed to effectively answer requests, it still seems the majority of requests do not include this information. Which makes answering problematic, leading to pointless hypothetical general discussions like the one just recently archived.

What about something like at WP:ANEW? There, the link Click here to add a report brings up a template with the required elements of a 3RR report. If we could implement something like that here, I think it would help this noticeboard function better.

Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. ← George ^talk 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as using the template isn't required because it's going to scare off the newbies, it might be worth a shot. But honestly, I would guess most editors will just ignore the template. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't get ignored at WP:ANEW; I don't know why it would be different here. Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template is now located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Example (copypasta from 3rr) and the instruction text is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Editintro. Add http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hipocrite/sandbox&oldid=354391965 to our header and those two will go live. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely like the idea ... but would have to see a more final draft to know for sure.

I am not sure that the 3rr template is the right model for us ... sometimes questions are asked here before anything is added to an article (so there is no dif to link to) I don't want to discourage that Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

...something like 'diff or proposed edit'....? Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this suggestion by N419BH to add an Wikipedia:Editnotice is an excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:V

There is a discussion going on at WP:V editors here may wish to be aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Closure?

[3] Is it appropriate for a user to close a thread here? Given that there was next to no time for others to comment in it? I was under the impression that rsn threads remained open until archived?. Please note, Atmoz is a highly involved editor in the CC related articles mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed here. Perhaps an answer might best be reflected in the following comment...

A "resolved" tag is simply a visual note to other editors that a discussion seems to have reached a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with any editor adding a "resolved" tag if he/she thinks an issue has indeed been resolved. Editors do not need to have any "authority" to place a "resolved" tag on a discussion.

That said, a "resolved" tag does not "close" the discussion. The tag is not "official" in any way. If another editor wishes to reopen or continue the discussion, he/she may simply remove the tag and continue the discussion. What would be improper is to edit war over the tag by adding and removing the tag repeatedly. User:Blueboar

JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i did revert the closure but atmoz reverted me, i am on a 1r parole so am unable to do anything about this, and the discussion was not resolved. mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, atmoz is incorrect in reverting your revert rather than bringing the issue to discussion. That being said, I'll let consensus deal with it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How can there be a consensus on a thread which is closed? :) But never mind, this will just go the way these things always do, badly for me :) mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The placement of a resolved tag doesn't preclude further comment, though it can have a bearing on the archive process. Unfortunately I forget just how.

As to "consensus", I'm refering to a "consensus" on the propriety of atmoz's revert, not the RS/N consensus. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate. Marking threads as resolved rarely happens on WP:RSN and in the few cases it does happen, a consensus is reached. Unusually, discussion remains open until the thread is archived which is usually measured in weeks. (BTW, this is different than WP:BLPN where threads do get frequently marked as resolved.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I actually do think it would be appropriate for threads to be marked resolved more often than happens now. For instance in cases where there is no actual RS question or where the thread is acting merely as an opportunity for editors to continue an ongoing dispute or where there is a clear consensus that one or more editors are unwilling to acknowledge. Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right; and I've thought of the same thing. I'm not sure how we should go about doing this. I think another problem that we have is involved editors continuing bickering and their disputes here. (Yes, I know I was guilty of this earlier this week, but most of the time I avoid doing that.) Nobody wants to read thru reams of accusations, counter accusations, etc, and it scares off uninvolved editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we create a FAQ?

If we don't already have one, should we create a FAQ for questions that come up all the time, such as the reliability of IMDB and Twitter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There was Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, but it failed to gain consensus. And WP:TWITTER redirects to WP:SPS. Do you think that's not sufficient, and that there should be a paragraph about the rationale for the latter? And would you try to resurrect the IMDb one? It seems to me that if you write an FAQ for the page, you're indirectly generating policy. Just because there might be a de facto consensus in place for those sources doesn't mean that we want it codified. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, these questions come up all the time and I'm just trying to figure out an easy way to handle repetitive questions. Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. I wasn't aware of that (or if I was, I forgot about it.) Do you know why it failed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm not really sure. A look at the talk page for the failed policy seems to show that people could just not come to a solid conclusion when it is and isn't okay to use IMDb. There was a more recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 25#IMDB as a source? that seemed to affirm that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and YouTube videos.[4] I'll respond to your comment tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the bold note just under the search box ("Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source,...") could also include a sentence to the effect of "Use the search box above to find previous discussions on many sources." It may seem obvious, but it apparently isn't so obvious to many people coming here with questions about youtube, IMDB, court documents, etc. First Light (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are various things that could come into this discussion. We already have reliable source examples - should we expand that and refer people there? We already have the archives - per First Light are we adequately directing people there? And what about more notes on how to post? And perhaps some notes on how to respond? 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that could be part of this discussion: after clicking on "Click here to start a new discussion thread", the edit box/page could also feature the four points mentioned under "Before posting....", and perhaps a suggestion to search the archives before posting. So many people ignore some of those points (especially #3 and #4), one wonders if they are seeing them. First Light (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Some pages have organized links to archives based on subject. That might be useful. I can't think of an example, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a tiny minority of the people who post questions on RSN read the instructions at the top of the page for doing so; I expect even fewer would scan a FAQ to see if their question was already asked, and even fewer would be willing to accept the prior consensus if it they disagreed with it. Therefore it seems like it would be a waste of effort to create one. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot: True, I don't think many people would read the FAQ but we could refer posters to it. This saves us (or at least me) the trouble of having to sift through all the past discussions in the archives and trying to remember what everyone said.

Maybe instead of a faq, subpages like WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/IMDB and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/YouTube, and discussion of those sources would go there. At least that way there might be less of rehashing of the same comments over and over. Dlabtot (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, although I'd prefer one page with sections for each type. Easier to watchlist, among other benefits. If it gets to big we could then split it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - we already have a Wikipedia:Reliable source examples which contains "Questions about the reliability of specific sources". This sort of overlaps with the proposal for an RSN FAQ. But I'm not sure how many people are watching or referencing this page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to my idea of a FAQ....

Here's a rough first stab at summarizing the current and previous discussions regarding Ancestry.com:

Is Ancestry.com a reliable source?

Overall, no. Most of Ancestry.com is user generated content with no editorial oversight. These are not considered reliable sources. Ancestry.com does carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University Press. These can probably be considered reliable. There are some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers, such as Irish Immigrants to New York which might be reliable - this issue hasn't really been discussed in much depth at RSN. For past discussions, see Question about Ancestry.com (Archive 61) and Ancestry.com (Archive 58) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks good. Why don't you create a page (not sure what to call it) and add that para. It starts with an "A", so it's a good place to start. I"m out of town right now, but I'll add to it when I get a chance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I also find this approach helpful, for the person asking the question and for those who are answering. First Light (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's my rough first stab at tackling IMDb:

Is IMDb a reliable source?

This question comes up all the time. Much of IMDb is user-generated content which is usually not considered reliable. However, IMDb might be considered reliable for writing credits when supplied by the Writers Guild of America ("WGA") and the MPAA ratings when supplied by the Motion Picture Association of America. There was an attempt to codify this at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, but it failed to gain consensus. If you are planning to nominate your article for featured article status, it may be rejected if it cites IMDb. However, IMDb is perfectly acceptable as an external link. For past discussions, see IMDB lacking corroboration (Archive 68)), IMDB as a source; List of documentary films (Archive 58), TV.com and IMDB (Archive 50), IMDB? (Archive 47), IMDB, again (Archive 40), IMDb for BLP info? (Archive 28), Is IMDb an unreliable source? (Archive 24), IMDB.com for plot synopsis (Archive 23), IMDb (Archive 22), Are IMDB and personal websites reliable sources (Archive 20), and Is IMDb a reliable source? (Archive 17). Also, see IMDB as a source (Archive 25) from the talk page of the Identifying reliable sources guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB discussion

HelloAnnyong: To your points earlier, I think a key difference between the FAQ and WP:Citing IMDb is that WP:Citing IMDb tried to settle the question. What I'm imagining is a summation of past discussions. So, if the opinions were mixed on IMDB, then the FAQ can plainly state that opinions are mixed and then go on to explain in which situations IMDB is usually considered reliable and in which situations it usually isn't considered reliable, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of the last few times IMDB has come up: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That kind of thing would be useful for the answerer, even if the person with a question didn't use it. For instance I saw Dlabtot saying in the most recent archive that the cast info is reliable. I kind of agree, but maybe he finally found something official on that. I think they labeled, or used to label, some cast sections as coming from the screen actors guild. I'm also seeing "Crew verified as complete"(Ex.) at the bottom of some movie lists, which I have a feeling might make them reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed in depth on one of these threads or another prior one, and that discussion and whatever research I did at that time is what I based my comment upon. Also, AFAIK, no one has ever been able to point to any errors in the non-user-generated sections, and even in the user-generated sections, such as bios, (which I'm not saying are RS) reported errors are corrected quickly. That speaks to their reputation for fact-checking and reliability, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot: How do you tell which is the user-generated and non-user-generated sections? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, after doing a little research, (and it only took a few minutes), I see that what I believed based on the prior discussion is not so. You can actually submit information to any part of their database, but no user-submitted material is automatically added, it is all manually checked first. " We will only list information that fits our criteria and we reserve the right to reject/delete information at any time for any reason, especially if we are unable to verify it." "Any information submitted to the IMDb won't appear immediately: it has to be checked and processed by our staff first." [5] So there is not actually any part of imdb that is 'user-generated'. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The best threads I've seen are this and this. The first has allowed me to find the one definitely reliable part of IMDB. It's the WGA supplied writing credits. See an example here in its writers section. Looking at that page, it looks like the MPAA rating is also reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think info provided by their partners can be considered reliable.[6] Look at the left hand side of the page, with Exhibitor Relations, Famous Frames, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And I think a case can be made that their birth date info is reliable.[7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Just to be clear, you're saying that IMDB now has editorial oversight? Does anyone know when this change (I'm assuming this is a change of policy) happened? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted from and linked to their website. [8] They are the ones saying that, not me. As far as I know it is not a change of policy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Some detailed guidelines on IMDB usage would probably be welcomed at the Film Project, there are three questions about it currently on the Film Project discussion page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. On the subject of IMDB being user generated I can confirm it is and it usually seems to be down to pot luck what gets through regardless of what sources you offer, and as for birth dates many of them are often erroneous and frequently change: Embeth Davidz was listed as being born in January 1966 for years before being changed to 1965, Audrey Tautou from 1978 to 1976. Deborah Unger's birth date seems to be different to everywhere else it is listed and many others have changed or appear to be wrong. If the WGA had confirmed they released birth dates to IMDB that would have made a compelling case for it being reliable, but the fact it doesn't perhaps indicates otherwise. I think the best thing would be to resurrect the "Citing IMDB" proposal. This TIME link [9] states that the WGA have a contract to provide IMDB with credit information, so on that note IMDB is probably at least reliable for credits. If we can find out what else they have contracts for, such as release dates etc we can state exactly what IMDB is reliable for. Anything that falls outside of the stated scope of reliability should be deemed unreliable until proven otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no source that we hold to a standard of 100% accuracy. Rather the standard is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even the most established and reputable sources have had some spectacular failures and many times they will contradict each other. Should we hold IMDB to a higher standard than the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, and if so, why? Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Who works at IMDb? Who reviews these entries? How do they fact check and with whom? No positive answer to any of these, but I can tell you that anyone can add/remove a cast member to a film on IMDb and it takes 8-10 days to get added/removed. I assure you they don't fact check your request before submitting (of course unless it's an off-the-wall name). I've seen it time and time again. I even sent corrections one time, and they didn't accept it or it never read it one. I'm all for adding basic information (such as an actor's credit) for a filmography because it can be easily verified if an actor is in the film or. The character names may not be 100% accurate, but it's a starting point (and it can argued if adding this is necessary). We usually don't source the filmography in articles. IMDb is listed in the external links, where it should remain, not in the references. Mike Allen 00:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For all we know, your 'corrections' were wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just restating that no source is perfect, and we don't require that, and that RSs conflict on Audrey Tautou's birth date, so I think we could catch many undeniable RSs making that mistake. I'd even wager that the IMDB birth date for her is correct. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher makes an excellent point. No source is perfect and they all make mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're reliable, but looking at WP:RS as currently written:

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

They seem to pass in a way. I wonder if the employees ever copy edit, for instance? We need an interview in an RS where an employee or former employee lays out all their state secrets. They could be anywhere on the continuum. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actors' age listings provoke feud between Writers Guild of America and IMDb.com A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@Dlabtot, I don't see how since I provided them with proof from the film's official website. Mike Allen 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are capable of error and I have no way of knowing that your information was correct. Dlabtot (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, ok? Mike Allen 02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd wager Audrey Tautou's birthdate is correct now because I updated it. Birthdates obviously aren't sourced from the WGA since they explicitly state that. In another case I submitted an NY Times article as the source and it wasn't changed - it could be the NY Times was wrong but I couldn't find any evidence for the erroneous date. Until they source birthdates from a reliable/official source and prohibit user manipulation of them then I don't see how such information can be regarded as reliable. We all know that being correct/incorrect isn't what defines a reliable source. At the moment I can alter the content of IMDB, but I can't alter the content of the NY Times which is why one is a highly credible reliable source and one isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:"Should we hold IMDB to a higher standard than the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, and if so, why? " Yes we do hold a different standard because we know the NYT and Chicago Tribune have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and those incidents you pointed out are big news because errors from those sources are so very rare. In addition we generally have individual reporters names so we know who is responsible for any article. None of those apply to IMDB. Active Banana (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here they are used as a source by Business Week: [10], here by The Times of India: [11], here by The Detroit Free Press: [12], here by Crain's Chicago Business: [13], here by WTAE-TV [14]... I could go on, probably forever, but I trust the point has been made: already established reliable sources trust their reputation enough to use them as a source. That's pretty much the gold standard at RSN. To assert that they don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is to ignore the documented, verifiable facts. Dlabtot (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And many mainstream publications with a supposed "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" use Wikipedia as a source... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretend I'm from Missouri... show me. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Oregon, but that's funny. There are court documents that cite wikipedia. Our newspaper the signpost documents them as they come up. I've never "us" used for controversial BLP type info, but I'd be horrified if they did that. They usually use us for weird stuff like definitions of tech words ala Web 2.0 (that's an example that isn't specific. I think it might even be a real example, but I can't remember). In any case, none of that is going to help us determine the IMDB issue. "Courts use IMDB twice/half as much as Wikipedia." Doesn't matter.

At this point, you almost have to say that despite what WP:RS says, there is a consensus that IMDB is not reliable. I won't argue that fact, and the onus is on people who disagree to show that consensus has changed. That said, I think I've shown a few small parts of IMDB are inarguably reliable above. I like this conversation because I think we've delved deeper than any other WP discussion I've seen. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what exactly it is that you are basing your judgment about consensus. At any rate, consensus can change - luckily, because it is frequently wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And when I performed the same search of google news to look for sources that cite wikipedia that I did to find sources that cite imdb, I didn't find 'squat' -- just a bunch of random blogs and stuff -- nothing like Business Week, that's for sure. Dlabtot (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its worthy of consideration to check on as other very narrow exceptions have been carved out for other otherwise completely unreliable sources because those areas do have editorial oversight and are not user-driven. While I in no way want to open a floodgate to all the definatly unreliable segments of IMDb, it feels like there is prejudice about it in the community because of its past and thus is so tainted it can never be considered reliable on anything.陣内_Jinnai 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot bad blood or whatever over it's use. But if we answer the next IMDB question on RSN well, we can start to adjust things. The FAQ mentioned above would be even better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Further proof that IMDb does not fact check. They have Lindsay Lohan listed for Scream 4 [see here^webcite]. The film has been filming since June 28th in Michigan. Miss Lohan has been.. well indisposed for a while now. It's simply not true and you would think the people (whoever they are) would know that and not allow it such bogus claims. Mike Allen 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It says quite prominently on the IMDB page for Scream 4: "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262416/ So obviously it would be inappropriate to use that page. That's why we have to judge each citation individually. Frankly I don't think Wikipedia should even have articles about movies, books, albums or anything else that haven't come out yet, or any other future events, since we are an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. Dlabtot (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need an effort to keep the status quo. I and everyone here should realize that indb has serious issues. That doesn't mean everything on the site is completely unreliable just as everything posted by the NYT isn't reliable. If you want to focus on indb find info that could show its reliable because we don't need more proof its unreliable. If you don't find any such proof, well then you don't need to report it.陣内_Jinnai 05:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Dlabtot, well that's why guidelines such as WP:NFF exist. Also "we're" not predicting anything, we're reporting what's in reliable sources about production (filming, post-production). Failure to abide by the guideline causes the articles to straight to AfD and subsequently deleted. Also that message (that I've never noticed) will not stop editors from citing the source and then possibly initiating a discussion on the talk page asking why it's not acceptable.. for the 1424th time. I think we need solid policy on the site IMDb. I'm still not sure what sections on IMDb would be acceptable, however. The trivia section it user submitted and no real fact checking goes into it. For Angelina Jolie biography, who is "finityj" that submitted that first piece? On the other hand, this is a good place on IMDb to find actual reliable sources on her biography. Anyway, I thought this was the actual RSN page, not the talk page. Aye. A big doh for me. Mike Allen 06:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We judge all citations individually, in context at the source, as well as in context in the WP article for what exactly it's being cited for. There's no source that is just simply 'reliable, period'. Trivia really shouldn't be added to WP anyway, but I agree that the trivia as well as the bios on imdb aren't reliable. But that's pretty clear when you look at them, don't you think? And as noted above, all their pages on works in pre-production come with a big disclaimer. So we don't use it. But this is not unusual - whenever a generally reliable source publishes material with a big "don't trust this" disclaimer, we take them at their word and don't consider that material reliable. Online polls, for example. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What information then do you think can be reliably sourced from IMDB if you remove trivia and biographical information from the equation? In one of the articles mentioned above the WGA state they have a contract to provide credit information, so you could make an argument for that but why not just use Allmovie instead for credits which is an uncontroversial source? It might be reliable for box office information since it seems to have merged with Box Office Mojo but why not just use Box Office Mojo for box office information? I'm struggling to think of data that IMDB might be reliable for but isn't supplied somewhere else by a non-controversial source. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As for what information I would consider reliable... well as an example I picked a random movie by going to Roger Ebert's web page, clicking on 'Great Movies' and choosing the first movie on the page - Hitori musuko aka The Only Son. I would consider imdb reliable for the fact it was directed by Yasujirô Ozu, that it was released in Japan on 15 September 1936, and in the US on 1 April 1987, that it starred Chôko Iida and Shinichi Himori, etc. On the other hand, it would not be reliable for the user reviewer's comment that it is Ozu's first "talkie". Millions of more examples are readily available. Dlabtot (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I see now that Wikipedia's article, Hitori musuko, does not list any references or sources. It does include the standard external link to imdb. I think it would be fair to assume it is single-sourced to imdb. Dlabtot (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All the info provided by the "partners" mentioned on the left hand side is probably reliable.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be extended to release dates for tv series (which are on a sperate page linked to in the first.陣内_Jinnai 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about IMDb took place here and led me to this discussion. I was actively involved in discussions at WP:CIMDB, and the reason the proposal failed is that interest died off. I think there can be a surgical approach to using IMDb, but it needs to be clear what elements of it are appropriate and what are not. Like I said in my linked discussion, I do not find IMDb to provide reliable information that would be challenged; we do not require references to a film's main cast and crew members, for example. If there was a reason to contest a name or some other detail, then I do not find IMDb qualified to resolve the challenge. So we could do the surgical approach, but I'm not sure what details from the database are particularly unique and authentic. I think the reason that the surgical approach has not taken off in the past is that it requires too much explanation where editors just want to know, yes or no, can they use it? IMDb, in my experience, can be used as a starting point, but it's preferable to check its details against other sources. In addition, recent Good and Featured Articles exist without explicitly citing IMDb, and WikiProject Films in general says that other references should be used instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you spell out exactly why you do not find IMDB reliable for cast and production information? Dlabtot (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not have issue with looking to IMDb to identify the main cast and crew members; that kind of information is normally unchallenged and available many places. I would prefer to reference a source other than IMDb for such details in obscure films due to minimal review. In addition, as someone who has worked on articles of upcoming films, I find that IMDb is too lenient in verifying speculated cast members and even crew members. There are some questionable items here (though Bignole and I did not keep it up). An recent example I dealt with was Vincent Cassel in Black Swan actually being named Thomas Leroy instead of IMDb's Korolyevna. (In addition, the name below Cassel is Christopher Gartin as... "Handsome scott"?) If it's released and it's mainstream, I'm okay with it. In terms of production information, I don't put a lot of weight in filming locations unique to IMDb. I'd rather see publications discuss filming locations to consider them verifiable and noteworthy. What other aspects of production are you inquiring about? (As for release dates, same comfort level with mainstream and released, though I'd add "new" as well. I can't recall, but I've seen a couple of cases where an old film's release date has been off.) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB has a disclaimer on all unreleased films stating that the information is not reliable. "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely." So all of that is just out, and not usable, just like any material in any source that comes with a similar disclaimer. So we aren't talking about that. Frankly I don't understand why we even have articles on unreleased films or other future events, doesn't make much sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss articles on unreleased films, let me know on my talk page. I can explain the history of them on Wikipedia a little bit. Anyway, it seems we are in agreement about unreleased films. What about the non-mainstream films? The closest way IMDb compares these pages to those of mainstream films is that it says the latter are more likely to be reviewed. I know an editor of erotic Japanese cinema who avoids relying on IMDb because he's found numerous details on these Japanese films' pages to be wrong. And what about other types of production information on IMDb? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just think it should be treated like any other source and held to the same standards as any other source. If someone comes to this Noticeboard and asks if the New York Times is a reliable we say "What for?" We don't try to predefine every circumstance. Nor do we say that because the New York Times frequently publishes errors of fact that it is not usable. Even after a scandal involving fabricated and plagiarized reporting, we still generally would consider it usable but if questioned, we look at the context... right now there is a discussion about the appicability of the NYT in an article. I've shown somewhere in this discussion that multiple reliable sources commonly cite imdb. They have a professional staff and a policy which says that user-submitted material is reviewed by that staff. They do correct errors as was demonstrated in one of these discussions where an "example error" was corrected before the discussion was finished. They provide disclaimers where they do not vouch for the accuracy of their data. They are partnered with the WGA and others. It just seems that the arguments against citing imdb, ever, are not as strong as the factors I just listed. Dlabtot (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right that multiple reliable sources commonly cite IMDb; even the so-called strawmen of "trivia pages" are used as references. Are you wanting to be surgical about implementing IMDb, or are you wanting to use it liberally until details are proven wrong? CactusWriter, in the other discussion, mentions a pretty indicative testament. That's why my personal approach is to follow up on anything IMDb reports and use that follow-up source instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources are always better. I'm not sure what else I could say without repeating myself, again. For instance I could repeat that no one in this discussion or any other that I am aware of has suggested adding trivia from imdb and how tedious and annoying it is to have to answer this strawman over and over and over and over and over. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Wow I am getting tired of typing this phrase out. I need a keyboard shortcut for it or something... Dlabtot (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They have a reputation for fact checking. How well they do it, I can't prove one way of the other. Other RSs cite them, so I would say they somewhat of a reputation for accuracy. The problem, is that they are something we haven't decided how to deal with. They allow user submissions, but these are then vetted by professionals. We almost need a guideline, probably at WP:RS, guiding what to do in this case. It's untrod ground. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you meant to respond in the other section? Dlabtot (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made some comments there too. I wasn't really sure what this section was supposed to discuss, but I took a stab at it. What did you mean by "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviving WP:Citing IMDb?

User:HelloAnnyong has suggested the possibility of asked if I was trying to revive WP:Citing IMDb. Reading it over, I must admit that it looks pretty good, and seems pretty consistent with the discussions we've had here in the past at WP:RSN. I'd like to get an idea of how many editors here think the proposal looks good, and if so, should we try to revive it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Before that happens, the "disputed uses" section should be clarified, and then moved into one of the other 2 sections on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have taken a closer look at the WP:Citing IMDb talk page, one of the reasons why it failed was because IMDb is rejected as not reliable if you nominate your article for Featured Article status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did? I really only asked if you were trying to do so. Anyway, one of my main concerns in potentially reviving it is that people would try to use IMDb to get a brand new movie to have its own article. That could end up being a violation of WP:NFF, but that policy would certainly become a lot more complex. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, imdb doesn't vouch for the reliability of their data for works in pre-production so none of that is citable. Also, sources like imdb or allmusic.com, that catalog everything, aren't usable for establishing notability. That's a well established principle, afaik. Dlabtot (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's clear to everyone. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How to encourage editors to ask better questions? part II

Looking at the current page, I don't see a single thread that uses the template instructions we added to the top of the main page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

it never was added. There are just instructions. I don't understand how the template works or how to test it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it either. But I'm sure that if you asked at the Help Desk, someone would be willing to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if more than one in a hundred editors read those instructions before asking a question. Of those who do, 99 out of 100 inexplicably seem to believe it doesn't apply in their case, like OpenFuture below. Which is why we discussed changing it to template. Dlabtot (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Helps if you include", it says. Well, I did. It's just that the context is rather large. I agree, making a template of it and saying "Use this template or else" would clarify that it's not just a helpful hint, but something that should be included. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well...if you mean the instructions, then I added a link to the source (or well, it's Wikipedia page) and the article page. The whole talk page is about this, and the source is used many times in the article, so I couldn't refer to that... --OpenFuture (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I more concerned about partisans continuing their bickering on the noticeboard. The last thing I want to see when trying to help resolve a dispute is pages and pages of back and forth arguing and accusations about editor conduct. I don't know how we can discourage this, but I was thinking what if we added to the instructions to have two subsections for answers, one for involved editors and one for uninvolved editors? Granted most OPs won't do this, but we can always add them to the discussion ourselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That would probably help. There will be a problem with marginally involved editors, though, who will probably consider themselves just passing through while others consider them involved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I decided to be bold and added sections for involved editors and uninvolved editors for the "Covering the race of a victim and her attackers" discussion.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of this idea, because if editors are involved in a dispute, it seems to bring the dispute here rather than this place providing a forum for resolving the dispute. I think if we could just get editors to address the Four Questions (lol), it would focus the discussions and greatly facilitate the working of this Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I used the template here. And there hasn't been one single comments from somebody that wasn't already involved in the conflict, so what did I do wrong *now*? Or didn't the template help? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think having an "involved" and "uninvolved" section will really help. Of course, as happened today, some editors may edit war to keep their comments out of the "involved" section, but hopefully most won't do that. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, necessarily. but editors should refrain from unilaterally imposing that structure on specific discussions until it has become S.O.P. Doing so before then is a bit presumptuous, though in this instance it seems to have had a positive effect, by drawing attention to the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A harmless joke :)

We need a second RS noticeboard just for the Hockeystick Illusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

I am unsure were this question should be posted. There is a dispute as the weather or not R. J Rummel is outside on mainstream science with his theorys on mass killings by communists. Editors are asking for proof that he is not fringe, this is of course not possible to provide as none such source exists. His book Death by Government is cited or mentioned in google scholar. If he were fringe as is being claimed then his work would not be cited so much? [17]2,030,000 Times Is this proof enough that his work is mainstream? mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ala R. J. Rummel - Even better is books.google which has more than a dozen books published by him. (I just looked at one and it was published by a reputable scientific publisher.) And dozens more than use him as a reference. And he is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know, but at the article Mass killings under Communist regimes it is being said he is outside the mainstream, this is impossible to prove otherwise and the editors in question say all those books, papers and citations do not count. They are demanding a source (peer reviewed at that) which says he is not :( mark nutley (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do they have sources that say he is outside the mainstream? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there are none. He has been criticised by other scholars who figure his numbers are to high, but all scholars disagree :) But there is nothing at all to say he is not mainstream mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just on a point of clarification, think the editor Mark is disputing with is distinguishing between the use of one particular book by Rummel and Rummel's works in general, conceding that there are other usable books by the same author. I don't know who is right or wrong about this, but I would suggest that hits on Google Books and Google Scholar don't settle that question. --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually read relevant threads and it does start talking about one book eventually, after more general discussion. The bottom line seems to be. A) Rummel wrote two books based on the same data, Death by Government (1997) and Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 (1999). The second book was published by the academic press and is a reliable source. and B) reliability of publisher of second book, Transaction Publishers, which is dissed because it is widely recognized as a major independent academic publisher of books, well-defined series, and serial publications in the social sciences. but allegedly independent is a euphemism for neoconservative. The pubishing company is run by Irving Horowitz. and because Actually you need sources to show that a publisher uses peer-review. I think we need some expert advice to clear this one up since it's an important issue in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Expert advice would be great, it would be nice to put this dispute out of the way and try to fix the article, were does one go for such advice on WP? mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

this noticeboard usually pretty good, though end of a week in summer can be slow. Another option I try when no response is Editors Assistance. But wait til get no more responses by, Say, Weds (which is busiest internet day of week) nite. :-) The fact that it is just one book does make it harder since people will feel like have to do more research. Maybe make a pro and cons chart; sometimes that clarifies issue for everyone. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right venue for asking whether Rummel is Fringe. Try asking at WP:FTN.

That said... The reason why fringe sources are problematic has more to do with WP:UNDUE than WP:IRS. "Fringe" does not always equate to "unreliable". We can determine that a fringe source is unreliable for a specific statement in a specific article... but the same source might be quite reliable for some other statement or in some other article. We here at RSN are very reluctant to issue blanket determinations about any source... fringe or not. What makes Fringe sources problematic is that mentioning them usually gives the fringe idea undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

In case anybody wonders, Cluebot stopped functioning for some reason on July 8th on this board. I've put in a question at User_talk:ClueBot_Commons#WP:RSN, but am doing some manual archive maintenance in the meantime as the page was appr. 880 kb. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

A current case at AN/I relates to the appropriate use of MMfA (a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media") as a WP:RS. Several editors there pointed to the absence of consensus on the matter, so I have opened this thread in the hope that consensus can be determined.

There have been six earlier discussions on the topic on this board, to my knowledge. If you know of others, please add them here:

• 24 January 2008 [18]
• 22 May 2009 [19]
• 10 December 2009 [20]
• 1 March 2010 [21]
• 5 May 2010 [22]
• 14 July 2010 [23]

My notes from the above, which I think are representative of most views, are here

I'd like to propose this as an appropriate use of MMfA:

MMfA synthesizes the product of news outlets and draws conclusions. Its opinions and conclusions may be cited, with inline attribution, if they conform to WP:DUE. Cite MMfA's sources for facts. Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable elsewhere, they may be cited and linked to.

Anthony (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• No I found this source used in a BLP, and used for pretty damning edits. It ought to be blacklisted as a highly partisan and untrustworthy source. mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Being highly partisan does not automatically make a source unreliable ... it means we should present what is said as being an opinion. It is similar to an editorial or op-ed piece in a major news outlet. When it comes to presenting opinions, sometimes we must present them (per WP:NPOV)... and sometimes it is not appropriate to do so (per WP:DUE). Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is, moreover, debate as to whether strong opinions even belong in BLPs, especially if thay are in any way contentious. WP:BLP is much more stringent than other policies. Collect (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is disruptive for the same small group of editors with an obvious political motive to repeat their arguments against MM ad nauseum. The assertion that sources that are 'biased' or 'partisan' should not be used has absolutely no basis in WP policy. They should all be permanently banned from posting on this Noticeboard or from the project altogether. Dlabtot (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is my obvious political motive then? The fact that such a highly partisan source should not be used in BLP`s is common sense, not political mark nutley (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to an egregious misuse of MMfA in a current BLP please Mark, that isn't a violation of WP:BLP or WP:DUE? Anthony (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that is? Or do you want me to search BLP`s for a good usage of it as a source? mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think MM is a good source for this? He credited his prayers for steering the course of Hurricane Gloria in 1985, which caused billions of dollars of destruction in many states along the U.S. east coast. He made a similar claim about another destructive storm, Hurricane Felix, in 1995.[3] in a BLP? mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to tell without an actual link somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue for certain editors is not with the source, but with what the source says. For example the Hurricane Gloria and Hurricane Felix things are true. O Fenian (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That it is true is besides the point, the way it is written here is the problem. Look in this BLP Pat Robertson controversies so far i have removed blog refs, twitted ref`s, loads of SPS refs, and media matters is in there a lot. Tell me what you think of it`s usage mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(after EC w/ MN):Yes, and both statements are cited elsewhere (as you have just demonstrated). That is the point I am trying to make. Horologium (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The issue with Media Matters (and all of its cousins, on both sides of the partisan divide, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center (and the related Newsbusters) and Accuracy in Media, is that they usually wildly violate WP:UNDUE. If something really is notable, it will be discussed in a mainstream source, and generally in a format which is better suited to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Every time MMfA is discussed, people point out that they are often cited by newspapers, news channels, kagazines, and NPR. Great! Stick to newspapers, news channels, magazines, and NPR citing MMfA. If it's not picked up by another source, it's a good bet that it violates WP:UNDUE and should not be used. FWIW, I suspect that one of the reasons that there are so many discussions on MMFA is because of the number of links to the site from controversial subjects on Wikipedia, compared to the others: FAIR has 593, AIM has 178, MRC 58, Newsbusters 22; many of the links are from talk pages or project pages. Special:LinkSeach is having issues with MMfA for some reason, perhaps because of all of the edit warring, because it's finding only 21 links, none of which are the links which LAEC and Badger Drink edit-warred over. I *know* that there are many more; perhaps someone who understands LinkSearch's internal workings better than I can take a look at why it's missing so many MMFA cites. Horologium (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding 501 links in article space to MMfA, but I use a handwritten extension to Special:Linksearch to filter the results by namespace, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. Did you put *.mediamatters.org in the search box? MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot the wildcard thing. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly Media Matters is an acceptable source to use when citing reactions or opinions, though I'd be reluctant to use it as the sole source of a pure matter of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you be reluctant to use it as the sole source of a pure matter of fact? Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question! The fact will be immediately challenged anyway by partisans or genuinely skeptical editors and we should be using sources that are as solid as possible, so we should just cite the same sources MMFA does. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a reason to not use it, we can see that it is widely cited, we can see that Columbia Journalism Review looks upon it favorably, that they have expert contributors and that in most cases they provide video excerpts and transcripts. WP:theydontlikeit shouldn't be a reason to discount it as a source. Personally I find that particular attribution is a sound practice though, but for me it doesn't matter if it is National Science Foundation or Media Matters for America. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's is an entirely circular argument. You haven't given any reason why it is not a 'solid' source other than that it will be challenged by partisans. We should not be cowed or intimidated by partisans with no valid argument. Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some category errors are being made here. MMFA is a news watchdog site on the left side of american politics. As such it has counterparts and company--in terms of partisan leanings. Newsbusters is also nominally a right-leaning media watchdog. Consequently we might be tempted to argue that MMFA and Newsbusters (or MRC) are partisan sources, which is true so far as it goes. But we cannot make the additional assumption that both sites are just as accurate because they are equidistant from the political center. MRC and Newsbusters are unrepentant shams, devoted to badgering the ref. about media bias and focused on "liberal media" control. A perusal of either of their front pages will show the nature of their coverage: verbatim reporting of favorable commentators, hyperbolic exaggeration of quotes from traditional news sources and general distortion. Apart from the tone, the substance of the sites are completely different. MMFA has a slant, but the articles are quote heavy from the sources. Most of the utility MMFA provides is literal transcription of talk radio and television. Look at the content in the research section, which is the most likely section of the site to be cited. Take one recent example. MMFA lays out the claims by the right wing sites, then compares them to stated claims by officials. The bulk of the article is actually quotes from right wing media. Only the titles and the end are devoted to debunking the specific lies.
• Generally I feel that MMFA is a fine source for the subjects it usually covers: what has been said on a particular radio station or television show. Or what has been written on conservative websites: often MMFA can provide corroboration for a claim that a website has redacted a document or deleted a page (e.g. the Tea Party response to the NAACP letter). Protonk (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  "MRC and Newsbusters are unrepentant shams, devoted to badgering the ref. about media bias and focused on "liberal media" control. A perusal of either of their front pages will show the nature of their coverage: verbatim reporting of favorable commentators, hyperbolic exaggeration of quotes from traditional news sources and general distortion". Can you prove this, or prove that they are any different than MMfA? Or is this just a case of you preferring their bias over another? Newsbusters does exactly the same thing as MMfA only in the opposite direction, and until partisan editors come to grips with this fact there will be little movement towards a consistant standard that doesn't result in edit warring. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Are you telling my you really feel both MRC (or Newsbusters, if you please) and MMFA are just diametric opposites along the dimension of american partisan politics? That there are no other relevant differences between them? Protonk (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I am suprised that so many pro MMfA people seem to think that their POV and presentation is superior. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  No difference? Not in how the material from the opposite side is presented? not in underlying accuracy? Not in the nature of accusations? Note I'm not a "pro MMFA person", whatever the fcuk that means. No dog in this race, just came here because I saw the matter on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is often used incorrectly since editors mirror the tone and add weight to articles that are overly critical (ie: extended controversy sections). I don;t know if it is reliable or not but it comes up a lot. Editors opposing it need to find evidence of the group's neutrality is negatively impacting their honesty if anything is going to happen. Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture there isn't single byte of "news" that isn't "spun" one way or the other by these partisan groups. Are they occasionally correct and even citable under WP:V/WP:UNDUE? Of course they are...but the vast majority of content from these "watchdog" groups is PURE SPIN...and not the stuff of Wikipedia encyclopedic content. If the content rises to satisfy WP:UNDUE, then there must surely be reliable third-party sources to validate ANY proposed content from these sources. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• MMfA, MRC/Newsbusters and others are opposite sides of the same coin. As such they are all equally reliable or unreliable if you wish. If a standard was set when dealing with highly partisan sources it would go a long way to resolving NPOV concerns and general edit warring. Generally, editors that use these partisan sources have a political axe to grind, and thus their use should be viewed with extra scrutiny. If an event is notable it should have coverage from less partisan sourcing and that sourcing should be used instead. Events that recieve extraordinary coverage will often also have opinion from partisan sources. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to present their opinion. Except under very rare circumstances (if ever) should these sources never be used for factual information that is not covered by other impartial sources. By their very nature anything they present will be in direct violation of NPOV from the onset and their use should be limited as such. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct violation of NPOV? How so? Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These sites put their spin on an event for political purposes. By their nature everything they present is from a specific point of view, ie. not neutral. Presentation of their view as a factual representation of an event will result in their POV, thus a violation of NPOV. There use almost always results in article creep due to the opposite response to their POV. In general they don't improve any article, and create a hostile environment between editors as differing points of view are presented. Arzel (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All these sources should be removed entirely from Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:UNDUE. If someone really does make a notable mistake it will be covered by third party sources. Often all that's transferred from these sites to Wikipedia is irrelevant minor facts gotten wrong and their over-the-top opinion and tone concerning the people they discuss.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context and not generally. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or disapproval. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref.

I am concerned that if a certain source is declared always a RS, that source may still be used in a manner that violates WP:RS, but WP:RS will no longer be applicable because such refs will have been declared always a RS.

For example, I have looked at MMfA refs in context as required by WP:RS and found many violate WP:RS. Only once have I received a substantive response to the ref in question in context as required by WP:RS. Most other times people just say MMfA has been found to be a RS source again and again on other pages and no longer should MMfA be questioned; they refuse to discuss the ref in context on the relevant page as required by WP:RS. (Sometimes they then launch personal attacks—that latter link is an MMfA ref instead of a FoxNews ref used to prove "Fox News also suggested that the summit was another step in Obama's outreach to the Muslim world seeing how its logo was similar to the star and crescent"—non-RS might not be the only problem.) In other words, people argue that because MMfA has been found to be a RS on a number of different pages, it is suddenly always a RS and there is no need to comply with WP:RS to determine if the ref is properly used in context on the one particular page in question as required by WP:RS.

The exact same reasoning applies to all other sources, such as the New York Times. Yes, it is a reliable source, but its use as a reference does not always meet WP:RS requirements 100% of the time as used in the various contexts WP:RS requires us to consider. (I do not know this directly but I believe it to be generally correct and common knowledge that refs are not always used properly, else why have WP:RS.) You should not be able to argue that NYT refs should never be considered in context as required by WP:RS because NYT refs have been found to be reliable over and over again on other pages or on the RS/N here and there.

The effort going on here is to declare MMfA is a RS once and for all. Given WP:RS, that should not happen. Instead, MMfA refs, like all refs, such as the NYT, should be considered in context as required by WP:RS. If this is not true, we need to change WP:RS to remove the requirement that "proper sourcing always depends on context", then we need to update WP:RS with a list of sources that will always be considered reliable no matter the context. WSJ, NYT, MMfA, Barrons, The TImes, The Guardian, Le Monde, The Times of India, Pravda, Canberra Times, etc., should go on this list. Similarly, we will need to change WP:RS to add a list of sources that are never reliable, such as WND, MRC, FoxNews, AIM, NewsBusters, CNSNews.com, etc. This is where we are going if we are to decide that any particular source is to be considered always reliable or always unreliable with no need to consider the context as currently required by WP:RS.

Looking at the specific proposal, we can see that MMfA is to be considered always reliable:

1. "MMfA synthesizes the product of news outlets and draws conclusions. Its opinions and conclusions may be cited, with inline attribution, if they conform to WP:DUE." This proposal would violate WP:RS's requirement to consider context.
2. "Cite MMfA's sources for facts." Again, no blanket approval currently exists in WP:RS, and it should not be added now.
3. "Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable elsewhere, they may be cited and linked to." No, we are not in a position to determine if MMfA's voluminous stores of copyrighted material used for political purposes and without appropriate intellectual property markings is indeed fair use, and WP:RS does not allow us to make the legal leap. And WP:RS does not say that if material is not available elsewhere you can relax Wiki rules to allow in the convenience ref.
4. The proposal ignores the issue of MMfA links containing disparaging material. For example, an MMfA ref was used to evidence someone burned money on a news show. Instead of linking the news show, an MMfA ref was used. And when you read the ref, MMfA pointed out that burning money violates the law and the Republican running for US Senate is the guy who burned the money illegally. Is Wikipedia to be used as a MMfA amplifier in such a manner? By the way, that's the one and only time someone (Melchoir) opposing my MMfA removal for WP:RS noncompliance actually provided substantive reasoning pertaining to the appropriate context as required by WP:RS. See Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters.

In summary, I oppose this proposal. Refs must be considered in context as required by WP:RS and not given blanket approval.

That said, the proposal's author, Anthony, has been extremely friendly, fair, honest, and effective in moderating various matters. I appreciate his help, including his effort here. It is a pleasure to work with editors like Anthony, for example, AzureCitizen who also disagrees with me on MMfA, only on a WP:LINKVIO issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are either genuinely misunderstanding the discussion or engaging in a creative bit of hyperbole here. No one is claiming that it is more than a RS, it would still be subject to our guidelines regarding RS.

1. No, it wouldn't, see above.
2. See above.
3. Considering that they have been posting videos under fair use since 2004 and seem to not have received a single take down order I think we should probably avoid copyright paranoia.
4. Yes, heaven forbid that we source to a site with factual information, Burning money states the conditions under which it is illegal to burn money, and he had in fact stated that he was considering running. The tone that we apply to our articles is our doing, you are presenting a non-argument.

Please to not hurt the strawmen. Unomi (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• An example of a hideous abuse of MMfA and FAIR sources was the subject of a thread I posted on the BLP/N last March. (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive61#Coatrack? or valid criticism?) I have created a subpage (User:Horologium/BLP) with an excerpt of the article as it appeared on 8 March 2009, complete with a reference section displaying the links, and a key for the nine targets addressed in the BLPN thread. Notice how three press releases (one from FAIR and two from MMFA) have been turned into a vehicle for attacking nine separate individuals and organizations. Of course, none of this appeared anywhere other than FAIR and MMfA, which is why I think it is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. It is likely that similar examples have been created using AIM, MRC and/or Newsbusters, but I haven't bothered to look. Of course, there are 501 mainspace cites to MMFA and 286 to FAIR, versus 89 to AIM, 37 to MRC, and 92 to Newsbusters, which reduces the likelihood of inappropriate use of right-wing sources. Horologium (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have a BLP Noticeboard for discussing those issues, which are off-topic for this noticeboard. Reliable sources can be used inappropriately. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary and reformulation

Gamaliel thinks we should cite MMfA's sources rather that MMfA, because citing someone who is citing someone is not as solid as citing the original source. Horologium and JakeInJoisey make the point that if content from sites like MMfA and MRC/Newsbusters is not covered by reliable third parties, our use of it probably violates WP:DUE, and where it is covered by third parties, we should cite the third parties. Arzel agrees, and, with Cptnono, warns that such sources are used to import ideological bias into articles.

Wikiposter0123 proposes banning all such sites. mark nutley proposes banning MMfA. But LAEC counters that a blanket ban is not necessary, provided editors bear in mind that proper sourcing always depends on context.

Gamaliel thinks it is appropriate to use MMfA to report reactions or opinions. Arzel warns that uncritically parroting their usually biased opinion as fact would violate NPOV but that it may be appropriate to report partisan opinion of events that receive extraordinary coverage. Blueboar thinks that sometimes we must report opinion, but should make clear it is opinion. Collect questions whether strong opinion is ever appropriate in BLPs.

Protonk, while acknowledging MMfA is partisan, stresses its accuracy. Arzel says MMfA should rarely (if ever) be used for factual information that is not covered by other impartial sources. Unomi thinks citing MMfA for facts is fine. Protonk thinks MMfA is an RS for what has been said on a particular radio station or television show or what has been written on conservative websites.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (LAEC) makes some sound criticism of my proposed formulation at the top of this thread. I have to agree with Unomi on it being reasonable for us to assume MMfA have done their legal homework on their use of copyright material, and appropriate for us to link to them for footage not available on the original site.

In light of the above I'd like to see if there is consensus for this:

MMfA specializes in reporting contradictions and inaccuracies in the conservative media. Though it puts an undeniable spin on its reporting, its reporting of sources is usually accurate. Its research conclusions may be used, in conformity with WP policy. Its opinion may be included in a Wikipedia article, provided MMfA's opinion is demonstrably significant per WP:UNDUE. When reporting facts, if MMfA's sources are available and they conform to WP:RS, cite them rather than MMfA. Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable on the source site, they may be cited and linked to.

Anthony (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about linking to something that claims to be fair use to know if it is acceptable or not but everything else you have written in that statement is perfect.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Should we link to MMfA pages containing video and audio?" is a straightforward question. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia we can go for a reliable opinion? Anthony (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was asked to weigh in here based on my work with Wikipedia's copyright policies. I'm offering my opinion on that aspect only. On the question of linking to something being used under fair use, it is acceptable to link to the page where the material is being used, but may not be to bypass it and link directly to the content. WP:COPYLINK gives an example of linking directly to a still from a film rather than to an article that uses the still in terms of critical commentary. Determining if the use is fair may be a little more difficult. We don't have to be lawyers here, but I think if it makes a good stab at fair use we're probably safe under our policies. The site is non-profit, which helps under point 1. I probably would not link if they are streaming, say, a documentary film without verifiable permission from the copyright holder, but a snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"[A] snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe." No. The real answer is, it depends. It depends on a number of factors best determined by legal experts. Like the news broadcast that showed 8 seconds of a human cannonball's act. That was found to be infringement. When I look at MMfA's use of copyrighted material, I see it being used voluminously, showing substantially large portions of copyrighted material, I have never yet seen any attribution of copyright, I see it being used by authors identified only be their initials and even though some are identified on a staff page still some are not, I see it being used in a political fashion instead of an educational fashion, I see it being used to harm the pecuniary interests of the source that created the copyright, it is being used to increase the money donated to MMfA, etc., etc. Everyone stealing intellectual property in the form of copyright claims fair use, so assertion of such claim is not determinant by itself.

Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, as Moonriddengirl's comment evidences, and thank you, Moonriddengirl. Just look at the warning message you get when you leave a comment: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." It is the first thing you see because it is so essential to Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. "[A] snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe" may not be correct given certain conditions, such as those I have identified regarding MMfA's use of copyrighted material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not making a good stab at fair use, as I said above, that's a different matter. But note that what we're discussing here is a WP:LINKVIO, not direct import of this content...which is a different matter. While I advocate caution in this regard, there are those who note a lack of precedent for contributory infringement of this sort. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#A bad light? and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#Continued contributory copyright infringement for some recent conversations on this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I discuss your comments here, FYI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! I had no idea you guys had discussed this so extensively. (I'm sorry you didn't get much feedback at MCQ. Usually linkvio questions do get response at WT:C or WT:CP, though not always quickly.) I had not previously examined the website, but looking at pages like their MMTv, I can understand the extent of your concern. On the first page of that alone, I see a dozen video clips offered with no sign of critical commentary. The individual pages offer space for viewer comments, but that's about as much "critical commentary" as you get with a Youtube rip of a popular video from MTV. If the base of that page is to be believed, there are 10,267 such clips. I looked around their website, but did not find any instructions for copyright concerns. In terms of linking to them, I suppose I should have asked: for what purpose? Is the link being used to support the information in their media excerpts or to discuss MMFa's critical commentary (should they ever actually have any)? There is a difference there as well, in my opinion. In the former case, we are piggybacking on them as a convenience to access material they may not be legally displaying; in the latter, their use or misuse of the copyrighted content is incidental. Their critical commentary is the true point of the link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you called this a 'Summary' - what is that supposed to mean? A summary of what? Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My summary of the attitudes in the above thread towards citing MMfA in general, citing them for facts, reporting their conclusions and opinions, and linking to them for video and audio content, upon which I based the redraft of the proposed consensus statement.

I put it there so it would be blatant if I've misunderstood someone's stance in working out the proposed consensus statement. Anthony (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 18:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters has been discussed so many times and so repetitively with nothing new ever said that most of the regulars at this Noticeboard don't even respond to these threads, finding no utility in retyping the same comments over and over in response to the same discredited arguments. Simply summarizing the latest of too-many-to-count discussions shares, imho, this lack of utility. Dlabtot (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC) And since you didn't apparently include my viewpoint in this 'summary', I don't know whether you've misunderstood my stance or not. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read all the threads on this board containing the words "Media Matters," and agree: there's been a lot of talk. I intend to put whatever we arrive at here to an RFC, inviting all the contributers to past discussions, and anybody else appropriate. I'm sorry I left you out of the summary, that was an oversight, though I had gathered from the above that you think MMfA is a reliable source, in context; and I've just seen this from 2 March 2010.

The noticeboard doesn't make pronouncements, neither are the perceived consensus of particular RfCs useful as editing dictates. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis. Any of these organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution.

Anthony (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Dlabtot has been opposing efforts to apply WP:RS to MMfA refs claiming MMfA has been proven reliable elsewhere so it is now and forever automatically reliable on any page, while I have pointed out WP:RS requires an individualized review. That statement just quoted was by Dlabtot and is substantially what I have been saying! I am happy to see Dlabtot agrees with me and others, for example, that, "Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis." Houston, we have consensus! Thanks, Anthony, for finding that quote. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Dlabtot has been opposing efforts to apply WP:RS to MMfA" Of course I've been doing no such thing. I suggest you state your own opinion and allow others to state theirs. Falsely characterizing the positions of others is not helpful. The quote from March 2 - the whole quote, not any part of it in isolation - quite accurately reflects my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I did not say otherwise, hence the use of "for example". It is a remarkable statement given your actions do not align with your words. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from further personal attacks against me such as the comment to which I am responding. Use this noticeboard to ask questions about the reliability of particular sources in context, not to comment about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadening the topic

I think we should amend WP:RS to address the usage of all hyperpartisan sources—not just MMfA, but those at the other end of the rainbow such as World Net Daily. They should never be used as a source for factual claims. If used for opinions, they should be used with great care and must be tagged in the article mainspace as "conservative" (WND) or "progressive" (MMfA). There are a lot of similar hyperpartisan sources out there, such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting and Media Research Center, that should be dealt with in the same way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of these sites should ever be included under WP:UNDUE. Their opinion is just whatever supports their side and it never adds anything other then their hyperpartisan group supports their political side.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I was told above, this is not a topic for RSN. I think that Anthony Cole's intentions were good, but this isn't going to be solved here, and obviously Dlabtot is upset that it has been brought up yet again. There really needs to be an RFC on this subject, because the watchdog groups substantially differ from mainstream news sources in both their coverage and their tone. There are two things stopping me from initiating it myself: I lack standing (as I have not been substantially involved in the debates and editing over MMFA and others), and more importantly, I have two term papers to complete, a test for which to study, and two final exams over the next week, and I really don't have the time to put together the evidence needed to properly present the problems here. The issue isn't reliability, it's a combination of other issues (BLP, UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and NPOV). Horologium (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is silly and counterproductive to characterize me as 'upset'. However, I do believe that endless hypothetical discussions that can not by their nature be anything but fruitless are a distraction from the purpose of this Noticeboard. If one wants to change the guideline to exclude sources based on their perceived bias, the place to discuss it would be the talk page for the guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think any guidelines or policies need changing, to deal with MMfA or similar sites, Dlabtot, or are the existing guidelines and policies clear and comprehensive enough? The few disputes I've seen involving these sites were all due to a misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, rather than the policies themselves. Is that your experience? . Anthony (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to pre-declare my position in any future discussion as a default defense of the status quo. However right now the guideline does not mention 'bias' and I don't think it should. In fact it seems that our WP:NPOV policy requires that sources with disparate 'biases' be included, if they represent a significant viewpoint. Dlabtot (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm studying the policy and guidelines; and a bit more "case history" involving MMfA and such sources on the various noticeboards and will get back. There is no point in continuing this here if it's the wrong place or process. Anthony (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Never having been one to worry much about standing, I'll start the discussion on the Talk page for WP:RS. I cordially invite all of you to join me there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't mention MMfA and WND in the same breath, and in a more general sense, it's a mistake to equate partisan sources on either side of an issue. Each publication, and each author and source within that publication, has to stand on its own. MMfA is at least a respectable organization, and it tries to present things they can fact check and verify. Reliability-wise, there is a large circle of content for which MMfA can be taken as a reliable if partisan source. If MMfA states that person X appeared on media outlet Y at time Z, then in lieu of a better source that's believable. WND makes random stuff up and runs with it. They promote fringe theories. And they don't attempt to fact check or issue corrections. If WND says that North Dakota is north of South Dakota I would ask for verification. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"MMfA is at least a respectable organization"- depends on who you ask...Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This questions is settled as all such questions on Wikipedia, one asks the reliable sources. Reliable sources treat MMfA as reliable, they do not treat WND as reliable. Q.E.D. LK (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with Wikidemon, but there is still a case-by-case element. For example, if World Net Daily reports that Jerome Corsi has expressed a particular opinion, then he probably did express it. WND wouldn't misquote Corsi (unless they said that, for example, he expressed concern about a housing bubble in 2005 or the like, where WND might be backdating his statement to give him an aura of prescience). Reporting Corsi's opinion about something, properly attributed to him and not stated as a fact, would sometimes be appropriate under WP:NPOV where he's a prominent spokesperson for one side, and in those instances I'd accept WND as a source.

Anthony, if you're not going to continue this here, let me just mention, for your future consideration, one issue about what I think is the latest version of your proposal. You wrote: "When reporting facts, if MMfA's sources are available and they conform to WP:RS, cite them rather than MMfA." That may run into a synthesis problem. Suppose MMfA reports that the term "disgraced" is applied far more often to Eliot Spitzer than to Mark Sanford, even though both were married governors who admitted to adultery. Suppose further that MMfA cites a bunch of media stories about the two governors as examples. We could report MMfA's findings. If there's serious challenge to the accuracy of those findings -- not just the usual right-wing howling about MMfA's bias, but some actual facts -- then we could include that, too. I don't think we could just cite the stories and point out the different treatment of a Democrat and a Republican; that would run into the WP:SYNTH problem. JamesMLane t c 06:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suppose MMfA reports that the term "disgraced" is applied far more often to Eliot Spitzer than to Mark Sanford, even though both were married governors who admitted to adultery. Suppose further that MMfA cites a bunch of media stories about the two governors as examples. We could report MMfA's findings.

No, you can't...unless content on those those MMfA "findings" rise to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE with citations on those "findings" from third-party RS. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@JamesMLane & JakeInJoisey. OK. This is a big issue. I'm still reading and thinking. Anthony (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@JamesMLane No, you can't use it. It's a coatrack in either Spitzer's or Sanford's article. Neither individual has any influence on how the media frame the case, and it can (and would be) used as an attack on Sanford, when his dirtbag activities had nothing to do with Spitzer's dirtbag activities. Likewise, we should not be using articles from the MRC which address their particular concerns, such as the "name that party" trope or persistent uses of labels on conservatives but not on liberals. (They have more, but I just went with two.) Anything which rises above the level of undue weight will be addressed by normal news sources, rather than media watchdogs. But this discussion is for another noticeboard. Horologium (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• This section continues the path of deeply missing the point. Here goes. I have two organizations, one on either side of a socially constructed partisan divide. We can probably agree that one is left and one is right and we even may be able to agree that both are equally far from center (though that is a slippery concept, as taking the center is a political goal). However a problem arises when we attempt to map some non-political quality to that political dimension. Accuracy, objectivity, fairness, etc. Without really good tools to determine these non-political qualities, we tend to regress to simplistic, safe explanations. Namely, we assume that all non-political qualities map exactly to political qualities; that is, we say that insofar as MMFA is left and Newsbusters is right, both are just as accurate/objective/fair/etc. Any attempt to inject sanity into this discussion by suggesting that one of the two sites is obsessed with birtherism and threats of marxist takeovers and the other basically quotes right wing media members and fact checks them is met with cries of POV! At best this is a kind of "opinions on shape of Earth differ" approach. At worst it masks serious problems with underlying important RS-related qualities. If I hold a political view whose presentation on wikipedia is disadvantaged due to the fact that it is f*%cking insane (bitherism, goldbugs, LaRouchies) I have a strong incentive to discredit sources which routinely subject my political view to criticism, regardless of their underlying validity. That incentive will manifest itself in a demand that all coverage be impossibly even handed--a result which privileges the side most willing to be tendentious inside and outside wikipedia. If I can expunge critical views in exchange for witholding absurdly positive coverage, then I have (in the net) improved the appearance of my subject on wikipedia. Likewise since "objective" news organizations are loth to out and out say that a particular person or idea is nuts, demanding that coverage meet at least that standard of objectivity ensures that negative press is limited. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Access to sources

Someone posted a wikilink to a page were you can ask people who have access to places like jstor ca ndo it for you, would anyone here know the link? I can`t find it now :( mark nutley (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR--SPhilbrickT 02:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Brillant one man, thanks :) mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Subheadings of Involved/Uninvolved

I think we should discourage subheadings about who's involved and who isn't. That turns it into more of a vote, and discourages back and forth questions and answers. Right now, every heading is supposed to be someone coming for an uninvolved opinion. Sometime both sides of an argument come here and continue their argument. That's a problem, I admit, but I don't think these subheadings are the solution. Of course, if there's a consensus that they're a good thing, that's fine too. Also, I know we discourage those little "resolved" checkmarks, or at least I try to. That's the only precedent I can think of. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided about the subheadings. I'd be cautious about banning involved editors from posting. At times, editors provided a skewed, incomplete or misleading statement of the issue. It can be useful for an involved editor to briefly and politely bring our additional facts, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that before someone makes a comment on this board they should have to state each time if they are involved or uninvolved. My experience has been that a group of editors enter the noticeboards and make misleading comments about the issue.

In the Terror Enigma post which just closed unresolved, a group of involved users entered and diluted the discussion by making repeated mistatements of information which each time squidfryer had to correct. After squidfryer's corrections each users would say that they were confused. Users entered the debate without saying if they had been previously involved. Thus, third party neutral editors were likely to mistake previously involved editors as uninvolved editors.

• Involved users should write IN: before each post
• Uninvolved users should have to write UV:

In my experience, friends of users have showed up here, the neutral point of view board and elsewhere and provided opinions without detailing their involvement. They thus dillute the discussion down in a way that is confusing to third party users who can't determine who is who and don't want to take the time to investigate in detail.

As for the Terror Enigma book by Justin Raimondo, I'm still not sure if it is reliable or not due to the numerous misleading comments made by partisan users on the matter.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved, involved - that matters a lot less than if an actual answerable question about a specific citation has been posed. If we have the specifics, we can evaluate the context and have a prouctive discussion. But too often, it is like pulling teeth to get editors to reveal the details that allow us to judge context - usually so they can spin things their way. It gets frustrating. Dlabtot (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In matters a great deal as it will allow uninvolved users each time to clearly see which users are more likely to spin things. Those users are the involved users. By writing just two letters before each comment, it will also enable uninvolved users to see if the issue still needs the attention of an uninvolved user.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By just writing IN: or UV: before posting things will quickly become more simple, this could apply not just here but on many of the other boards too (neutral point of view, ani, ect.).Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's workable, but it would be cool. The problem is that half the people who come here are coming here for the first (and probably only) time. We can't expect them to know a bunch of difficult rules, and they probably won't like people adding IN and UV to their posts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving a very generous estimate, there are fewer than 20 editors who regularly post at RSN. Anyone else, is generally pre-involved in the dispute. It's not actually difficult to differentiate between the two groups. Dlabtot (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, some editors may try to fake uninvolvent by writing UV: , in this case when it is obvious that another user is faking uninvolvement another user could cross out their uv with UV:. If the uninvolvement of a user is disputed other editors could than add the letter d to what that user says.For example, UVD:

There should also be consequences for obvious faking of uninvolvement such as a topic ban for frequent violators or temporary account blocks for those who do it on purpose.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

New users would quickly learn if someone told them after their first comment. This rule would also apply to other boards where third party assistance in needed.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We could try it for a week. Instead of IN and UV, we could use Involved and Uninvolved. I have a feeling it may lead to edit warring, but maybe not. If it leads to edit warring, then I would consider it a failure. Now, we have have heated debates that aren't always productive, but we don't have much edit warring. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When someone crosses out uv, they will have to provide a reason why it is obvious that someone is actually involved, when uninvolvement is disputed for legitimate reasons add the letter d for disputed. I think we should stay with IN and UV because it will be easier to type than having to write the whole words out each time. But maybe we could write the whole words out until people get used to the abbreviations. If someone add the d to UVD a user should not be allowed to take the D off until another uninvolved user determines that the editor is uninvolved. If UV is directly crossed out it should be obvious whether or not that user is uninvolved already. If it is directly crossed out with no obvious reason than the user crossing out could be potentially be temporarily blocked.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe this could just be used sometimes when the person who starts the thread requests it? There could also be an indication such as somewhat involved too.Preciseaccuracy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

See also PA's post at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. My first reaction is that we'll need a new board to argue over who is involved or not involved. I really don't want to see threads side-tracked by arguments about who is or who isn't involved. I suggest we just apply WP:COMMONSENSE, and I certainly don't want us to develop a new reason to block someone that didn't exist before. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea for an editor to be asked to say if he's taken some position on the sourcing in the past, however you define it. Instead of subheadings, why not simply say at the top of the RS/N page "When commenting, please state if you've edited the article in question or taken a position on the sourcing of this or similar articles." ScottyBerg (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is policy creep ... and I think it misunderstands the purpose of this noticeboard. RSN isn't like AfD... we are not voting to accept or reject sources. RSN does not issue "rulings" that can be enforced. The primary purpose of this page is to get help and advice... to ask questions and discuss specific reliability issues and how to resolve them. Numbers do not mean anything here. Twenty comments that merely say: "I think it is reliable" do not negate one insightful analysis of why it is not (and vise versa). It really does not matter whether that one insightful comment comes from someone who is involved or uninvolved in the initial dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

However you decide on subheads or "INV" markings, I think that you (meaning an RS/N regular) should remove them from existing posts where they have been unilaterally adopted/requested by people asking opinions. I voluntarily complied with one such request to avoid a fight, but I don't think it was proper and I don't believe the subheads should be left there. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah... I don't think that one thread sets a precedent one way or the other. Removing the sub-heads in that one discussion seems POINTy to me. Just let it be. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the involved and uninvolved sections was worth at least trying as an experiment. Ultimately, one of its limitations is that there is no way for us to enforce it. Anyway, nobody follows the instructions at the top of the page so maybe we should remove the 4 bullet points we added a few months ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I thought I had covered the four bullet points. Even if I didn't quote that statement, I did post the diff. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Is_www.eeggs.com_a_RS.3F. On the issue of involved and uninvolved, my interest is in what is said rather than who says it. I would hope that someone with a COI would announce it, but involvement would not carry much weight with me in terms of whether the answer is helpful. And in judging whether a source is reliable, should involvement or lack of previous involvement affect whether there is a consensus about a RS? Vyeh (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

boar.org.uk — The Bourne Archive and Gesta Herewardi

Hi - I posted the above topic on the Noticeboard yesterday, and I haven't had a response yet - I'm wondering, should I have posted it here? My "questions concerning a source" aren't "hypothetical", but I suppose they could fall under the description "general"! Apologies if this is the wrong place, but to be honest I'm also wondering if my topic's been noticed, among all the content dispute! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded, it probably didn't get noticed. Roll on the university season, hopefully stuff like this will get more attention. I've posted on this board and the article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! Nortonius (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about WP:SPS

Would press releases fall under the policy of self published sources? Blackash have a chat 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Likely since they are usually purely self-interested, but there may be some room for others to fall outside of it. More specifics would help. For instance, a press release from a government agency may be more likely to contain information that could be cited as factual material, as opposed to something from, say, a political candidate for office. — e. ripley\^talk 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

cineblitz should be allowed. cineblitz is a reputed magazine in india which covers informationm ,interviews with bollywood personalities. also zoom tv is a reputed channel run by times news network in india

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc..... yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc. even she agrees that the 68 were genuine. now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors.. now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted? please help seriously i need ur help following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,..... i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387349101 I request that this issue be resolves at the earliest and i assure u that all 78 references are genuine..... infact i want seniors, experts too see it coz iam sure biased anti khanna fantic fans are deleting scentences..activebanana and shshshs are one of them... infact please u also go thru the article and even u will seee that all sources are magazines,newspapers, websites of news channels etc.. Shrik88music (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I did not “agree that 68 references were genuine” as stated above. I simply ran Reflinks on them. Thank you. — Hebrides (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Without discussing those two sources in specific, the edits you're making to Rajesh Khanna are problematic for any number of reasons, some of them related to sourcing and some not. I'll hit a couple of high points:

One, you source something to an Angelfire site, which does not meet our policies about reliable sources. It simply cannot be used.

Two, in the infobox you list his name as "Superstar Rajesh Khanna." Superstar does not appear to be part of his proper name.

Three, there appears to be an awful lot of hyperbolic fluff in your edit that's not entirely supported by sources, regardless of their reliability, along the lines of prose like this: Work of Pancham with Khanna is regarded as legendary and far superior than any other actor-music director combinations (sourced to this -- which, incidentally, is incorrectly paraphrased. This is one person saying his opinion is that the collaboration was legendary and superior, but that's a far cry from supporting a bald statement of fact as you have it here. The sentence also is grammatically incorrect.

In short, Shrik88music's edit needs a lot of work and he would do well to try to refine it, making use of the article's talk page, rather than edit warring to keep it. — e. ripley\^talk 21:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

there was never anything to discuss in depth as cineblitz is very reputed magazine of films yes hindi films and zoom tv run by timesnewsnetwork.i always wanted that a senior editor see it so that no one will furthur argue 120.138.125.21 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suzuki vs Consumer's Union

Having tried to edit the Suzuki Samurai/Jimny etc article I was depressed by the amount of space given to the controversial lawsuit of 1996. There was an inordinate amount of battling back and forth between pro-Suzuki and pro-CU editors. In an attempt to remove this from my field of vision I started a new article, Suzuki Samurai v Consumers Union‎ where these back-and-forths could take place out of view. Lately, I checked back and noticed that a link to a video (made by Suzuki, and clearly labelled as such) had been removed. Meanwhile, other, rather dubious accusations taken from a ambulance-chaser website remain. I don't know if this is the right place to ask questions on this topic, but I do feel that if anything an official Suzuki video (including actual Consumer's Union footage) is more reliable than some website like this one: http://www.crash-worthiness.com/ Thankful for any assistance,  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

how to get more feedback

A question of mine has been archived[24] with only one response, before User:Jayjg, who is the Wikipedian whose complex and moving demands are the reason for the posting, arrived to imply that the post was somehow not what it seemed to be. I guess that put people off. It seemed to me to be a fairly clear and valid question. Any suggestions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

you could have provided a full citation of the work in question, the article and factual claims it was used to support and citations and links to any other sources. Rs/n works best when answering very concrete questions with the full context spelt out with cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reasonable point. I also find many questions on this board lacking in that respect. However the question in this case was about a policy claim being made in a relatively clear way on a talk page. (I get the impression this was understood and responded to at first, and that this has been confused by Jayjg's not-obviously-intended-to-help postings.)

The material being sourced is a sentence which says that a Y DNA haplogroup found mainly in India, but found in trace amounts in Portugal, might possibly be explained by the historical links between those two places. This is not particularly relevant to the matter as it is presented by Jajyg himself, who has been deleting or tagging JOGG citations in several articles with variable reasonings, none of which show any interest in genetics. No one has claimed that the sentence being cited is controversial or surprising or especially technical.

There is at least a clear disagreement on a purely "rules" based discussion, and so I am looking for a way to resolve this. The discussion is [25].

1. The specific claim I was trying to get an opinion on was that a source (author+publication combination) that is widely cited as an authority in the best types of sources for a field (human Y DNA haplogroups) does not qualify on that basis as a reliable source for that field.

2. There was also a secondary claim that even if the above argument "might" fail to convince, that then each article by that author in that publication needs to be considered separately. So for example the author has 5 or 6 very strongly and widely cited articles from that publication, but if he has one which is not widely cited, then this one can be treated as not RS even if the other 5 or 6 are.

As far as I can see, these positions are very unusual? But I am asking for a reality check because there are on-going problems.

Note. These questions focus on the source as a author+publication combination. Both the author and the publication can be discussed separately also, which is another discussion. Concerning Whit Athey even his personal webpage is very widely cited in academic journals, and concerning the JOGG there was already an RSN which Jayjg re-interprets as it suits him. I have summarized it with diffs here.

BTW if discussion here leads to a better way of constructing the question, is it advisable to try re-posting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

edited--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What usually works is to say "Thanks for your response. I would be interested to read other responses, especially from users who have no previous involvement with the question." You might also say: "In the light of discussion, can I reformulate my question (and then pose the new question in the same thread". Or you could post again if the original discussion has run out of steam. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Kind of sounds like what I did. :) Itsmejudith and Fifelfoo, did you read my question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did, now that I look. And I remember that I saw the question about the journal and was wondering what I could say about it. The real question is: is the journal RS. And I'm still not sure. It isn't an ordinary academic journal. Can you make an argument that it has good fact-checking? Is there any independent review of articles, and if so, how do we know that? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good and reasonable questions. You are of course right it is not a normal academic journal because genetic genealogy is not a normal academic field with tenured professors. It does however exist and the JOGG has recognized fact checking, recognized even by the academics, in the form of a peer review system. In some parts of its overlap with genetics, it leads academic genetics (for the obvious reason that it focuses on different things).

You are focusing now only on the journal, not its most cited author who is according to me an even better source, and the subject of my particular question now gone to the archives. The original discussion about the journal as a whole was of course at [26] and my summary is of course at [27], but here is a simple answer:-

• First, if you just try a google scholar search with, for example, "(JOGG OR genealogy) haplogroup" or "athey haplogroup" (Athey being the surname of the author currently under discussion) you'll see the journal is widely cited as authority amongst academics, and even more so Whit Athey is, because his personal webpages are seen as a standard authority concerning prediction of Y haplogroups from STR haplotypes. Of course some of these citations are in the journal itself, or other genetic genealogy sources, but maybe 50 or more are in top peer reviewed genetics sources. It is not "nothing"?
• Second, by luck the journal was actually discussed as a subject in itself in a peer reviewed genetics journal by two top geneticists involved in human Y haplogroup studies: [28]. The article names the journal as a "resource" which "publishes articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups". They also say it is "attracting academic geneticists among its authors and is an interesting model for public involvement in scientific publication".
• Third, here is a new one: Myres, Natalie (2010), "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene effect in Central and Western Europe", European Journal of Human Genetics:doi=10.1038/ejhg.2010.146 which you can see at [29]. (Article of the year perhaps in this field of human Y DNA haplogroups.) Search for "genetic genealogy". As is now absolutely typical in recent years, you'll find the hits within the methods section. So this is not just a footnote.

Hoping this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot edit of an archived RSN discussion

I attempted to discuss this with User:Dlabtot on his/her talk page, but my inquiry was deleted without comment.

On 6 Apr 2010, User:Blueboar archived the product of a lengthy and most recent WP:RSN discussion on the question of World Net Daily as a reliable source. On 31 Jul 2010, User:Dlabtot edited that already archived discussion removing an RSN summary about which he/she raised no objection at the time the discussion was archived.

• Under what Wikipedia policy or guideline might an editor presume to edit an already archived RSN discussion?
• What is the Wikipedia propriety of such an apparently aggressive edit?
• What would be the likely anticipated consequence for consensus resolution were this, IMHO, highly unorthodox practice to be countenanced as generally acceptable editorial conduct?
• How would an editor in opposition to this archival edit appropriately respond short of reversion of the archive itself?

Comments appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If Dlabtot wishes to edit his own archived comments I would not have had a problem with it... but in this case he removed someone else's comments. That isn't appropriate. However, rather than make a big to do about it... I'll just return the deleted material. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If Dlabtot wishes to edit his own archived comments I would not have had a problem with it...

Perhaps you don't, but that appears to be in contravention to the archive tag which states (emphasis mine)...

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.

However, rather than make a big to do about it...

Apparently User:Dlabtot feels otherwise. He has again edited the archived discussion, this time removing the hatted format which served to highlight the previously reached consensus RSN summation. I'd submit that this type of archival editing is in contravention to the Wikipedia guideline expressed above.

Observations on the questions I posed are still germane and solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

A problom has arisen here Talk:Halloween where a user appears to be mis-representing German language sources. Can some one who can read German check them please.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia Reliable Sources/Noticeboard

How do I search Wikipedia, including the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, to see if a source has previously been reviewed?  The Wikipedia search box doesn't seem to find things on talk pages.  I've also tried Google using site:wikipedia.org with mixed results.  For example, suppose I wanted to see if "m-w.com" has been reviewed.  It may be that I can open archives one by one and search using my browser, but this is slow and unreliable, and I'm not even sure if this is a valid technique.  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.118 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but you can search RSN archives from the search window at the top of the project page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, RB  66.217.117.118 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a blog?

Some users have been removing content with Minyanville.com as a source, claiming that it is a blog. Is it? Dan56 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You should probably move this to the project page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and say what has been removed from where. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As the content is mainly from subscribers, whether we call it a blog, an open wiki, or whatever, it's not likely to be a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Dan56 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Offline Copies

Hello,

If there are newspaper articles from the past that are not available online, but are (for arguments sake) entirely reliable, what would be the best way to go about using them as sources? Would it be better to scan them and publish them on a personal site in order to allow the reference to be viewable for others, simply provide the proper citation information including the actual citation, is there a repository.. or of course, some other approach? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As published material, they are citeable as is. There is no requirement for you to make documents available, or available online. However, if you do wish to present material online, you need to be aware of copyright law, and of the fact that your personal archive online would be highly unlikely to be considered a reliable source under present policy, as you are not known for retransmitting material with veracity and in full (no Wikipedian is as a wikipedian). For an authorative online archive, seen National Library of Australia's newspaper project. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to second what was said; in this era of Photoshop and the like, I always treat purported reproductions of articles as unreliable. It can't be said often enough: there is no requirement that a citation to a printed source be accompanied by a weblink of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Self published websites hosting old newspaper articles

Are they good sources? If the articles were available online on the website of the newspaper, there would be no question. However, if they are reproduced on a self-published site, may they be cited as sources? Omnes Omnes Gianorations (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give a link as an example? A lot here depends on the specific website in question (and whether it can be trusted to present a "true and accurate copy" of the original newspaper report). Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that, because I've encountered websites that have manipulated the "copies" they put on their website. Note that there is also the problem that we are not must not link to copyright violations, which these copies likely are. I always recommend getting the article direct from the newspaper's website or via Factiva or Lexis-Nexis, and then citing the original article. If you don't have free access then your local library might, or there are WP volunteers at WP:LIBRARY can often help. --Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also always iffy about using a source where I haven't read the original, mostly because you can't guarantee that it is an accurate version - although under certain circumstances the risk might be very small. As an example, I can think of one site which republishes articles (without copyright permission), but often seems to change the titles. Thus if you cite based on that site, you end up with articles that can only be found there, because a search on the title won't turn up the original whether or not it is online. I'd also like to reiterate Slp1's point: WP:LINKVIO (correctly) won't allow us to link to copyright violations, so you need to be cautions on that side. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. My question is about the "Rick Ross" website, which is self-published. Omnes Omnes Gianorations (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case the website was being used as a source of external links, and given that the articles hosted there are copyright violations, that website cannot be linked, per WP:LINKVIO, as Bilby said. It's irrelevant, but I also would not regard the website as a reliable source for the newspaper copies, either, and would always check and cite the original source. Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In this era of Photoshop and the like, I never trust these sorts of things, even when they purport to be actual scans of original articles. Think of how routinely such things can be faked up! I guess it's time for my monthly reminder that there is no obligation to provide an online link for a citation to something which originally appeared in actual hard copy. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable in this case, and also copyright violations as already stated.Griswaldo (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Omnes Omnes Gianorations (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In cases such as these simply removing the link is clearly bad. While we might be dubious about the website we have no problem with referencing directly from the newspapers. Taemyr (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the archive, this has beendiscussed before.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I can find seems to support what I am saying. The fact that the newspaper is hosted on an unreliable host does not mean that the newspaper is unreliable. It just means that you should reference the newspaper rather than the purported host. Taemyr (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes... referencing the original newspaper (without liking to the web-hosted copy) is acceptable (assuming, of course that the original newspaper is reliable and supports what is stated in the article). Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And just to be complete, having had access to the original article so as to verify that it supports what is stated in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)