Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Compare with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose the lead to say? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Reliable sources have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. They are published, often independently from their subject." It's also troubling that the "page in a nutshell" doesn't reference reliability. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a think to try to sum up the spirit of the guideline: "A reliable source is a source (four meanings in WP:SOURCE) that is just as willing to turn its critical attention inwardly as outwardly." I also think there is an implication that by doing this, they will necessarily be recognized for it which is the foundation for "reputation". This definition has a bias towards the source as a publisher/creator as described in WP:SOURCE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to begin with a definition, then AFAICT the actual definition is:

• "A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept for supporting a given bit of material in a Wikipedia article."

You have probably noticed the absence of words like reputation, fact-checking, accuracy, independence, etc. That's because those aren't actually required. We cite self-published, self-serving, inaccurate, unchecked, non-independent sources from known liars all the time. See also {{cite press release}} and {{cite tweet}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first part makes some sense, although I would appreciate some clarification on the second part. If every source is reliable for something, the second sentence of this page "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is redundant. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence is incomplete. It probably ought to say "If no Wikipedia:Independent reliable sources can be found..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I assumed the exclusion of independent was intentional. There does seem to be a distinction between sources reliable for verifying the content they express (wikivoice), and sources reliable for verifying that such a source expressed content (requiring attribution). I'll add in the "independent", although it does seem a bit like a non-sequitur. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it should be in the lead at all, but if it's going to be there, it should match WP:NOT, which says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" and WP:V, which says "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure it should be in the lede either. I tried to express this by labelling it a non-sequitur.

If I were to read the lede to find out what constitutes a reliable source for a statement, I would learn it's what experienced editors thinks verifies it. This is really useless, I would have no idea how to apply this guideline, which is surely the first consideration in reading a guideline. Defer to experienced editors, who apparently deferred to experienced editors, who... Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's useless, but I agree that it isn't immediately actionable. It tells you what a RS actually is. What you need after that is some way to determine whether the source you're looking at is likely to be RS.

This could be addressed in a second sentence, perhaps along these lines:

"Editors generally prefer sources that have a professional publication structure with editorial independence or peer review, have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or issuing corrections, are published by an established publishing house (e.g., businesses regularly publishing newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books), and are independent of the subject. Reliable sources must directly support the content and be appropriate for the supported content."

It's that last bit ("appropriate") that throws over the preceding sentence. If a BLP is accused of a crime, and posts "I'm innocent! These charges are false!" on social media, then that's a source with no professional publication structure, no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no reputable publishing house, and no independence from the subject. But it's 100% appropriate for the article to contain this information, and 100% reliable for the statement "He denied the charges on social media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the rest of the page explains in detail what qualities are (and aren't) seen in sources that are usually accepted, so I'm not sure that duplicating that information in the lead is necessarily the best choice. Perhaps it would be better to say something like "This guideline describes the characteristics of sources that are generally preferred by editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ridiculous situation is a product of us not distinguishing reliable for verifying the content of a source, and reliable for verifying the existence of a source. I understand that there is some complexity with DUE on this front (SME may fall into the latter category given what we can verify is that an expert is saying this but not that it is something we can put in wikivoice), but the current approach, where we try to bundle it into "appropriate" is insufficient.

Small note, we should try to keep comments such as "But it's 100% appropriate for the article to contain this information" out of the convo to keep the streams from getting crossed with WEIGHT. probably too aspirational, and my comments may be read as doing this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea isn't "duplicating" information, but summarizing it. The lede of NPOV could say "An article's content can be said to conform to a NPOV if experienced editors accept it as appropriate to include" but this doesn't explain what it is as representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" does. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial, since I doubt that the sentence should be in this guideline at all, I don't really mind you removing the word 'independent', but I did want to make sure you understood the context. As a result of your edit, we have

• WP:NOT saying that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources",
• WP:V saying that "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", and
• WP:RS implying that non-independent sources aren't all that important.

If we have to have this sentence at all, I'd rather have this sourcing guideline match the core content policies. If, on the other hand, you're thinking about the fact that NPROF thinks independent sources are unimportant, then I suggest that the place to fix that is in the policies rather than on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that several SNGs can be satisfied without (what some editors consider to be) fully independent sources, not just NPROF.

Fundamentally, I think the actual policy problem is that the degree of independence that should allow a source to be used to establish the notability of a subject is poorly-defined and easily weaponized. So it seems to me that no academic is notable based on their own self-published statements, but a legitimate claim to notability can be based on reliable statements from universities and learned societies (to satisfy NPROF criteria).

An author or artist can't be notable based on their own self-published statements, either, but a legitimate claim to CREATIVE notability can be based on reliable statements from the committee granting a major award.

In a way, I think the older "third-party" language more clearly supported these claims to notability, whereas many editors will now argue that employers and award grantors are "not independent enough" for their own reliable claims to count for notability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an employer is not independent of the employee they tout, though an award granter (usually) is independent of the winner (though not of their award).

I agree that there might be a problem, but I think that if we're going to have this sentence in this guideline at all, it should match what the policies say.

How do you feel about removing this as unnecessary for the purposes of this guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a controversial opinion, but I think an institutional employer with a decent reputation is a reliable source for the employment history and job titles of an employee, which is what NPROF requires in some cases. No "tout"ing necessary. Under those circumstances, I don't think a more purely independent source is "better" than the employer for establishing that kind of SNG notability.

Similarly, I have most certainty seen enthusiastic arguments that an announcement by an award grantor of a grantee is not independent of the grantee (presumably for reasons of "touting") and therefore does that such sources do not contribute to notabiiity under CREATIVE (even though the latter does not actually require independent sourcing, only reliable sourcing).

I would also point out again that "third party", which is what NOT says now and what WP:V said until 2020, seems slightly less amenable to weaponization in this way than does "independent", for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that employers are usually "reliable" for the kinds of things they publish about their employees, but they're never "independent".

Wikipedia:Third-party sources redirects to Wikipedia:Independent sources, and has for years. There is a distinction – see Wikipedia:Independent sources#Third-party versus independent – but the distinction is not observed in Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not remove this sentence, can we add independent, and then have a follow-up sentence or footnote saying "independent sources are not required to meet some SNGs" or the sort? Seems like that would clear up any confusion by not having "independent" in the sentence. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A second thought: I don't think using a narrowly "document" definition for source adequately accounts for the other meanings of source used (i.e. a publisher), and I'm not sure how you could do that. I imagine that's just a case of reliable source having multiple definitions depending on the way it's being used. This may be the source of conflict with the second sentence: a different meaning being invoked. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In discussions, we use that word in multiple different ways, but when you are talking about what to cite, nobody says "Oh, sure, Einstein is a reliable source for physics". They want a specific published document matched to a specific bit of material in a specific article.

"Document" might feel too narrow, as the "document" in question could be a tweet or a video clip or an album cover, none of which look very document-like, but I think it gets the general jist, which is that RS (and especially WP:RSCONTEXT) is focused on "the work itself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am thinking more Breitbart, although you describe well what the underlying dispute is, describing a publisher as unreliable is making a presumption for specific cites. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known difficulty. There's the "Oh, everyone agrees that Einstein's reliable" sense and the "Yeah, but the article is Harry Potter, and Einstein's not reliable for anything in there" sense.

I have previously suggested encouraging different words. Perhaps Einstein is reputable, and an acceptable source+material pair is reliable. But we aren't there, and for most purposes, the distinction is unimportant. If someone says that "Bob Blogger isn't reliable", people glork from context that it's a statement about the blog being unreliable for most ordinary purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition Google gives for reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted" does not caveat that it only speaks to verifying single pieces of information. This implies the Wikipedia definition is unintuitive. I do think this isn't the biggest problem here although it does make it confusing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use the "able to be trusted" sense. And the question is: Able to be trusted for what? There are people you can trust to cause problems. There are source we can trust to "be wrong". That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether we can trust this source to help us write accurate, encyclopedic material.

A source can be "consistently bad in quality" and still be reliable. Many editors would say that anything Donald Trump posts on social media is bad in quality. But it's reliable for purposes like "Trump said ____ on social media", because it is "able to be trusted" for that type of sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context makes a difference. We should never ask: “Is this source reliable?” but rather, we should ask: “Does this source reliably verify what is written in our article?” Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the formulation added ("A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept for supporting a given bit of material in a Wikipedia article.") quite bizarre. Firstly, it is, in effect, saying a reliable source is a source which "experienced" editors say is reliable. Isn't that utterly circular? It tells me nothing if I want to work out whether a source is reliable or not. Secondly, it fails WP:LEAD. I can't see anything about "experienced" editors' opinions being decisive in the rest of the guideline. It's completely out of the blue. Fundamentally, it's not what the guideline says. Thirdly, why do "experienced" editors views get priority? I've come across plenty of experienced editors with highly dubious views about RS and relatively new editors with compelling opinions. Fourthly, "a given bit of material". Seriously, are we going to have such slangy sloppy language in the opening of one of the most prominent guidelines in WP? Apart from that it's great. I don't disagree that a summarising opening sentence would be useful, but this is not it or anything like it. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeCausa, what would you write instead, if you were trying to write the kind of definition that MOS:FIRST would recommend if this were a mainspace article?

  Usually, editors start off trying to write something like this: "A reliable source is a work that was published by a commercial or scholarly publisher with peer review or editorial oversight, a good reputation, independent, with fact-checking and accuracy for all."

  And then we say: We cite Donald Trump's tweets about himself. They are N self-published with N no editorial oversight, Nno peer review, a N bad reputation, N non-independent, with N no fact-checking, and N frequently inaccurate. And despite matching exactly 0% of the desirable qualities in a reliable source, they are still 100% Y reliable for statements that sound like "Trump tweeted _____".

  An accurate definition needs to not completely contradict reality.

  As for your smaller questions:

  1. Is this circular? No. "A reliable source is whatever we say it is" tells you what you really need to know, especially in a POV pushing dispute, which is that there is no combination of qualities that can get your source deemed reliable despite a consensus against it. It doesn't matter if you say "But this is a peer-reviewed journal article endorsed by the heads of three major religions and the committee for the Nobel Peace Prize, published by a university press after every word was publicly fact-checked, written by utterly independent monks who have no relationship with anyone!": If we say no, the answer is no.
     Does that sentence tell you everything you need to know? No. I agree with you that it does not tell you everything you need to know about reliable sources. We have been discussing that in the thread above.
  2. See WP:NOTPART.
  3. Why "experienced" editors? Because, to be blunt, experienced editors control Wikipedia, and especially its dispute resolution processes. A source is not reliable just because three newbies say it is. However, it's unusual to have three experienced editors say that a source is reliable, and end up with a consensus the other way, and I don't ever remember seeing that happen with only newbies opposing that.
  4. If you dislike that particular phrase, then I invite you to suggest something that you prefer. As long as it prioritizes text–source integrity – by which I mean that we're talking about whether this source is reliable for this word/phrase/sentence/paragraph rather than vaguely about "the subject in general" or "some unknown part of the thousands of words on this page" – I'm personally likely to think it's an improvement.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think putting forward a strawman and then demolishing it is particularly useful. Your strawman clearly fails for its narrowness. The current text (and the premise of the above thread) fails because it's circular (yes it is - I'll come back to that) and doesn't tell us anything about what an RS is.

  To do that, one has to reach back to the fundamentals that, absent the detail of WP:RS, gives editors a guiding principle by which to judge whether a source is RS or not. For me, the fundamental concept is that RS are the means by which WP:V is delivered in practice. If it delivers it, it's RS. If it doesn't, it's not. I'm sure there are a number of ways this can be formulated. Here's one - I don't say it is the only one or the best one or it can't be improved. A reliable source is a previously published source of information in any medium which has all the attributes necessary to enable a reader to check the veracity of a statement in an article and to be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences. That's pretty much all you need to know to understand why this is RS for "Donald Trump has claimed on Twitter that China created the concept of global warming" but not for "global warming was created by China" (to take your example).

  Turning to your numbered points:

  1. How can it be anything other than circular? I have 37k edits over 12 years so I would think by most standards I am "experienced". So if I am in doubt on whether something is RS or not and I look at that I'm told that whatever I think is RS is RS. There are no inputs given to me other than what I already thought and what I already thought is validated. Circular. Obviously WP:CONSENSUS is how all disputes are ultimately resolved. But what you say is clearly not true - otherwise !votes contrary to policy in RFCs wouldn't be disregarded. Of course 'might is right' works from time to time here, but not always or inevitably and to embed and codify it is really inappropriate in a guideline.
  2. The great thing about WP policies and guidelines is that (for the most part) they reflect commonsense. Taking a bureaucratic approach to ignore LEAD, a very commonsense guideline, doesn't make sense to me. Of course, the opening should be relatable to what is actually said in the policy. There is absolutely nothing in the current opening that foreshadows the rest of the guideline.
  3. Just need to look at RFC's to see that's not how we work. And ultimately an RS dispute will end up there. And what's an "experienced" editor anyway? I can see it feeding arguments along the lines of "I've got 40k edits and you've got 2k so my opinion counts more than yours".
  4. For the reasons I've given above, the current text isn't salvageable. It needs a different concept. But a "bit of material" is particularly cringworthy.

  I really think the addition should be reverted. Also, given its prominence whatever the final proposal is it needs an RFC rather than 3 editors deciding it. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the direction your definition takes, except that it's not really reflective of actual practice. Here is an example of a source that has all "the attributes necessary to enable a reader to check the veracity of a statement in an article and to be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences", but which is not a reliable source:

  • Source: Soviet propaganda article in a government-funded partisan newspaper saying HIV was intentionally created as part of a American biological warfare program.
  • Article content: "HIV was created as part of a US biological warfare program."

  The reader can check source and "be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences". That (dis)information definitely came from the cited newspaper and not from Wikipedia editors.

  But it's still not a reliable source, and at the first opportunity, editors will remove it and, if necessary, have a discussion to demonstrate that we have a consensus against it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a reliable source for exactly the same reason (in my example) as the Trump tweet is not a reliable source for the statement "global warming was created by China". It not being derived from editors' own beliefs is only an additional qualifier. The main one is that "it has all the attributes to check the veracity of the statement". When the tweet is used to say Trump said X, it has all the attributes to check the veracity of the statement "Trump said X". However, it has none of the attributes to check the veracity of the statement that "global warming was created by China" (expertise, independent fact-checking etc etc.) it's exactly the same as your Soviet propaganda article.

  I'm reverting the addition to the guideline - it consensus needs to be more than a couple of editors for something as prominent as that. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V begins this way:

  "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source."

  Older versions opened with statements like "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research" (2005) and "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources" (2006) and "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (2007).

  There's nothing about veracity in the policy, nor any similar word, except to tell people that The Truth™ explicitly isn't our goal.

  Additionally, if we demand veracity, rather than verifiability, we can realistically expect POV pushers to exploit that. "Sure, you cited a scientific paper about HIV causing AIDS, but that paper doesn't provide enough information to 'check the veracity of the statement'." Or "You cited lamestream media to say that Trump lost the 2020 election. You can't actually 'check the veracity of the statement' unless you go count the ballots yourself." And so forth.

  I think we have intentionally avoided any such claims for good reasons, and I don't think we should introduce them now. The purpose of a source is to let others (primarily other editors, since readers rarely click on sources) know that this wasn't made up by a Wikipedia editor but was instead put forward by the kind of source that a person of ordinary skill in the subject would be willing to rely on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are missing the point. "Verifiability not truth" is about something else entirely. That's about the encyclopedia reflecting what's published in reliable sources rather what an editor believes to be the truth. It's not saying that it has no bearing in determining what an RS is. Fundamentally, we need to use sources that have all the attributes that support the objective of veracity. Whether or not they do convey the "truth" is a different question - and we can't know that. All we can do is check as best we can that they have the attributes that can potentially do that. If we do anything else then we just repeat flat earth nonsense. This is basic. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You want us to define a reliable sources as having all "the attributes necessary to enable a reader to check the veracity [correctness or accuracy; conformity to truth; truthfulness; accordance with the truth; the quality of being true, honest, or accurate] of a statement".

  But you don't think veracity has much to do with the truth.

  I wonder if a word like trustworthy would serve your purposes better. That is, we can't promise you it's true, and almost none of the sources will give you the material necessary to check the actual veracity, but we can give you a source that we trusted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the comments on the definition ("A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept") being circular.

Circular reasoning is this case: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." For example: "This drug was proven to work because 100% of the people taking it got better afterwards. I know they get better because of the drug (and not due to random chance, placebo effect, natural end of the disease, etc.) because the drug has been proven to work."

Circular reasoning is not: "A reliable source is whatever editors say it is".

This is the old joke about reality, perception, and definition: Three baseball umpires are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but they ain't nothing until I call them."

The last umpire speaks of definition: What makes a source be "reliable" is that editors accept it. If it is not reliable, it is not reliable because they do not accept it. They might (and should!) give reasons why they don't accept it, but it is not unreliable because of the reasons (which may vary significantly between editors, or even be completely incorrect); it is unreliable because they don't accept it.

Imagine that you have applied for a job somewhere. They do not choose to hire you. You ask why. They say "We felt like you had too little education and not enough experience". You reply: "That's wrong! I've got five advanced degrees, and I've been working in this field for a hundred years!" Even if you're 100% right, you're still not hired. So it is with sources: No matter what the rational arguments are, a source is reliable if we say it is, and it's unreliable if we say it isn't.

When you write above that if "I am in doubt on whether something is RS or not and I look at that I'm told that whatever I think is RS is RS", you are making the mistake of assuming the plural is accidental. It is not what "I" think; it is what "we" think. Another way to say it might be "A reliable source is a published document that The Community™ will accept", though that will draw objections for its unsuitable level of informality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a more simple "Ovrview section" .....then let page explain... KISS....somthing like

A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence. Reliable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books written by researchers for students and researchers, which can be found in academic databases like JSTOR and Google Scholar. Magazine and newspaper articles from reputable sources are generally reliable as they are written by journalists who consult trustworthy sources and are edited for accuracy. However, it's important to differentiate between researched news stories and opinion pieces. Websites and blogs can vary in reliability, as they may contain misinformation or be genuine but biased; thus, it's essential to evaluate the information critically. Online news sources are often known for sharing false information.

Wrote a fast essay Wikipedia:What is a reliable source?Moxy🍁 16:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy, you said:

• A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence

but if Trump posts on Twitter that China caused global warming, and we write in an article "Trump claimed China caused global warming on Twitter", where is the "well-reasoned theory" or "strong evidence"? There is no theory at all, and there is no evidence that this wasn't the one time when someone picked up his device and tweeted a joke post for him.

Or think about something perfectly ordinary, like "Big Business, Inc. has 39,000 employees". We'd normally cite that to the corporate website. There's no "reasoning", no "theory", no "argument", and no "evidence" involved.

This sort of strong source might be true for major sources on substantial topics (e.g., as the main source for Health effects of tobacco), but it's inapplicable to most of our ordinary everyday content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should deal with the vast majority of articles. Trump posts on Twitter is not reliable for statements of fact just the opinion. The vast majority of articles dont have to deal with junk of this nature...let these cases be dealt with edit by edit. As for Big Business not sure it's even worthy of inclusion. .but if no other source contradicts the statement who really cares. Moxy🍁 19:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be measured against individual statements, not whole articles.

The vast majority of articles deal with quite a lot of very ordinary content: The company said they have n employees. The singer said she got married last week. The author wrote this book. The definition of reliable source has to fit for all of these circumstances, not just the contentious ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is needed is a definition of reliable source (used academically) as we have now vs a source for a statement that in no way would ever come under a peer review process or be historically relevant in the future. What is needed is more and separate information about how we can use non-academic sources. Should have a page dealing with modern media junk, company or government data and social networking sites that promote oneself. There's a whole generation coming up consisting of 50% of English-speaking editors that will never go on to formal education to understand the differences. Moxy🍁 22:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be desirable to have a definition for reliable sources, but I suggest to you that this definition says much more about us (i.e., the Wikipedia editors who are making the decisions about which sources to "rely on") than about the objective, inherent qualities of the sources.

As I said above, a source can have none of the qualities we value and still be reliable for certain narrow statements. It can also have all of our favorite qualities and still be unreliable for other (e.g., off-topic or misrepresented) statements.

IMO the unifying theme between "This comprehensive meta-analysis of cancer rates, published in the best journal and praised by all experts, is a reliable source for saying that alcohol causes 8.7924% of cancer deaths in developed countries" and "Yeah, his tweet's a reliable source for the fact that he said it" is what the community accepts for each of those statements. That's our baseline: It's reliable if we say it is, and it's not reliable if we say it isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something up after this, if only to clarify my understanding. Could someone here have a look and see if I am accurately reflecting what's conveyed here? Particularly the part on 'intangible preferences' I'm a little shaky on.

Strictly speaking, a source cannot by itself be described as reliable. A source can only be reliable for verifying a piece of information.

There are two types of statements a source can verify: those that are attributed and those that are not. With the former, editors look for attributes such as independence, peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. This can indicate it is reliable for such a statement. They also look for counter-considerations, such as contradicting other sources that also have such attributes and a lack of expertise to make such a statement.

How considerations and counter-considerations are weighted, and the determination of reliability for a statement is made, comes down to any consensus editors can form. The community has some preferences for which considerations are more relevant; experienced editors are more able to apply such intangible preferences. If a source meets this, the material can be put in wikivoice.

When a source falls short of this, we can move from using the source to verify the content of what they said, to verifying that they said something. If the source has a credible claim to representing what it purports to be, it is considered a reliable source to verify the attributed claim. An example of a "credible claim": Donald Trump's Twitter may post something, but whether the tweet is a reliable source that Trump said it or merely that his Twitter account posted it is evaluated (considering the potential that his social media team tweeted it).

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was with you until the last sentence. The difference between "Alice said" and "The people Alice hired for the purpose of saying things for her" is immaterial.

The difference that matters is whether Trump's tweet can be presented as something that is true ("Trump likes McDonald's food", with a tweet saying "At McDonald's. Best french fries in the world. Love all their stuff. Should make the Navy serve this in the White House.") or only as something that he said ("Trump once tweeted that Ruritanians 'should be deported from their own country'", with a tweet saying "Those Ruritanians are strange! They should be deported from their own country!!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both matter. We can see the former matter when we write The Art of the Deal as ghostwritten rather than authored by Trump even when "The people [Donald] hired for the purpose of saying things for [him]" wrote it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't use a ghostwritten book to say that it was ghostwritten. We need a different source for that (i.e., one that actually says it was ghostwritten). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand your point. Yes, this is contingent on external sources making comments to this effect rather than simple editor speculation, I should have made that clearer. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the second half, I've had a think. I don't think it is a distinct issue from non-primary sources. I think the key consideration from the first is independence. For the second, due to ambiguity in tone, to put it in wikivoice would be an extraordinary claim for which the tweet is insufficiently reliable. Interested to hear your thoughts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you using non-primary and independence as interchangeable words in this comment? They're not.

Assuming 'the second' is the made-up tweet about the purely fictional Ruritania, the tweet would be:

• primary for its contents (WP:ALLPRIMARY)
• non-independent of himself/his view
• self-published because the author and the person who made it available to the public are the same.

But it would be reliable. All sources are reliable for statements that say "The source contains the following words: <exact words in the source>" or "The person posted <exact words the person posted> on social media".

With this reliable source in hand, one still has to decide whether the content belongs in the article. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because you have a reliable source doesn't mean the inclusion would be WP:DUE or comply with rules against WP:INDISCRIMINATE inclusion of random factoids. But even if you conclude that it's not sufficient to justify putting it in the article, the source is still reliable for the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't, in fact I was trying to make the more bold claim that the principles of independence could be applied to a primary source. The idea being that if a claim is self-serving, the publisher is less reliable for its contents, necessitating attribution. There's no principle of "self-serving", but there is of bias and independence; I think the latter fits better here as a biographical subject can have more or less of a vested interest in a topic, which is what an independent source is: "a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic".

"But it would be reliable." There's some imprecision here between reliable with or without attribution. You are saying all are reliable for the latter, which is true. How that attribution is given depends on whether the source "has a credible claim to representing what it purports to be". For the former, the reason there is an affirmative assumption of reliability for claims made by individuals is because they are regarded as a SME, on matters such as whether Donald Trump does indeed love McDonalds. Counter-considerations then apply for reliability: self-serving, contestable etc.

Agree on DUE. I am trying to keep that discussion out of this one, with mixed results. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source1 says <something>.
• Is Source1 reliable for the claim that Source1 says "<something>"? Yes.
• Source2 says <something self-promotional>.
• Is Source2 reliable for the claim that Source2 says "<something self-promotional>"? Yes.

There is no difference here. The Source2 is not less reliable for its own contents. Just because it says something self-promotional does not make you any more likely to read Source2 and think "Huh, Source2 didn't really say <something self-promotional>". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made by source one can be put in wikivoice, the claim made by source two should be attributed. It seems obvious to me that source two is less reliable for content, we can't trust them as easily as a source that isn't self-promotional because they have strong, relevant motives contrary to accurately reflecting the truth. They are both just as reliable as each other for "source said something". The question here is the distinction you drew: "The difference that matters is whether Trump's tweet can be presented as something that is true or only as something that he said." For the former we can present it as true, for the latter we can only present it as something he said. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that They are both just as reliable as each other for "source said something".

WP:INTEXT attribution is required whenever editors choose (i.e., by consensus) to require it. That is not always for primary sources, not always for non-independent sources, and not always for self-promotional sources.

Consider a self-published, self-promotional, non-independent primary source:

• Social media post: "Congratulations to all the staff on our 20th anniversary! Thank you to all the customers who have supported us since 2004. We're going to give away treats to the first 100 customers today, and we'll have hot gas station grub all day long for the low price of $5."
• Wikipedia article: "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station opened in 2004."

Nobody would expect us to add INTEXT attribution, e.g., "According to a social media post by WhatamIdoing's Gas Station, the business opened in 2004." The source is self-promotional, but our use of it is for non-self-promotional, basic facts. We can trust the source even though the source is promotional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be true that INTEXT is technically only applied whenever editors choose, INTEXT also seems to make clear — "For certain frequently discussed sources, in-text attribution is always recommended" — that when material is DUE but is insufficiently reliable to be put in wikivoice, it is generally attributed.

If I may, a source can only be reliable for a given piece of material. It does not speak to the whole source as we've noted above extensively. The material the text is supporting, "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station opened in 2004" is not particularly promotional. If the material being supported was "WhatamIdoing's gas station gave away treats to the first 100 customers on this day", that the material was self-serving would be a consideration in whether it could be considered reliable or not. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an advertisement from a business that says it will give away treats to the first 100 customers, what makes you think you can't rely on that claim? Imagine that a store near you ran an ad making exactly that claim. Would you show up wondering whether it was true? Or would you be confident that (barring extenuating circumstances, assuming the whole store hadn't burned down over night, etc.) that they actually would do this?

A promotional source doesn't give us a reason to include promotional material, but it is reliable for the facts of the promotion. A Wikipedia editor would likely omit any mention of giving away treats, but if they included it, they would not say "The gas station posted on social media that they would give away treats to the first 100 customers", or anything remotely close to that. In fact, INTEXT would discourage that because "in-text attribution can mislead". Adding in-text attribution in that case might make it sound like we think the advertisement was lying.

There are self-serving cases when in-text attribution is necessary. Consider "Richard Nixon said I am not a crook" vs "Richard Nixon was not a crook", because the self-serving source is not reliable for a statement of fact. But a self-serving source can be reliable for a plain statement of fact, and when it is reliable for that plain fact, it should be presented in wikivoice – or omitted entirely for reasons unrelated to the source being reliable for the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this, and I did when making my comment (hence why I said "would be a consideration", not the consideration). I think we're in agreement and I don't think any of this is at odds with my initial laying out of reliable sourcing, although some more clarifications may be needed.

Coming back now to the case you initially raised of Donald Trump liking McDonalds being in or out of wikivoice, I am saying the primary consideration is whether he is getting something out of it. More important considerations don't apply as they do with your gas station promo. If he tweeted endorsing MyPillow instead of McDonalds a different assessment of how self-promotional the material was would be made. I've lightly edited the original comment into User:Rollinginhisgrave/How I understand reliable sources. Do you think it needs further revision? Would you put it differently? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this sentence above: If the material being supported was "WhatamIdoing's gas station gave away treats to the first 100 customers on this day", that the material was self-serving would be a consideration in whether it could be considered reliable or not.

This is wrong. Whether the material was self-serving is a consideration for "how we should handle it" or "what we should stick in the article", but it's not a consideration for "whether it could be considered reliable". That source is 100% reliable for that statement. It's just not something we'd usually want to stick in an article for non-reliability reasons.

The tendency in discussions on wiki is to fall for the Law of the instrument: I'm familiar and comfortable with using the WikiHammer of Reliability, so when the actual issue is anything else, I still pull out my hammer. I ought to use the whole toolbox and say that this is undue, unencyclopedic, poorly written, off topic for this article, etc., but instead I'm going to say: It's self-serving, so it's not reliable. It's trivia, so it's not reliable. It's a tiny minority POV, so it's not reliable.

The sentence that you wrote above should say something like this: If the material being supported was "WhatamIdoing's gas station gave away treats to the first 100 customers on this day", that the material was self-serving would be a consideration for multiple policies and guidelines, not to mention common sense, that are not about whether this source is reliable for this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is 100% reliable for that statement. This doesn't contradict my statement. Whether it is self-serving is a consideration for whether it is reliable: this is why we hold "independence" as indicative of reliability. As I said above, determining whether it is reliable is a product of weighting "considerations and counter-considerations": here the counter-consideration is more impactful. It can still be a consideration even if it is ultimately overruled in a final assessment by counter-considerations.

And "whether the material was self-serving" is also a consideration for other multiple policies and guidelines. In this case, those are more relevant here; I am not discussing them however since this is a conversation about defining "reliable sources", not NPOV. As you say, it can be a reliable source while still being UNDUE, and I don't think I've mentioned anything on the material being verifiable necessitating inclusion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For:

• a statement in the Wikipedia article that "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is giving away treats to the first 100 customers", and
• a source that is an actual advertisement saying the same thing,

then: whether that advertisement is self-serving is not a consideration for whether the advertisement is reliable for a description of the promotional activity.

There are no worlds in which we would say "Oh, this advertisement would be reliable for "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is giving away treats to the first 100 customers" except that the advertisement is just too self-serving". The advertisement is always reliable for that particular statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of this contradicts what I'm saying. There's a confusion of process and outcome. While determining if this source can verify this piece of material, we necessarily have to make a judgement on whether the material being self-promotional (which can indicate a source is unreliable in verifying material) would impact such a determination. Here, you make it clear that you think it is irrelevant. Which I agree on. But to do so, you have necessarily considered its relevancy; to disregard first necessarily requires consideration. This is the consideration I am speaking of. It is an application of determining if a source is reliable as the evaluation of considerations for why it may be reliable and counter-considerations for why it may not be. "The advertisement is always reliable for that particular statement" and "a consideration in determining if such a source includes it being self-promotional possibly indicating unreliability" are simultaneously true. I think I've said my peace here and am repeating myself so if my point doesn't come across I'll leave this here, although I obviously hope it does. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're going to reach an agreement. I can't think of an example of an advertisement that we would consider reliable if we judged it non-self-promotional but unreliable if we judged it self-promotional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the advertisement as a whole being judged as more or less self-promotional, but the material therein. An advertisement could make two claims: Coca-Cola was founded in 1886. Pepsi puts poison in their cola. There is obviously a distinction to be made to the extent of self-promotion between the claims, even though they both appear in an advertisement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, I can see the GNG makes an attempt to define reliable at odds with the above discussion: "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." In addition to this, it requires sources be independent, so it's not that it's just talking about reliable as it relates to notability, but making a claim about reliability in general. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the GNG is written "as it relates to notability". Among its awkward statements are that "Sources should be secondary", which is true(ish) for notability but has nothing to do with the definition of either source or reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the confusion here stems from omitting context from the discussion. The goal is for sources to “reliably” verify what we write in our articles. However, the question of whether a specific source does this (or not) depends on what we write. Are we attempting to verify a statement of fact written in wikivoice (where we state “X” as fact, verified by citing source Y) or are we verifying an attributed statement of opinion (where we note that Y said “X”, verified by citing where Y said it). The same source can be unreliable in the first context, but reliable in the second context.

This, of course, does not mean we should write either statement (other policies impact what we write, as well as how and where we write it)… it only means that the specifics of reliability can shift depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a source is not consistent between WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCEDEF. WP:SOURCE states that the word source has four related meanings whereas WP:SOURCEDEF states that the word source may related to one of three concepts. Here's a side-by-side comparison.

WP:SOURCE

WP:SOURCEDEF

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings: The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one") The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims"). The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims"). The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works"). All four can affect reliability.

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

So: does source have three meanings or four? —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 17:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one from WP:V is correct, as it was discussed and updated in 2022. Either the two should match, or the RS should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is… I think these are meant to be examples more than definitions. We could probably come up with additional things that we might call a “source”… so it isn’t limited to just 3 or 4. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original goal was to give newer folks a heads up that when one editors says something about 'the source', and another editor says something about 'the source', they might actually be talking about different things, like warning travelers that the word biscuit has different meanings in the UK vs in the US.

IMO it is not fundamental to any of these pages, and could be split out to an essay/information page like Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fundamental, those are things/persons that affect reliability. Those, each, are what editors need to examine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by this is: I think that WP:V and WP:RS were intelligible to ordinary editors before these words were added, and I think WP:V and WP:RS would still be intelligible if they were removed again. Their presence (in at least one of the two) might be helpful, but their absence would not actually render the policy and guideline meaningless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, it looks like SourceDef tries/or tried to tuck the missing one from Source into its introduction and perhaps through that or over time it got a bit mangled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about blanking all but the first paragraph, and then pointing people to WP:SOURCE for more information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 41+ recorded cases of starvations in Gaza, but a letter from medical professionals in Gaza estimated that the true number is at least 62,413. The estimate is based on the IPC classification; see the appendix. The figure was also referenced in this paper by anthropologist Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins.

The question is whether either of these sources passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP, making it suitable to include the estimate in something like wikivoice (e.g. the Gaza genocide infobox reads Estimated at least 62,413 dead from starvation).

I don't see any evidence of vetting by the scholarly community, but the argument has been made that the authors' expertise and/or publication by Costs of War Project (a research group which hosts a compilation of papers by its contributors) might suffice. This has been discussed here and more recently here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death estimation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently looking to use AussieAirpower as a source in an aircraft article. I was surprised to see two people say it wasn't a reliable source. Here is why I believe it is.

The primary author writes for Janes, which is very highly regarded, worked as a research fellow at the Australian Defence Studies Centre, consulted for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and many others. So his opinion isn't just held in high regard, governments pay for it. He is he a current research fellow for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics as well as the editor for AussieAirpower.Peter Goon co authors a lot of the work, a qualified aircraft engineer and RAAF officer, graduate of the US navy test pilot school with extensive military test flying and who has developed and certified many aircraft technologies.

To me this seems like an ideal source on matters relating to things like radars and aircraft? However other seem to elevate the work of regular reporters above this and deem the think tank unreliable?

An example article is linked here. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html Liger404 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liger404, please take this question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alternatively, if you think it needs people who understand the subject area, you can post it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Liger404 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the Preprints bullet says in part

Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, or Zenodo are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS.

Would it be clearer to replace that with something like

Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, or Zenodo, have not undergone peer-review and therefore are not reliable sources of scholarship. They are self-published sources, as anyone can post a preprint online. Their use is generally discouraged, and they will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS.

The similarity to blogs is that they're self-published, and there's no need to compare them to blogs to say that, especially since they're unlike blogs in other ways (e.g., in citing literature). I also removed the phrase about the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, as preprints generally come from "expert" sources, which is an exception for using SPS. Notwithstanding that preprints generally come from expert sources, their use is discouraged because we don't want readers to confuse them with peer-reviewed research and because editors should use reliable non-self-published sources when available, which often exist in the peer-reviewed literature.

Also, does it make sense to add something about popular discussions of scholarship (e.g., in a magazine)? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome is, it is silly to say "they are not reliable sources. [A sentence later] they can be reliable sources." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The passage is fine as is, IMO. See also WP:SPSWHEN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was prompted by an exchange on the Autism talk page where another editor seemed to interpret "Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged" along the lines of "the use of sources that have not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog and their use is generally discouraged" (i.e., interpreting it as text about other sorts of sources, not limited to preprints or non-peer-reviewed scholarship more generally, as is the case with some conference proceedings). Not an accurate reading of those sentences, but it made a couple of us wonder whether the wording of the preprints paragraph could be improved. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I encouraged FOO to start this because of that discussion. We don't need a sentence that can be quoted out of context to say that "Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog", because that isn't true. Outside the hard sciences, research is routinely published in non-peer-reviewed books, which are definitely not "akin to a blog". Research gets published in magazines and newspapers.

I like the proposed re-write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As media are increasingly careful to avoid lawsuits like ABC recently settled, self-censorship will limit the neutral information available to publish. It is said that RFK will even censor releases by the FDA. In this type of media environment, truths must be published underground or at least in less well-resourced publications. How can reliable sources definitions deal with this new state of affairs? Jdietsch (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should be lending greater weight to academic and NGO sources and less on newsmedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When writing about politics, it's a good idea to look for sources from other countries, too.

For drug information, look for WP:MEDRS and other scholarly sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Women Voters recommends using this chart to determine bias in various media sources.

Below, I have matched the most left-leaning and right-leaning sources listed, alongside their status as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

STATUS: - generally reliable - no consensus - generally unreliable - deprecated - blacklisted NR - not rated

Status of left and right leaning media sources

LEFT	Statue	RIGHT	Status
AllSides		The American Conservative
Associated Press		The American Spectator	NR
The Atlantic		Blaze Media
The Daily Beast		Breitbart News
Democracy Now!		Christian Broadcasting Network	NR
The Guardian		The Daily Caller
HuffPost		Daily Mail
The Intercept		The Daily Wire
Jacobin (magazine)	NR	Fox News (politics and science)
Mother Jones (magazine)		The Federalist (website)
MSNBC		Independent Journal Review
The Nation		National Review
The New York Times		New York Post
The New Yorker		Newsmax
Slate (magazine)	NR	One America News Network
Vox (website)		The Post Millennial
		The Washington Free Beacon

When there are 20 shades of blue paint available, and just 5 shades of green...everything starts to look kind of...blue. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe far-right media should start instituting stricter standards for accuracy and fact checking. But also most of the media on the "Left" column is not meaningfully left-wing anywhere outside of the United States. All in all I'd suggest this chart signifies nothing except that the US Overton Window has slid dangerously to the right and allowed a whole bunch of disinformation to be mistaken for news. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article in the mainspace about various ratings? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. I have no desire to get into the politics of this, but Allsides is not a reliable source because it just reflects US opinions. Editors should judge sources based on the quality of those sources, without any regard of their supposed 'leaning'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main point here is that the sources in the table have been selected to make a point. The Guardian is an internationally respected newspaper and Breitbart is a bundle of crap. It's nothing to do with left or right - there's no equivalence. In the right column, the internationally respected media (the Guardian equivalents) are deliberately omitted. No Telegraph, The Times, WSJ, Financial Times etc etc. The two columns are not complete sets - just arbitrary selections. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source rates the WSJ (for news) and FT as being centrist, and the OP did say that they included only left- and right-leaning sources. The Times (i.e., of London) does not appear to be rated by Allsides. So of your list, only the Telegraph, which is slightly right according to this source and which earns both (most) and (trans/GENSEX content) at WP:RSP, seems to have been overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allsides is junk, and the other such websites are no better. That they rate the sources like that only shows they are repeating common US opinions, and this is an international project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" is nonsense. WSJ, the Times and FT are famously "right". If they're "centre" so is the Guardian. The "source" seems to only classify "far right" as right. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source differentiates between news and opinion: They classify the WSJ as center for their news and right for their opinions.

Our article on Financial Times says they have been called "centrist to centre-right liberal, neo-liberal, and conservative-liberal", but not "right". Our article on The Wall Street Journal similarly declines to simply call them "right", but provides a range of descriptions over time. I would think that if they are famously right-wing, then we'd have enough sources to just straight-up say that in the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if political leaning had been the cause for any of the consensus's in the original table it could be shown by diffs. Instead it's a table matched against an opinion source that is at best contentious in it's ratings. It has zero relevance to reliability on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance isn't really to the mainspace, but to the community. The perception that right-leaning sources are disproportionately banned results in sincere questions like this one from editors who are trying to understand our system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this appears to be statistically ridiculous but formally reviewing and potentially reclassifying some or all of these sources per Wikipedia RS policy would be a huge undertaking. I think anyone who legitimately tries to take in the world from a neutral standpoint would acknowledge that every single source in the left column published sensational, misleading and at times outright false information during this last election cycle (at the very least), but since the same can be said for the sources in the right column that leaves us in a bit of a pickle. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanting to show that any source in the ta or has fallen below acceptable standards can do so. It doesn't have to be a 'review all' kind of situation. Also there is nothing statistically ridiculous about anything, the changing media landscape has changed in different ways for different sources. That sources with a commonality have changed in a similar way is statistically normal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is statistically ridiculous is that, on Wikipedia, a self-proclaimed neutral encyclopedia, practically all news sources that have an openly left political lean are classified as reliable while practically all news sources that have an openly right political lean are classified as unreliable. At face value, this appears to represent a one-sidedness among whoever reviews said sources, and when looking deeper into discussions on talk pages for articles having to do with American politics, it's easy to find many editors expressing concerns about left-leaning opinions outweighing right-leaning opinions, to a degree that affects accuracy and neutrality. As it stands, the concerns of these editors are brushed off and they are told to reference reliable sources to support their disagreements - the Catch 22 being that there are no right-leaning sources for them to reference that Wikipedia deems reliable. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all right leaning sources are considered unreliable and not all left leaning sources are considered reliable. That is just not true.

Many things appear a certain way on face value if you make a list that doesn't include reliable rightwing sources, exclude unreliable leftwing sources, and include 'leftwing' sources in the reliable list that are not leftwing. It would be very helpful to have more reliable rightwing sources, but Wikipedia isn't the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might help dispel this complaint to make a similar chart of the right-wing sources that ARE considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

crickets :) — Masem (t) 20:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some have already been mentioned in this thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is a right-wing publication. Famously so. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which doubtless explains why we've gotten complaints from editors about our biased rules preferring the "liberal" or "left-wing" NYT getting preferred over the "centrist" Fox News. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except they don't. The news sources in the left column don't have a meaningful left-wing bias with the possible exception of Jacobin. It's just that the American Overton window is so laughably skewed that anything to the left of Ronald Reagan gets called socialist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should sources be used or quoted in an article if the author of the quoted piece is not themselves a notable individual, with their own Wikipedia article? Is there any policy in Wikipedia that could be interpreted as requiring the author of a source to have their own Wikipedia page, or to be Wikipedia-notable? Conversely, if there is no such requirement, where is this specified? BD2412 T 03:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not notability, notability is not reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this written? Asking for a friend. BD2412 T 03:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although this has been asked before, I'm not sure that we ever wrote it down. However, it obviously follows from the answer to "Are reliable sources required to name the author?" in the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ: If you can cite a news article that doesn't have a byline, then sources can be cited even if the authors are not known to be notable. Obviously any such rule would be a nightmare, though perhaps we'd be a little amused by the chicken-and-egg aspect (nobody can be notable first, because only sources written by already-notable authors would count towards notability) while Wikipedia burned to the ground.

I suspect the other editor is using notable in its real-world sense, e.g., to prefer sources written by known experts or other reputable authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the specific context of quoting the author? For example, in Howard the Duck (film), we have: In The Psychotronic Video Guide, Michael Weldon described the reactions to Howard as being inconsistent, and, "It was obviously made in LA and suffered from long, boring chase scenes", with the "Michael Weldon" there being neither of the ones with Wikipedia articles, the Australian politician and the South African cricketer. BD2412 T 20:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]