Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 53

< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
Latest comment: 7 years ago by DarTar in topic WikiCite 2017 applications open through February 27, 2017
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 → Archive 60

Churnalism - bold edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago70 comments14 people in discussion

Please see this dif, which stemmed from this posting at RSN. Pretty important across WP including AfD discussions. This is part of "raising the bar" for Notability about companies that we have been talking about for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Note, posted notices at RSN and WT:N and WT:ORG. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I like it. I think it'd cut down on a lot of the semi-press release sources out there. Ravenswing 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose so I have reverted. Sorry. While I agree with the sentiment, how does one know if the only light editing is a result of laziness or due to the primary source actually being correctly balanced in the first instance. We could also have avoid sources on news sites which cherry pick information to suit their editors' and owners' views. This however would just about leave nothing left. The only defence against all such issues is multiple independent sources. A better statement might be if possible, republished press release material should not be solely relied upon, and other independent sources should be used. I think something could be added but it needs to go to RFC I think. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aoziwe. Some releasers of press releases are quite reliable and don't need a ton of vetting or rewriting. Furthermore, this guideline is about reliability of sources, not notability. If you're trying to solve a notability problem, take it up at the notability policy. I might go for a version of this that classifies sources that predominantly create articles that are just lightly edited press releases, and seldom create a really original article as questionable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This is our main guideline where we classify/discuss sources per se, and so this issue (which is an issue)[1] should be addressed here.
The original proposal was "Avoid sources on news websites that lightly edit press releases and republish them; a reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release. See WP:Churnalism."
What if this were rephrased to say: "Be aware of the trend for so-called news websites to reprint lightly-edited press releases (known as WP:Churnalism); these should be treated as press releases, not as independent news sources. A reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release." Better?

References

  1. ^ Moore, Martin (March 3, 2011). "Churnalism Exposed". Columbia Journalism Review.
--Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I woud like it to be phrased in terms of the general practices of the source, not on a per-story basis. So if a news organization usually provides independent reporting, but on occasion reports verbatim material that comes from press releases of organizations that the news organization deems to be reliable, we could use the verbatim material. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This is an ominous development. When a claim that is obviously implausible and extraordinary to anyone with even a little scientific literacy is carried as straight news outside of the tabloid press, any number of more plausible false statements probably are being reported on as true in exactly the same way, so that statements by people or institutions about themselves in press releases are reproduced in sources that look like secondary sources. This isn't about that telescope, its manufacturer, or its inventor, but about how news sources in a large part of the online press run press releases with little or no original content or editorial review. These news sources can, if editors aren't alerted to the problem, lend the same credence to primary source material as secondary sources which present an objective, balanced view of the subject, and which are produced under editorial review. The change advocated by Jytdog is as workable a means of dealing with the issue as I can think of; it encourages editors to be aware of the hazards of citing sources which aren't doing much more than cut-and-pastes from press releases. loupgarous (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
loupgarous Do you support the original proposal or the rephrased proposal? Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I am supporting the rephrased proposal, it covers the salient points. loupgarous (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Jc3s5h, I disagree with your suggestion:
  • "I woud like it to be phrased in terms of the general practices of the source, not on a per-story basis. So if a news organization usually provides independent reporting, but on occasion reports verbatim material that comes from press releases of organizations that the news organization deems to be reliable, we could use the verbatim material."
for two reasons:
First, editors would have to spend a lot of time looking at other articles from the suspect news source in order to decide what its "general practices" are (and at this point, many editors would just drop the source);
Second, having decided that a source doesn't "generally" reproduce press releases verbatim, an editor would (in your suggested process) still be using a verbatim excerpt from a press release as an independent secondary source, when it's clearly primary source material reproduced with no independent analysis or editorial changes. So, the author of the press release manages to get the editor to do his WP:PROMOTION for him in a wikipedia article. We already have too many articles that are essentially promoting their subjects. loupgarous (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
loupgarous, I stand by my view. If an editor does not know that a publication is reputable and does real reporting rather than just being a press release redistributor, the editor shouldn't be using the source. You have to know something about a source before you cite it. The fact that a reputable source passes through a press release with light editing does not mean the reputable source didn't provide independent analysis of the press release; it just means that analysis consisted of becoming familiar with, and developing a working relationship with, the issuer of the press release. Presumably such a reputable source will also review the release for any glaring errors or implausible statements. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Jc3s5h, that isn't how we think about sources. If a news source lightly edits a press release without independent reporting on it we need to treat it like an SPS, because that's what it still is. The key thing is whether there is independent reporting. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A press release that arrives at a reputable news source, is reviewed for obvious problems, and is reviewed for the reliability of the issuer and quality of previous releases from the same issuer, is not a self-published source, any more than a book published by a reputable publisher is self-published, even if the publisher doesn't change much in the book. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Again this is not how we think about refs here: i do understand what you are saying and there is no need to repeat it. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Again this is not how we think about refs here". Please don't presume to speak for the Wikipedia community. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your view Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The prevalence of using press releases, especially on medical topics, has been found to afflict almost every "reliable source" found. See [1] citing [2] even back in 1998, and the problem is worse now. Collect (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I can support the updated wording as well as my support for the original. What matters it that we identify pass-through press releases and disallow them as independent RS. One editor opined that maybe the press releases could already be balanced. To that I say we have a policy of how to handle primary and self-published material and we can not know what goes into the decision to republish without additional reporting so in all cases, if the subject directed the writing ie a press release, it should be treated as self-published material no matter who the final publisher of record is. JbhTalk 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Q: re: "Be aware of the trend for so-called news websites" -- why "so-called" news websites? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A: User:Staszek Lem See the CJR post about this - as the news industry has changed and the internet has gotten more important we have more and more of these sites that claim to offer "news" as people have always thought about that (in other words, good independent reporting )and instead offer churnalism - which costs almost nothing and get be headlined to grab eyeballs. Hence the scare quotes. If that is a deal killer they can go of course. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Not all news websites are churnalism; the suggested phrasing may be interpreted that "so called" applies to all news websites. Therefore I would suggest a slight reorder "Be aware of WP:Churnalism, a trend for some news websites to reprint lightly-edited press releases ...". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • good by me - re-rephrased to say: "Be aware of WP:Churnalism; some news websites reprint lightly-edited press releases and these pieces should be treated as press releases, not as independent news sources. A reliable news source will add independent reporting in pieces spurred by a press release." Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No, edited press releases are not primary sources, they are secondary sources.  We depend on reliable sources to be reliable sources in the general case.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry but you seem to have missed the point; essentially reprinting a press release leaves it an SPS - the key thing here is that it is not indpendent and needs to be treated as such. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The origin of the information does not define a source as reliable or not reliable, yet this proposal would invert that relationship. 

The reference to the essay WP:INDY suggests that the proposal would require that information about a company come from someplace other than the company.  How are we going to enforce that?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Striking rhetorical question.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you are misunderstanding as well. Using the company website or other SPS material is fine within limits (of course) but it has to be acknowledged as such. The problem that has been arising, is that some editors are taking these churnalism pieces and trying to say that they are independent, when they are not. We just need to treat each source for what it is, and right now RS doesn't discuss this newish phenomenon; it should do. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
My analysis is based on reading WP:IRS in 2011, so this is not a new phenomenon.  Again, the origin of the information used by a reliable source is not what defines the source as reliable or not reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It is new for this guideline, since it is silent on it. WP:INDY is definitely part of the analysis of whether something is reliable or not, and how you use it. the historiographical analysis of primary/secondary/tertiary is separate from whether something is WP:INDY or not. You are treating them as though they are the same. See WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Again all this addition is trying to do, is to say that these lightly edited press releases should not be treated as though they are independent of the issuer of the press release. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC required. All. If we want to change this, it needs much wider community input and needs to go to formal RFC. I suggest a number of formal wordings be put up for comment. Aoziwe (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Was thinking that might be true eventually; for now the discussion is useful to get an early sense of some of the arguments that might be raised and confusions that might arise that can be used to refine the proposal and eventually frame an RfC, if it comes to that. We have gotten feedback from only a few experienced editors and I am looking for more before moving to an RfC (or dropping this) Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that guideline clarification is needed. It will help with quick dismissal of link bombing in our advert-articles to kill. Paid editors drain your blood with wikilawyering about sourcing. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. This is a big enough problem - not as much with us as in parts of the press itself - that it ought to be addressed. We ought to do what we can to prevent wikipedia being hijacked by clever corporate publicity departments to dress junk merchandise up as cutting-edge scientific gear and fringe science up as accepted science to our readers. The case I cite's probably the tip of a vast iceberg of nonsense waiting for an unwary editor to bring here as reported on by an "independent secondary source" which has (regardless of whether it generally does so) chosen to send out the text of a press release with no independent research or discernible editorial oversight.
News of Science has shown that a mere byline, especially one saying "By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor" with no actual names given, is no assurance that anyone's actually minding the editorial store. They, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and many other electronic news sources were p'wned by someone selling what looks like a very modestly-sized telescope (lens and mirror only about eight inches or so wide) as being able to image "antimatter galaxies" and "Invisible Terrestrial Entities". One usually reliable guideline already serves us well in WP:FRINGE - if a statement made in a source sounds extraordinary or implausible, the source shouldn't automatically be treated as an independent secondary source. More research is needed, and a Google search turning up identical or almost identical reporting in many sources ought to be a very good sign we're working with lightly-reworded primary source information.
Going to Unscintillating's statements, I agree with Jytdog and have done so since my remarks in the essay WP:CHURNALISM - we can use this reporting. But we shouldn't use it as independent secondary source information. It needs to be given due weight. That requires the steps I outlined whenever there's cause to suspect a news agency is essentially presenting a primary source statement with no independent analysis of what is being asserted.
In more understandable terms, I'd expect our Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton articles to consist of more than a series of statements from their respective political campaigns with no dissenting views to provide balance, and with each view given due weight.
What the press - such as News of Science, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance and other news organizations did with Thunder Energies and the Santilli Telescope was to cheat its readers by pretending to independently analyze each and every assertion made in a corporate press release and reproduced in their articles for plausibility, much less accuracy. It was probably done through laziness and stupidity, not by design, but it happened.
That's admittedly an extreme case, but maybe we ought to be grateful to Dr. Santilli and his company for showing how unreliable business news reporting is. Unscintillating, are you seriously proposing that any of the three articles I just linked to above ought to be treated as a WP:SECONDARY, reliable source? If you are, there's nothing I can say to you. loupgarous (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have to defend Unscintillating here. You are looking at only one facet of primary vs. secondary. Unfortunately in other situations there should be a bright line. In the case of churnalism we are dealing with primary vs. hearsay instead of primary vs. "true secondary". But hearsay is still hearsay, not primary, and we must not treat it as primary. We must treat them as hearsay, i.e., primary+chinese whispers. While I agree they are not "true secondary", they are not "true primary" either. Hence the suggested clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both versions. Churnalism is the lazy reproduction of PR and marketing material. This proposal suggests that all press releases and the reporting based on them are poor sources, but high-quality news reports (secondary sources) based on high-quality press releases (primary sources) are often good sources to use. A Department of Justice press release offering details about a successful prosecution is a good source, as is any high-quality secondary source that reports it accurately (although the primary source is the better source).
    The proposal also confuses several source types—primary, self-published, secondary, independent. For example, Jytdog wrote above: "essentially reprinting a press release leaves it [the news source] an SPS", but that isn't correct. An SPS is something like a personal blog, published without editorial oversight. A company or government press release (or a newspaper reproducing it) is not what the policies mean by SPS. SarahSV (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV you seem to be acknowledging the problem. Please propose something you would find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Before you changed your edit, you wrote: "your are completely wrong about what I have written - a government or company press release is definitely self-published ..."
But this is false, and if you've misunderstood what an SPS is, any proposal you make based on it will be misleading. By SPS (see WP:SPS), Wikipedia means a personal or group blog, a Facebook post or a tweet; something produced with no professional editorial oversight. A White House press release is not a self-published source. A member of the White House press corps who faithfully reports what the White House says is not a "churnalist".
An example of churnalism would be when a company's PR department sponsors "research" that suggests most users of its website are a certain type of person (male, female, brown hair, whatever). The company issues a press release to that effect, the point of which is simply to draw attention to itself. A "churnalist" then produces a news story about that website and its users. It doesn't really matter how closely the story sticks to the press release. The point is that the company wanted some attention, and a lazy journalist obliged by using the story to fill a hole. It's PR dressed as journalism.
So, yes, we should avoid bad journalism and try to use only good journalism. But discussing it in terms of churnalism, press releases and primary/secondary/SPS misses that point. The danger is that the proposal would discourage editors from using press releases even when they are the most authoritative sources. If you want to add something like this, it would be better to focus on the issue of PR and marketing. SarahSV (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV You are still not helping solve the problem. Please propose something you would find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV, you've missed the point of the case I originally mentioned. The White House Press Corps are expected to say "The President said 'Republicans created Donald Trump'" along with any response other people - including Republicans - may have to that statement. If they don't report a statement like that with at least an attempt to place it in context, they are vulnerable to the accusation of being the President's echo chamber. They're not allowed at all to report "Republicans created Donald Trump" in their reports on a speech by the President without correctly attributing the statement, and not simply stating it as fact.
The reports I mentioned are WP:CHURNALISM because they uncritically and with no attempt to independently confirm the fact, reported that a small Florida firm had produced an optical telescope capable of detecting "Invisible Terrestrial Entities," antimatter galaxies, and "dark matter." If you read over the articles I linked to, you don't see reporting that complies with WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY, but mere restatement of a the company's press releases of a highly implausible and extraordinary claim. We can use these sources, but only with care to treat them according to WP:FRINGELEVEL.
A remark about why the press does things like this: for the business press, it's laziness - not wanting to pay actual reporters to do more than paraphrase a mountain of press releases. For the tabloid press, it's sensationalism, and the wilder the claim, the better copy it makes. Neither motive is acceptable in an independent secondary source.
The real problem isn't that obvious crap like the Thunder Energies press release will be believed by educated readers, but that less obviously contentious claims - such as a publicly traded company's unsupported claims for the return it gives investors - will also be reproduced with no attempt to analyze them, either. Wikipedia will become the megaphone for these claims if we treat articles of this type as independent secondary sources, with damage to wikipedia's reputation and possibly the finances and reputation of our readers who rely on our treatment of those sources as WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY. loupgarous (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
loupgarous, you argue your case very well, and I don't disagree. The problem is that what you describe as churnalism covers an enormous amount of journalism, not all of it bad. Put out a well-crafted press release, and newspapers will pick it up and adhere to it closely, and sometimes it's important that they do that. It would help if you could give examples (apart from the optical telescope). Here is the Washington Post's White House bureau chief describing Obama's reaction to Sandy Hook. It's a good source, but there's no "independent" reporting. Why wouldn't that be "churnalism" under these proposals? SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin what you write here is just bizarre. The 1st paragraph independently summarizes the speech. The 3rd paragraph puts his remarks in the context of past statements he has made, and characterizes them in light of those past comments. The fourth paragraph notes where he made the speech and the relevance to what he was talking about. Further down, the paragraph starting "Rather than listing the numerous tragedies..." further contextualizes what he said - adding independent reporting noting what he didn't talk about. And throughout the reporter described how he talked - Visibly frustrated", "his voice rising to a higher pitch", "punctuating the word "anger" with added emphasis", etc. All of this is independent reporting. This is the opposite of churnalism. What are you even talking about here? Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin If you read my argument closely, I mention my main desideratum for "churnalism," and that is nearly word-for-word rendition of copy from a press release, of an event which is implausible or contentious. Unless you count every reproduction of a press release in sources of information which apparently exist to give those press releases wider circulation, verbatim reproduction of a press release in reporting of an event is actually not typical journalism (of the type we encourage editors to use in documenting a fact in one of our articles under WP:RS. The Wall Street Journal and Aviation Week and Space Technology are good examples of business news sources with high journalistic standards and which do not publish articles which are mere re-hashing of press releases or other WP:PROMOTION material (apart from occasional interviews with notable people - even then, searching interview questions can save interviews from being mere WP:PROMOTION).
Jytdog said what I would have said on the article covering Obama's statement after Sandy Hook. That's not what I am talking about at all. I'll expand on this, however. If a White House correspondent ever does repeat with only minor paraphrase a press release by the White House, with no context or other views to which it can be contrasted, I would indeed be wary of using that to document more than the issuance of the statement itself. In other words, we can use the President' statements to describe his reaction to and thoughts on the Sandy Hook murders. We can't use it to affirm a flat statement of those thoughts and reaction (e.g., "Assault rifles ought to be banned.") in one of our articles without saying who said that (it can't be in wikipedia's voice because of WP:NPOV - we must say "President Obama voiced support for new restrictions on assault rifles" or something which makes it clear who's saying it. We can't be anyone's megaphone - it's not just a WP:RS issue, but WP:NPOV. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
loupgarous, another example: when GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion in 2012, the US Justice Dept issued a press release and posted several documents. Here the Guardian reports on the material, sticking closely to the press release and the examples offered. That's good journalism. Under the proposals on offer, the Guardian article might not be an "independent" source.
My point is that we already know "don't post obvious rubbish" (e.g. the telescope). Is there any benefit to expressing that in terms of lightly edited press releases, primary/secondary/self-published/independent? That language risks drawing in situations in which the authors of independent secondary sources have judged it appropriate to stick closely to primary-source material. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
And again you are missing the point. In this case the DOJ press release itself is an extremely reliable source, even though it is primary and not independent. The problem we face, which you are refusing to address, is edits like this:

The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed $1 billion in it's 2015 sales. [1]

References

  1. ^ Neely, Karissa (10 February 2016). "Young Living tops $1 billion; Coldwell Banker Relocation Scholarship; Utah Geologists win national award". Daily Herald. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
That ref is a lightly-edited version of this press release. This is the kind of WP:Churnalism that is problematic when used as above, and likewise, when used to try to prove N at AfDs. Would you please focus on crafting language to address the actual problem? Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The language I have proposed, simply advises editors to consider a churnalistic source to be no different from the underlying source. If the underlying source is something like the DOJ press release, then people will treat it like the DOJ press release. If the underlying source is something like Young Living's press release, they would treat it like that. That is all it was trying to do. If you can find a better way to do that, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog - we're not saying editors shouldn't use sources which are not different in their meaning to the press releases they cite. In the Thunder Energies case, nearly every one of them carried Thunder Energies' OTC stock ticker abbreviation as well as reproducing what was said in the press release with no independent analysis - no discussion of the background, no presentation of dissenting views. It's clearly not WP:RS. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Second bold revert

Sorry Jytdog but you cannot be so absolute, especially without broad community concensus. You might get away with something like:

Be aware of WP:Churnalism: Some items in newspapers or news websites are lightly-edited press releases and might not be able to be reliably treated as independent secondary sources. News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include independent reporting on the claims made in the press release.

You really need to go to RFC on this. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for offering a version you would find acceptable; I don't believe that your version would find consensus. Don't know that an RfC would be necessary but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I find Aoziwe's version unduly vague in that it qualifies what ought to be a requirement - "...include independent reporting on the claims made in the press release" with the weakening phrase "may typically". The whole point of this additional guideline is to be sure no thinly disguised primary source material gets into wikipedia disguised as independent secondary source material.
WP:INDY and WP:SECONDARY are already guidelines which enjoyed consensus when they were enacted. Why should adding guidance to assure those two guidelines aren't evaded in our articles require an RFC? I support Jytdog's version. loupgarous (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Look again, WP:INDY is an essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is, but if you think about how RS is structured, we explicitly downgrade sources that are not independent in policy (sources that are SPS or user-generated) per WP:V - that policy and this guideline both very much elevate independent sources over non-independent ones. The key issue here is that churnalistic sources are not really independent of the entity that issued the press release. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, I agree with the underlying concern being addressed by Jytdog's initiative. My fundamental concern so far and still is that just because a secondary source publishes press release material, does not mean that it is not independently verified. I think we need to get wiki editors and contributors to look at such material on a case by case basis. Republished press release material is not always lazy journalism. Sometimes it is efficient journalism, and has been checked. We need to get wiki folk to reference press release material with their eyes open, but not "ban" its use either. Aoziwe (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in what I wrote "bans" churnalism. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Concur. What we're advising editors to do is to be cautious about treating articles which parrot press releases as WP:RS. It's just as much a guideline - WP:IGNORE frees editors from blind compliance to any guideline - as all the others. We're saying articles like this ought to be treated with the strong suspicion they're WP:PROMOTION. loupgarous (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think my "softening" is necessary so that it is not ignored completely. We do want wiki-contributors to always take heed. How about the following:

Be aware of churnalism. Some items in newspapers or news websites are lightly-edited press releases and might not be able to be treated as independent secondary sources. News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release. While matter of fact press releases, for example about the facts of a criminal matter or natural disaster by the relevant organisation are likely to be good material if republished by a secondary source, and might not be separately verifiable, self or product or service promotional press release material by an organisation should be treated with objective wariness. For the pitfalls of press release material, familiarity with this event, and its original version, will be informative.

Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not bad at all. Thanks for reaching out!! But This part: "News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources may typically include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release." is where this needs to be tighter. If there is no independent reporting, then the source needs to be treated as non-independent -- it should be treated like the underlying source. As you well note (and thanks for that!) the underlying source may or may not be useful as a source in an article or a discussion about notability; the goal here is to definitively remove the "mask" of the churnalism source. (a press release by an organization about something like a criminal matter (if that organization is say the DOJ) or a natural disaster (if that organization is say NOAA) doesn't need the mask. Thanks again!! Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
How about ' . . may typically include significant . . ' becomes ' . . should be expected to include some non trivial . . '? We need to lead wiki-contributors without being absolute. There will always and frequently be exceptions. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
That is much better. So now we have " News stories based on a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources should be expected to include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release.". We are still diagreeing on the rest. In my view the rest should simply say something like: "If there is little to no independent reporting, the source should be treated like the underlying press release" That still leaves lots of room for editors to apply judgement about the quality of the underlying source and whether there is independent reporting or not. Does that work for you? Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment — Words like "churnalism" or "tabloid" or "sensationalist" or "propaganda" are so much name-calling, that is, an argument without an argument. It is begging the question of why a source should not be cited. Instead of saying "Don't cite it, it's churnalism", at least say, "Don't cite it: it's churnalism because ________." Or more economically: "Don't cite it because _________." The label -- churnalism, tabloid, press release -- adds nothing but drama. It's a distraction from the real reasons (if any) for citing or not citing a source. We should be encouraging editors to stay away from these kinds of fallacies. We end up with unhelpful !votes like "oppose per WP:NEWSORG".

If you know content found in a newspaper came directly from a third party, then attribute it to that party, which means treating it as self-published. We can cite self-published sources for certain things, such as facts about the sources themselves, if they're not too extraordinary, or self-serving, etc. The usual name a company prefers to call itself, or the location of its main office, for example. Verifability, maybe; notability, no.

Consider also the difference between a press release that is ignored by all media, versus a press release that is passed along by questionable media, versus a press release that is widely passed along in reputable, fact-checked media. The information might come straight from a company's PR department, but if respectable sources put their reputation behind it by re-publishing it, that indicates that that source thinks the information is true, or at least worthy of public notice. One of the ways you can recognize a fact-checked source is that they'll tell the reader if the information from the company or politician or whatever is widely accepted as true, or false, or is widely disputed. Similarly, a wire service story picked up by few media is not the same as one that every major outlet carries. We might count a single AP or Reuters story as "one source", but take into account how many other respectable sources choose to carry that story. It adds credibility when they do, because they stake their reputation on it — if they have (or care) about their good reputation. Do they? That's the question, not so much where the content originated. It's not quite as strong as a truly independent report that corroborates other sources, but it's stronger than a press release or wire service report that is not widely re-published.

So saying "be wary of churnalism" or "be wary of tabloid newspapers" is only teaching editors pejoratives they can throw at sources they don't like. Advice on identifying reliable sources should steer editors to identify and talk about the underlying characteristics of the content that makes it reliable or unreliable, and arguments about those sources should name those underlying characteristics, not merely toss out a pejorative. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it "name-calling" call a flower a "flower"? Churnalism is a thing, and it is a problem. You are also distracting from the issue here, which is that this guideline needs to address the problem. The exact issue is that a press release is still a "press release" and we know how to handle that kind of thing. A real news article reacting to a press release - doing what we are used to quality news sources doing and adding plenty of independent reporting - is a "news source" and we know how to deal with them. The exact reason I opened this thread is that fake news sources that just lightly edit press releases - the thing called "churnalism" -- is fairly new and is causing problems at articles and in dealing with notablilty at AfD and AfC etc. We need to deal with it. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's name calling to call a flower a "weed" instead of a "plant". I don't think churnalism is a problem, any more than a spokesperson or the subject of an article making a statement to a reporter or reporters, and having them write up what they said. You're getting hung up on the provenance of the words instead of the quality of the medium itself. There are media that aren't journalism at all; they are nothing but conduits for press releases. Others, like local or neighborhood newspapers and blogs, mix press releases, reworded press releases, and original reporting. Major national media typically work to make their stories more original in their wording, even if the content is the same. I don't think captive media are anything new at all. Biblical kings have ordered scribes to write new books and add them the Torah to serve political ends. There's no magic word that lets you avoid asking hard questions about what a text means. Is PR Newswire an indiscriminate conduit for press releases? Yes, as far as I can tell. Is CNN Money or Yahoo Finance? Maybe. Is CNN? Not likely. But how do you know? A label doesn't tell you. You have to dig in and examine the source. Do established reliable sources trust them, and cite them? Is there transparency in their editorial process? Do they issue corrections? Etc. Those are the questions, not "should we call it a flower or a weed?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You do not seem to be actually looking at the kind of sources that are under discussion here nor what is even being proposed. Please actually look at the ANI example provided above. Please actually look at the example provided at WP:Churnalism. Please actually read the proposal, which you will note says "be aware" and "consider". It calls for judgement; by providing a name and a description of what-is-named it allowshelps people to apply judgement. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland: re: "You have to dig in and examine the source" -- this is exactly the gist of the amendment: be aware of churnalism and actually verify that the source does indeed provide independent info rather than regurgitating the PR babble. It covers the major problem with AfDs of nonnotable companies: keepers-voters just say "plenty of references" without bothering to verify promotion dressed in the rags of churnalism. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess we have to disagree, and also disagree about what we disagree about. That ANI was an example of editors with poor dispute resolution skills, edit warring instead of discussing, and obsession with a single source when they could have exercised better research skills, or sought help from editors who have those skills. Why is an ANI thread that was peacefully closed, and returned to the article talk page in the space of 3 hours is a "problem"? I think your examples, and others, are best resolved by helping editors understand how we identify reliable sources, and how we attribute facts. The churnalism essay says it's unfalsifiable (I'd have stopped right there) and, and then proceeds to ramble on pointlessly, confusing verifiability with notability, and not understanding what self-published and independent sources are good for. I think the thesis of WP:CHURN is "be afraid" or something. I reiterate, this churnalism issue is a distraction from the basic bread and butter of identifying a reliable source, and verifying a fact, and reaching consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Dropping another oppose and plug for a RfC, for the reasons elaborated upon by Jc3s5h, SarahSV, and so on. I also think that this type of thing is just plain better handled on a case-by-case basis with some common sense, rather than adding another bureaucratic item to the wikilawyering toolbox, particularly given that this seems likely to be used aggressively. II | (t - c) 21:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • it looks like this is indeed going to require an RfC. will consider options and post soon. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • agreed. This is a good idea, but it needs clarification and broader discussion. If pinging previously involved users, count me in - Nabla (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I missed this thread. It is, indeed, a serious problem. Reuters has a section of its website devoted to press releases. Who's to say that other reputable news media or "wire" services have such a section, but inadequately marked. Count me in for a ping, as well.

Input sought for a GAR re use of sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Interested editors are invited to comment:

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying "reliable for" is not correct in English, as illogical

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

I made 2 edits of obvious errors at 23:06, 14 November 2016‎ and at 03:33, 15 November 2016‎, and both were reverted for the reasons of "the current wording is standard; see WP:RSN" and "[c]hanges to core policies while in edit-warring disputes across several articles is tendentious editing" respectively. The justification for the edits were: "logical error of repetition removed; "reliability" cannot be defined by "reliable", as a term cannot be defined by itself" and "Language error correction; "reliable for" is not proper in English; logical error of repetition removed; "reliability" cannot be defined by "reliable", as a term cannot be defined by itself" respectively.

Additionally, it is not correct in English (and any other language) to say "reliable for", as "reliable" meaning "trustworthy" relates to the source and not to destination/application (trustworthy by the means of its quality and thus independently, regardless of anything else, always) that is disqualifying adding the preposition "for" afterwords. Is there anyone who understands that?--07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicalgenius3 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm a native English speaker with a degree in English who teaches English and hangs out with other English teachers (one of them technically a linguist). Under Linguistic prescriptivism, you may or may not have a case that something can't be "reliable for" something (though it would be easier to find prescriptivists who would allow it). However, under descriptivism, English does allow "(noun) is reliable for (purpose)" to be used to mean "(noun) is a reliable implement to achieve (purpose)," especially when the larger context of a work has already defined reliable. Your change here misses the point of the section -- a source may be reliable within a particular context and may be unreliable in another. That is what that sentence is trying to say. That sentence is not the sole definition of reliability in the page, it is an elaboration on the more open definition that constitutes the whole page. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
English is not a logical language: it is a result the Brits getting Anglo-Saxon and Norman French mixed up and deciding to patch the whole thing with loanwords (even if we already have a word or words for what the loan word covers). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree, thank you Ian. In addition, this grammar website lists "reliable for" as the second most popular preposition combination for the adjective. Dr. K. 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is correct, the edit in question apparently changed the meaning of the section. Furthermore, if "reliable for" is incorrect, then surely "applicable for" and "meaningful for" are even more so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I. Hello Ian.thomson. A bit of good faith would be appreciated. The title here "Saying "reliable for" is not correct in English, as illogical" was meant for that particular use in that specific Context matters provision, though I admit spelling out the issue in general. But, the clarification was just under the title in the 1st par.

A. You did not comment on the 2nd aspect of the issue, namely that "The reliability" on the beginning should not be explained by the following "reliable for", as a term cannot be defined by itself. That is a clear linguistic logical error. Do you agree?
B. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries provide for "reliable": (1) "that can be trusted to do something well", (2) "that is likely correct or true" and, (3) "able to work or operate for long periods without breaking down or needing attention". Nether the meaning (1) nor the meaning (3) (e.g. "reliable for" excavation of stones), which allow conditions (e.g. adversities), are used in the "Context matters" provision, but only the (2), which is unconditional, i.e. endures always and thus not only for anything specific. So, for the purpose of clarity, the provision's phrase "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article" should be replaced by "likely correct or true", similarly to what I proposed in my edit. Do you agree?

II. User:Dr.K., please see the learned explanation in pt (B) just above. Nevertheless, the discussion here seems addressing meaningful issue proving that my edits on the subject were reasonable and in good faith and thus not tendentious. So, your revert of one of my editing justified by: "[c]hanges to core policies while in edit-warring disputes across several articles is tendentious editing" seems to be made in bad faith maybe in support of your misguided warnings made on my talk page in support of your Wikipedia's unwarranted position on considering unreliable secondary sources over the only credible primary source on Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll.

III. User:Sławomir Biały, you did not provide and reasoning making your statement a blind support not consistent with WP:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy, as WP:CONSENSUS "does not mean... nor is it the result of a vote".

I think, the matter of clarity and explicitness of Wikipedia's rules seems important.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I: I personally find the original to be easier to understand than what you changed it to; II: Any edit warring (with rare exception) to a policy/guideline page is tendentious. For the sake of the project, such pages need to be stable, and no remotely controversial changes should be made without consensus; III: It's hard to get beyond a mere vote in things like this. Ultimately the purpose of this guideline is to accurately reflect the project's consensus on reliable sources, and be written in a way that gets that consensus across to our editors. Being grammatically perfect is desirable, but not required. Since "what makes more sense" or "what gets the point across better" is subjective, it's completely appropriate to have people just voice an opinion with no great reasoning behind it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The "edit-warring disputes across several articles" that User:Dr.K. referred to were not "to a policy/guideline page" (please read carefully), so your argument (II) was moot and thus in bad faith. I accept the rest. Nevertheless, my suggestion to replace "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article" with "likely correct or true" would benefit Wikipedia, as the former just does not make sense and the later is simple, clear, and actually says exactly what intended, for "likely correct or true" is just the used meaning of "reliable".--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Once again, I am a native speaker of English (and not the only one in this conversation by this point) with a degree in English, who teaches English, and who spends most of his time hanging out with other English teachers. While in articles we don't take user experience over sources, your learner's dictionary doesn't outweigh multiple native speakers saying "this is how the language works." "The reliability of a source depends on context." and "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article" are separate sentences. The first is an introduction to the rest of the paragraph, summarizing the entire point. The sentence that follows is clarification. I made no accusation of bad faith, it just seemed rather apparent from your history that English is not your first language. Also, it is rather hypocritical of you to try to use WP:AGF as a shield against me with the accusations you made toward Dr. K (and Someguy1221). Finally, Sławomir Biały did indeed provide reasoning for his views and they did not completely overlap with previous posts. Either you ignored it or failed to comprehend it. Please quit illustrating the Dunning–Kruger effect and accept that there are people who know more about the English language than you. While I admit that non-native speakers can have better language skills than native speakers (Sławomir Biały easily outwrites much of my extended family), that is a far from universal rule. You are making assumptions of how English should work that simply do not reflect how English doesn't so much work as play. As long as you hold on to those notions that the language is logical, you are going to continually have trouble understanding others and are going to cause lots of trouble here trying to make the language fit your views (instead of how everyone else uses it). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Logicalgenius3: Your edit to to the Rudolf Höss article added a blog from https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ written by someone with username exposingtheholohoax. Then you come here and try to change the wording of the RS guideline quoting your own words: Nevertheless, my suggestion to replace "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article" with "likely correct or true" would benefit Wikipedia,... So, let me summarise your attitude: You want to change the guideline to reflect your version of WP:TRUTH and you use holocaust-denial sources which are written by bloggers using nicknames like "exposingtheholohoax" while at the same time you accuse people of bad faith and incompetence. Perhaps, as Ian reminded you, you may wish to change your attitude at this stage. Dr. K. 04:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's the fuller context? That is indeed in bad faith -- on Logicalgenius3's part. He is going to back away from this right away. Whether he does so willingly is his choice. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree. Sources don't get any worse than this. The avatar of the holohoax blog writer states: "Support truth not holohoax indoctrination". Dr. K. 05:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And if I can throw in a comment from the policies-aren't-rules (but some policies are more ruly-ish than others) point of view: "Reliability" is for Wikipedia purposes a term of art, a term which has a meaning defined here which is related to but not the same as its plan English meaning. When telling newcomers that they have to provide a reliable source I virtually always say something like this in order to preclude arguments over whether a source is plain-English reliable, "and you need to provide an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (which is different than the plain-English meaning of that term)." With a term of art, the phrasing used here is perfectly acceptable as the reader is expected to understand the meaning of the defined term and what Logicalgenius3 is attempting to do is to use the plain-English meaning to revise this guideline, which is simply incorrect (regardless of motivation). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not really repetition, since we are defining reliability as used in the policy. It is similar to the definitions section of a statute, that may read something like, "for purposes of this act, a state is any state or D.C." Certainly that would be unsatisfactory for a dictionary but fine for a statute. TFD (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Saying "reliable for" in Context matters is inconsistent w/ WP's 1st Pillar

IV. As, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (the 1st Pillar) and encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge, and knowledge is the body of TRUTH... than the reliable sources are those providing TRUTH, and thus "reliable" in regard to sources means (see my [I][B] above) (2) "that is likely correct or TRUE" (unconditionally), and nothing else (conditional), as inconsistent with that 1st of "The fundamental principles of Wikipedia". Thus, the other two conditional meanings (see my [I][B] above) of "reliable", namely (2) "that can be trusted to do something well" and (3) "able to work or operate for long periods without breaking down or needing attention", which allow the preposition "for" afterwords, are frivolous. Finally... clearly. This discussion, involving such heavyweights as Someguy1221, TransporterMan, and TFD, convinced me that the phrase "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article" was placed purposely in Context matters, but inconsistently with the 1st Pillar.

  • User:Dr.K.: If you disqualified sources based on the usernames/nicknames, such as "exposingtheholohoax", than you might consider me a triple genius. Thank you... in case. Seriously, this discussion is about the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and not fluff such as an attitude never mentioned by Ian.thomson. I doubt you will be able to turn this discussion into an attitude bickering with that caliber of editors involved.
  • Ian.thomson: My objective here is to strengthen Wikipedia by removing its policy/guidance provisions allowing disregarding primary sources. That's it. You right, I did miss the linguistic meaning of the comment by User:Sławomir Biały. English is not my first language, but also my knowledge of Wikipedia is not deep. So, I struggle with explanation of this quite difficult issue, that may look like Dunning–Kruger effect, but you can also see from my history more than that. The issue here is rather sort of legal about WP:PG, as TFD took it, though the sophisticated language considerations are involved, but rather logical than linguistic, so my English should be sufficient.

Ian.thomson: The full context of this discussion is even broader, because involves Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RfC: Chopin.27s nationality (I did not use the "reliability" issue to deal with the article, as User:Dr.K. claimed, but vice versa). Namely, Frédéric Chopin says in its intro that Chopin was only Polish despite "nationality" is mentioned in pt. 3 of MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH and not national identity, Chopin had been a French resident from the age of 21 on, Chopin held a French passport that can be seen, his father was French and Prior discussion #5 leads to a learned contribution where Frania W. quoted the 1804 Code Napoléon stating that "[e]very child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French". Thus, Chopin was clearly also French of dual nationality by birth. So you might think, how the biased editors managed to strip Chopin of his French citizenship/nationality. The answer is, by the power of the above-mentioned frivolous definition of reliability (of sources), which allows to disregard (using Wikipedia-prohibited voting) any decisive primary source thanks to the frivolous defining "reliability", as "for" (conditional) something, e.g. for biased purpose, instead of only as unconditional "that is likely correct or true", which let to disqualify any secondary source in the presence of a reliable primary one.

Exactly the same frivolous mechanism was used by User:Dr.K. and Diannaa in support of their position on Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll. When you have the Höss's account of the death toll as the only primary source (confirmed by an independent scientific calculation of crematoria total output excluding any higher number) (A), and any secondary source of a historian's estimate based on the Höss's account (B), which adds an additional uncertainty of a historian's consideration (C), then A is more accurate than B, because when accuracy of A is a, e.g. 99 %, and accuracy of C is c, e.g. 90 %, then the b accuracy of B is b=a*c<a (e.g. 0.99*0.9=0.891, i.e. 89.1 %) when c is not 100 %, but c=100 % (certain C) is only when the historian does not speculate (C) that is impossible without being a witness (a primary source) the historian is not (c<100 %). Thus the Höss's account is most credible. The official data from auschwitz.org confirmed the Höss's account.

  • TransporterMan: You would be right, if WP:SOURCES defined "reliable", but it defines only "source" and focuses on it. The only definition of "reliable" is in Context matters. Obviously, you do not refer newcomers to it for practical reasons. For the reason of consistence with "The fundamental principles of Wikipedia", "reliable" should not be a term of art, but strictly defined, as proposed.
  • TFD: Would be so kind to comment, as you showed a full understanding of the intricacy of the crux - more legal than linguistic.--05:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
See WP:TRUTH. Also, this talk page is for discussion of specific improvements to the guideline, not general airings of grievances. Discussion of the death toll in Auschwitz belongs at that talk page. If you want to discuss the reliability of some specific source, the place to do that is WP:RSN. The fact that Wikipedia does not explicitly disallow primary sources is sometimes a source of problems, and arguably does hurt the reliability of the encyclopedia, so I am somewhat sympathetic to this point. The exact policy is WP:PSTS, which cautions against using primary sources, but does not forbid them. Sławomir
Biały 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There will always be errors and omissions in what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. Wikipedia prohibits original research because the assumption is that informed writers are more likely to get the facts right than Wikipedia editors and to determine what is or is not important. And that is what readers expect to find. Your argument that Chopin was a French citizen is probably correct, but to make that determination we would have to examine whether the exercise of his Polish citizenship canceled his French citizenship, whether his possession of a French passport was proof of citizenship, etc. Furthermore, since Chopin's parents left France before the Revolution we would have to examine how the change in nationality law affected ex-patriates. And even after discussion, editors could come to the wrong conclusion, especially considering that ethnic biases could influence some editors. If his biographers have not bothered to address the issue, then it is better to leave it out. Certainly readers cannot complain that Wikipedia does not provide information available in mainstream sources. And when mainstream sources ignore information you consider important, you can contact them or publicize your differences. TFD (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it will help you to look at it this way, the statement "Chopin was a French citizen," needs a reliable source for that information - the source needs to directly say that, because, in its context, it is a conclusion drawn regarding a mixed question of fact and law, hardly a matter of "truth", at all. But even with such a source, there are other policies which then must be considered that are beyond this page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have categories yet

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems like what websites are considered reliable and what websites are considered unreliable is some kind of hidden knowledge around here. Why don't we have some kind of category system set up for this yet?

It could be pretty big so we could break it down into subcategories, but if we have a category set up then people could easily check, by reading the article about their source, if it has been placed into a "reliable" or "unreliable" category.

There would still need to be discussions about whether or not it belongs, but having a category system to represent that consensus' conclusion is a good one. Ideally an edit summary should link to relevant most recent discussion as to it being reliable or unreliable.

Could this be a task force of a current project to do? I don't think it would be that hard.

We could also say perhaps that any media source without an article about it should be considered unreliable by default. This doesn't necessarily mean it is unreliable, just that one should assume that until investigating it more thoroughly.

One would generally assume any source proven to be reliable by reliable sources would be notable enough to make an article about. So that work= could always be a hyperlink. Ranze (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We do have some pages that attempt to do something like this, such as this one. However, this effort is complicated by the fact that in many cases, reliability is contextual rather than yes/no. For example, we have a consensus that Rotten Tomatoes is reliable for some things and not others - would this be in a "reliable" or "unreliable" category? The issue is further complicated because no, existence of an article is not necessarily a good indicator of either reliability or unreliability. Notability is not the same as reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Making buckets for domains (as with e.g. WP:VG/S#List) would make sense. Be bold and start one, or approach one of the WikiProjects in your sphere of work to see if they might be amenable to creating one. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There is already an experiment somewhat like this, it's called Wikidata. Over there, references are encouraged (but not required). If you want to add a website as a reference, it's easy. But if you want to add a printed source, such as a book or journal, it's impossible unless the source already has an item (which is analogous to a Wikipedia article). So what's the result? Most claims do not have any references. (I don't count all those "references" that say the claim was imported from a Wikipedia in any of the various languages.)

WP:SELFSOURCE and Reddit AMAs

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've seen this come up a few times, (See [3], [4]), regarding whether an Reddit#IAmA and AMA is an appropriate place to source information. Since SELFSOURCE takes note to specify Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook, I think it may also be prudent to include something about moderated forum posts. Something similar to:

These requirements apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. They may also apply to moderated forum posting such as an AMA, or "Ask Me Anything", so long as there are reasonable processes in place to ensure that the individual responding is in fact the person in question.

Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal regarding citation quality and the reliability of sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings to everyone concerned about the reliability of sources used in the Wikipedia. For the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, I have created a proposal that addresses some aspects of this called "Citation quality assessment". Please check it out, and consider giving the proposal your support in the two-week voting period beginning November 28 (Monday). Any ideas to improve upon the proposal are also very much welcome. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page lists See also: Zimdars' fake news list under "News Organizations," but calling my list a fake news list is incorrect and misrepresents many of the sources included on the list. It should/could say Zimdars' website list or Zimdars' "news" list. Mishmz (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 19:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Using FOIA-obtained information to document the close of a ongoing investigation

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Very often, articles will talk about the onset of legal proceedings (lawsuits, criminal cases) or legal investigations on a person, organization, or other related topic, as this is readily documented by third-party sources, but these are then often resolved without any fanfare or reporting in third-party sources - a settlement was reached, a case was dismissed, or an investigation closed. From a neutral POV standpoint, it makes sense to try to discuss any verifyable resolve of these types of cases in mainspace articles, particularly if we are talking about BLPs.

When these are court-related cases, at least within the US, it is usually rather easy to find the legal records (in a legal manner) that can be used as a verifyable source that case was closed/settled, citing the court records for WP:V. When it comes however to investigations, that may be different, since police records are not in the same public view as court documents. That said, if the investigating agency is something like the FBI, it is possible to request all related records through The Freedom of Information Act that can provide all non-classified documents (often with tons of redactions) by request.

In a specific instance, there has been such use of FIOA (by groups outside of WP) to get records on a FBI case on a controversial topic that we readily have documented from media sources when the case was open, but no one reported on since whether it remains ongoing or not. The FIOA request returned heavily-redacted documents that still clearly state the case was closed about a year later without any conclusive findings. The only third-party sources that have republished this information (which is PD-USgov) and discussed this are in forums or sources that clearly fail RS/SPS/expertise. It is possible to produce a WP:V-compatible citation for the closure letter (date,agency, case number, etc.) in the FIOA that anyone could file another FIOA to get that specific response, but this begs the question if directly citing the letter known from the FIOA is a proper reliable source. I am working on the assumption that the published FIOA documents by the group and republished in the other sources are valid and untouched as one can verify who and when FIOA requests were made, and the information matches up with the group that performed it. The archives show that FIOA use only seems to have come up once before, and there was no resolution to that. Do we consider FIOA requests a sufficiently hard barrier that makes the FIOA information difficult to re-verify and thus an inappropriate RS? --MASEM (t) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have thought about this before. If an organization we consider reliable (say the NYT or ProPublica or the like) publishes that stuff (the FOIA request, the documents obtained, etc) then in my view that is OK. But it must come through a reliable organization. People have tried to cite FOIA stuff hosted on scribD or somebody's google docs site and I have removed it exactly because of what you say -- too easy to monkey around with it and repost it afterwards or fake the whole thing. That is how i have handled it on the ground. perhaps this guideline should discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
And this isn't always going to be a problem, but investigations generally involve people directly or indirectly and if the assertion to be supported by the FOIA request is in whole or in part about a living person BLPPRIMARY prohibits its use. Moreover, such records would be PRIMARY sources which, per that policy, cannot be evaluated or interpreted directly or by implication. That's a big problem with legal or quasi-legal documents (and, indeed, with government documents in general): taken out of their procedural, legal, and historical context, they often mean or imply something different than what they seem to say on their face and need analysis or interpretation to be properly understood. None of those are absolute reasons they can't be used, but they make their use even more problematic in addition to the reasons given by Jytdog. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In the specific case here, it is possible to quote the closure letter (presuming unmodified) that clearly states the case was closed and for exactly what reasons, so there's enough context and non-redacted language to avoid any possible OR (it's also not a BLP itself, but I recognize we're talking about being appreciative of the high standard). And I agree with Jytdog about the modification issue too. In terms of the situation, it might be a better question at NPOV then about what do to in such situations (it doesn't look neutral on any BLP or otherwise to include the onset of a legal case/investigation which was broadly covered but that its resolve was never mentioned). I do agree we should add things about court documents and FOIA requests if this is the consensus position. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help break a logjam

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am requesting some guidance on how to handle disagreements with fellow editors when sources are challenged. I've recently encountered several editors whose positions are that the sources are considered RS until it has been proven that a specific book is unreliable for specific statements. I.e. the burden of proving that the source is unreliable is on those challenging the source, not on those who wish to use or retain a source in the article.

Here's a typical exchange, regarding a source that has been published by a right-wing publisher in Germany:

  • Editor: It is absurd to ask us to prove the Wubbe is reliable: the onus is on you to prove he isn't. You're the one making the claims. You've been told on the Joachim Helbig article about trying using the reputation of the publisher against the author.
  • Me: Not so absurd. WP:RS includes the publisher into the consideration. Since this publisher has been called into question, the onus is on those who wish to include this potentially WP:QS source into the article. So far, we only have one editor's opinion that this source is reliable. What are the 3rd party sources that attest to the reliability? WP:IRS states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." One editor's opinion is not sufficient, I'm afraid, given the problematic nature of the publisher.
  • Editor: You've been told before: the focus is on the author's reputation and quality of research. Trying to infer reliability (or not) by attacking the publisher is at best tendentious.
  • Me: Yes, and I have asked before -- who attests to the author's reputation and quality of research?
  • Editor: Not you. Find a good source that tears him apart for neo-Nazi bias and that will be a start won't it.

Copy/pasted from: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Unreliable_sources_tag. The source being discussed is published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim", according to de.Wiki.

I consider this to be a misinterpretation of WP:IRS and a counter-factual shifting of the burden of proof, but am unable to convince the editor. What would be the next steps in trying to get this resolved? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions about sources go to WP:RS/N. You are correct that the publisher matters - it says so explicitly in WP:SOURCE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Yes, several discussions have occurred at RSN regarding the sources, but the response is always along the lines as above, such as:
This seems to be a fundamental misinterpretation, but it also appears to a be an issue of local consensus, which I'm unable to overcome. Any suggestions? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:RFC can be helpful. It might seem overkill but it's usually the best way to deal with an issue of WP:LOCALCON since it attracts outside editors. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: Could you clarify if the RFC would be for the source that is being questioned, or that the general concept of "the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS" and similar is erroneous and has no basis in WP's policies or guidelines? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I was thinking the specific source, since it's wrong to suggest that sources are reliable unless proven otherwise. Default assumption is to believe that sources are unreliable... --Izno (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: RE: "it's wrong to suggest that sources are reliable unless proven otherwise" -- can I quote this at RSN? :-) The discussion there is veering into the bizarre with strong undertones of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which has been debunked, what, 20 years ago?: Berger & others, permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I don't think a quotation from my statement (which is offered without policy basis but I think which makes clear sense in the context of WP:V and WP:IRS) is going to help you at RSN--that's a mess which has no ending except a topic ban or blocks for the users who aren't editing in accord with site policies and guidelines. But you're welcome to add such a quotation! --Izno (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I find it unhelpful that the terms primary, secondary and tertiary sources are not explained here. For that we must turn to WP:PSTS, which is in WP:No original research, a less-than-obvious place for the puzzled source-citer to go looking. Should it be either moved or copied/adapted here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty good point. It seems that the section on this page has a great deal more to do with original research, and the section on original research has a great deal more to do with identifying reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To help those writing biology articles, I wrote this essay - Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. It probably applies to other aspects of science. DrChrissy (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think that whether a source is a PSTS or is a RS are orthogonal/independent factors, though there is consideration that when we start talking primary sources, there is more emphasis on making sure the source is appropriately reliable and/or authoritative depending on the subject area. I do think PSTS is more apt to NOR than V/RS, but it probably should be mentioned here. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest something a little radical. I think we should start to consider using the term "content" rather than "source". The main point I make in the essay above is that even though a published scientific paper is considered a primary source, the Introduction and Discussion sections will almost certainly contain secondary content. We should also remember that many review articles, usually considered as secondary sources, very often contain an original interpretation of the papers reviewed which makes it primary content. DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice/Post removal/

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FOr a long time I have been a proponent of Wikipedia even to the point of donating. This will now stop. It has become apparent to me that unless you are a person with some kind of inner association to wiki Pedia your posts are removed. There should be a chat page and perhaps even volunteers if not paid staff to assist in posting I have the documents to back up my post. Whats more is I know people and have documents to discredit some posts but perhaps the greatest of which is the Karen Silkwood posting. My father held many patents and was the Dir of Radiation Protection and special hazards in Oklahoma for more then 20 years (Gosh do I have to prove he was my Dad? Do you need a DNA sample? I believe this is my last use of wikiPedia which I had really hoped had always kept itself above the other wiki....Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcokc (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
~

My edits etc. is myself... I am 74 years old and it is my life ...i should know.... and I am a Christian... all true... You can verify with BROADCAST MUSIC INC. BMI I HAVE BEEN AFFIFILIATED WITH THEM AS A WRITER AND PUBLISHER SINCE 1961ALSO YOU CAN VERIFY WITH WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC (BMI) THEY PUBLISH MANY OF MY SONGS... YOU CAN CHECK WITH UNIVERSAL MUSIC THAT HAVE RECORDINGS OF MANY OF MY SONGS... I ALSO PRODUCED OVER 200 ALBUMS INCLUDING MANY COMPILATIONS ... i have created close to 200 videos on you tube on songs that i either composed and or produced. Check with google and you tube and check with All Music. As for my father you can check with all the libraries in California including the Leo Politi library Fresno, California, City of los Angeles who have Park, a School and Intersection (Sunset Blvd; and Echo Park Avenue) and a tree named for him , some of his murals (Olvera Street) El Pueblo delos angels Historical Monument...The Getty ..... and the University of California State Fresno...who have a garden on campus name for him as well as the Arnie Nixon Library on campus... During his Centennial 2008 there were numerous celebrations from, California to Princeton University.. Also there is information I am sure with his former publishers Charles Scribners and son, Mcmillan Press, Viking Press and Simon and Schuster. He also was the recipent of the Regina Award by the Catholic Library association... Our family has numerous awards and presenttion, proclamations from cities, states, the senate and the white house and letter from many first ladies.

If you need to talk with my sister her name is Suzanne Bischof and she is my father archivalist. suzannebischof@yahoo.com..... I am paul.leopoliti@gmail.com 303 501 1773

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Should a single date of birth be listed for Lee Grant?

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

There is a dispute about whether to include a date of birth for Lee Grant. Part of the dispute concerns using primary or secondary sources, so any opinions would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Some sources report her date of birth as Oct. 31, 1927 (ref), but other sources dispute this date (ref) suggesting different years. Vital records suggest she was born around 1925/1926 (1930 census), (1940 census), (1933 passenger list) --Iantresman (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is handled properly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There is currently an edit war going on there initiated by two non-editors to the article. It's become clearly disruptive IMO. Some neutral reviewers of the talk page there would be helpful. --Light show (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To avoid having to read the entire talk page, simply note that the two editors are warring to fabricate a guideline by turning a clear secondary source into a primary one. Incredible. Maybe some of the 1,000-plus watchers here can comment. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It is worth pointing out that Ronz and I are the neutral third-party editors that arrived at the article in response to the request posted here. It is also worth pointing out that Light show has been reverting on that article and promoting his point of view since January 8th, and neither Ronz nor myself have edited the article prior to January 17th. Extra opinions would be welcome at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've found multiple primary and secondary sources (some dating to 1931) that show she was born in (at least no later than) 1927: Talk:Lee_Grant#Date_of_Met_Opera_debut_in_1931. This is a bit more into OR than I like for BLPs, but similar to what has been done for the similar articles I brought up on the article talk page already. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with primary sources, if they are handled correctly, in this case, using attribution. It is indisputable which dates vital records suggest as the birthdate, which is not the same as saying it IS the birthday. --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the census record is that the parents may have chosen to alter her birthdate. I do not know if that is the case but it would require analysis. Also, the article should not say there is a dispute about her date of birth unless there is a source that says that. It could be that a news item gave the wrong date and some sources have picked up on it. Generally it is possible to determine which source is more reliable. For example a recent biography by a journalist is more likely to be accurate than a Variety article from the 1950s. TFD (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The dispute about her age is very real. There is a source that states "The granddaughter of Polish and Russian immigrants is famously inexact about her age. From her mid-20s to her mid-30s, the blacklist left her unemployable in TV and film, so she lied about her years, whatever they were, to remain viable as an actress." Grant admits in her autobiography (2014) that she has lied about her age, even calling in a favor from the mayor to knock five years off her age on her driving license, so in this case even public records may be tainted. She testified under oath to Congress (at her HUAC hearing) she was born in 1926, but in her autobiography she claims she was first nominated for an oscar at 24 (which would put her dob at 1927), but the age difference she gives for her husband would put the year at 1930. In recent interviews she has given to promote her autobiography she apparently stated she was born in 1928. Secondary sources can be found putting her year of birth between 1925 and 1931, athough she made her stage debut in 1931 (at the age of 4 according to her autobiography, although her debut overlapped with her birthday). Census records (dating back to April 1930) suggest 1925 if they were filled in correctly, but her mother was a Russian immigrant so it is entirely possible they were not. The October 31 date is consistent, it is the year that is impossible to pin down. This is not a straightforward situation where some source has made a mistake, but rather there has been a sustained deception down the years (albeit with very understandable reasons). If we could get some more input at Talk:Lee_Grant#Possible_solutions_to_year_of_birth it would really help to move things along I feel. Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • An RfC has been created here --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake News

Latest comment: 7 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

I've seen several stories on Fake news like [5]. Seems we should add something here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Would not this already be covered in that Fake news websites generally have zero track record of fact-checking? Though I would say there is something for fake news sites that attempt to mimic or outright pretend to be established news sites that we should caution readers about. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It might not be a bad idea to keep a list of fake news sites, just as we have a list of vanity publishers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well sure, it's already covered but the idea is to note this kind of thing is a prominent example, just as we do with "predatory journals" - to make it explicit for many levels of comprehension. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense to both include warnings and as Someguy suggests, a separate list of known fake sites. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • would it make sense to include the Churnalism (discussed here) with this? Some content like:

Be aware of sources that are fake news, which may include pieces from fake news websites or articles that are news satire or hoaxes. Also be aware of sources that are the product of churnalism.

Some prominent fake news websites are described in Wikipedia articles that are categorized at category:fake news.

With regard to chunalism pieces: news stories prompted by a press release that are reliable, independent, secondary sources will include significant independent reporting on the claims made in the press release. If there is little to no independent reporting, the source should be treated like the underlying press release - see WP:SPS.

I included hoaxes as that is one of the items at the disambig page, fake news. -- Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • this was great, for the fake news thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

US News and World Report put out a list of sites, In case this is at all helpful.

TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a rather odd list, and at least to me seems to miss the real fake news concern. Like the inclusion of well-known news satire sites like the Onion. My understanding with the fake news situation is that these are rather unknown sites but mocked up in a manner to appear fully legit to give the impression of journalistic integrity. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you might underestimate the number of times an Onion story gets shared on Facebook by an incensed aunt. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I recognize that Onion stories get shared around by people outside of Wikipedia without an idea its satire, but if that story hits here, nearly all editors are either aware of the Onion, or that it is satire. What this list seems to be missing are the actual "fake news" sites that purposely compose stories that may read as legit at first blush and present themselves as authentic, which do end on WP because its difficult to fact-check against those and the only reason they stand out is that the source is an unknown agency. For us on WP, that's more the caution we should be giving, though it cannot hurt to talk about satire sites as being universally considered non-reliable for anything beyond news about the site itself. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the eight sites listed as being propaganda may be helpful for our purposes. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker: I see that the wording that you put in was "Sources that publish fake news are not reliable for facts or opinion." I don't see that that was the wording agreed on in this thread. And I am getting worried about it -- I see on WP:RSN some editors suggesting that The Daily Mail should be banned because it has published fake news in the past. This, I hope, was not the intended effect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What? I just looked at RSN, and I don't see any reference to this guideline and the Daily Mail by anyone. The mention of fake news was put in this guideline after being discussed here a month ago [6]. Fake news should not to be used for fact or opinion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think most of the people arguing for a banning of the Daily Mail base it on the Mail being unreliable, not for deliberately faking content. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say the people who brought up "fake news" referenced your words; my point was just that they could. Compared to what was discussed (noting the unreliability of fake news sites prominently and explicitly), your wording is broader because it encompasses anyone who's published even not-deliberately and occasionally, and it's narrower because it doesn't encompass sites that are not publishing fake news but are faking being news sites, e.g. drudgereport.com.co which is an example from "Zimdars' fake news list". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We can't legislate CLUE. People say stupid things all the time. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Here, as predicted, your words are being quoted verbatim in an argument for banning the Daily Mail. I believe the correct action now is to revert or to put in the words that were actually discussed: fake news site. @Someguy1221: @Masem: @Jytdog: @Timothyjosephwood: I ping you too because you participated in this discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added a tag to the sentence indicating that it is disputed, which is apparently is, and directing editors here. A source under discussion should not be decided by a policy addition also under discussion. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also added a note on the RSN discussion to this effect. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
again we cannot legislate clue, and the fact that your !vote on the RfC -here misrepresents what RS says (it is not just ""well-established news outlet" - the fact-checking is essential as other parts of this guideline) makes me not really care what you are saying here. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
re: "an argument for banning the Daily Mail." - So what? A perfect argument. A publisher known for its disregard for fact checking has no authority in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Peter: I do not own the words, they were perfectly reasonable to people at the time and stood here for a month before you raised this. I think they are perfectly reasonable, but might it be possible to improve them, sure. Get a consensus on improvement, but any wording will have some people say it applies one way or another, or it applies here or not there, or just 'I don't like it' and 'all news is fake news', etc. etc. and on and on.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that that statement is poorly worded. It could be used to say that any web site that ever had fake news is disqualified. For example, that list would include every major website including identifying Wikipedia as a fake news website. (yes, I know Wkikpedia is generally precluded for other reasons) North8000 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? (As for "that ever had", IMO only wikilawyers will insist on this interpretation. We have to keep balance between clarity and readability. Anything may be interpreted in most bizarre way. We usually modify policies only when real troubles crop up.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe something like 'deliberately fabricated' fake news as a better wording. Plenty of news sources have published/republished things they either thought were true at the time, or else was originally published by another, less reputable, source (such as the Daily Mail).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that the biggest fix would be to add one word: Sources that primarily publish fake news....

Note: Even The New York Times no longer has any fact-checkers nor proofreaders for its articles. A study showed that most newspapers for medical and science articles no longer have any actual scientists as writers, and that the papers all simply do a minor rewrite of press releases at most. I suggest that the ban be on all "celebrity gossip" material, and that would likely be quite sufficient. By the way, we ought also ban use of headlines as being the equivalent of an article, headlines are written to get readers and are not written by reporters. In addition, articles by satirical sites, which is what many of the "fake news" sites are, are barred under extant policy, and adding this line is inapt to deal with the actual problem. Collect (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This situation may have actually substantively changed in the interim with POTUS calling CNN fake news, but as it stands there is some...cultural ambiguity as to whether the term is a more-or-less objective statement about editorial integrity, or a broad and (in cases) potentially meaningless epithet. Given that, we should probably avoid using the term in PG as if its meaning were self-evident. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Goo point. We have a new vague "popular term of the month" which does not describe anything which is new, but yet are writing new guideline wording around it.North8000 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that the wording has now been removed. The number of editors recently approving|opposing AlanScottWalker's specific wording ("Sources that publish fake news are not reliable for facts or opinion") might be about even. Alternative suggestions ("fake news site", "deliberately fabricated", "primarily publish") got no traction. Unless more editors and better ideas come along, I claim anyone who hopes to add something about "fake news" will have a hard time looking for consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have to single out "fake news" for the purpose of our policy (ie avoid instruction creep). The only their difference from other questionable sources is their, so to say, "extreme" character, and as such, they may be routinely handled with rules we already have. Staszek Lem (talk)

RfC advertising

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources. Advertising here seems relevant. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There was recently an RfC at RSN about whether the Daily Mail should be considered a reliable source. (See WP:RSN#Daily_Mail_RfC[7].) The result was that it would not and refererences sourced to the newspaper would be removed. Does the RfC have any authority and if so should it be included in rs policy? TFD (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was kind of redundant. All it did was make crystal clear what the many-times-established consensus about Daily Mail has been (so many discussions at RSN about it, all coming to the same conclusion). Two suggestions for how to reference that RfC here:
1) In the News organization section, add a bullet along the lines of:
  • In general, low quality news sources are likely to be challenged and should be avoided. Daily News, for example, was continually challenged and the community generally barred its use in an RfC in February 2017.
2) The other option (which I have been thinking about for a while) would be to add a section at the bottom called something like "Key RSN discussions" and provide links there to things like this RfC, the discussion of predatory journals, and others. It would be really useful to have key discussions at RSN easily findable since our search engine sucks so badly.
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this has been discussed to death. People don't seem to have an issue with this source when it's used for things like video games or something trivial, but when it's used for BLPs (even in the case of exclusive interviews sometimes) or as a news source, problems arise. I like your first suggestion. Your second suggestion might also be good regarding other sources that have been repeatedly discussed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiCite 2017 applications open through February 27, 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hey all, apologies for cross-posting here but I figured this would be of interest to many on this page. We just announced that applications for WikiCite 2017 (Vienna 23-25 May, 2017) are open until February 27, 2017. WikiCite 2017 is a 3-day conference, summit and hack day to be hosted in Vienna, Austria, on May 23-25, 2017. It expands efforts started last year with WikiCite 2016 to design a central bibliographic repository , as well as tools and strategies to improve information quality and verifiability in Wikimedia projects. Our goal is to bring together Wikimedia contributors, data modelers, information and library science experts, software engineers, designers and academic researchers who have experience working with citations and bibliographic data in Wikipedia, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. For this initiative to be successful, it is critical to get Wikipedia editors working on citations and sources involved: if you match this profile, it would be fantastic to see you in Vienna. Thanks to generous funding from a number of organizations, we'll have (limited) travel funding available: consider submitting an application if you're interested in contributing. This year's event will be held at the same venue as the Wikimedia Hackathon and we'll be able to accommodate up to 100 participants. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the organizers at: wikicite@wikimedia.org (I don't always respond promptly to pings, this email address is the best way to contact us regarding the event) --DarTar (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_53&oldid=1137435704"