Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Referencing/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV and anarchist media

I'm a little concerned with undue weight given here to market and anarcho-capitalist sources. So far, it looks like there's about a fifty-fifty split in the specific sources listed. Granted, there are lots of sources in the queue to be evaluated, but I think we've got to keep a close eye on this trend, because if it continues, it will likely lead to an inaccurate representation in all of our anarchism articles as a movement which is divided more or less equally between the two camps. I'd like to see more left anarchist sources listed here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We are about 4% of the way through the sources; I hope all of the sources listed in the above section will be assessed against WP:RS (see top section of this talkpage) by the time this guideline gets put into practice. If you are familiar with the editorial oversight/selection process/reputation for fact checking and accuracy of left anarchist sources, please do assess them and give a rationale above; then they can be added to the list. Any source may be added to the "to be evaluated list", and I would be shocked if the raw number of market/capitalist sources was not dwarfed by the other anarchist sources. We are a long way from finished yet, but off to a good start I think. Great work on the mainstream section, by the way! Skomorokh 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I understand, I just wanted to be mindful of the potential for error here. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if scholarly resources over represent the ancap POV. As a rule, market anarchism is rarified philosophical persuit conducted in journals while left anarchism is a mass grassroots movement conducted in zines. It should be noted that scholarly works on both sides of the divide recognize left anarchism as the larger movement (a fact that is celebrated or lamented depending on the author's POV), and that the weight given to these sources should reflect those demographics. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only foothold anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism has in academia is through the (not insignificant) libertarian economists (cf. Bryan Caplan, Marginal Revolution, Don Boudreaux etc.). It is almost unheard of in academic political philosophy, where left-libertarians such as Michael Otsuka, anti-capitalist anarchists like Robert Paul Wolff and Ruth Kinna or continental anti-capitalists like Saul Newman/Lewis Call/Todd May dominate the literature, and the same goes for academic historians, sociologists and anthropologists (cf. Graeber, Goodway, Ostergaard, Goodman, Zinn etc.). Market anarchism is occasionally discussed in fringe academic journals like Journal of Libertarian Studies, but it is overwhelmingly an online pursuit, I would say.

Balancing sources is an issue for articles (i.e. in the Anarchism and history of anarchism articles, very few ancap sources should be used), not for deciding what is reliable in general. If we listed 100 insurrectionary anarchist sources as reliable here, it would not necessarily change the way we source articles on anarcho-syndicalism, for example. The main question we have to address in this guideline is: For what types of claims, if any, should source x be considered reliable? Exhaustiveness, balance or no, is something to be desired rather than guarded against. Skomorokh 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. I mean, let's say we list a hundred reliable ancap sources and one left anarchist source? Don't you think that could skew the decisions of many editors? Essentially, by listing a source here, we are acting as advocates for that source whether we mean to or not. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think once we establish general principles on what is a reliable source for certain claims (as in the "reliable archives" for opinions of notable commentators/factual claims of experts), we can add groups of sources en masse. So for example, once we come up with a guide on what it means for a book's reliability that it is published by AK Press/Black Rose Books etc., we can add all the anarchist publishers under that guideline. Apart from Otolemur, the only person adding specific source rationales has been me, and I am not familiar with very many ancap sources. I wouldn't worry about it too much, the main thing is to get the general principles down; the source assessments will follow naturally. Skomorokh 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for anarchist media

In order to make this guideline credible and authoritative, the burden of proof is on us to show why a given anarchist source meets the WP:RS criteria. So when adding a source, be sure to have a rationale that will convince other Wikipedians who might be unfamiliar with it. Skomorokh 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessed anarchist media

To begin, I've added Anarchist Studies and the Journal of Libertarian Studies, because they have editorial oversight by university professors with Phd's from respectable universities, no history of publishing material of suspect reliability, and the material published therein is by third party respected scholars. Skomorokh 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Anti-State.com: has editorial oversight (Jeremy Sapienza) and a reputation for representing the authors it claims to publish reliably. The authors have posted on the forum and have regard for the site's administrators. Skomorokh 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Infoshop News: has editorial oversight (Chuck Munson et al.) and publishes articles by third parties. Sometimes difficult to tell who the authors are though. I'm not certain, but I have heard no significant criticisms of its fact-checking and accuracy. Skomorokh 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Demoted to "reliable archive" per Richard's concerns below.

• Anarchy Archives: has editorial oversight (Dana Ward) and republishes classic anarchist texts. Ward is a reputable scholar with a PhD from Yale University and several published works on anarchism, and can thus be trusted to represent texts accurately. Skomorokh 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Libcom.org: Generally articles are posted in libcom anonymously, but Libcom.org often publishes articles which are taken from third party sources. For example this one. These articles can certainly be used as RS with mentioning the original source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale, I've added it in. Do we know anything about the editorial oversight/who runs the show? I couldn't find an about page. Skomorokh 13:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strike-the-Root.com: has editorial oversight (Robert H. Moody) and a reputation for representing the authors it claims to publish reliably (authors link their STR archives from their personal websites). Skomorokh 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lewrockwell.com: has editorial oversight (Lew Rockwell) and publishes articles by third party columnists. Reliable per ASC/STR rationales above. Skomorokh 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I would say all of the above are "questionable sources." And none of them have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Just because one of these sites decides to put up an article that someone sends in, it doesn't mean it can be used a source. Richard Blatant (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ASC, Libcom, AA and STR are listed as reliable archives only; that is, when an article or post appears on these websites, we can be sure that they are actually the words of who they are attributed to. This is easily ascertainable because the authors often mention their published work on these sites (with the obvious exception of AA). See the usage guidelines for reliable archives on the project page. As for Infoshop News, I would say they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; they print corrections, follow-up stories and retractions for example. Skomorokh 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop.org doesn't have the reputation for accuracy with me. So who is to say what the reputation is? Richard Blatant (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, as always. Which we are not going to achieve unless we talk it out a little. What objections do you have to the credibility of Infoshop News as a news source? Regards, Skomorokh 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply a website someone put up to push anarchism. It's clearly a promotional site. The guy who runs it, Chuck Munson, has no academic qualifications for knowing what's accurate or not. If I didn't have a source for something negative I wanted to put about anarcho-capitalism in Wikipedia, I could write an article today criticizing anarcho-capitalism, and submit it to Infoshop.org, they would put up on the site, and then I could come back here and cite it. It's the same for all those sites, such as Strike the Root. They're not credible or reliable at all. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You could write a book today attacking anarcho-syndicalism and sent it off to Princeton University Press, but would they publish it? Any more reason to believe that Infoshop News would publish your article? We already have a guide to prevent opinion pieces/editorials being used as reliable sources for statements of fact, so it is not a problem that Infoshop News publishes a mix of news, reports and editorial pieces. The other sites are only listed as reliable archives, meaning that they can only be used if their author is notable (for statements of opinion), or if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". For example, Robert P. Murphy is a notable published economist and political scientist who has written for Anti-State.com; his work there is therefore a reliable source for both his opinions and for his statements of fact (the latter become the former once they are challenged or controversial here). This is uncontroversial Wikipedia policy.

The question in the case of Infoshop News, which is undoubtedly a reliable archive (i.e. does not misrepresent its authors), is whether its reports should be considered reliable for otherwise uncontested statements of fact. I proposed that when the authors are clearly attributed, and no POV is evident (i.e. no value judgements are made by the reporter), Infoshop News is reliable where Indymedia is not. Infoshop News is selective in what it prints, is transparent about its policies, has strict style guidelines (modelled after the capitalist pigs at The Economist would you believe it) as well as an editorial collective which peer reviews all submissions, which are from third parties (academic qualifications are not a requirement for Wikipedia policy, otherwise The New York Times would be in trouble). I'm not dead set on including its npov reports as reliable for statements of facts, but it certainly looks like a strong argument can be made. Skomorokh 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop has way lower standards to publish something that Princeton press. I'm confident I could write up a shoddy anti-capitalist article today, and they would post it. I disagree with you that what's posted there can be considered reliable just because it's posted there. It's just a website run by one guy, "Chuck "Chuck0" Munson - Webmaster and cordinator for the entire Infoshop website," and it looks like one other guy is suppsedly an advisor: "Jamie "Bork" Loughner - Member of the Infoshop/AMP advisory board." [1] So what if they a style guide? That's just formatting. If that's the only standard they have, that's not saying much at all. I don't think it's a website to be taken seriously at all. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition Infoshop website is extremist. Does anyone dispute that? The policy says "Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Blatant (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh's comments above are correct--Infoshop has retracted errors and printed corrections. This constitutes a reputation for good fact-checking and is independantly verifiable whereas one wikipedian's opinion is not. I think it should be treated as a minor news outlet, equivalent to, say, a college student newspaper. Besides, the policy doesn't say "Questionable sources include all websites that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist." Yes, extremism is a red flag, but interpreting this as a universal ban would result in the ban of every single source whose cause is widely misunderstood--so, for example since Islam is often mischaracterized as extremist, you would have to limit all sources on that religion to non-Muslim publications. Hardly realistic, and hardly in the interest of improving Wikipedia. Same goes here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the prevailing view is that Islam is extremist. There are radical Islamists, however, that are of course considered extremists. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my argument would still be valid if applied to the Islamist movement in particular (as opposed to Islam in general). The Islamist movement is painted as a totally radical collection of terrorists when, in fact, it is a diverse movement, only some of whom advocate extremist measures. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as radical Islamists can't be used to characterized radical Islam, anarchists can't be used as a source to characterize anarchism UNLESS they've published in a respectable mainstream publication. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But by your above argument, Islamist (radical or otherwise) texts also cannot be used as sources on Islamism because most mainstream reports falsely categorize Islamism (not Islam, but Islamism) as inherently extremist. We're not talking about "extremist" texts used as sources for non-extremists. We're talking about groups that are considered extremist by outsiders, and you're saying that we have to treat the outsider (mis)charactarization as the only truly reliable source. I'm saying that your criteria make it impossible to write accurately about extremist groups. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If Islam in general is considered inherently extremist, which I disagree with you on, then the sources are questionable sources. They can only be used as questionable sources. What Wikipedia aims to do is to present the mainstream view of things, including the mainstream view of extremist subjects. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about Islam, I'm talking about Islamism. Those are two different things. Islam is not considered extremist. Islamism is. This does not mean that all Islamist writings are off-limits. Anyway, you have yet to demostrate your contention that AAFAQ Infoshop is considered extremist by anybody, let alone the consensus of scholarly opinion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're actually disputing that anarchists are extremists? Richard Blatant (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

May have been true twenty years ago. Isn't so today. But, if we're being strict on the rules, let's see this extraordinary blanket statement backed up with extraordinary sources. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that one of the most fequently cited living scholars is an anarchist. Sounds pretty mainstream to me. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

His policital views, libertarian socialism, are definitely not mainstream. If he's written a polemical piece trying to convert people to libertarian socialism, it should be treated as a questionable source. Just like Benajamin Tucker can't be used as a source that anarcho-communism is not true anarchism, Chomsky couldn't be used as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism. It could be noted that THEY believed this, but it can't asserted that what they are saying is true by using them as a source. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about anarcho-capitalism. I said anarchism is not extremist, especially since an anarchist is at the forefront of modern political thought. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He's at the fringes of far left political thought. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true. And since he's also at the center of scholarly thought, what does that tell you about anarchism today? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've demoted Infoshop News as a reliable source for statements of fact generally to a reliable archive (placing the onus of reliability on the author of an article rather than the site), given Richard's concerns – if we cannot agree that it is generally reliable, then we cannot vouch that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't want to fight over one source, I want to get the guideline off the ground on sound principles. One thing though, is the issue of "extremism". If we were to take the guideline "Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" at face value, all anarchist sources would be considered questionable. This is exactly the situation the source guideline is intended to rectify. This guideline pertains to anarchism-related content only. Infoshop (and I'm not arguing about its reliability here) is entirely mainstream as an anarchist source. An extremist source for anarchism would be something like the National-Anarchist periodical Synthesis (which would not be an extremist source for national anarchism etc.). Again, the whole idea behind this guideline is that existing guidelines/policy such as WP:V and WP:RS provide insufficient context for sourcing anarchism-related content; Rolling Thunder and Fifth Estate are often much more accurate sources of information on protests and anarchist events than Los Angeles Times or the Daily Mail, for example. Skomorokh 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to override the overarching Wikipedia policy on sources. I think the policy makes sense for anarchism as well. I think the Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the prevailing views on subjects, or in other words, the mainstream view, including the mainstream view on extremist subjects. The more mainstream the better the source. The more extremist the source the more unreliable. Richard Blatant (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are cases where the majority view may be wrong--take popular distrust of evolutionary science for example, or even Islam. In such cases, the most accurate information is often the publications of the group in question. I agree that we can't always take every anarchist publication at face value. However, if the dictionary says "anarchists are bomb-throwing lunatics" and anarchists say "we don't really advocate throwing bombs"--well, then that disparity has to be addressed. The prevailing view of anarchism in most verifiable sources (e.g. newspapers, dictionaries, many encyclopedias, etc) is quite incorrect. However, there do exist verifiable sources (e.g. scholarly publications, "professional" anarchist media, etc.) which do present a relatively accurate picture of the movement. It is these sources that should be the main sources of information we use for our anarchism articles.

Essentially, the litmus test for accuracy should be If the source in question is scholarly and agrees with the primary sources, it's trustworthy. If the source in question is not scholarly, or disagrees with the primary sources, then it should be used with caution. We're looking for the consensus among the sources. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the majority view is wrong. This is Wikipedia. It is not a place where we determine what is correct or incorrect. If the prevailing view of reliable sources, as indicated reliable by policy, says that something is correct, then it is, for our purposes. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, WP:Policy says right up front "...adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia". So, if the prevailing view is incorrect, then we relax the prevailing view policy since that is what will improve the encyclopedia. Anarchism is an unusual topic in that the prevailing views conflict strongly with the both scholarly opinion and the primary sources. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, the very first sentence, says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ." So, improving the encylcopedia is not necessarily making it more true or accurate, but making it more in accordance with reliable sources. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, and what I'm saying is that by all measures, AAFAQ is verifiable. Not only that, but by WP:SOURCES, AAFAQ is a reliable source on all counts... "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Because AAFAQ cites its own sources (that's fact-checking), corrects errors (also fact-checking), is widely respected (see quotes in the article on AAFAQ), is in accordance with most primary sources (i.e. accurate), and has been published by a third-party (AK Press), it very clearly counts as verifiable. Yes, the introduction indicates a general desire to raise awareness and spread ideas about anarchism. You could interpret this as "promotional", but that's a bit of a stretch since all anarchist writings have that aim. Such general philosophical aims are about as "promotional" as your average dictionary. What I think what the "promotional" clause is actually getting at is to avoid blatant advertisements for goods and services. So, again by the opening paragraph of WP:V, by WP:SOURCES, and by the most important rule, WP:IAR, AAFAQ is fine. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy says clearly that promotional materials are questionable sources, so they have to be used as questionable sources. There is no doubt it is a promotion, because it says so explicitly in the introduction. It's also extremist, so that's another shot against it. It can only be used as a source to show what the views of the writers of the AAFAQ are. It can't be used as a reference for claims made by an article. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1) No, the policy does not say that all promotional materials are automatically questionable. This is equivalent to saying "trucks include four- and sixteen-wheeled models". Do you think this implies that all four wheeled objects are therefore trucks?
• 2) As far as I can tell, the policy does not define the term "promotional materials" and I think it's obvious that an overbroad understanding of the word "promotional" would limit the use of even well-accepted sources of information, such as many dictionaries and encyclopediae, whose frontmatter and ancillary material almost always contain promotional language.
• 3) I am not aware of any reliable source that claims AAFAQ is extremist. I will not accept an extraordinary blanket statement such as "all anarchists are extremists" without extraordinary evidence--i.e. an overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion with little or no dissenting opinion.
• 4) Please read the supporting documentation for WP:IAR and you should understand that my position is *precisely* what the policy calls for... i.e. reasoned justification for a particular interpretation of a particular rule in an unusual context.

Okay, I'd like to see some other editors' opinions here. Apart from that, I'm done going around in circles on these minor policy points until I get my hands on the printed book from AK Press. With any luck, they will have dropped the promotional language, making this a moot point, and we finally can get on with improving the articles. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources needing assessment

Please add credible and precise assessment for the following works as reliable (and in some cases self-published) or unreliable sources:

• An Anarchist FAQ

Not reliable. WP:V says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves." The introduction to the FAQ shows clearly that it is a promotional document, with statements such as "It desires to present arguments on why you should be an anarchist as well as refuting common arguments against anarchism and other proposed solutions to the social problems we face," and "Hopefully it will produce a few more anarchists and speed up the creation of an anarchist society." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Blatant (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is insufficiently precise; of course the FAQ comes with a strong POV and is not a reliable source for all claims. It seems to me to clearly fall under our "promotional" guidelines i.e. it is a reliable source for reflecting the notable opinions of itself, like Tucker/Liberty. Statements of fact from the FAQ should not be used disquotationally, for sure, but should not be ruled out for uncontroversial claims, as it is published by AK Press.Skomorokh 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAQ is prodigously footnoted. It is widely accepted within the anarchist community as reliable. It has been cited in scholarly papers as a reliable source. On what grounds is it claimed to be POV? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's POV, but that it's promotional. It's trying to convert people to anarchism. That's what the introduction says. It has a strong promotional agenda other than just trying to be informational. That makes it a "questionable source." Richard Blatant (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard, by your criterion, all anarchist publications would be excluded. AAFAQ has editorial oversight by Iain McKay (primary contributor and editor), Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas. Compare that with LewRockwell.com, which is also promotional, and which has apparently been vetted by the task force as reliable as it has the "editorial oversight" of Lew Rockwell--who is known for publishing propagandistic screeds. How is that not a double standard? AAFAQ is now also published in book form by AK Press [2], and therefore also incorporates the editorial oversight provided by the publisher. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a double standard that I'm aware of. I'm also against LewRockwell.com being used as a source. It's unreliable as well. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do think you've basically written off 99.9% of information on anarchism. If you are indeed right in your interpretation of policy, then I'd say this is a case where the rules are preventing us from improving Wikipedia per WP:IAR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the articles these outlets, such as StriketheRoot and Infoshop or LewRockwell, "publish" on their websites, they're often very inadequately, or not at all, sourced. I don't know how anyone can say that these websites have a good reputation for fact checking. They'll pretty much post anything that fits their POV, as long as it's gramatically correct. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My above comments are related to AAFAQ only. As of yet, I've made no claims of veracity for Infoshop or the others you mention. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the policy on questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves."

If you read the policy above, you can see that "questionable soruces" are defined by a single criterion: Poor reputation for fact-checking. The other descriptions listed are examples, not absolute grounds for dismissal. Notice it does not say "Questionable sources include all websites and publications that..."

Now, let's look at AAFAQ by each criterion and example...

Major criterion--

• Fact checking: AAFAQ exhaustively sources their statements and has editorial oversight, certainly as much or more than any other anarchist source. I am unaware of any published claims that its fact checking is in any way deficient.

Other factors--

• Widely Considered Extremist: AAFAQ is no more extremist than any other anarchist publication, and we all know that the perception of anarchism as extremist is an inaccurate kneejerk reaction. There's really no way to write about anarchism accurately if we take a hard line on this factor.
• Promotional: AAFAQ is no more promotional than any other anarchist publication. If we are to ban AAFAQ, then we must ban all publications by any self-proclaimed anarchist (or other advocate of anything, for thatt matter). Again, most accurate information about anarchism is published by anarchists, and there would be no way to write accurately about the subject if we took a hard line on this factor.
• Rumors and personal opinions: AAFAQ does not rely on rumor (as it is sourced) and the personal opinions of the editors are painstakingly separated from the factual claims of the content.

So, that's why I think AAFAQ should be considered a reliable source of information about anarchism (and only about anarchism). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact checking is unreliable for AAFAQ. It's one person, Iain McKay. He's not even academically qualified. I agree we should ban all promotional publications by self-proclaimed anarchists as source. They already are banned by the policy. Note this is not saying they can't be used to show what the views of the authors are. It just means they can't be used as secondary sources. As pointed out in this article, if Benjamin Tucker says that anarcho-communism is not a form of anarchism, that can't be used as a source that anarcho-communism is not a form of anarchism. Likewise with the AAFAQ, it can't be used as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. But they can be used as sources about themselves. For instance, "AAFAQ holds the opinion that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism." Richard Blatant (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's four people, Iain McKay, an experienced editor, as well as Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas. There is no particular licensing or qualification required to be an editor, and many respected reference works are edited by people with few or no academic qualifications. For the purposes of Wikipedia the quality of a work is to be judged for itself by the criteria spelled out above.

The Tucker quote you cite is not appropriate because first, he's a primary source and second, he is expressing an opinion, not making a factual claim with cited sources. AAFAQ, on the other hand, is a well-researched, footnoted, secondary source with editorial oversight and a history of correcting errors, and it separates facts from opinions. It is widely acknowledged by third parties, left anarchists, and even some ancaps (see the article) as one of the most significant sources of information anarchism ever published, certainly the most comprehensive. Restricting its use is like restricting use of the Oxford English Dictionary because it "promotes" the English language (Have you ever read the introduction to a dictionary? It would be pure promotional material by the standards you suggest).

I would agree that where AAFAQ gives opinions without citation, this material should only be used with direct attribution to the FAQ editors. But as long as there's a citation to back up their statements, the FAQ's non-controvertial material should be absolute fair game and its controversial statements should be citable with the preface "According to AAFAQ..." I don't see why this is unacceptable. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's a cite to back up a statement, we can just use the same citation and write our own statement in an article as long as it's NPOV. There's no problem. One of my problems with the AAFAQ is I think it misrepresents sources, probably not even intentionally most of the time, and editorializes them to push their POV. But this is to be expected from something that is explicitly promotional, as the policy says that promotional literature has a poor reputation for fact checking. This is what the policy guards against. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, holding a hard line on the promotional criterion is going to prevent editors from using *any* anarchist writings. That's a serious limitation, and it's bad for Wikipedia since anarchists are almost the only people who write accurately about anarchists--reference works don't and the media doesn't. However, if we are going to take a hard line on this issue, then I suggest we also take a hard line on major mainstream media outlets, which are considered reliable on the rest of Wikipedia... so, if the New York Times says anarchism is X, Y, or Z, then such blanket statements should be considered accurate. (Here, you can take X, Y, and Z to be socialist, leftist, and anticapitalist, since that's what the Times has, in fact, printed.) Besides, since AAFAQ is written by anarchists about anarchists, it's fine to use it in an article about anarchism, per the questionable sources policy--Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves. Anyway, your opinion that the FAQ editors unconsciously twist facts is not widely held within the anarchist community, and unless you can read minds, it's just one wikipedian's opinion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that a hard line on the promotional criterion is going to prevent editors from using *any* anarchist writings. If you'll note, in encyclopedias, the Anarchism article is usually written by an anarchist. For example, the Anarchism articles in things like the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, The Encyclopedia Britannica, and so on, are often written by anarchists. These aren't ostensibly promotional writings. The AAFAQ can't be used to represent the opinion of all anarchists. It can only used about the opinion of the anarchist(s) that wrote the FAQ. Richard Blatant (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And the anarchists who wrote those entries only represent their own opinions as well. Still, the most accurate and comprehensive writings on anarchism are published by anarchists themselves. The editorial oversight of anarchist editors is *much* more informed and critical than the editorial oversight of other editors--on the topic of evolutionary science, would you trust a journal of evolutionary science or would you trust Britannica? Anarchists are the experts on anarchism. If AAFAQ disagrees with LewRockwell.com, then report the disagreement, don't just throw them out as sectarian propagandists. Since AAFAQ is probably the most well-researched of all current anarchist writings, if you block this, you block most important information on the subject. And again, if we take a conservative interpretation of the promotion policy, then we should take a conservative interpretation of the mainstream press policies, so I'll be quoting uncritically the New York Times claims that anarchists are socialists. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If New York Times is acceptable under the policy, I have no problem with that. My position is simply to follow the policy. Just make sure of whether the claim that they're socialists is the mainstream view or fringe view, so as not to represent the fringe as the mainstream. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the mainstream view, but that wasn't my point. My point was that a strict interpretation of the guidelines means we will be using sources that are more likely to oversimplify (because their editorial oversight lacks experience with anarchism) and are extremely limited in scope (because they rarely write about anarchism). So, in the case of anarchism and other relatively underground movements, a looser interpretation of the questionable source policy allows us to use the most accurate, most comprehensive information available. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're arguing to go against Wikipedia offical policy? If the policy says New York Times is allowed as a source, then it is. I can't support violating Wikipedia policy. If you want to argue against policy, I don't think this is not the place to do it. You would have go to where they make policy, wherever that is. Maybe some things would be oversimplified. If so, we just have to accept it because it's the policy. Besides, I don't see any reason why anarchism should be held to a different standard than anything else. People write about subjects they're not absolute experts in all the time, and they're used as sources all over Wikipedia. As long as something is a reliable source by Wikipedia policy, it's settled. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that we follow official policy. Remember, the first rule of Wikipedia is Ignore All Rules, and the opening paragraph of the Policies and Guidelines article states: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. I'm arguing that your interpretation of the rules is by the letter, not by the spirit, and in this case, following the letter of the rule will clearly prevent the growth and improvement of our articles on anarchism. I believe have provided reasonable justification for a *slight* loostening of one aspect of one rule. I have not seen a good justification for choosing a strict interpretation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the Ignore All Rules policy, I choose to ignore the Ignore All Rules policy, because ignoring the policy on what is and isn't a reliable source is highly damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia. You can try to violate the WP:V if you wish, but you're going to be reverted under the justification that you violated the official policy. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First, if you read the supporting material for WP:IAR, you'll see that what I propose is very much in the spirit of the policy. Second, you're mischaracterizing what I propose. I did not say we should ignore or violate WP:V. I made a strong and reasoned case that one of its clauses should be relaxed slightly in the name of accepting a particularly large body of well-researched, widely-cited, highly respected, sourced, material with professional editorial oversight. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the policy statement above. When it says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include...," it appears to me to be saying that sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking include but are not limited to what's listed. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that both by the letter of the rule, and by the spirit of the rule, it's saying that an alleged reputation for poor fact-checking is a red flag, not an absolute cause for dismissal. Anyway, I've have seen no sourced statements that claim it has a reputation for poor fact-checking. It has corrected errors, so it would seem to have a good reputation for fact checking. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is David Friedman saying "What irritates me about this FAQ is not its conclusion--with enough iterations and a little effort actually reading the literature, it could end up as a reasonable counterargument against my position. It is the irresponsibility of people who apparently do not care whether what they publish is true. If you go back to the early versions of the FAQ, you find a series of entirely made up facts..." http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Iceland_Anarch_FAQ2_reply.html From my observation, the editor of the FAQ MAY correct something if someone bothers them enough about it, but that's not fact checking. They should check the facts BEFORE they publish things. That's what fact-checking is. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One guy being irritated by something he read does not constitute a poor reputation. Many people praising its importance (including those who disagree with some of its conclusions), a recorded history of correcting errors, publication by a third-party press, professional editorial review, and thorough sourcing (aka "checking facts before publication"), on the other hand, do constitute a good reputation. Whether you or I have a hunch about its accuracy is totally irrelevant. What counts is what's been documented. And anyway, by your standards, Friedman's comment and all of his writings should be totally blocked from reference in Wikipedia because as a self-proclaimed anarchist, he's an "extremist". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said that extremist sources can't be used. Policy allows them to be used, but only if they are used in a way that accords with the policy. I already pointed out many times that the AAFAQ can be cited to show what the opinions of the writer of the AAFAQ are. What it can't be used for is a citation for claims made by a Wikipedia article. Study the policy. I dont think you have a grasp of it. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given my reasons why AAFAQ is a reliable source according to the above-quoted policy, why the "promotion" issue is not strictly applicable in the way you claim, why WP:IAR would be applicable even if your interpretation of the "promotion" rule were correct, and why "extremism" is a red herring. Unless other editors want to chime in here, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Websites

• Center for a Stateless Society
• Molinari Institute

Good archive. Use original material with caution. Excellent source of mutualist, individualist, and market anarchist primary sources. I don't see much original material, but if there's any there, it should be used cautiously, and only if it contains sourced material. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anarchistnews.org

Does not produce original content. Only reproduces content from other sources. --Cast (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Need more info. Looks like an open media outlet with a mixture of reprinted and original content, modelled on infoshop.org and if so, then it should be treated the same. May be moot; I'll have to poke around and see if we've made any decisions about infoshop.org. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Flag.blackened.net

Good archive. Use original material with caution. The reprints of anarchist classics (right-hand column) should be fair game, but obviously the discussion forums are not reliable sources of info. Also a good starting point for of links to many other anarchist writings which should be judged on their own merits. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anarkismo.net

Use with caution. Another collaborative news site, a la Infoshop.org--does have editorial oversight, so that's a plus. Don't know if it has a reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strike-the-root.com
• Blackcrayon.com

Strongly ancap POV, very few sources. The media files from prominent anarcho-capitalists and others should fine, but they are primary sources. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raforum.info
• Anarchy.no

A noted hoax website promoted by a small group of members as being a prominent anarchist organization. Makes several fringe and blatantly false claims. Other anarchist organizations carry warnings regarding its fraud. --Cast (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A hoax? How so? The site looks very dated, and there is one page that deals with claims that it is a hoax [3], but could you be more specific? After some casual perusal of the claims of both sides, it looks to me like all we're seeing here is typical sectarian bickering. I'm not saying it's a good website--it appears pretty shoddy at first glance--but I'd like to see a succinct justification before crossing it off the list. Remember, these decisions have the potential to affect a lot of articles. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Struggle.ws
• Spunk Library
• Marxists Internet Archive

Good archive. Use original material with caution. While MIA reproduces many important documents, though much of the material related to anarchism from a mainstream communism POV is likely to be stronly anti-anarchist. However, it is certainly a great compilation of sourced historical fact on the early relation between anarchism and mainstream communism, much of the material related to the schism will be skewed. In particular, watch for claims like "anarchists are wrong because believe such-and-such". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Journals/magazines/paper periodicals

• Alternative Press Review
• Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed
• Rolling Thunder
• Social Anarchism
• Perspectives on Anarchist Theory
• Green Anarchy
• Green Anarchist
• SchNEWS
• Profane Existence
• The Match!
• Fifth Estate
• Freedom (newspaper)
• Black Flag (newspaper)

Publishers

• AK Press
• Arbeiter Ring Publishing
• CrimethInc.
• Freedom Press
• Kate Sharpley library
• Black Rose Books

Further development

Thanks to all those who have helped develop these guidelines during my break, especially to Nathan and Richard. I've moved the page from "Reliable sources guidelines" to "Anarchism referencing guidelines" because I think the focus on whether or not source x is a reliable source or not has been somewhat counter-productive, as these guidelines are supposed to help new, confused or warring editors figure out how Wikipedia policies apply to anarchism-related content.

So how I'd like the page to read is short summaries of relevant Wikipedia policies, followed by a guide to how the policies apply to anarchism, preferably with uncontroversial examples. With this in mind, I'd like to change the Using questionable or self-published sources section into a much briefer summary of policy, followed by an interpretative paragraph relating it to anarchism articles, and an illustratory example. I think the WP:AN OPINION section is the example to follow here.

As regards priorities, I don't think we need to worry too much about assessing the reliability of specific sources, as that will become easier and less controversial once we have developed the general guidelines further and have a clear idea of how to assess sources. Another reason behind moving the page to "Anarchism referencing guidelines" is to get away from the mentality that every source is either reliable or unreliable, with nowhere in between. In fact, reliability is scalable and relative: a WP:BLP-sensitive article requires much more conservative referencing than a regular article, and a self-published blog can be reliable for uncontroversial information about its author but not for criticism of third parties. Similarly, The New York Times, is usually considered a highly-reliable source, but its record on anarchism-relate issues is much more contested. So with this in mind, I re-iterate that it's best to work out/assemble the general factors which affect reliability before putting them into practice.

Any thoughts on this or other ideas on developing the guidelines ae most appreciated. Solidarity, the skomorokh 16:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points...

• You've got to define what you mean by "uncontroversial" examples ...if you mean uncontroversial among Wikipedians, then there is no such example. If you mean "uncontroversial among self-proclaimed anarchists", then examples would include exclusively left-anarchist literature. If you mean "uncontroversial among the general population" then you're talking about the New York Times and Funk & Wagnall's. The fact of the matter is, virtually all accurate literature on anarchism is simply banned by standard Wikipedia policy because it is self-published. I don't see any way around that unfortunate fact other than to come up with a consensus plan on how best to deviate from standard policy.
• If this page is just a recap of general Wikipedia policy, then I see no point in its existence at all because at best it will be superfluous, and more likely, it will simply be a battleground for edit wars between those who want to use the "rules" as battering rams for their ideological opposites. The purpose of a page like this, in my opinion, is to spell out the *differences* between the standard body of reference materials and the anarchist cannon (i.e. "While Wikipedia normally favors dictionaries over zines, in the case of an counter-cultural movement, the opposite approach is more likely to yield accurate articles.")

If the consensus is that those points aren't on the table, then I'd rather just default to individual editor's interpretations of the relevant Wikipolicies ...which means, of course, that published books like AAFAQ and established periodicals like the New York Times should be considered authoritative. Ideally though, I think this page ought to include a list of specific sources that are considered reliable, as determined by a very thorough--and drawn out if necessary--debate to take place on the attached discussion page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd like to point out that AAFAQ is completely uncontroversial with respect to Wikipedia policy, probably has fewer blemishes on its fact-checking record than the New York Times (which is also technically uncontroversial), and is only considered unreliable by a fringe group of self-described "anarchists". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I don't have anything especially in mind with uncontroversial; I had hoped we could touch on the left vs market sourcing dispute but that has seemed controversial. I think using past disputes (about syndicalism, property rights as natural rights, or propaganda of the deed, say) is a viable approach. What do you think of the Tucker/Manchesterism example?

I see the purpose of this page slightly differently to you. Wikipedia policy pages, unlike these guidelines, don't have a "standard body of reference materials". They mostly say things like "here are some general principles, now go use your best judgement". Which gives us the New York Times problem; generally beyond reproach as a source, occasionally badly misleading as a source on anarchism. So what I mean these guidelines primarily to be are a set of specific principles for citing anarchism-related content. We don't want to recap Wikipedia policy, nor do we want to reject it (i.e. by positing anonymous zines as superior to dictionaries de jure). The former would do more harm than good, and the latter would be an exercise in futility. What we do want to do is help editors interested in referencing anarchism-related content understand the particular historical context of anarchism scholarship, avoid pitfalls such as citing mainstream news sources or sectarian missives uncritically, and pay close attention to primary sources (as for self-published sources, they are not under a blanket prohibition according to Wikipedia policy (WP:SPS); see the Battle in Seattle article for an example of how I think CrimethInc. articles for instance can be used).

Note on AAFAQ: it is not at all uncontrversial, and I would never cite it for factual claims in a WP article. Not only is its editorial collective free from scholarly credentials, it is a tertiary source which fails to cite its sources, and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as its editors admit, and as a prominent academic (Friedman) have criticized it for.

A "a very thorough--and drawn out if necessary--debate" would be very welcome from my perspective, but I think unless we had a clear idea of what the issues were, defined in the guidelines, I fear we would be talking in circles. I think we jumped the gun by trying to assess specific sources before we had the general idea straight, and I hold my hand up as the guilty party there. I would also love to get much more involvement in this page from others, but I'm not sure how to go about doing so in a non-promotional manner. Lastly, all ideas and suggestions for improvement are on the table, please don't hold back! Skomorokh 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Left vs. market is a false dichotomy. Markets are not synonymous with capitalism. There are plenty of leftist market anarchists (myself, for example--and plenty of others who would blush at the term "market" but whose ideals, when examined rationally, obviously constitute a form of market). The debate which preoccupies Wikipedia editors is better described as anti-capitalist anarchism vs. capitalist "anarchism". Tucker, for example, was both a socialist and a market anarchist.

I don't think that using past disputes within the anarchist milieu will be productive in the more fundamental debates that come up here since we'd just be talking in circles covering the same ground while making no headway. I think a more productive approach is to look at similar issues that have cropped up in non-anarchist articles and follow the precedents set in those debates. Specifically, we should look at cases where multiple groups are vying for the use of the same label (i.e. evolutionary science vs. creation "science" and Judaism vs "Jews" for Jesus).

Looking at what you've written above, I don't think we disagree much on the purpose of this page. I do think we disagree on the means of accomplishing that purpose. Wikipedia has pretty loose guidelines, but those guidelines do make it difficult to use virtually all accurate sources on anarchism, and place heavy emphasis on sources that are hostile to anarchism. (Incidentally, I don't think this problem is contained to anarchism; it taints all articles on topics related to issues that are met with widespread disapproval or distortion by otherwise unbiassed "official" sources...like communism, socialism, satanism, drug policy, biblical history, etc, etc, etc.) This distortion makes it very easy for a fringe group to selectively cite inaccurate but popular sources in order to claim contributions to a movement they have no historic place in. If you want more accurate articles on anarchism in Wikipedia, the rules need to be tightened according to standard historiographic principles (i.e. rely solely on primary resources in all cases where it is possible to do so). Failing this or some similar stricture, I can't see this page as accomplishing anything other than muddying the water--as evidenced by this page's short but already contentious editorial history. The frustration with Wikipedia's official discouragement of the use of the vast majority of anarchist writings--particularly widely accepted writings such AAFAQ, the arguable gold standard of anarchist literature--is the main reason anarchists (and I'm not just talking about myself here) have avoided taking part in the wiki. Despite great initial promise, Wikipedia is becoming yet another venue for propagating widely held misconceptions. This over-reliance on public misinformation is the same problem that keeps scientists and scholars from taking Wikipedia seriously. I wish it were otherwise, but unless this page is aimed at tightening academic standards on anarchist-related material, then I don't see much value in renewing my participation.

As for AAFAQ... I disagree on at least two counts. First, the editors corrected the mistakes that Friedman pointed out, which is precisely what makes it a *good* source with respect to its reputation for correcting errors. Second, AAFAQ is absolutely riddled with quotations and source citations (for example, the short Introduction alone contains six inline source citations and its Bibliography contains hundreds of source citations), so I'm not sure where you're coming from by saying they don't cite their sources. As for the editors' scholarly credentials... I can't comment except to say that it is credited to an experienced editor who was apparently considered to be reputable enough to be printed by an established publishing company. So, I'm not sure how AAFAQ is supposed to be different from any other reference book. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You all have more patience than me! Thanks for a clear debate. I just want to echo the point about AAFAQ's error correction - the online version even has version numbers, which the BBC website or New York Times don't have. Chaikney (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQs?

I was wondering what the stance is on using the anarchist FAQ as a source. Because their section on Stirner is one of the best descriptions of egoist anarcho-communism I've ever seen, and I was hoping I could use it for my pet project. Zazaban (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Still an active proposal?

Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is still active. Zazaban (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zazaban, and I personally continue to actively monitor updates to this page. This proposal may seem stagnant for the same reason the main ATF talk page doesn't see too much activity these days. At any time during a given week, several members of the task force may be active on wikipedia, but only a few have ever been active in contributing to the maintenance and logistics of the group. The majority are members in principle until they are in need; independent satellites who gravitate towards the ATF when they are in need of assistance, but then rapidly spin out of orbit to become rogue planets when their time of need has passed. I myself will alternate between active participation and loose affiliation. It does mean we will have to wait for certain "task force projects" like this one to really take off, but I believe it will eventually. --Cast (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It may well be active, but is it still actively proposed, or has it been accepted? Hiding T 09:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been in at least unofficial use for a long time now. Zazaban (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it as official then. See what happens from there. Hiding T 10:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing |discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raise in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)