Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Referenced Material and reliability

This is both an adjunct and augmentation of the preceding discussion. I am resolving the tags for {{citations needed}} on a few pages, since I know both the primary and secondary sources well. Well, the secondary source has both a lot of information from the primary source, but its also cleaned up a lot, and better fact checked, and in fact, the secondary source is becoming the definitive refrence amoung the discussion boards.

The secondary source I am writing about is wikia, and the important question boils down to this: Can a wikia wiki be considered a reliable source? Case in point: I was editing the page on Diablo II, and there were some citations needed refrences. I know a lot about the material, and added a few more words to make it clearer that the citation is not needed, but that I could refrence the material in general on the Diablo II wiki on wikia. Its this concidered a reliable source? How does it work for the StarTrek articles to refrence memory-alpha the startrek wikia? ~~-----

No, we do not consider websites with user contributions (such as wiki's) to be reliable. If they give sources, you should read and cite those sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the relationship between the sourcing policies and guidelines

Should Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) say (words to the effect of): "In the event of inconsistencies between this page and the policies, the policies take priority, and this guideline should be amended accordingly"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Support. It's important for new editors to know that the sourcing guidelines should be consistent with the core content policies—NPOV, NOR, V, and WP:BLP—not the other way round. The content policies are strongly supported, stable, and heavily watched, whereas sourcing guidelines are not watched as much and are subject to more change.The proposed Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) failed to gain consensus precisely because people were worried about sourcing forks developing. New editors arriving at sourcing guidelines need to know that, if there's odd advice on them or they're unclear, they should be guided by the policies instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no need for redundant and duplicate wording across multiple guideline pages, when all of those pages have a common template at the top of the page where general wording can be incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• The template is non-specific and doesn't direct new editors to which content policies sourcing guidelines have to be consistent with. And apparently one of the editors who removed this from a guideline objects to it being in a template too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose in MEDRS. Oppose, I guess, in CITE. I don't care about RS. The disputed sentence currently appears in the lead of two guidelines (WP:RS and WP:CITE) and in one short essay (WP:Deletion of articles on living persons). Specifically, SlimVirgin added this line to RS on this time last year and to CITE in January of this year. It has been proposed, discussed, and rejected at other pages, including WP:POLICY—which says that all pages ought to line up with the community's actual consensus, and if that means changing a page with a "policy" template at the top rather than the one with "guideline" at the top, then so be it. See, for example:
  • Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content: "When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view."
  • Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages: "If policy and guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice."
• SlimVirgin has repeatedly inserted the sentence into MEDRS over the objections of multiple editors. IMO it is unnecessary WP:Instruction creep, which particularly ought to be avoided in such a long and densely written guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandy and WhatamIdoing. See DRY. Don't repeat bits of policy lest some bits go stale when the policy changes. This is an example of such. Nobody is arguing against "policy > guideline" but it doesn't need repeated in the third paragraph of the lead of every guideline SV edits. The solution to "policy ≠ guideline" is contentious but utterly irrelevant to the text of this guideline or MEDRS. Whatever the community decides in that regard should be documented in our procedural policies. Like WP:POLICY. Not here. Colin°^Talk 00:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It has been implicit for years but many editors do not seem to understand the difference between the two and so and making it explicit with which policy the guideline give guidance for is a good idea. Far too much time is wasted on the talk page of articles when there is a discrepancy between policy and guidelines. Policy pages tend to be watched by lots of people, but guidelines frequently are not, it is quite easy for a small number of special interest editors to formulate a guideline that contradicts policy often without realising they are doing it. It is also difficult to keep guidelines up to date with changes in the nuances in policy. For all these reasons I think this proposal is common sense. -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue of how to resolve "policy ≠ guideline" should be discussed on policy pages. Discussing it here just complicates the issue with the question of whether it should be repeated in some or every guideline. Which brings me to the question: Which of our many guidelines should not have this text in the third paragraph of their lead? Colin°^Talk 00:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Many experienced editors seem to find this particular guideline/policy combination difficult to delineate, and mistakenly use the guideline to override the policy. Its a simple addition and might save a lot of discussion and contention. As well, for newer editors its a kind of "take note" statement that may alert them to the fact that policy/guidelines may intersect when with inexperience they may not have made the connection(olive (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

• Support. How realistic is this scenario?
  1. A small groups of editors creates/modifies a narrow topical guideline so it matches their POV and helps them win edit wars.
  2. This group then tries to change the underlying policies to match their POV too.
  3. The group fails, because a much larger group of eyes is watching the policy, and realizes that these changes would have sweeping repercussions that would have unintended consequences on millions of articles, not just in the narrow topical area that concerns the guideline editors.
  4. The guideline editors insist that their guideline nevertheless overrules the underlying policy, and resists any attempt to have explicit statements in the guideline noting that policies take precedence.
• Is that too farfetched? I hope so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say it's about as far-fetched as this one:
    1. Consensus actually changed on some point.
    2. A long discussion shows a majority of editors in favor of changing the policy page to reflect the current consensus, but they get stonewalled by a couple of wikilawyers who WP:OWN the policy page.
    3. People get disgusted and give up, leaving the policy page as an inaccurate description of the community's Real Policy™.
  • Do you think that's far-fetched? I believe it happens fairly often, at least for short periods of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's actually quite far-fetched. Insisting that MEDRS doesn't need to comply with the core content policies (which is actually what's happening here) doesn't actually reflect any Wikipedia consensus or policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• STOP. This proposal has no powers. Voting on it is pointless. The proposed text is in conflict with policy. WP:POLICY does not require guidelines to be fixed to become aligned with policy: the consensus there and indeed here is that common sense should prevail and editors fix whatever needs fixed. The delicious irony is that if SV wants the above text to appear on a guideline page, then it is a policy page (WP:POLICY) that must be fixed to allow that. But any discussion to allow that text would first have to admit that sometimes policy pages are wrong and guideline pages are right. Thereby negating its own argument in a puff of logic. Colin°^Talk 08:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (semi-support): Anyone who tries to address policies rationally on wikipedia already follows this - guidelines are naturally subordinate extrapolations of policy. The only place you get anyone seriously objecting to it is MEDRS, and that's only because MEDRS is a problematic page to begin with, and the editors who use it don't want to give the other editors they argue with any leverage in policy. BATTLEGROUND mentality at its worst best. I don't really think it's needed as a statement, but I can't see that it would hurt. --Ludwigs2 02:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. Changing a few guidelines like that is not a robust proposal. The WP:POLICY policy is the right place to detail the "judicial review" process for solving conflicts between policies, guidelines, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support: What Philip said above in their opinion is very accurate. "Far too much time is wasted on the talk page of articles when there is a discrepancy between policy and guidelines" hits the nail on the head. I will add that it goes both ways however - I find myself explaining a policy in "plain English" and sending someone to the policy only to hear "The policy does not say that" so send them to a guideline that does say "that" only to get back "That is only a guideline, not a policy, so it doesn't matter." There has to be a way to stress they must go hand in hand. While this is about RS the wording would apply across the board if added to {{Subcat guideline}}. The other option is to simply go, guideline by guideline, and "conform" them. For example I feel Wikipedia:Notability (books) is set up very clear. Read the intro, right under this: These guidelines may be considered a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to books, reflecting the core Wikipedia policies, including the following:; there are clearly laid out links to the core polices the guideline follows. The same with Wikipedia:Notability (films). However, for example, Wikipedia:Notability (music) is not laid out that way and discussion after discussion has been had about these guidelines in relation to policies, and more and more the guidlines seem to be winning over policy. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not laid out as clear either, and that even explicitly states This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; The proposed wording may not be the only solution, but I think it helps. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Per SandyGeorgia's suggestion, resolving conflict between a guideline and policy should be explained in the template on all guidelines, but the explanation should be "If there is a conflict between a Guideline and a Policy, the conflict should immediately be brought to the attention of editors at both pages, and a centralized discussion should take place to resolve the conflict." per Blueboar, below. Anthony (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:POLICY#Conflicts between advice pages seems to already include that. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see it at the top of all guidelines. Anthony (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as worded, though some kind of advice to readers along the lines of "if there's a contradiction, then most times rely on what the policy page says rather than the guideline page" might be useful. However we've no basis for asserting that the text of a policy page is always a better description of Wikipedia's practices than that of a guideline page (in practice we find that it usually is, but it isn't so as of right). --Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't believe anything but a short reference to the policy being supplemented is needed. WP:POLICY explicitly says 'maintain scope, avoid redundancy', snd says what should be done about things like this, it should not be repeated in every guideline and policy. Redundancy leads to bits contradicting each other when one changes and bloats policy and guidelines with irrelevancies. People just want to read them, and see what they say. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed text conflicts with WP:POLCON. It also sounds too much like a hard and fast rule, in contrast to WP:POLCON which is a helpful tip on how to make Wikipedia better. Yaris678 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Change it - Structurally it makes sense to say "Policy is superior to guideline, so in any conflict the guideline must change to conform to the policy"... but that is too simplistic and does not reflect how things really work. It is proscriptive not descriptive. How things really work is that when a Policy and a Guideline conflict, we need to bring them back into sync... but how we do so is somewhat flexible. At least one of the pages will have to change what it says, and in most situations it will probably be the guideline that changes... but not always. There are times when the conflict highlights a flaw with the policy language that no one noticed before, and when this happens it may well be that the best solution is to change the wording of the policy so it matches the guideline. Yes, this is rare... but it is possible (And, indeed, it may be that the best resolution will be to change both the policy and the guideline). The policy on conflicts between Policy and Guidelines should be: "If there is a conflict between a Guideline and a Policy, the conflict should immediately be brought to the attention of editors , and a centralized discussion should take place to resolve the conflict." It is then a matter of the community reaching a consensus as to how best to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is, in effect, what the community has already said (see quotes from WP:POLICY above), and what SV apparently doesn't want to apply to these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors are expected to follow the spirit of both guidelines and polices, but since they are all descriptive and not prescriptive, none of them has any priority over any others. The choice of "policy" or "guidelines" is guided as much by tradition and bluster as by actual precedence. It's a distinction without a difference.

In the case at hand it's clear that guidance about sourcing a particular sort of article is likely to be more useful than general guidance about sourcing general articles. So considering all this I don't see why we need to add the text in question to the MEDRS page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree... however, given the number of MEDRS related issues that are cropping up here and at other policy pages, we seem to have at least potential conflict between MEDRS and other policies... that needs to be addressed.Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I trust you these are popping up - I haven't been following too closely. If there is a real conflict, we should certainly address it. But the proposed text doesn't do that; it just says "if there is a conflict ...". Now I think the reasoning behind it is that some editor or editors thinks there is a conflict, but can't actually get agreement that there is. To the extent that the proposed text is meant to short-circuit the actual discussion on the conflict, the proposed text is misguided.

In the end, what all of our sourcing guidelines say is that we should use the best sources for each article, which will vary depending on the article topic and field. If the MEDRS page actually does describe what editors of medicine-related articles feel are the best sources, I don't see what the conflict is. Maybe this is just because I haven't followed talk pages closely enough, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's a problem with MEDRS, we shouldn't sweep it under the rug by saying "that guideline is just a guideline anyway". That strategy has not worked in the past. The way that WP:PROF is used to justify the inclusion of articles where no biographical sources exist directly conflicts with WP:V, and yet it continues to be used that way, and the administrators don't feel like they have the latitude to ignore the !votes that rely on it. I agree fully with blueboar, if there's a conflict between policy and guidelines, we need to resolve that conflict, not just try to assert absolute superiority of policy, because that will be ignored in practice. Gigs (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a great and valid point, but the question is, what do we do in the meantime? Or any meantime for that matter where there is a discrepancy. Hashing out a policy debate can easily take weeks or months and while that is happening, it helps if there is a way to say, 'well, we're figuring this out, but until we do this is what takes precedence'. That is mostly only needed on the most controversial articles, but on those articles it really helps to focus debates on sources via the guidance of policy.

The MEDRS issue is not so much about whether or not medical sources should be used, but just how strong MEDRS own internal hierarchy between systematic reviews or case study reviews or literature reviews or randomized trials or mere case studies or recent studies, etc is. And, how that plays out on articles is one issue.

The other issue is where MEDRS applies. It's supposed to address only medical claims or advice, but on some alternative medicine articles like Chiropractic it has a fairly wide reach into sections that are not necessarily medical. This is part of the general NPOV v. SPOV/APOV (academic pov) debate that has always been lurking, and which is currently being discussed at WP:SCIRS. None of these are simple issues to resolve, which makes a clear delineation of policies over guidelines helpful. Ocaasi (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"In the meantime", editors on specific articles should work out the right thing for those individual articles, following the spirit of the policies. Our policies are only descriptive of general best practice anyway, they aren't intended to cover every situation.

In general, and this is not intended to refer to you, I have seen too many editors say "policies take precedence" when what they mean is, "my personal interpretation of the policy takes precedence, so you need to do it my way". A "clear" delineation doesn't help if there is already disagreement, as seems to be the case, about whether there is even any conflict between the different policies and guidelines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fundamental problem with MEDRS is that it overlaps way too much with existing policies and guidelines. The reliability of a source is always contextual. A medical claim being backed up by a source that is reliable and appropriate for that claim is already well documented in other policy and guidelines. I see absolutely no need for MEDRS to exist, and would support abandoning it entirely. As you said, editors need to work out the right thing for the individual articles, and indeed, the right source for individual claims. Gigs (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth is MEDRS being discussed here. Please try to stay focussed. This proposal isn't about changing the natural order of guideline and policy but is about spamming guidelines pages with bits of policy and about some of that spam actually being in conflict with policy. Colin°^Talk 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, please consider being clear in the !votes above: Are you "supporting" or "opposing" the sentence everywhere, or just in particular pages? For example, I've got no objection to it being included on this page, but I do oppose spamming it into all ~30 content guidelines. I suspect that some of the "supporters" want it included in this page, but don't necessarily think it should be included in every single related page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also SandyGeorgia's idea about putting it into the {content guideline} template. That makes as much sense, although it puts the statement on all of the content pages, obviously. Ocaasi (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose in that case, you could split the {subcat guideline|content} into two, creating a {subcat guideline|sourcing}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am quite disturbed that editors who have a clear agenda are hijacking this proposal because it appears to suit their own ends. There are two parts to this proposal. The first is to spam guideline pages with a reminder that policy takes precedence. That agrees with WP:POLICY but we don't need reminding of this in the third paragraph of the lead of every bloody guideline that SV edits. Those who think we need reminding couldn't be more wrong. If a few editors go astray, point them at WP:POLICY. SV seems to think that page was "abandoned"[1] but the last time I looked it was one of our key policies and guidelines, which "have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow." Perhaps some of the policy lurkers/editors here need reminding that many people edit on WP just fine and just because you've got into conflict with somebody over this rule doesn't mean we need it repeated everywhere. DRY suggests we don't pointlessly repeat bits of policy all over our guidelines, especially so with contentious bits. Which brings us to the second part to this proposal, which is that we must always assume the guideline is wrong and fix that. This is in conflict with WP:POLICY and indeed with common sense. On a Wiki like this where guideline and policy can be edited by anyone, neither page is perfect. I could understand such a rule if policy pages could only by edited by high priests but that isn't so. But anyway, any discussion to change that rule should be done on WT:POLICY and since it would be a significant procedural policy change, any such discussion should be advertised on community notice boards and village pump etc.

It is deeply ironic that an attempt to change policy is being done on a guideline talk page. Colin°^Talk 08:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

POLICY is only "abandoned" in the sense that SlimVirgin herself stopped editing it a year ago, after most of her ideas were repeatedly rejected there, (e.g., her efforts to label guidelines like RS as being merely "advisory", and to declare that the page isn't a policy). The policy has almost 1200 people watching it, which is 165% the number of editors watching RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The relationship between policy and guidelines is well understood, and it is also well understood that the actual application of it requires interpretation. Within any type of violation of policy, some instances are more serious than others; within violation of guidelines, ditto. To take a flagrant example, the various sections of WP:NOT don't have the same degree of consensus. Some are continually challenged; some are universally acknowledged. To take another. COI is only a guideline, but drastic abuse of it is cause for a block. Really severe violation of WP:N are speedily deleted by the thousands, and it is only a guideline. This applies even to the strongest policies, BLP and copyvio. Gross copyright violations are speedied very quickly, and in a few cases, revision deleted. Small-scale violations are simply edited out of an article. Ambiguous or uncertain or challenged ones are discussed. Some violations of BLP are sufficiently harmful to warrant an immediate block and an oversight; most of them are dealt with less drastically. Our rules are already too complex, and their exact wording is too rigid. I recognize this as a very well intentioned effect to clarify the complexity, but it will just add to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Changes on policy pages have sometimes been opposed with the argument that policy pages have to suit all types of articles, have to be kept at the most general level, and that more specific advice should be given on guideline pages. That is a fair argument, but it falls down if any more specific advice provided on a guideline page is undermined by the statement that in the event of any discrepancies between guideline and policy, the policy alone, with its undifferentiated and general statements, will prevail. The sourcing standards in MEDRS for example seem quite sensible. Compared to WP:V, they privilege scientific sources over media sources, and give sourcing advice that would not apply to other topics, such as computer games or pop stars. That seems legitimate, and in the interest of the encyclopedia. I appreciate the idea proposed here, but I am also loath to pull out the rug from underneath guidelines such as MEDRS. It's a catch-22 to say that policies must remain general, that specific advice must be given in guidelines, and that whatever specific advice a guideline gives is superseded by the policy. --JN466 05:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

JN: it's really only a paradox, not a catch-22. guidelines should be an extension of policy: they should clarify what policy means for specific instances. This is (of course) a matter of interpretation, and the interpretations of policy are open to discussion and debate, but interpretations should never extend themselves to the point of rewriting policy - that should be done in policy directly. For (generic) example, if policy says "editors should do X when Y", guidelines can say "for this topic area, X means 'this' and Y means 'that'", but guidelines should not fundamentally alter X or Y - they should only exemplify and specify. for a concrete example, if we have a policy that say "Thou shalt not kill articles without due cause", a guideline might specify what 'due cause' is for a particular topic area, but should not ever suggest that some articles might be killed without due cause, or that some articles don't merit investigation of 'due cause'. That would violate the aforementioned policy.

There is never going to be a clean and neat statement of this, but if we want to rationalize policy then actual policy pages should be broad, universal statements of project intentions, and guidelines should expand, enhance, and enlarge on those intentions in specific instances.

As an aside, keep in mind that Wikipedia is young. The basic draft of the US Constitution took a couple of decades (from the inception of the idea prior to the revolutionary war to the codification of it in 1887), and really didn't reach its modern form for a 150 years after that. Even though Wikipedia is a much smaller project than the US federal union, it still involves a large body of people, and 10 years is hardly enough time to establish an accepted and consistent ruleset. One needs to take the long view in these matters. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it takes time. We tried to get WP:V in line with WP:MEDRS recently, by saying that where a body of scholarly literature exists, our articles should strive to describe the status of research in that body of literature, and that media sources are equally useful (and, where scholarly literature exists, complementary) sources for reflecting public discourse, societal reception, and current affairs (incl. current-affairs aspects of science) as well as BLPs. That seemed like a pretty universally acceptable principle. But it was blocked, and WP:V stayed with the general principle that all sources -- scholarly and media -- are equally reliable sources, with just a non-committal reminder that context determines what the best source is in any given circumstance. That sets up what are essentially POV forks in our policy/guideline system. Editors who want to privilege scholarly sources for science quote MEDRS, editors who want to cite media sources on science quote WP:V. We're not making progress that way. --JN466 08:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, Just an aside, but not everyone in the world, not even every thoughtful person, would agree that the a single written constitution like the US one is the best approach. The British constitution seems to work fine in a more flexible way, arguing allowing both change and stability over a long period of time. The argument against the US approach is that it leads to what some people call "constitutional idolatry". In any case whatever one thinks about this subject, the British style of constitution is more like how WP really works, and is a better model here. PS I am not British and not American.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

JN... you say: We tried to get WP:V in line with WP:MEDRS recently... I think that is what lies at the root of the issue here. There are those who feel that trying to get V in line with MEDRS is backwards... that it should go the other way... that the "correct" way to resolve the conflict is to try to get WP:MEDRS in line with WP:V (and also WP:NPOV). Personally, I think both approaches are flawed. What we need to have first is a well publicized central discussion that asks a) whether MEDRS conflicts with V and NPOV... b) looks into why MEDRS conflicts with V and NPOV (assuming it does), c) reaches a community consensus on how to resolve the conflict. Only then we can determine whether to change MEDRS or V (or both). Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Blueboar, despite the way I phrased things above, the proposal I made wasn't really motivated by MEDRS. I don't normally edit medicine articles. It was more to do with the whole climate change fiasco, and my longstanding impression that our articles sometimes tend to focus too much on press controversies – or on whether someone is or isn't gay, rather than what makes them notable :) – offering more journalistic spice than encyclopedic meat. Reconciling WP:V and MEDRS would have been a side-effect of that, because as it happens, some of those same ideas are enshrined in MEDRS. But I agree with what you say: we should look at the differences between WP:MEDRS and WP:V and think about how they match up with what an encyclopedia ought to be doing. We shouldn't be having POV islands. --JN466 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeez... don't get me started on the climate change articles. My opinion there is that both sides in that debate are doing their best to keep any mention of opposing viewpoints out of the articles. Talk about POV islands! In that debate, press controversy is important to discuss to give our readers a complete understanding of the topic (something the "Pro" faction does not want to do)... but that press controversy needs to be discussed neutrally as being press controversy, and not as a counter to the science (which the "Anti" faction doesn't want to do). It is never a good idea to edit policy with a specific article or set of articles in mind... and that goes double for articles on controversial topics. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You're spot-on in your assessment of the climate change situation. I still think though that the rationale you are describing, and which informed our proposal, describes the differing roles of press and scholarly sources in general. We are not a scholarly encyclopedia, and we cover current affairs, popular culture and media controversies more than a traditional encyclopedia would. That's what gives Wikipedia its unique flavour, and it is what makes us so popular. But we should do both jobs: present what scholarly research has been done, and give an overview of public discourse. In some topics, like differential calculus, there won't be any significant popular discourse. For other article subjects, like PopMatters, there will be no scholarly literature. In other topics, like Ernest Hemingway or climate change, there will be both scholarly and media discourse, and we should give an overview of both the scholarly and the current-affairs aspects of the topic. I agree that we should not edit policy with a particular scenario in mind, but I think what we have here are the foundations of a generic principle that holds true for any article we might possibly have. --JN466 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

JN: when I say it takes time, I mean it takes time. MEDRS is a particularly problematic case. I occasionally work on Alt Med articles (where they overlap with my general interests in metaphysics, science, and culture), and so it's clear to me that a lot of MEDRS is designed for AltMed thumping - in those cases it's used to undercut alternative medical perspectives by tautologically defining altmed sources as unreliable sources. Not that I object to MEDRS outright - there probably are some special sourcing issues for medical topics, and some pro-altmed articles need a thumping, now and then - but it will take time to convince editors that they have to give up what they see as a tactical advantage in order to conform better to policy. (and yeah, some editors will never give up that tactical advantage under any circumstances - separate problem...). I agree with BlueBoar that a centralized discussion is needed to rationalize all three pages, I just don't know where such a discussion would take place - a subpage of Pump (Policy), maybe? But if we're going to do that, we should open it up to all the verifiability and reliability issues on project (which are spread out over 3 or 4 policy pages that I know of and a few more guidelines). Basically it would be three issues: (1) what are the abstract (project-wide) principles of verifiability and reliability that we want to observe on wikipedia, (2) what is the relationship of wikipedia to science and the scientific perspective (which is the main area where reliability squabbles come into existence), and (3) what are the limits on the ways in which guidelines can extend policy. If we settle those questions, then we can come back and rewrite MEDRS with the new understandings that we develop.

@ Andrew (and our conversational sub-thread): I only used the US constitution as an example of how long it can take to establish consistent rules, not as a model. That being said, though, the wikipedia model as it actually stands is odd. it's loosely constitutionalized in policy, but mostly runs on a very informal, discursive, common-law type model. honestly, the closest equivalent to the current wikipedia system you'll find in the modern world is non-fundamentalist Islamic law as practiced in tribal regions: a loose set of written laws that are primarily implemented through experience-based interpretations (see fatwā), passed on through stories and examples, and debated by elders (i.e. sysops) when there's enough tumult to merit asking their opinion. The major flaw in our system, IMO, is that it lacks an effective memory: there's no firm and established core doctrine as in a constitutional system (except maybe the five pillars) that keeps the project on track, no condensed and rationalized set of past 'good' decisions (as there is in common law) that can be referred to, almost no systematic effort anywhere to ensure that what we do in this case is consistent with what we did in those cases or what we will do in that case. The administrative side of wikipedia has no real history (it just has a mess of more-or-less unconnected actions, if you see the distinction I'm making), and as such it tends to wander and wallow much more than it really needs to. But that's a much, much bigger discussion... --Ludwigs2 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of MEDRS was designed to deal with the case study and anecdotal evidence problem. You get a person (usually a patient with the disease) who finds some "peer-reviewed article"—oops, it turns out that it was a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor, but they didn't notice that—that has a sample size of 1 or 2, and it's several decades old, and they use it to "prove" that the medical textbooks, all the practice guidelines, and dozens of randomized, controlled trials are wrong.

I do object to people using lousy sources in AltMed articles when high-quality sources are easily available, but I do that for any kind of article, and I presume that you do, too.

As an example, the multiple chemical sensitivity websites a couple of years ago were all excited about what they claimed the German government said about MCS's etiology. They said that the German government said that MCS was a purely physical disease, and several affected people tried to stick it into our article.

Problems: The letter they were citing was from the Austrian government, not the German one. Furthermore, it didn't say anything at all about the nature of the disease: It just said that for computer coding purposes, they copied the numbering scheme used in Germany.

I can't really imagine anyone here thinking that such a source supports a claim that "Germany has classified MCS as a physical disease," even if you believe MCS to be an "alternative medicine" subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Like I said, I only run into MEDRS when I edit Alt Med articles; most definitely a selection bias on my part. It's still annoying though. I'm not really sure why the example you gave needs a separate guideline, however - wouldn't that sinply fall under wp:UNDUE? can't hurt to clarify it, of course, but... --Ludwigs2 01:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See also MON 810. I've just corrected incorrect overgeneralizations on the [in]effectiveness of Bt cotton on the pink bollworm; The Hindu vs. Science (journal). See also: Schizophrenia: hoopla, disappointment and science journalism. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Explaining UNDUE to a newbie is often complicated. "Proof" that MCS is a purely physical, non-psychological disease is hugely important to some of the affected people. They glance over the policy and conclude that you're saying that it is subjectively, in your personal opinion, not important enough to include—and what's your opinion, a non-expert, non-affected person, compared to theirs?

By contrast, if you point them at MEDRS and say that a blog's mistranslation of a letter to an activist isn't a strong enough source to overcome textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books published by academic presses, they might whinge about bias in the media and mainstream medicine, but they usually understand that their source really does fall on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a special guideline to say that. Our general guidelines on reliable sourcing are sufficient. Gigs (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to try those conversation without referring to MEDRS. You are even welcome to resolve those disputes without reference to any policy at all, or only to IAR. What you do is your choice. Personally, I've found MEDRS to be the most efficient path to resolving sourcing disputes like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that having a private version of the consensus guidelines that you and a few others can make say whatever you want to say does help you win arguments against fringe science people. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This change to V policy seems to go against the discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In cases where reliability is being debated, aren't citations and reviews relevant?

I want to raise an issue I have run into myself, and which I see come up again and again on WP:RSN. There seem to be two opposed and distinct approaches to the above question, in cases where there is debate about a source, for example if one editor out of three says he or she thinks the source is self-published or not academic enough for a subject or whatever:-

• Approach 1. I have seen it get argued that citations or reviews of a source (author and/or publication), no matter how strong, are argued to be absolutely irrelevant, and in preference we Wikipedians should research the person and/or the publication to judge its qualifications.
• Approach 2. The approach is to take what appear to be the core words of WP:RS and check for "reputation of fact checking" and one good way to do this if there are doubts about something in the publication itself is to go looking for citations and reviews - which others argue to be irrelevant.

It has been striking to me how people seem to split into two camps. COI: Approach 1 is not my approach so I might not be describing it sympathetically, but you can probably read between the lines that to me this looks like WP:OR. What do others think?

Concerning the policy wording I have seen one area which gets cited and that is WP:SPS. It would not be obvious why, but it works like this:-

• An editor says that they personally have doubts and that it is up to others to convince them. So even though other editors don't think WP:SPS applies, in the spirit of WP:BURDEN discussion moves to the section on "questionable sources" and therefore to the only part of that section with clear wording about exemptions and that is WP:SPS.
• How can SPS be used so widely? In general, if someone says that a source looks unreliable, then it is similar to saying that you think it is just someone's self-published, un-checked, opinion. For example in the case I was involved in, discussed below, the publication was not very academic (there was no debate about that) and the author was one of the original board of editors. My interlocutor therefore insisted on simply calling it his personal webpage. (But during discussions about other articles my interlocutor also called it the personal webpage of OTHER editors of the publication.) My point is that people have learnt to claim all kinds of things are self published in cases which might not be everyone's idea of self-published. In any case what other part of WP:RS can we look at in questionable cases?
• WP:SPS does NOT clearly allow any exemption for questionable publications which are frequently cited. It only gives explicit exemption to cases where an author has published in other publications. Indeed it only discusses questioned authors, not publications or articles.

So in effect WP:SPS gets used to discuss many doubtful cases where it was probably not intended to be used. It was apparently written to cover cases like where a well-known author's personal blog gets cited. It was not written to tell us what to do in all other kinds of debatable case, but it is being used that way.

Examples. Open cases on RSN right now include [2], [3]. In the case I was personally involved in a few months ago an author+publication combination was being questioned which was however responsible for at least 2 of the core articles cited in the "methods" sections of dozens of articles in a whole scientific field.[4] For those who aren't used to scientific articles, you do not get in the methods section, and certainly not repeatedly, if your work is not very critical. There were two arguments in that case:

1. That WP:RS, at least in WP:SPS, says nothing about the importance of citations.
2. That in any case this argument could never be used to defend less cited articles by the same author+publication combination.

My words from that discussion: "The way I read it, the distinction you are making whereby a widely and strongly cited source (author + journal) can also not be a reliable source, is simply not possible to begin with. That's the reason the possibility is not mentioned surely?" BTW I did post to RSN [5]. I got one comment in my favor and then the other party dropped by to claim that my questions were not what they seemed and not surprisingly no-one else posted. I therefore posted on the project talk page and got not much more response.[6]

I believe the wording on WP:RS is allowing two opposed interpretations about what to do when someone says they find a source questionable and invokes WP:BURDEN? Should WP:RS somewhere perhaps explicitly say that citations and reviews in reliable sources count as showing a reputation for fact checking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone is pointing to WP:BURDEN to remove sourced information, they are pointing to the wrong policy statement. BURDEN applies to unsourced material. That said, BURDEN is only on of many policy and guideline provisions that we must comply with... the fact that a source has been provided is not necessarily the end of the conversation (in many ways, it is only the beginning). The key is that once a source is provided, there should be a conversation.

Now, as to your question... of course reviews and citations to the source in other works are a consideration when determining if a source is reliable, as they give us an indication as to the reputation of the source. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar, well, I've given diffs to show how it happens, and how similar discussions keep appearing on RSN. I wonder how this approach arises.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the website, I would say that the issue of self-publication is irrelevant since all websites are by some standard self-published. Evaluating these on the basis of reputation is the only way to go. The case of the book where the head of the publishing institute is also one of the authors is a more difficult case. I personally would again tend to rely on reputation over formality but I can see how the issue is arguable, and if another source were available I would tend to prefer it. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. No doubt this was not a particularly strong source, and in fact it is not used for many things on Wikipedia. (As my diffs show I got involved in what was effectively an effort to remove all reference to it from Wikipedia by an editor who had a history connected to an article (Khazars) where it was one among many sources, and the weakest of those, that got in his way concerning other issues. As mentioned, at different times, that particular Wikipedian referred to this source as the personal website of several different authors. Arguable is about the most you can call such a hypocritical claim.) Anyway, obviously a policy page's wording has to be judged at partly by how it handles more difficult cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we lost track a bit there. I was saying that I've seen it argued in real examples by experienced editors that WP:RS is quite clearly worded so as to imply that citations and reviews do not count in discussions about questionable cases. OTOH it seems to be agreed by many that the spirit of the policy does definitely suggest that such citations and reviews should be relevant. So it seems worth asking if anyone can point me to an error in that assertion that it only between the lines? And if it is only between the lines, can we please bring it out from between the lines and put it the lines themselves somewhere? As I have pointed out, the questionable sources section currently only gives advise for very limited types of types of questioning, and this has been read by experienced editors to mean that other cases are never reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources

• The current first sentences of the above-named section are "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Doesn't this imply an equation between being fringe or even just strongly POV, and being unreliable? Isn't it the case that we try to split these two types of concerns up an handle them in different policies?
• I think the equation of questionable with poor is odd, because something known to be poor is poor, while something that is questionable leaves room for debate.
• In any case, as mentioned above, this section does often end up being referred to as if it were the relevant advice on what to do when there is debate about how reliable a source is. So if this section is not about "debatable sources" maybe it should be, because currently there is a gap and the advice on what to do in such cases (for example whether looking at citations and reviews is relevant to help judge) is missing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of those areas where this guideline overlaps with WP:NPOV (all of our content polices and guidelines overlap and have an impact on each, other). The difference being that this guideline looks at the issue from the standpoint of assessing the reliablility of the sources, while NPOV looks at the issue from the standpoint of ensuring that what we write, based upon the sources, is written in a neutral tone. Our sources are allowed to be non-neutral ... but what we write is not.

The reason why we say these sources are questionable (as opposed to outright unreliable) is that a lot depends on what you are using them for. Very few sources are (I would even go to the extreme of saying No source is) 100% unreliable, or 100% reliable. Hitler's Mein Kamph would not be a reliable source for a blunt statement of fact about Jews... but it would be a reliable source for an attributed statement as to Hitler's views (and by extension the views of the Nazis in general) about Jews. Whether we should mention Hitler's views in a specific article depends on the article topic... as spelled out in WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, the problem is that these distinctions are not explained. What you are saying is that the paragraph I am pointing to has a very special intention about quite special cases. However as I think I've shown this section is also read by people looking for advice on other kinds of problems, and (here is the point) the text does not explain the distinctions that need to be made in order to understand it the way you are explaining it. It can be read simply as saying that sources with a POV are a problem for RS, and as you know the RSN board gets people working on such a basis quite often. I'd suggest that the paragraph involved should be adapted to include such things as:-

• Questionable sources are sources where the reliability of a source, given a specific editing context, is debatable.
• One example would be sources where the strength of fact checking or editorial oversight is disputed, possibly because the type of publication is an unusual one. In such cases, editors should look at the core principles of this policy and can consider such factors as whether the source is widely cited or positively reviewed by less controversial reliable sources.
• Another type of case is where there appears to be no normal fact checking or editorial oversight. Such sources can only be used in very limited cases on Wikipedia.
• Another type of questionable case is when a source is extremist or takes a consistent and un-questioning fringe position. In such cases editors should also refer to Wikipedia's policies concerning notability and neutrality. It should be kept in mind that sources which take a partisan position in a mainstream debate are not generally considered unreliable just for that reason.

If people are meant to know this stuff, it should be said somewhere, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the last of the four points above, with a little trimming for c/e, might be useful to include in the guideline in some way. The others — and this simply may be the somewhat verbose wording and not the sentiment — appear to muddy the waters and make the guideline, ironically, less clear. For example, the phrase "possibly because the type of publication is an unusual one" is troublesome: "Unusual" can mean too many things. But I think we're going in the right direction. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if we consider those four bullets points a draft idea for fleshing out the questionable sources section, what do others think of the idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Tenebrae, the first three do not clarify the issues and have potential to create additional problems. As for the fourth, as you note, if a source takes a partisan position in a mainstream debate, it may be reliable as in it's representation of that position. How do you distinguish that case from an "extremist or takes a consistent and un-questioning fringe position."? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, would removal of the word "partisan" or replacement by a better word fix it?

@Tenebrae, I am not confident I understand what the two meanings of unusual are?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I would keep it simple:

• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Sources which take a partisan position in a mainstream debate are not generally considered questionable for that reason alone.

Would that help? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what it would not help is that it leaves open the question of what people should do when they have a "debateable" source generally. If you define a questionable source as one without fact checking, then what about all the other types of questioning that occur? As I pointed out above, what I think happens now is that people in debates try to glean guidance out of other parts of this policy page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Most often, what we should do is dependent on what is to be done. At RSN, for example, it is generally the case that one needs to know not only what the source in question is, but how it is to be used. What is a reliable source for one statement may not be reliable for another. So I'm not sure a policy page is the best place for that kind of instruction. What you might consider is whether this kind of guidance might be more appropriate in an essay. Essays do not define policy but can be a valuable guide to editors unsure of what to do. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For a more concrete explanation about what I want to fix see my comments above [7].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:RS should be expanded and should explicitly trump WP:V

The discussion is here: [8]

Your thoughts are appreciated. The "oldest people" question, and how to verify such people, is only what set off discussion. SBHarris 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no... WP:V is the policy... this is a guideline that explains and expands one aspect of WP:V. Neither should "trump" the other... they should work together. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Shoes' Father

Koasati Chief Red Shoes was born 1720 to Wind Clan Sehoy I. He was the nephew of Sehoy I's brother who remains unidentified along with his biological father. As has been noted, Creek Nation nephews inherit from their maternal uncles according to matrilineal culture. Thus, Red Shoes, his mother, Sehoy I, and her brother (?)were all members of the Wind Clan. The Koasati and the Alabama Indians remain the only modern Native American Tribes in the US that do not grant full membership with voting priviledges to mixed blood members. Sehoy I's son, Red Shoes was awarded the political title of Red Shoes by his maternal uncle and his position had to be rattified by the full Koasati Council. This could only have been done because he was a full blood Koasati as was his mother and his uncle.

Alexander McGillivary was Red Shoes' nephew. However, because he was mestizo McGillivray could never have inherited the title or position of "Red Shoes War Chief of the Koasati." This talented man understood the rules but had a vision. He was perseptive enough to see the multicultural tribes of the area were faltering as pawns of the Americans, the British, and the Spanish governments. His act of organizing the Indian Nations into a powerful coalition was similar to the modern United Nations of today. He assumed the leadership and accrued to himself a greater power than his uncle Red Shoes could have ever bestowed upon him.

Koasat Chief Red Shoes and Alabama Chief Pio Mingo left the Creek Nation with their followers after the Treaty of New York and moved first to Lousiana and then to Texas. Red Shoes Died in Texas about 1815 (J.Sibley Agent, Report 1815). --64.234.8.222 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Mary Sixwomen Blount, Principle Chief, Apalachicola Creek Indians, Oral Tradition of the 6th great grand niece of Chief Red Shoes.--64.234.8.222 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you want to add all this to an article? You reliable (published) source. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Autobiographies, oral history, related material

Are statements considered acceptable for WP if in (1) an autobiography, (2) less comprehensive personal memoirs, (3) personal recollections reported in peer reviewed Annals of History of ... (e.g. Computing), (4) that are cited as "private communication" in bibliographies of well regarded monographs and peer reviewed journal articles. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific sources in mind, you might want to seek clarification on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Also use of any source is subject to consensus on that article's talk page.

1. Yes, if by a reputable publisher, but still not a substitute for a secondary source. If self-published, almost definitely no. Also take caution when using a source on itself, and in general seek alternates sources for autobiographies.
2. No. There are exceptions to every rule, but generally if the subject of the memoirs is worth reporting, someone else has already done so.
3. Yes, if it's a reputable source (not a fringe publication that gave itself an "annals" name). AHC would be fine.
4. No. Cite the monograph or journal article that used the private communication.

FYI, this page is for discussing improvements to the Identifying reliable sources page. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. New to the game. Got routed here because of topic of guidelines without realizing formulation of guidelines is the issue. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

aspartame controversy

I need some help. The title of this article seems to point to both sides of this controversy but what is presented is one side only. How do I get the other side presented? Is it possible to list both pros and cons in a site devoted to a controversy? Can I add in a website that lists 100 different personnel experiences with aspartame or is this OR? How do I find out if it is possible to do research on a 20 or 30 year exposure to any substance? Lastly will I loose my membership because of my commits on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Even controversy articles abide by reliable sourcing standards. A website with personal experiences is likely not an RS per WP:SPS. It's not OR, since it's not your research, but that doesn't make it RS. Ask a scientist about longitudinal studies of toxicity. (That's still OR until it's published). Comments are fine so long as they are civil. For future questions, you can try the Help desk, or ask about specific sources at WP:RSN, the noticeboard, not the policy page. Also, please sign your posts with 4 of these ~. Ocaasi (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of use of dissertations and theses

After participating in the discussion here, it seems to me that we need some additional clarification to account for different uses of the words "dissertation" and "thesis", and to be more explicit about the use of master's theses and dissertations. Therefore, I would like to propose the following change in wording:

• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Theses or dissertations written as part of the degree requirements for a Master's degree are not generally considered reliable, although they might be if cited in multiple scholarly works or published in book or article form.

Comments and suggestions welcome, this is just a first crack at the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was watching that discussion also. I wonder just on your last sentence if it does not try to create a black-white distinction where the consensus was just a tad more "grey"? In other words concerning Masters theses was it not a bit more context sensitive and depending upon the type of course, etc? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say both are kind of iffy, with doctoral dissertations tilting more toward acceptability, master's theses more often than not being on a par with senior honors theses. But I wouldn't say that dissertations have been vetted by the academic community: they passed muster with three to five people chosen by you with whom you've formed a personal relationship over the course of several years and whose own careers are advanced by having their graduate students succeed. Peer review is before three to five people who are not supposed to know that it is you and who are bitter from their last rejected paper/grant proposal, chosen by an editor selected for their scholarship, where there is a fear of being "too soft." Dissertations can be invaluable, especially regarding data collection (I bought one that lists everyone ever named a dictator by Rome, including ceremonial nominations). But I would not say that a dissertation is just as reliable as a published work of scholarship, or that it counts as "published." That said, some fields require that you have published your dissertation before it can be accepted; they're a different matter. So, dissertations can be relied upon, but I would not count them as an equal in WP:NPOV discussions. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, currently policy does regard PhD theses or dissertations as reliable, and what I'm trying to do is clarify the issue regarding same for master's theses or dissertations. Note that in some countries dissertations are used for works at the bachelor and masters levels, and thesis for doctoral work. FWIW, I agree that a dissertation carries less weight in general in comparison to a peer reviewed article. AL, yes, I'm glad you brought that up. I had thought to add a qualifier, either in terms of having been published in a peer reviewed journal (but I rejected that, since there'd be no question then about reliability), or having been cited or reviewed in other scholarly works. The latter might work, what do you think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the type of thing I would think would help. You want to define what things people should look at in case of dispute. I do not normally think WP policy pages which seek to give black/white rulings work well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Australia runs two kinds of Masters in Arts, the MA which is a coursework course, some universities automatically awarding these. The other, the MA which is a research course, generally internally assessed. The reason to not use theses from MA by Research courses is mainly that the purpose of a MA by Research is not to produce original knowledge to scholarly standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too difficult to nail down "thesis" and "dissertation". Even among English-speaking countries, there is clearly wide variation in terminology. How about this: Publications that are by definition produced as a requirement for a degree are generally not reliable. In certain circumstances where no alternative may be found, student publications can be used but must be identified as such in the article text.

As RJC pointed out above, a PhD dissertation can be an invaluable research tool (just like Wikipedia itself). However, any information that would be considered "reliable" in a dissertation must either come from somewhere else - in which case, that source and not the dissertation should be cited - or be the result of independent research which is not usable.

Let's say a student writes a scientific and spends several years in the laboratory performing experiments while collating other relevant papers and textbooks. They put that all together in a dissertation, and some tidbit from the whole project is important to the wikipedia article. Whatever that information is, if it appears in an acceptable dissertation it must be:

1. A result of independent lab work, which fails WP:NOR however well-documented their methods might be;
2. Taken from another source, which would either pass or fail WP:IRS on its own;
3. General knowledge, which needs no citation; or
4. None of these, which means it is made up on the spot or otherwise not verifiable.

If the student takes this work and publishes it in a journal, that's a different story. In the case that sparked the discussion, actual article in question was Facepalm (and while the existence of such an article puzzling, as the person who removed the sources I don't want to propose deletion). The only supporting reference that would otherwise meet WP:IRS was a master's thesis about memes(!), and the only mention of "facepalm" was a footnote where the student explained this piece of internet slang for the faculty. In other words, the student's own personal knowledge was propagated as verifiable fact in the article. Under a normal fact-checking editorial process this might be OK because any statement is presumably evaluated by others, but in the case of a thesis or dissertation the faculty are only looking at it on a pass/fail basis. The only point for which a thesis/dissertation should be considered as a reference is an uncited claim, but in the case of a work prepared for a degree requirement there is no guarantee of a fact-checking process on every such claim. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The dissertation which I never finished would have been a secondary source appropriate for use in an article on literary theory. The points you list do not hold for many dissertations, for example, for pretty much any dissertation in literary studies. And again, I will point out that PhD dissertations are already listed as reliable sources under policy, and my goal here is to clarify the policy since, as others have pointed out, the words dissertation and thesis are used differently in different locations. The wording I propose is not intended to substantially change policy (as would '"Publications that are by definition produced as a requirement for a degree are generally not reliable"), but rather to make clear that publications produced as a degree requirement for a PhD are generally considered reliable, and those for an MA/MS are not. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I don't mean to misinterpret your intentions or derail this off topic. I certainly agree with your reasoning on the master's theses and the need for clarification. I just don't understand what qualifies a PhD dissertation to meet WP:IRS by the same standard. What is a possible instance in a literary dissertation where reliable information would be neither original work nor come from some other source? I'm just worried that this will cause a general tendency for editors to become lazy and cite a dissertation in cases where that dissertation cited something else - almost like when students cite wikipedia instead of investigating the citation used by wikipedia on their own.

This isn't an assumption of bad faith; but just as most electrons in a current take the path of least resistance, and languages tend to change over centuries in favor of ease on the speaker's part, so do editors have a tendency to do things the easier way if it appears generally accepted. It's not my intent to propose a substantial policy change, but it should also be made clear that PhD dissertations should be used extremely sparingly and only when no other alternative is available. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not allowed to engage in original research, but our sources of course are. They're expected to. So the fact that we can separate a dissertation into parts that the student discovered and parts that the student got from another source is beside the point. Moreover, dissertations glean their data in many cases from primary sources; demanding that we cite their sources instead of the dissertation itself runs counter to our preference for secondary sources. I think that you're proposed guidance is too disparaging of dissertations. Not to ask too personal a question, but how often do you read dissertations, such that you know their reliability? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't dance around a personal attack. I made no statement that dissertations are unreliable, for you to imply otherwise is assuming bad faith. I'm not trying to disparage dissertations, I'm trying to understand the objective distinction between the two. Saying for instance that one is "higher level" than the other is a subjective distinction, and while that might be completely right, it doesn't really explain clearly where one ends and another begins as far as reliability is concerned. Yes it is true that many (most?) dissertations are later transformed into published works, but in those cases we have a more acceptable alternative. For the case where - for whatever reason - the results were not publishable then we have no alternative but to cite the dissertation itself; why then is a PhD acceptable and a master's thesis is not? What is the objective distinction between the two that demonstrates a guarantee of fact-checking in one but not the other? None of this is rhetorical, I'm genuinely trying to understand this for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

I brought the example in question to RSN because of the obviously low quality, being peppered with image macros and whatnot, but that was my own subjective distinction as I thought "wow some kid spent a year or so browsing ED and managed to pass it off as his thesis". Do I think something like that would ever pass for a PhD dissertation? Of course not, but personally I was equally shocked that it passed for an MA at Georgia Tech. I've heard many post-docs make light of the lower quality of MS and MA theses, but is there some objective distinction that doesn't boil down to "good" and "bad"?

Let's establish a point of consensus, in that a master's thesis is generally not reliable because it doesn't carry the expectation of rigorous fact-checking that a reputable published work holds. Fair enough? The committee is concerned with the thesis being generally acceptable in order to pass, not that every point made in it be checked for accuracy. If we're going to say that a thesis does not meet WP:IRS, there needs to be a clear line drawn between the two processes that makes one acceptable and the other not. A PhD committee is reviewing a student's work looking for general acceptability, but what is the guarantee of a rigorous fact-checking process? They will look at it "more thoroughly", but does it hold up to the standard of a peer review, and if so why? Yes we can all agree that dissertations are held to a generally "higher standard" but what is the non-subjective distinction between the two review processes? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

PhD theses accepted by Universities in good standing with other PhD awarding universities are subject to a process of reading and analysis which is peered. Universities which internally assess PhD theses are expected to have done so on the basis that they possess PhD possessing academics with appropriate specialty to determine if the thesis was an original, sustained, contribution to scholarly knowledge in the relevant domain. Universities which do not have such assets, or who choose to rely on external markers, select external markers on the basis of the external markers being PhD possessing academics with appropriate speciality to determine if the thesis was an original, sustained, contribution to scholarly knowledge. PhDs awarded by universities in good standing hold PhDs to the standard of original, sustained, contributions to scholarly knowledge. This is equivalent to the peer review process that scholarly peer reviewed articles, chapters, refereed conference papers, and monographs are held. The original and sustained scholarly contribution to knowledge present in an accepted PhD marks the author as a peer in the community of scholars, and, as having contributed to original research.

In comparison, extended research Masters do not require an original contribution to scholarly knowledge, may be entirely internally assessed regardless of specialist experience, and are not a marker of peering in the research community of scholars. In the past, academics possessing only research Masters were heavily expected to produce scholarly monographs prior to promotion. (Cases where promotion occurred without production often involved notorious results. One particular case in Australia from the 1950s is of great and continuing notoriety.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

When awarded by recognised higher research supervising universities: PhD theses are recognised as scholarly contributions by a peer review process; Masters theses are not recognised as scholarly contributions by a peer review process. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States at least, a MS degree requires an "original contribution to scholarly knowledge". It is not held to the same level of expectation as a PhD and consequently carries less weight, but it can't be just an academic exercise of studying that which has already been studied -- that would just be a lengthy term paper. There are generally more professors on a PhD committee, they spend more time reviewing it, and hold higher expectations, but I don't know of any objective distinction between the two on the basis of reliable fact-checking. Both are essentially "peered" and "published" by the university, maybe there's more to it than my limited understanding, which is precisely why I'm asking.

"PhD possessing academics with appropriate specialty to determine if the thesis was an original, sustained, contribution to scholarly knowledge in the relevant domain" -- again in the United States (I don't know about other countries) most institutions require that a master's thesis committee consists of tenure-track professors which hold doctorates, looking for original and meaningful research and not just a review paper. As for "sustained research," the general understanding is that a master's thesis represents a year or so of research while PhD work is expected to take several, but that's not a substantial enough distinction to label one reliable and the other not as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

About student journals: An editor objected to a publication in a student journal a month ago. (See this discussion.) I don't think we ever resolved the question of whether an academic journal for students was sufficiently "reliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Undergraduate and coursework student journals should not be cited as if they are scholarly sources. Peer reviewed scholarly journals which merely happen to print research student papers, and who have an editorial board dominated by research students, are scholarly journals (you'll find they use appropriate peer reviewers, have people holding relevant PhDs on their editorial board etc. etc.). The issue is one of the community: publishing for a community of students versus publishing for a community of scholars (which merely happens to have a high apprentice scholar participation rate). Journal by journal requiring detail. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. When a graduate student, I helped form a graduate student mini conference, and we did a local xerox publication. Such would not be considered reliable.

Also, I have amended the proposal to take into account suggestions by Andrew Lancaster, comment and suggests are still welcome. Also, if anyone strongly objects to the proposal, please comment. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with some of the above posters that I'd like to keep the RSness of masters theses in a gray area, so they can be decided on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you find the wording of the proposal above suitable to that end? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the last sentence that dissertations and theses can be used if other scholars have relied upon them, but I think it is in some tension with the first sentence, which says that they are simply reliable because they've been vetted by the scholarly community (which is a bit of a stretch). I don't think we need to say anything about dissertations that have appeared in books or articles: there, we have a book or article upon which to judge reliability. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The concept alluded to by "although they might be if cited in multiple scholarly works" has been rejected in the past when it was discussed as a general modification to the policy, and could be applied to any published work. I think it should stand or fall as a general principle. I see no reason a master's thesis that is cited in multiple scholarly works should be acceptable while a self-published book that is cited in multiple scholary works should be rejected. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting point. One difference I do see is that (at least in the US) a master's thesis is vetted by faculty members, usually three in number. Self-published sources generally receive no such review. But depending on the particular case, I could see myself arguing that a self-published source being cited in multiple scholarly works would demonstrate that the author is an acknowledged expert, and I seem to recall there is some guideline or policy that allows self-published sources from acknowledged experts. Can you suggest a change in wording that would address this point you've brought forward? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"although they might be if cited in multiple scholarly works or published in book or article form." Works published in book or article form are judged on the reliability of the book or article publication. Citation is not an appropriate universal measure due to the radical differences in citation standards and meaning between STEM and HASS fields. Humanities and Social Sciences citations are often "Say where you got it" about opinions or claims which are not scholarly, or use complex reading tools to derive scholarly value from sources which in themselves have no value. Not a good addition. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also a good point. I wonder if we can resolve that aspect, or if we are better off leaving a little wiggle room. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We could just let people fight it out on the talk pages. The more I think about it, I'm not sure we can come up with a rule that would cover physics, economics, political science, and "culture studies" dissertations. Perhaps we could just state that they may be reliable, may not be, and level the details to talk pages. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the root problem is the ambiguity which is going to lead to more and more long discussions. Discourse isn't a bad thing of course, but when it drags out to the point where all parties get frustrated and start taking jabs at each other, it should be avoided. I took one edit to RSN because it looked "iffy" and it resulted in all this; though it was bound to happen, without some sort of resolution or compromise this may all just repeat itself ad nauseum next time such a source is brought to RSN. Could we at least draw some points of consensus? Maybe come to a compromise that nobody is happy with but everyone can live with? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have rough consensus on intent, it's the wording we're struggling with. And rightly so, this is part of core policy, so we want to get it right. So far I think we have established that in general:

• Doctoral dissertations/theses are generally considered reliable, but are generally not as high in quality as peer-reviewed journal articles
• Masters disserations/theses are generally not considered reliable, but might sometimes be considered reliable, although we're not sure when that would be the case.

Does anyone disagree? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little unclear on the distinction. If it comes down to "well I have a PhD and you don't so when I say PhD's are reliable you should listen" then we have a problem. Obviously a PhD degree has more value in the academic world, and the process is held to a higher subjective standard, but what objectively makes one acceptable and the other not as a general rule? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No system of human arrangements, except perhaps mathematics, is capable of being held to an objective standard (Kuhn, Feyerabend, etal). The subjective standard held by the relevant (international, cross cultural) human community has been explained to you: a PhD is a demonstration of scholarly expertise as indicated by, for example, its necessity to a contemporary mixed research-teaching permanency track scholarly position. And it is clear that you don't like this subjective human practice because it doesn't meet your standards of necessary proof. I tend to think that the differentiation meets Wikipedia's standards. You're on the verge of becoming highly tendentious. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No that isn't it at all, you're just making assumptions upon which to base your attack against the person. When you say "you don't like this subjective human practice because it doesn't meet your standards of necessary proof", what is your basis? Rather than assuming I'm out to disparage the universal acceptance of doctorates, isn't it just possible that I'm putting forth the idea that criteria can be included to identify certain master's theses which are acceptable sources on the same basis for which PhD's are accepted? Perhaps instead of leaving this entirely to a case-by-case basis, I'm of the impression that the whole point of policy is to provide guidelines that don't leave users to fight it out on talk pages. If that's so hard for you, please consider taking a deep breath and counting to 10 before posting when you encounter someone who feels differently than you.

I'm not going to address personal attacks any more, maybe I'm just the last person who feels that what is being said is more important than who said it. Other users actually made excellent points earlier, before this whole discourse was dragged down by personal attacks, particularly about the requirement of novel research in a dissertation. You even said that an MA in Australia doesn't require "original knowledge to scholarly standards", and since I'm not Australian nor in the HASS disciplines, I'll take your word for it. Coming from an engineering background it had been my understanding that all MS theses required the student to do background research, identify a gap in scientific knowledge, then conduct supervised research to address that gap with original, scholarly findings subject to the review of a committee. My original position would have been that a PhD dissertation or MS thesis would generally be reliable but an MA would not, but from what others have said here it's apparent that not all disciplines require original, scholarly work in an MS thesis either.

What about this:

• Doctoral dissertations/theses are generally considered reliable, but are generally not as high in quality as peer-reviewed journal articles.
• Masters disserations/theses are only considered reliable if the program requires that the work makes an original and scholarly contribution to academic knowledge.

That was, after all, the rationale behind the acceptance of PhD dissertations and rejection of MA theses as sources, right? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of your sentiments regarding conduct were previously expressed by you at 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)—the first time as tragedy, and the second time as farce. In repetition, your protestations of mannerliness combined with an "I didn't hear that" attitude make for a delicious public irony, but bad consensus formation. Can I remind you, regarding subjective forms of knowledge, your statement, "I'm trying to understand the objective distinction between the two. Saying for instance that one is "higher level" than the other is a subjective distinction, and while that might be completely right, it doesn't really explain clearly where one ends and another begins as far as reliability is concerned."? You appear, very strongly, to be an epistemological chauvanist in this regard, and the standard you suggest is no more or less subjective, and no more or less objective than previously presented standards. Earlier I gave you a very clear criteria, "…an accepted PhD marks the author as a peer in the community of scholars…. In comparison, extended research Masters … are not a marker of peering in the research community of scholars." Obviously there is a radical difference in the objectivity of the phrase "peer in the research community of scholarls" and "original scholarly contribution to academic knowledge" such that one satisfies your personal criteria and the other doesn't. Care to supply a definition of your term objectivity, because it doesn't resemble any of the professional uses of the term I've encountered. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that might have been your reaction if you skimmed what I wrote instead of reading. I understand that we're all volunteers here, but if you can't commit the time needed to understand the opposition's position you should probably postpone your participation. It is clear that you never read what I wrote if you quote me so far out of context, and if you're doing all that just to paint a false portrait of me as a "chauvanist" acting with "delicious irony" then you are lost. I never attacked you personally in any way like this, but I am just a lowly IP without a list of degrees on my user page, so do I need to go out of my way to be extremely deferential before you are willing to speak to me as a human being?

Nowhere did I state or express that a PhD dissertation should be excluded from WP:IRS. I merely suggested that certain master's theses do have a requirement of original contribution by scholarly standards, and that perhaps the guidelines could reflect this in such cases. Yes, everything would still be subject to case-by-case, but I thought the whole point of this section was to talk about ways to clarify policy. Why this causes you to respond with such bitter resentment is beyond me, but believe it or not I'm trying to work with you here. If you have such a low opinion of the work conducted in any master's thesis such that it could never be held reliable even when it would benefit the encyclopedia, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're too biased to participate. I never stated that the two degrees were "equal" in all respects, nor anything about the importance of a PhD beyond the scope of this policy, and this discussion has nothing to do with our opinions the value of one degree over the other in general. We're talking about the reliability of the work as an encyclopedic source; when you want to talk about that in a civil manner let me know. I said I'm not going to address personal attacks any more and this is as far as I'm going to go against my own statement. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that you're an IP. The problem is that you're holding some invisible standard of personally constructed "objectivity" as a club to beat other editors with; criticising their contributions as insufficient to meet a standard which you hold privately. You have repeatedly characterised other editors opinions as subjective, while claiming to search for some standard of "objectivity". Perhaps you are unaware that this is a vicious kind of attack, if you are unaware, then I'd suggest you look into feminist critiques published since the early 1970s. You may also like to look at WP:IDHT when considering your return to the refrain of criticising others for "subjectivity". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Feminism? What does that have to do with anything here, other than your use of the word "chauvinist" to insult me above? When your arguments come down to psychological pseudo-analysis of anyone who believes differently than you do, then insinuating that I'm making disruptive edits because you disagree with me, you have become derailed and need to back up as far as necessary to figure out where you went off track.

I'm trying very hard to understand your position even when it appears that you're just out to make personal attacks. Let me just go out on a limb here and guess that you're a recent PhD graduate or a candidate nearing completion, and you're very proud of that degree you've worked so hard for (understandably!). You came across something while skimming that made you think I was disparaging the value of a dissertation in general though I was not, and you took offense. This is human nature and being on the internet doesn't change that, but you need to step back

If I'm way off, so be it, but I'm just trying to understand where your hostility is coming from. Before you started making this so personal you had brought up some good points above. Now there doesn't seem to be much point in your posts but to spit venom at me, despite the fact I can't figure out how anything I wrote could be taken as a personal criticism of another editor.

If I said something that you think constitutes beating other editors with a club, by all means quote it here in proper context. If I said something that was unintentionally offensive, I'll certainly take ownership of it and apologize, but I honestly don't see what you're talking about. Admittedly I came in here with the misconception that all theses consisted of original scholarly contributions and were vetted by the academic community, but that may be specific to the United States, or it may be specific to certain STEM disciplines. Guess I don't get out much, which is exactly why I was asking, and regarding your a knee-jerk reaction of offense to my questions there's little I can do. Beyond that, this discussion is becoming moot if all we do is spin our wheels with you coming up with creative insults and me getting perplexed and trying to reason with you. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If we could focus on the wording?

Let's try to focus on the content. In regard to:

• Masters disserations/theses are only considered reliable if the program requires that the work makes an original and scholarly contribution to academic knowledge.

I'm not comfortable with that, since the reliability of a source has nothing I can see to do with originality or scholarly contributions. I think the difference between the PhD related work and the Masters is two fold--generally speaking the number of faculty involved in a dissertation are greater in number, both in terms of the committee members and in the defense process. In my experience, Master's theses in the US are not defended, and the committee is usually three faculty, and PhD dissertation is vetted by five faculty, and defended before any interested faculty. Also, the expectations for a PhD dissertation are higher. How about:

• Masters disserations/theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had a significant scholarly impact on the work of other scholars.

The notion here is that if a Master's work has gone unnoticed in the academic community, it cannot be considered reliable (on the theory that the reaction of the scholarly community is what we'd use to gauge the appropriate weight of the source). Thoughts? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That could work - for instance if someone can show a thesis has been cited in multiple scholarly journals, then clearly it's a viable source. That way a larger academic community is making the call on the source, and wikipedia is following suit. Definitely concur, but just to shorten the wording, do you think we'd be OK with this?

• Masters disserations/theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have significant scholarly impact.

...with a footnote or something that this can be demonstrated by citations in reputable publications, if needed. (At every institution I'm familiar with, defense of a thesis is required for MS degrees, but I guess it varies.) 96.228.129.69 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the shorter version is fine. Yes, I think there's a lot of variety, even between depts at the same institution. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Significant scholarly impact is fine for HASS. It allows for the difference between "In the execrable MA, Johnson fallaciously claims..." and "In the seminal MA, Johnson..." and the variety in between. Scholarly impact in STEM is being proxied by citation count, which is why in fields with clearer methods of dealing with citation counts (like adequate indicies) we use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Not sure about consensus rules for project pages, but maybe wait another 48 hours for anyone else to chime in then implement? 65.34.31.185 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, there's no rush. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In case this is relevant, dissertations for a master's degree can be used as evidence of prior art in patent litigation Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I'm not sure what relevance patent litigation and WP have to one another. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Even clear fiction can be used as evidence of "prior art" in patent litigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm understanding correctly, but if there is (for instance) an article which would benefit from a thesis, in which hundreds of court documents are compiled and analyzed, citing the thesis would be a good way to go as long as it satisfies the rule. Obviously other sources would be needed to establish notability of the topic in such a case, but the thesis would be considered a reliable secondary source for WP:V. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the claim of novelty of an idea in a patent can be refuted by its expression in a prior work of fiction (notable fictional precursors of scientific and engineering developments include nuclear explosion in Krakatit by Karel Čapek, vehicular movement controlled by magnetism in Cyrano de Bergerac). My point is that master's dissertation can be adequate verifiability of a statement that describes a scientific or engineering experiment or invention. It may be adduced as the definitive indicator of priority. It may be the sole source if, e.g. the author of the thesis and the supervisor cease working in the area, if the topic is put under wraps for defense or commercial interests, etc. The quality of individual pieces of a master's thesis should not be considered inferior to work reported in a Ph.D. thesis, because it is done at an earlier point in the professional development of the author. The presence of the work in a master's thesis can result from very local regulations and individual situations -- my advisor at U. London in the late 1940s had some students go straight for a Ph.D. and others do an M.Sc. first, depending on the topic and long term plans. Level of supervision and nature of examination varies between countries, universities and at times, departments. Its value as indicator of quality may be considered debatable. But not here. I mentioned use as report of prior art shows seriousness with which content of master's thesis is taken as regards reporting innovation that meets standards of acceptable scientific and engineering discovery, that is more than just expression of innovative ideas. I do not comment on master's dissertations outside science and engineering because I do not have adequate knowledge thereof. Thanks. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Preceding comment from ip number came while I was trying to save. Notability can be established by later work of other authors when (1) master's thesis was final contribution its author made and (2) the mix of ideas, or different starting points, of the work are being discussed, and whether the authors who provided the notability also were independent innovators or derivate. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Yes, I think that many masters level works would be of similar or higher quality than many of those at the PhD level. The issue is, how could we determine when that is and when that is not the case. Since we are forbidden to engage in original research, we attempt to reach consensus on how to make those determinations using other means. For example, scholarly works published in peer reviewed journals are considered reliable because we trust that the peer review process selects for good articles. Dissertations are also considered in general reliable, although I would argue less so that a peer reviewed journal article, because the work is part of a high level of professional certification and is vetted by faculty, and available as a published work. To use my MA thesis as an example, since I have before, it's not bad, and I would say it's a reliable analysis, but it was only vetted by three local faculty and not available as a published work outside of one uni library. So the wording here is an attempt to reflect that in general, we feel we can trust that a thesis or dissertation done at the doctorate level may be presumed to be reliable, and one at a masters level may not be, while leaving enough room for someone to make a case if there is an unusual circumstance--for example, if say a student as the MS level of a computer science program produced an algorithm in their thesis that was later used by a number of other scholars. As a practical matter, I think those case will prove to be vanishingly small in number, since if that were the case, the same material would most likely be expanded and published in journals by the student within a year or so. My take, for what it's worth. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The only thing this project can do is give some clarifying guidelines. The situation we don't want is if, every time a thesis is submitted as a potential source, the article's talk page erupts into a lengthy debate on academic merit of master's-level theses in general.

Typically if a thesis meets the proposed guidelines, either the author or supervisor will push for the findings to be published; however there are exceptions where the thesis may be needed as a source. "As a practical matter, I think those cases will prove to be vanishingly small in number" - certainly. For those rare cases we're putting forth guidelines as to what would or would not be acceptable in order to make talk page discussions more focused. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For practical purposes, I hope for guidelines that allow citation of master's dissertation when there is no other source of the relevant information and the standard of work can be assumed adequate, or for issues of priority.

I think originality, professionalism, exposure to critical comment, and accessibility have got a bit blurred. At present my order of preference for reliability of factual content and accessibility is a monograph or textbook, when it is sufficiently detailed (read by large audience, reissued with corrections, physically available in interlibrary loan) over journal articles (peer reviewed, widely distributed to libraries, now on web) over dissertations (accesibility will increase when these go online). For priority of discovery, order often is the opposite. I am leary of quantifying likelihood of work in master's dissertation meriting citation, without statistics of past practice in journal articles. Will try to get some information from bibliographic databases. This may preempt need to enumerate hypotherical situations that would make master's dissertation the only source of information. Relative merits of doctoral versus master's dissertation totally dependent on where and when work was done. Progression from master's degree to Ph.D. has become much more common in recent years. Much work that predates this practice is important. I read scores of master's dissertations between 1960 and 1990 for several reasons. Many were excellent. Many were not. Not all of that was good was published or pursued. Sorry if inappropriate to mention personal experience. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that to quantify the use of theses in citation databases is difficult, and probably beyond the scope of this project. Let's just say that as long as a PhD dissertation is considered an acceptable source in this encyclopedia, certain master's theses are acceptable for the same reasons - "certain theses" being those that meet the proposed requirements above. Each thesis is of course subject to discussion on a case-by-case basis in talk pages, just like any other source, but the purpose is to give some general guideline on acceptability. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as RS?

One of my edits referenced part of another WP article. That part of that article was supported with a reference outside of WP. Another editor reverted my edit saying that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". I haven't found anything to that effect here. To editorialize, it makes sense to me to allow articles to reference others instead of copying their references explicitly. Is there a policy on this? Lfstevens (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to use the cite given outside of WP. This is dictum on WP. Bluelinks are used, but are not "sources". Collect (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the suggested approach. One, it is always standard practice in research to cite the originating source rather than a derivative one (note: We sometimes invert this because we prefer secondary confirmation from a reliable source that can establish the notability of the information. But it still holds that for piece of inherently notable information X, we prefer it in source A rather than source B which merely repeats that A said X). Two, it's a problem since the Wikipedia article which you link to can itself change. The text can change; the section could disappear; the link which we are really getting at could be removed. This is link-rot, article scale, and it's better to link to the piece which will be most stable. Finally, linking to Wikipedia spreads the impression that we are a reliable source, which, we (would like to be) are not. Others will get the wrong idea and thing you are linking to Wikipedia rather than to the underlying source. Good idea, but I think it will have to wait for some theoretical future version of this project... Ocaasi (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a practice of "say where you got it". But Wikipedia is a single source. It's hypertext, and blue internal links are its bread and butter. If you find an unsourced statement in one article it is often possible to identify a good source within a linked article, and transfer it over. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't it be necessary to first look up the reference, and see if it is correct? I admit, I did this once without looking it up, but generally I wouldn't even transfer over something I put in myself without re-checking.Mzk1 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:CIRCULAR, which is WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Or do a Google search on "recursion". Collect (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew a guy who did that. He's still at it; can't stop.... SBHarris 02:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Kindly read Citing Wikipedia. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that the opinions are pretty unanimous, so I guess I have my answer. Is it inappropriate to recommend that this be made official and clearly stated in the article? Lfstevens (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stevens, if you mean that an organization should give the full text of its legal disclaimer on top of every page on its web site, then the answer is no. In other words, given the balance we need to maintain between ensuring Wikipedia remains a great source for free information versus telling people that Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source, I'd say let people (like you) who're interested in finding out search out our disclaimer by clicking on the Help links we provide with easy access. It'll go against our basic purpose if in every article we started stating the disclaimer. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not what I meant. I was thinking that the subject should be addressed in WP:RS, not in every article. Lfstevens (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already there. See the section on "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources". To quote: "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Trebor (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)