Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 56

< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
Latest comment: 7 years ago by North8000 in topic WP:RS as a means of POV-pushing
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Wikilinks, especially in list sections

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I frequently come across list sections in articles - say, Peter_A._Allard_School_of_Law#Notable_alumni (that one is OK with regard to sourcing) or Harvard_University#Notable_people (not OK; unsourced) or Talk:Heart_transplantation#Famous_recipients_section (which I have moved to Talk for other reasons but is not OK with regard to refs) and not infrequently people get upset and write things like: "The wikilinked article has the references!" Frequently, the information is not reliably sourced at the _target article.

Even if there are reliable sources at the _target article, this is not a valid response, and especially not for living people.

I have boldly added to the WP:USERGENERATED section the following: "A wikilink is not a reliable source". Hopefully, not controversial. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Could perhaps add something to the effect of A wikilink is not a reliable source, even in cases where the linked article itself contains them, or maybe even in cases where linked article contains them at the time the content is added, since the linked article itself is subject to change. TimothyJosephWood 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with that. I just went for simple... Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in a way a wikilink is not a reliable source, because Wikipedia is not. However a wikilink is not a source, if you remember what hypertext is about: a wikilink is merely a representation of a part of the larger totality of the text. Just like in a monograph "see p. 11"; "Page 11" is not a source. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You are getting all deep in the weeds. It is a really simple thing. A WL is just the standard way to refer to another WP article. It is not a reference, and it cannot be one, as WP articles are not RS. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I am. "to refer to another WP article" is exactly the same as "see p. 11". Neither is a reference to a source outside the text in question. A platitude, a nitpicking, a way of seeing things. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Except in a book, someone doesn't usually come along every so often, cut half the pages out, rearrange them, white-out some text here and there and add a few sticky notes with their own contributions. That's pretty much what Wikipedia is, which is why it's not the same thing. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This "except" does not change the fact that neither ref is a "source of wisdom" for the text in question regardless how the text is represented. I.e. yours is not an objection to the statement we both agree that a wikilink is not a valid source. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you've never read a book you consider to be a source of wisdom, I'm sure I could recommend a few. TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, come on, I was talking about the source of information the book was based upon. If the book refers only to itself, then we are effectively deferring to the authority of the author, which is not always wise, even in the case of books you are about to recommend. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:@Timothyjosephwood: We are already discussing the issue of lists in WT:V#RFC, "List of symphony orchestras in the United States" list verifiability. Please speak up there. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I do agree with JYTD on the bare fact. It's not really a question that needs a philosophical examination. Thinking about it more though, and I commented as much at the RfC linked to, I would like to hope it's common sense that the expectation to WP:PRESERVE is still there, but I do envision a future ANI thread where some user has summarily blanked hundreds of lists for not including inline sources. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course! This doesn't change PRESERVE; it is somewhat stating the obvious but since misunderstanding crops up so much it seemed worth adding the few words. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I know you know that. But with the potential scope of the RfC, it's not you I'm worried about. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Medical source

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim

  • Do we need this definition at all? The term is certainly unused in this page.
  • This def creates confusion. Suppose a quack say he heals mumps. By this def he is a medical source. So we need the term "reliable medical source", and "Medical claims" section must use it.

I suspect the section used to be named "Medical sources", in line with other section titles. If this is the case, the definition made sense. Now it seems redundant. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source that has simply appeared in multiple venues."

Latest comment: 7 years ago42 comments10 people in discussion

With this edit, Collect changed "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source that has simply appeared in multiple venues." to "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies. "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source."

I think that the previous text offers a better explanation and is clearer. It's commonly the case that editors (especially newbies) treat what is essentially the same source as a separate source.

Also, Collect, will you elaborate on what your concern was regarding all of the content you changed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You misstate the edit. I included "* Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source." Which was, and is, a good precis of the original convoluted wording.
I would appreciate your so noting that the bit about "editorial policies" was not, and is not, related to this edit as you assert. The sentence about "editorial policies" was derived from "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies." Which includes material which is not germane to the actual statement of fact. Clearly if a newspaper does not publish an editorial policy, one might reasonably understand that publishing editorial policies is not "required."
Is this clear? Note that the wording in each case is more succinct and clear than the original wording. Collect (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, Collect, when copying and pasting the bullet point, I meant to copy and paste the bullet point that you mentioned. Above, I've replaced it with the text I intended to add. So, again, I find that the previous wording offers a better explanation and is clearer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thirty-nine words are longer than 18 by a factor of two. And the gist is clearer in the shorter version. IMO, where one version is shorter and in clear English, the point is better taken with the lesser amount of verbiage. Collect (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Collect, per below, do you think the text you added should continue to focus solely on wire services? If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The prior text dealt specifically with wire services and the like, and one can well regard press release services in the same category. Where any "publisher" does not provide an article different in substance and style from the wire service copy or press release, it would be rather silly to claim that is a different source. That is a wire service story copied by 100 newspapers is still from a single source, and a press release furnished to 100 newspapers is still a single source. Can you find any more succinct wording to make this clear to users here? Note that the caveat about press releases is given only a few lines prior to this one, thus is already stated to editors. . Collect (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll note this, the way it is presented makes little sense, either way (I think because there is nuance missing) - the fact that multiple independent news editors deem it worthy of carrying to their readers, does say something about its importance -- it's just not true that everything that comes off the wire is going to be carried in wildly disparate places, only things with broad interest in multiple places. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a great many publications "cut and paste" anything available at no particular cost. Most papers using wire services and press release agencies do not make anything remotely near an independent call. Repetition of "junk" does not make it "not junk." It says nothing at all about being a reliable source for Wikipedia, nor does it make the "junk" into "treasure with notability." Collect (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's your arguments and assumptions that are junk, not the wires. Editors of the regular press do make independent judgments whether to run AP, AFP, Reuters, UPI wires. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A story is not a WP:Source. A publisher is. So in these cases, there are in fact multiple sources for the same information. It may be sufficient to include just one, but not always. The repetition indicates notability. Lyrda (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Although in some cases repetition is not an indicator of encyclopedic notability: viral news. "News" stories tend to spread more quickly the more unbelievable (and probably untrue) the "facts" given in those stories are. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say that it still might add to notability, but with a different neutral point of view. :-) Lyrda (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No. 'notability' specifically says "multiple independent reliable sources". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
re: A story is not a WP:Source. A publisher is. Sorry, no; for the purposes of WP:RS, the source is the original publisher plus author plus the story itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a mistake to limit this to wire services. When a newspaper publishes a story based on its own investigation, it is often the case that other newspapers repeat the story without doing any further investigation. This adds evidence of notability but usually does not add evidence of reliability. Given that this page is about reliability and not about notability, we should take care over this. While the republications are indeed "sources" for the information, they are not necessarily "reliable sources" for it. Reliability depends on context. Zerotalk 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
They would have to do additional fact-checking, with a decision process resulting in copying some stories, but not others, to potentially count as another reliable source. Lyrda (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And many regular news sources do edit the wires, they don't just copy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Zero, I don't like that the new wording simply focuses on wire services. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My other issue is what I stated above: "It's commonly the case that editors (especially newbies) treat what is essentially the same source as a separate source." I can see the argument for the sources being separate sources above, but when the source is simply republishing something another source published, I don't really see that as a separate source. That doesn't really demonstrate notability to me, and such sourcing often falls under intense scrutiny in AfDs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It does depend on the publisher, but the regular or what we call high quality press: 1) makes an independent judgement that a wire service is reliable, 2) makes an independent judgement that a particular wire story should be carried, and 3) often edits the wires. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this apply, for example, to press releases or "casting calls" placed by companies? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no nuance in the guidance, and no differentiation between subject matter, types of wire service, or types of publisher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What the removed paragraph was attempting to say is this: When a report is written by a wire service reporter, and both the New York Times and Boston Globe print it (without substantial changes)... it is still one single source, not two (even though it has two publishers). It is like a book that had multiple printings. It may be printed in hard cover by one publisher, and in paperback by another... but it is still the same book - the same text - the same source. Not two distinct sources. Blueboar (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Not quite. They are different sources, and a reprint of a book is often worth mentioning. For instance, Dover reprints a lot of books that have been out of print for many decades. Readers would want to know that, and it shows notability, too. Lyrda (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. William Shakespear's "As you like it" is one single work (and thus one single source), no matter how many publishers print it. The same is true for a news report by a single AP writer, but published in multiple papers. The same is true for an opinion (op ed) piece written by a syndicated columnist, and published in multiple venues. It is the same bit of text (ie source), no matter how many venues it appears in. Now... if one venue substantially changes the text, then we have a different situation. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So, why are we saying it, here? The fact that NYT, and BG both published it does not diminish its reliability, and the fact that BG and NYT independently published it, has each putting their own independent editorial reputation and judgement on the line. One of the hallmarks for reliability is not just the author, it is separately the publisher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think our guideline should be concerned with "new media" kinds of scenarios. Not The New York Times, but possibly the Huffington Post, Forbes.com, etc. Also not so much with wire services being reprinted in respectable news outlets (which still should count as one reliable source), but with second and third tier publishers plagiarizing a "story" from one another. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a general remark on what to do when there are a lot of sources for the same information. Lyrda (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • People - We are getting off track. I think you are all missing the point of the paragraph in question. The paragraph was addressing the situation where multiple news venues publish the same text. That isn't multiple news sources all reporting on the same thing, but the same source appearing in multiple venues. Another example would be an OP-ED column, written by a syndicated columnist (say Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks), that appears in multiple papers. The fact that multiple papers print that particular OP-ED piece does not make it multiple sources... it remains one single source that appears in multiple venues.
Where this has an impact on reliability is when a wire report (or an OP-ED column) contains an error. The repetition in multiple venues does not change the fact that the source contains an error. It means that a single specific source contains the error, and multiple news venues reprinted it. The text is still an unreliable source (for the erroneous statement), even though multiple reliable venues printed it. It does not magically become reliable because it appears in multiple venues. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The venue is the WP:SOURCE, not the text. Lyrda (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope... Read the "Overview" section of the guideline.... and note how we define "source". Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If that's "the point", just say that, "On occasion a particular fact may be found to be incorrect - it does not become correct, no matter how many outlets have published it." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And so forth. Not sure how a text can have such a reputation or do such a deed. Yes, the word source can also mean the type, but not in this context. Lyrda (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If a fact is repeated by a news outlet, and there is reason to suspect that it is simply being repeated from some original source, without the second source checking it on their own, then I agree that this fact comes from a single source. This happens with distressing frequency. If, on the other hand, the second source does check it on their own, then it should count as a second source. But I believe this goes a little further than the actual text of the guideline, and it would be good to clarify that this is the intended interpretation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If the second source does its own legwork, it usually does their own writing, too. We are discussing essentially a cut-and-paste situation. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, yes, I know what the previous wording meant, and I agree with your arguments in this section. Do you think that Collect's wording is better than the previous wording, though? If so, why? Collect's wording focuses solely on wire services while the previous wording stated, "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The caveat about "press releases" is only a few lines above the "wire service" caveat. I did not focus "solely on wire services" in fact. Collect (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The bullet point in question focuses solely on wire services. It does not mention press releases. What you consider a common sense deduction does not mean it is a common sense deduction for our readers and some other editors. Above, Zero even stated, "It is a mistake to limit this to wire services." This means that the current setup is not as clear as it may seem to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"Press Releases" are already mentioned as Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Thus, putting that caveat in twice seems overkill to me. Collect (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to me, and I've already been over why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Zimdars' 'fake news list'

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Now, this is becoming ridiculousier and ridiculousier:

This reminds me teenth centuries' "battles of pamphlets". Do we really have to have both of them?

My idea was that wikipedians independently "vet" the entries in the list and we compile our own List of nonreliable sources, with the first entry being... Ta-da-a!! The Daily Mail, but clearly nobody really cares, thus creating an evident drama for one respected wikipedian.

What shall we do about this? My minimalistic suggestion is to merge the two essays into one, named Wikipedia:Zimdars' 'fake news list'. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

<Starts working on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/List of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" is fake and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/List of reasons why the list of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake is fake is fake all the while giggling maniacally. > ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So making a list is being talked about in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Endercase (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Cross-Wikimedia-project

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

e.g. Wikipedia article referencing news on Wikinews. This needs to be clarified. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We already say that Wikipedia and most wikis and most other websites with user generated content are unreliable. As far as I'm aware, all experienced editors consider all Wikimedia projects to be generally unreliable for RS/V purposes. Does this actually need to be clarified? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Because Wikinews has its own guidelines for reliability of news(stricter than Wikipedia) and lacks IAR policy; Wikibooks is used to create wiki e-books by itself, which should be considered the same as another multi-author e-book. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No it should not. Because the concept of "reliable sources" includes peer-confirmed expertise of authors. Clearly "multi-authors" from wikinews cannot guarantee that, just like any other crowd-source. And, on a personal note, from what I read recently in wikinews, it is written by relentless POV-pushers. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You can confirm any expert Wikimedia user via its user page, if it wishes to disclose. Authenticity control scan can be run on a wikibook just like a Wikipedia article. I meant that multi-author e-book thing for Wikibooks, but not Wikinews. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't have and we will not have wikipedia articles edited exclusively by recognized experts in the field. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:WPNOTRS seems confusing

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I now realize that I don't understand this (familiar) bold-face statement in WP:WPNOTRS: 

Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose…

So now I wonder what WP readers are to make of the ubiquitous WLs. Isn't the only reasonable assumption for them to make is that the WLed article together with its sources (and WLs…) are to be mentally transcluded into the original article? If not, what? I note that Help:Link seems to treat WL's on the same basis as external links.

Even if mental transclusion is the intent, I suppose that the intent of this dictum may have been to forbid reliance on a source cited in the WLed article to support a statement in the original article. All supporting sources should be immediately apparent. That may seem reasonable until one considers situations where the WL is used to define the subject of the statement and provide its relevant properties. The dictum would then appear to require the copying into the original article of all citations in the WLed article that bear on relevant properties of the subject. If this wasn't the intent, what was it?

Or should we mentally nuke this question with WP:IGNORE and forget it? Thanks. Layzeeboi (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to pull sources from another article and use them on a related one. I do that all the time (just make sure you check the source and change the access date, not just rely on the text of the WP article for the information itself). But Wikipedia is edited by governments, corporations, ideologues, and outright vandals in addition to lots of constructive but opinionated editors. So if you were to cite WP as a source, while actually pointing to the source in the article you link to, literally by the time you hit save the source might not be there anymore, and is all together likely to be removed or changed over the course of several years. So as an editor working on an article, which you and others are the stewards of, and which you help protect from things like vandals and POV pushers, it's your job to make sure the actual source is included in your baby, that it says what it's supposed to say, and is available for the reader to verify the information presented. TimothyJosephWood 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
What it means is that a wikilink is not a substitute for a citation. Every article should be sufficiently sourced all by itself even if its wikilinks are ignored. A wikilink doesn't mean "click here to find the evidence for this claim", but rather "click here for further information about this topic". The reason for this rule is that otherwise it would be near impossible to figure out what the original non-wiki source of any piece of information is, and we would even have logical nightmares like articles citing each other in a circular fashion. Zerotalk 12:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps:

Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources in themselves for any purpose.

would make the intent of the sentence more clear? Obviously one may find RS sources cited within other articles, and cite those sources for the claims they support. Collect (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • No need for text bloat. The sentence must be taken in the context. The next sentence clearly says "Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else." The previous sentence clearly says "Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Now back to the original question. The problem with wikilinks is that there is no guarantee that the wikilinkes article will forever support the claim. For example, it is quite often that the "main" wikilinked article fixes some erroneous claim. But the same claim may be present in many other related articles, e.g., as a summary of as to make text logically coherent. Therefore, for the purposes of verifiablity, any text not footnoted to a "permanent" external ref may be challenged in case of doubt regardless wikilinks. (Of course, the "permanent" refs may have error themselves, but this is a global issue, not wikipedia's.) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • While we are at it, IMO the wording "for any purpose" is redundant (and may be misleading). In wikipedia, sources are used for the only purpose: to serve as a reference/footnote. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a good point, and those words aren't true either. WIkipedia articles, like all sources, are reliable for their own content. There are a handful of cases where the content of Wikipedia got into the news and citing the Wikipedia content in an article about the news would be fine. I suggest we remove the words "for any purpose". Zerotalk 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all those interesting comments, but they seem to relate to editors' attitude to WLs. For example, User:Staszek Lem discusses a "problem with Wls", and "may be challenged". My original question was what are WP readers to make of WLs, regardless of what editors think of them? Readers receive no instructions about this. Isn't it inevitable that most readers will assume that the linked articles are to be considered on the same basis as the main article they are reading? Consequently, the sources cited in the linked articles must qualify as reliable sources for the original article, even if they aren't copied over. Zero sez "What it means is that a wikilink is not a substitute for a citation. Every article should be sufficiently sourced all by itself even if its wikilinks are ignored." This seems disingenuous. The practical reality is that many articles cannot be understood by most readers without resorting to some of their WLs, even though a reader with enough expertise wouldn't need them. Are those "bad articles"? I don't think so — most editors instinctively ignore WP:WPNOTRS when relying on WLs to define terms that are unfamiliar to most readers. It may be helpful to try to say more specifically what WP:WPNOTRS is intended to forbid, although I don't feel strongly about this. Layzeeboi (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: most editors instinctively ignore WP:WPNOTRS when relying on WLs to define terms -- no they are not. Rather, they are applying WP:V, namely its part which says that footnotes are not obligatory for each and every blurb; the key concept in WP:V is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Re: what WP:WPNOTRS is intended to forbid -- it forbids exactly what it says: it forbids relying on wikipedia as a source. I.e., when challenged, one cannot argue "but wikipedia say so". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Zimdars' fake news list

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion

Should we include a link to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list in the "See also" section?

  • Donald Trump also has a list of what he considers to be fake news sites. Should we create an essay documenting those opinions and link to it from our identifying reliable sources page? He is equal to Zimdars in the area of being an expert on what is fake (both of them have exactly zero qualifications) and handily beats her in the area of his opinion on what is fake being notable and often reported in mainstream news sources. I suspect that I could also find some democrat who has compiled a list of fake news sources if I looked. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Same question I asked above: Donald Trump also has a list of what he considers to be fake news sites. If I were to create an essay documenting those opinions would you favor linking to it from our identifying reliable sources page? It seems like your argument above would apply equally to such a page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You really think that being an assistant professor at a private catholic college for less than a year makes her a recognized authority on what is and is not a fake news site? Where are her published, peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject? What was her methodology? Can her "research" by replicated? In 2015 she tweeted "One article and video at a time, I’m gradually bringing my Dad and brother back from the propagandistic, conservative/Republican DARK SIDE". Does that sound like an academic who is expressing a neutral point of view? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all of the reasons given above. Plus binary or categorical categorization of sources is an inherently flawed concept. Emphasizing a previous point, such listings are very vulnerable to bias and having a double standard applied for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. An assistant professor of communications seems well qualified for evaluating news sources. I see Staszek Lem's point that the list may not really be that useful, but some editors might find it helpful, and including it doesn't do any harm as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia in general does not support "use of opinion as fact" in the best of cases, and this does not appear a strong place for an exception. Collect (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many people on various noticeboards have made the point that we need to evaluate what a source is going to be used for rather than consulting a blanket list that simply decides that some sources are always "fake". Here is an example of this: False information on the internet is hiding the truth about onions, where both Google and the New York Times ended up telling lies about caramelized onions. Even sources that have been repeatedly wrong sometimes get it right. The National Enquirer has been wrong so many times that it would be easy to just dismiss it, but during its reporting of the O.J. Simpson murder trial The Enquirer unearthed a photo him walking on the field at a 1993 Buffalo Bills game wearing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, even though he denied ever having owned a pair, and in 2003, The Enquirer ran a story about Rush Limbaugh's illegally obtaining OxyContin, and the police later confirmed that he had bought 30,000 pills illegally. My point is not that we should trust the enquirer -- we shouldn't (Carol Burnett never got drunk in public with Henry Kissinger, and Elizabeth Smart's family were not part of a gay sex ring no matter what the Enquirer says) -- but that someone adding information about the shoes or the OxyContin should have done more research to see what other sources were saying. They should not have consulted a list by some assistant professor who never submitted her "findings" to a peer-reviewed journal and let that list decide what is and is not "fake". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no reason to see this source as definitive. Are we going to place the author in the position where every time he updates his list, it automatically has the force of policy? TFD (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking of updating, her original list (the one reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, and then a bunch of other sources reprinted the times article) had 118 entries and four categories. It currently has 912 entries and 12 categories (but still fails to list most major left-wing purveyors of fake news). A couple of the categories are:
Political: Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.
Clickbait: Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.
And yet we (Zimdras doesn't) call it a "fake news list".
So if we leave the essay as it is, we will list some sites that Zimdars no longer lists and miss a bunch that she does list. And if we update it to reflect her latest version, we will be listing a bunch of sites that the LA times and other sources that reprinted her earlier list did not include, thus making our unreliable, user generated problem into an unreliable, user generated, non-notable problem.
BTW, Jessica Roy, the person who took a list intended to be a handout to students and made it viral news by putting it into the LA Times with a clickbaity headline, is a former Huffington Post producer. In an amazing coincidence, The Huffington Post is one of the makor left-wing producers of fake news that Zimdars chose not to list. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove Bleacher Report as a source

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Checking through searching "Everything" on the Wiki search for "Bleacher Report" shows there are thousands of articles using it as a primary source. It should never be used. It is a content farm based solely on SEO optimization and pushing controversial opinions for viewership, and should not be considered a source if Wiki wants to be reliable for sports information. Warshington (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS as a means of POV-pushing

Latest comment: 7 years ago79 comments15 people in discussion

"Reliability" is determined pretty subjectively in practice, and editors with political biases can arbitrarily declare sources they politically disagree with to be unreliable. Hardly any right wing sources are considered RS, but plenty of left wing sources are (e.g., WaPo, NPR, MSNBC). A determination of RS or not is never done on the basis of any systematic empirical study of error rates. "Reputation" is a factor, but that's mostly a collection of people's gut feelings.

We need a more objective standard of source inclusion than "Reliability", because the current standard can defacto be used to censor the use of any source that a majority of editors politically disagree with.

I would propose that any newspaper that isn't explicitly a tabloid and has a circulation in the millions should be considered worthy of inclusion.Jwray (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. A "source" is defined by three elements: publisher, author, and text itself. We don't automatically label something "worthly of inclusion" and give a green light to everything coming from it. Even the best of the best of the best make mistakes. Similarly, we don't slap "unworthly" tags lightly. And this is not to say that your rule would declare reliable Russian and Chinese govt newspapers. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems rather WP:POINTy, but I'll bite. At Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center, the OP asked Wikipedia editors to name one conservative source that is reliable. I would say Fox News (excluding all of the "infotainment"), the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, The Economist, and the Financial Times are generally reliable sources. Breitbart and the Daily Mail are not. Just as, on the left, Gawker and the Socialist Worker not generally reliable sources either. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Economist, WSJ, and FT are centrist. Fox is center-right, and people complain when you cite it. Lots of people complain if you cite facts to National Review or anything to the right of National Review. MSNBC and NPR are more Left than National Review is Right. Jwray (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, they really aren't. The problem here is US politics: the Democrats are now centre right and the Republicans far right. Pretty much any dependable news source is going to look centre- to left-leaning by comparison with the fundamentalist libertarian ideology of people like Paul Ryan. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
And after trying to cite a Wordpress blog, no less! It seems to me the problem with WP:RS isn't the policy itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to cite a wordpress blog. What a grossly dishonest smear tactic. I posted in the talk page a link to a wordpress that had a COPY of an article that was published in a local newspaper, because the newspaper itself doesn't have online archives. Obviously before you could use that newspaper article you would have to look it up in a library and cite the newspaper itself. Jwray (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały:Please do not confuse the terms "right wing" and "conservative". Also, I would not put Fox and WSJ into the same political basket. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the OP does not know the meaning of "left wing" and "right wing" either, since NPR, WaPo, MSNBC are in my opinion grossly mischaracterized as "left wing" instead of left of center. Is there a list of what User:Jwray thinks are reliable "right wing" sources, for suitable definitions of "right wing"? When I think of "right wing" sources, I think of things like Stormfront, definitely not reliable. And when I think of left-wing sources, I think of things like the Socialist Worker, also definitely unreliable. But if we're going to talk about sources on the left and on the right that are reliable, then there are certainly many high quality sources encompassing a diverse range of political philosophies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Left wing and right wing are not the same thing as far-left and far-right. It's in between center-X and far-X.Jwray (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In that case, see above for a list of reliable right wing sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OP lost me with "left wing sources... e.g., WaPo...". Here's my take:
  • There are lefty sources -- The Nation is a good example. It's a political magazine.
  • There are righty sources -- The National Review is a good example. It's a political magazine.
  • And there are neither-right-nor-left sources -- Time is a good example. It is not a political magazine. It is a news magazine.
Time is, of course, capable of making errors of fact -- and I'm sure it does. However, they are not usually going to be deliberate. Time magazine's business model doesn't support that. Their subscriber base wants, basically, the news -- too many errors of fact will hurt their business. But The Nation or the National Review can be suspected of possibly eliding, shading, spinning, cherry-picking, or even misstating facts on purpose in order to advance a political agenda. Their business model supports and actually encourages that, since their subscriber base wants that and will re-subscribe if they get it. IMO neither The Nation nor the National Review are very good sources for statements of fact, for this reason.
With Time, you can add in other highly-respected middle-of-the-road straight-news organizations such as the New York Times, CBS, Foreign Affairs, the Economist, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post etc. Some of these are kinda-sorta "liberal", some are kinda-sorta "conservative", and this might come out on their editorial pages -- but their news reports are pretty straight-up and they can't really be described as "left-wing" or "right-wing".
Now, some people consider Time (et al) to be a left-wing rag, and some people consider it to be right-wing rag. But those people are stone ideologues, and what we do is demonstrate that, and they generally fail to win the day. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a nice post and I agree overall that sources like The Nation and National Review are not ideal as sources for facts for this reason, but I also think it's wrong to tar those sources with the same brush as Breitbart. I can easily see either one of the first two being acceptable under some circumstances, but it's hard to see the latter in that way. Notable have-their-own-Wikipedia-article policy experts, congressmen, distinguished professors of history, economics, etc., write for The Nation and National Review. The same cannot be said for most other sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal is definitely not a reliable source when it comes to science - especially climatology. I think I never heard "Fox News" and "reliable source" in the same sentence except maybe with "not" somewhere in between. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
WSJ may not be reliable on the science of climatology... but it is reliable on the politics of climatology. Context always matters. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Being reliable on politics? What does that even mean in the context of climatology? Any sound climate politics must be based on sound climate science. WSJ promotes conspiracy theories spread by climate change deniers from libertarian/conservative think tanks, an ideologically motivated pseudoscientific fringe group, and pretends those people are worth listening to. Anybody who gets their climate change ideas from this source will end up in fantasy land. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a problem but a more holistic solution is needed. Add two more criteria (expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it) Take wp:rs, wp: primary/ secondary/tertiary plus these two new criteria collectively as "strenth of sourcing" and then say that the more contested/ controversial the statement, the stronger the strength of sourcing must be. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Why is it that I am seeing so many comments in so many places that are clearly criticizing the results of WP:DAILYMAILRFC, yet go to great pains to not actually mention The Daily Mail? Why do they all contain phrases like "any newspaper that isn't explicitly a tabloid and has a circulation in the millions should be considered worthy of inclusion"? It seems like a strange pattern. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think this was. In the poster's lexicon, the Daily Mail would be "center-right," i.e., uses the same set of facts as the "left-wing" media. They want to use
Most right-wing sources fail rs because they do not have the same journalistic standards as mainstream media. I took an article from their website today that caught my attention, "Canada Conjoins Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting," by Wesley J. Smith. As you can see, he takes a news article in the conservative National Post and provides his commentary. He is not a journalist, has conducted no independent investigation and the article has not been fact-checked. Why should we use this article as a source, when we can use the original article in the National Post? We don't accept opinion pieces by liberals published in the New York Times as reliable sources either.
Regarding your proposal: "any newspaper that isn't explicitly a tabloid and has a circulation in the millions should be considered worthy of inclusion." That is already effectively the case. I cannot think of any mass circulation newspaper that has not been accepted as a reliable source, at least for news stories, with the exception of the Daily Mail.
TFD (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why did you specifically compare "right-wing sources" with "mainstream media"? Are you implying that there is some fundamental difference between right-wing fake news and left-wing fake news? See
A am apolitical, and it is crystal clear to me that both sides of the political spectrum are creating "fake news" and will continue to do so as long as it is effective. In my opinion, the fact that a bunch of Wikipedia editors are now treating "research" by an assistant professor at a small catholic college as if it were reliable (despite there being no peer-reviewed paper, no experimental methodology, and no evidence that the assistant professor has any expertise in the subject) as if it were a reliable source is a real problem. There is more to determining whether a source is reliable than asking "does it agree with the political positions I already hold?" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent points and summary. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. Come on, now, Guy Macon. This breathlessness is just too much, especially when relying on your own claimed superiority ('more, neutral than thou', really?). Did you read the articles you just posted? They all basically say the same thing, which is Wikipedia policy and guideline already: avoid social media, breaking news, and things not reported in multiple mainstream outlets.
As for that essay list, there is much stuff listed in the "see also" section that no one pays attention to, so your doom and gloom is rather silly, whether it's in the see also section or not (which right now, looks unlikely). It's also an essay, so you are free to edit it (for your version of "reliability", whatever reliability is expected in an essay), but just remember WP:BLP policy when discussing a living person anywhere on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm laughing right now at the assertion that the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are centrist. Of course, I've actually read the WSJ and FT before. To be fair, I'm also laughing at the assertion that MSNBC is "left of center" instead of left-wing. For the record: Conservatism is a right wing political position, just like liberalism is a left-wing political position. WSJ and FT are right-wing and generally reliable (as is Fox News, which is only center-right in the sense that they're just about smack in the center of the right-wing political spectrum). MSNBC and WaPo are left-wing and generally reliable (NPR is often claimed to be left-leaning, but I wholeheartedly disagree, at least in terms of their intentions).
There's really nothing to do here. We're not going to lower our standards to satisfy the desires of a relatively small number of editors to see their political views get more prominence and emphasis. The reason it seems like WP has a left leaning bias is because WP strives to be neutral and reality has a well-known liberal bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem is less about which "wing" sources fall into and more about their loss of objectivity, the same path that the Daily Mail followed. Which way sources lean wouldn't be a problem if they were still objective, covering all significant viewpoints without judgement. But that's rapidly disappearing in modern journalism (the "fake news" is a great example of this). This then coupled with our RS policy which had generally eliminated many right-leaning sources that have already given up their objectivity (eg Breitbart) leaves editors heavily using left-leaning sources that are not objective to put the journalists' opinions in terms of facts, and/or refuse to incorporate significant views from right-leaning sources because "they aren't RSes". The combination is making nearly all currently political articles just echoing the sentiments of the majority of the press, rather than documenting the situation, and we're making echo chambers here. And as it seems nearly impossible to enforce WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DEADLINE to avoid having day-to-day commentary added to articles on ongoing situations, we need to address the root of the issue, being the sourcing problem. WP editors need to take a lot more caution and be completely aware of the situation in the media rather than blinding riding on RS to write ongoing political articles. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Re: "And as it seems nearly impossible to enforce WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DEADLINE to avoid having day-to-day commentary added to articles on ongoing situations, we need to address the root of the issue..." I think that our inability to enforce NOT#NEWS and DEADLINE is the root of the issue. The sourcing problem is a symptom of that inability. If we can figure out how to better enforce NOT#NEWS and DEADLINE, then the sourcing problem you describe resolves itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think the broadening political divide in the US and Western Europe is the root of the problem, but I agree that it's impacting WP due to editors trying to keep articles updated in real time, with brand new sources. And I see it from both political sides: the right keeps trying to counter WP's perceived bias, and the left keeps trying to counter the right, leading both to keep searching for RSes and adding them with new content the moment they go live. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree on both points above, Blueboar nailing it that we have far too many people trying to edit in real time when many many of these articles need establishment of a long-term view. How we fix this short of enforcing full protection on such articles (a last resort) is a major question, but I suspect the issues around RS/POV would mostly resolve if all editors considered how an article should look in 5-10 years rather than tomorrow. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that "reality has a well-known liberal bias", as MPants observed. The far left is just as divorced from reality as the far right. It's true that one needs only look to conservapedia to find a project whose goals are ostensibly similar to ours, but pushing a fact-free right wing worldview. For example, the article on dinosaurs notes that they were "created on day six of Creation". And I do not know of an equivalent project on the left, although presumably dinosaurs died off because small furry creatures controlled the means of production, and instigated Revolution against their reptilian imperialist overlords. There were many such bizarre theories promoted under Stalin. Far right apparatchiks seem to be attempting to push their sources into Wikipedia, and have been for quite some time, while I do not see a similar coordinated push from the far left. Marxism is correctly described as a pseudoscience, for example, but the article Austrian School tries very hard to give equal validity to the discredited economic school. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The far left is just as divorced from reality as the far right. No arguments here. But I think you're reading the quote a bit overly strictly. I'm not suggesting that the left is correct and the right is wrong, end of. Instead, what I've observed is that when people, regardless of political affiliation, give serious thought to political issues and problems without considering allegiances, they tend to converge on a group of answers which is a bit left of center. Indeed, all of the truly "apolitical" people I know tend to lean to the left just a bit. Even people with explicitly conservative views seem to acknowledge this on some level: search Facebook for people who, in their political description give some variation on "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". You will find tons of them, from all over. In fact, it's one of the most common descriptions I've seen (behind the usual suspects, like the two major parties and variations on "centrist" or "independent"), and I've had to engage in Facebook data mining on a professional level before. You have to travel to the extreme ends of the right-wing spectrum to even find people who openly embrace ideals such as ethnic nationalism, the condemnation of homosexuality and gender equality. Ideals which, you may note, were part of the mainstream conservative thought process until just a few decades ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Except "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" discribes Libertarianism, which is neither left wing or right wing. I would be curious to hear the results if you (MjolnirPants) took The World's Smallest Political Quiz at [ https://www.libertarianism.com/Quiz ]. I am apolitical (yup, I really am) but if you held a gun to my head and forced me to pick a US president, I would have picked Sanders or Johnson. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"Serious thought" here is a double edged concept. It's well known on the right that so-called informed opinions are actually shaped by a combination of crypto-Marxists and islamofascists. Your serious thoughts are not your own, but rather are shaped by leftist institutions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I will just leave this here... [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc ] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(In response to this comment by Guy Macon.) Except "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" discribes Libertarianism, which is neither left wing or right wing. I'd say it's an ideology that has both right and left wing elements. But, in practice, most people who describe themselves in that way aren't actually Libertarian. They have this "line" of ethics, past which they support moral laws (prohibitions on drugs, prostitution, etc), something which is pretty much antithetical to libertarians of either bent. They also tend to support social institutions and globalism (the last is kind of hit-or-miss with Libertarians, in my experience, but I've never met an honest Libertarian who liked Medicare). Hell, a lot of self-described libertarians I know aren't very libertarian. They're just liberals who like to pay lip service to the ideas of small government. And truly, a lot of self-described liberals I know occasionally gush about how awesome a flat tax would be (until I point out that they usually have a few thousand more refundable tax credits than they owe in taxes every year).
I took your quiz, as you asked. It said I was a liberal, with 70 on the personal axis and 20 on the economic axis. Is that what you were expecting? To be fair, I tend to edge towards libertarianism (my Facebook political views are "Half liberal, half libertarian") in more nuanced and in-depth surveys. I once convinced a Statist Liberal that private ownership of nuclear weapons would be a net positive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
the same path that the Daily Mail followed Actually the problem is that Wikipedia is slipping the same slope as the "wing" sources following the Daily Mail, and the mainstream too. The slope is to allow journalists turning into pundits interpreting facts rather than reporting it. I remember in earlier times in Wikipedia I had to revert twice a day ledes of bios of Hitler and Stalin where everybody wanted to make the first sentence like "Stalin (1897-1954) was a bloody ruthless dictator of Russia" or something. Now people seem to give up, Stalin being long dead. But for the events of today it is close to impossible to squeeze judgmentalism in opinionation out of articles not today's topics. The "wings" may be reporting facts "truthfully", but they manipulate them by taking out of context, putting into biased wording, and surround them with the commentary serving an agenda. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've always found bias in Wikipedia article to be the most harmful when it degrades the informativeness of the article. I.E deliberately obfuscating the topic, significant omissions for political purposes, gaming in misleading wording, all usually done by using Wikipedia policies and guidelines contrary to their intent. And they are vulnerable to such mis-use. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you are missing the point. People from across the political spectrum can publish fake news, but none of those sources pass rs. A reliable source hires professional editors and journalists and has oversight over the accuracy of stories, including publishing retractions when they are wrong. Typically, except for local news outlets, that requires substantial investment and a large audience. The only news media that do that just happen to range in political orientation from center to center-right, i.e., from outlets such as CNN and MSNBC to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Left-wingers and right-wingers (i.e., to the left of MSNBC or to the right of Fox News) mostly have not provided the resources to establish a reliable news network. Instead, they provide commentary, which analyses the news rather than provide news coverage. Can you name any right-wing media that you think are unfairly excluded or any left-wing media that are wrongly included? And so that you do not think I am biased, I voted against the Daily Mail ban, because it is no less reliable than comparable newspapers.

And consider my example from the National Review. It quoted an article in a reliable source and added commentary. Why should we use it as a source?

TFD (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone just emerged from a coma and didn't hear about The Daily Mail kerfuffle, see WP:DAILYMAILRFC. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it is "no less reliable than comparable newspapers". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The "centralist" sources (spanning the gambit from CNN/MSNBC to WSJ/Fox) also engage in news analysis (it just doesn't happen at the ends), which normally is fine when they are marked as analysis or op-ed pieces, so that inclusion on WP will include these as opinions with attributions. What is the problem in the modern media environment is that due to shrinking media budgets and competition from citizen journalists, the previously-existing bright line between news reports and news analysis/opinion no longer exists in most of these outlets; "A reliable source hires professional editors and journalists and has oversight over the accuracy of stories, including publishing retractions when they are wrong." is drifting away from the reality of the situation, even though this is still a metric we want to use. So we get "news reports" that are really news analysis filled with personal and subjective comments from the journalists. However, because they are not clearly marked as such, editors will incorporate those materials as fact going "it's from an RS, it must be true!" This is part of what made the Daily Mail unusable was sensationalist news, making distinguishing facts from opinion hard to do. It's also where many other sources are heading towards, albeit much more slowly and several years trailing the DM and other right-wing sources like Breitbart. We need editors, if they are going to be including day-to-day news coverage, to be fully aware how to distinguish from commentary and fact in such articles, and how POV policy applies to those. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One key initial claim was that "reliable sources" had employees who check articles for "facts" before the articles are published. Such sources are now pretty much non-existent, so we settle for "well they do publish corrections." The issue is that "they issue corrections" is a pretty thin basis for asserting that any source at all is "reliable" in the first place.

So what we end up with, all too often, has nothing at all to do with "actual accuracy" but with "perceived political/social/scientific correctness" which is a tad tenuous at best. Thus the "XYS is too right-wing" etc. as an argument, or "QRS does not toe the truth as seen by TUV group", or even "WZX does not agree with the majority of other sources as approved by Wikipedia." The Walrusian Time has finally arrived, I suggest. Suggestians? Collect (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to better enforcing NOTNEWS, DEADLINE, and RECENTISM per Blueboar above, we need editors to recognize that scrutinizing what established RSes say or report is completely within scope as part of WP editorial consensus. A lot of this stuff with the media is based principally on combined observation, and there ar editors that demand we show sources to show the deterioration of the media before they accept it as true. Of course, the media is not going to report on its own deterioration, and the sources that do are, guess what, treated as extreme non-RSes. As encyclopedia writers, we need to have the 60,000 ft view of the situation - not only on the topic of interest but how the media and the rest of the world reacts to the topic, to better understand what are the appropriate RSes to use for it and how to frame the topic in the context of NPOV. This is an area where RS combined with UNDUE can push out anything that doesn't fit a specific thread of thought that majority of the press are presenting. This doesn't require a major deviation from policy, simply more cautious writing in tone and presumptions of whether statements made by RSes are meant to be taken as fact or opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Your feelings about how the Reliable Sources policy "mainstream" or "high quality" is so-different from 10 or 15 years ago when Wikipedia policies adopted those standards are, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit/rumor/fakenews (take your pick), unless you actually do produce high quality academic studies (like literature reviews) to prove that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You're self-demonstration my point about editor resistance here. And also on that same logic, the Daily Mail RFC, which had no academic basis to demonstrate their unreliability to our standards, should thus be overturned. In reality, we as editors working under consensus, where we already use our own perception and knowledge on judging the quality of RSes, can make the same determination about the state of the media today, since no one else anywhere does this type of analysis. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
All the foundational policies, V/NOR/NPOV/BLP require "mainstream" or "high quality" , and "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" - as editors we do have to apply those (as in the DM matter), but no we cannot overturn those without changing policy. You are in effect arguing there is no such thing, as mainstream, high quality, or reputation for fact checking and accuracy, which if that is your belief, you just cannot work under our present policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no attempt to change what qualities we want in an RS. There are, however, two facets of how RS plays out with other policies that the trend in media changes (less objectivity) requires us to consider:
  1. Just because something is printed in an RS without an op-ed header does not make it undeniable fact. Most sources we deem default-reliable are still publishing appropriate articles that simply document facts without any attempt at analysis or opinion, and these are still valid. But because the line between opinion and news reporting has been disappearing, editors should not necessary assume that an article, published without an op-ed masthead, is necessarily an objective take. Editorial consensus needs to be able to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis to determine if the article is engaging in subjective reporting or similar analysis, and if the material is deemed appropriate to include, to make sure YESPOV is followed with attribution to the author/work rather than reporting it as fact in WP's voice.
  2. If editors feel a topic needs current opinion from the media or others, (that is, ignoring the NOT#NEWS/DEADLINE/RECENTISM issue), then strictly limiting one's view to only what has been deemed RSes (applying UNDUE to this point) can create a false picture of the real world situation, particularly when the lack of objectivity is taken into account. If editors do opt to cover a topic ignoring RECENTIMS, then RSOPINION must be taken more seriously to consider opinions (and only opinions) from normally non-reliable sources that are appropriate authorities or experts on the topic at hand. And even if there are no contrary opinion in other usable sources and the opinion is unchallenged, we as editors still need to determine by consensus if it really is a fair claim to include given all other policies (for example, there is serious discussion to include Trump as an example at Demagogue).
There is no attempt to change what is an RS, only to recognize that RSes are not "the Bible", they can be infallible and unreliable at times, moreso lately due to lack of objectivity, and that other sources are not excluded from consideration when evaluating POV issues. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What is your actual academic articles proof for your belief that "high quality" and "mainstream" journalism is "more biased" than the in the early 2000s? Do you have the actual peer reviewed published proof that says that? Also, no one has ever thought RS are 'the Bible' (at least if they know current policy and guidelines). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We are not beholding to have such "proof" if consensus (which defines policy) agrees there's an issue. But there are works that talk about the changing of the type of journalism in the digital age with the advent of social media, eg: "Steensen, Steen, et al. "The Intimization of Journalism." The Handbook of Digital Journalism, edited by Tamara Witschge, CW Anderson, David Domingo, and Alfred Hermida (2016): 113-127." And unfortunately, I have seen many instances of people treating anything said by mainstream quality RSes as "fact", particularly in using labels at BLP/N. This happens all the time, but mostly as a result of people ignoring RECENTISM and trying to document what people think "now" rather than the long-term encyclopedic view. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You would not mention a new consensus, if you were not talking about changing policy. As for changing media, that is not proof that "mainstream" and "high quality" journalism is "more biased" or "less objective". "Social media", where it is even RS, is at best primary sourcing and is already deprecated by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not about using social media at all. The academic sources that discuss the loss of objective reporting or growing use of subjective reporting in the media attribute this increase to several points, one being competition from social media and citizen journalists that can get the word out faster than traditional media can write articles, so as to keep their readership, the press have adopted more engaging articles which requires them to write from a more personal, subjective stance than objective. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the point of asking for proof was determining whether or not such a consensus has any chance of forming. Right now, it really doesn't seem like it does. Of course, if you had academic, peer-reviewed articles documenting an increasing polarization of mainstream media, and a correlated increase in factual errors and opinion pieces, you'd stand the chance of forming such a consensus. Personally, the way I see it is a purely pragmatic one: Unless and until something which is less beholden to the whims of Wikipedians and more accurate (both are necessary, as a proposal which depends a great deal more on our judgement might be more accurate in the short term, but is inevitably going to be more susceptible to gaming), I think we should stick with the P&G's we have. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The two points above do not require any change to P&G, but simply require all P&G to be used in the right amount of balance. Whereas right now, RS + UNDUE is a sledgehammer to force the mainstream view and eliminate any counter-views into political or ideaological topics of ongoing concern, but when NOR + NPOV are taken as a whole, that approach really is not appropriate. But this all stems from editors ignoring RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS as well, another existing P&G area that is routinely absent from these discussions. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Correction: RS + UNDUE are a sledgehammer to force the mainstream view and diminish and downplay any contrary views in such topics. And that is as it should be. There's a reason the mainstream view is mainstream. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Not universally true, this is where RECENTISM comes into play. If we are talking some events from 20 years ago or more, then absolutely we should use the current weight in RSes to document how that event is seen now, with all the hindsight needed to give it context, and eliminate fringe viewpoints (eg the conspiracy theories around JFK's assassination or if the moon landing was faked.) But in a current controversy, where we have no idea whom is "right" because we have no historical hindsight, we have to be very careful of letting a predominate opinion echoed in RSes that distances contrary opinions overwhelm the topic. We need to document the controversy, and lay out at least the facts (even if it is the "he said, she said" accusations) in a reasonable balance, before then considering the outside opinions on the matter. In 20 years, most of those outside opinions really won't matter relative to the core facts of the controversy, which is why RECENTISM becomes very important to avoid this type of situation. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When "we have no idea", the individual user has to be careful not to force his own ignorance on WP articles: there are controversies where one side is obviously right, but it is only obvious to the knowledgeable. I think your categorization of historical vs. current is artificial: elapsing time does often not really decide the issue but only spreads the already existing knowledge to more people. Sometimes it does not even do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The key about the historical vs recent aspect, particularly with how much emotion there is present in current ongoing controversial topics, is that in 10-20 years, we should have a far less emotionally-driven view of the situation, even if we don't know who's "right", we can provide a better reflection of more rational thinking on the situation. We can't deny the adage that "history is written by the victors", but at least we should wait for that history to be written in some cases, rather than presuming one side is right. We should be treating most current political and ideological controversies without prejudging either side of the issue to whether they are right or not, excluding rare cases where there is a complete afront to common decent human morals (eg if one side is fully backing the mass genocide of a certain race, that's where different considerations are taken). --MASEM (t) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any problems with our current policy that aren't inherent problems to sourcing. The notion of using unreliable sources to help inform the decision as to whether a nominally reliable sources is, in fact, reliable for its use would not fix this, it would only make it worse. So while I'm not dismissing your concerns here, I really don't see what we could realistically do about them. This is why we have editors instead of bots: for us to use our judgement to try and minimize cases where nominally reliable sources are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not to try to disprove a normally RS to say they are wrong, but to have the ability to recognize when an article from a normally RS source is using subjective or personal opinion but not clearly marked as an op-ed piece, to avoid treating the statements made as fact, particularly when the article is on a currently ongoing debate or controversy in the realm of politics or ideological differences. A prime example of the situation is highlighted above where editors want to support inclusion of Trump in Demagogue as a fact because there are plenty of "non op-ed" pieces from RSes that support it such as [2] or [3]. That's a clear violation of RECENTISM, yet editors seem to ignore that because these look like factual articles due to the lack of an op-ed header, but any common sense clearly identifies them as opinion pieces due to tone and language. These articles are completely fair as opinions, and they can be used with attribution elsewhere. And maybe in time, in 2040, we'll look back as a society and that would make sense to include then, but right now, editors selectively use policy like RS and UNDUE to force this type of information into WP far too prematurely. (And I should clarify, I do not support Trump in any manner, just that a good majority of the situation is around how WP treats anything related to Trump and those topics associated with him). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but I see a problem with all the possible solutions. Either we rely on non-reliable sources to help us differentiate between opinions and facts (which is pretty obviously a bad idea), or we use our own views and opinions. The latter may not be as obviously bad, but I assure you that it's far worse. There are Wikipedians insisting that calling false claims false is a "value judgement", for example, and this is extremely common. There are Wikipedians insisting that Breitbart is more reliable than the New York Times, unapologetically and emphatically, and their reasoning is that Breitbart supported Trump, and Trump won the election. There are Wikipedians arguing hard solipsism! If we as a group can't be trusted to even differentiate between claims of fact and opinions, then how the hell can we ever hope to weed out the opinions from the claims of fact? And you might claim that most of us don't do this, and I would agree. But anything which gives power to the minority among us who think their own opinions override what reliable sources say is a very bad thing for this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that we, both as individual editors and as a group cannot make that distinction between when a news article from an RS is performing straight-up news reporting without analysis, and when they are doing analysis or opining, as long as editors drop any personal bias as they are supposed to do when editing on WP. Unfortunately, too many of these areas on ongoing, emotionally-driven controversial topics are populated by editors that exhibit strong biases (both supporting mainstream views, and supporting the extreme minority view) that makes a sane conversation on this determination nearly impossible. This all goes back to RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS that WP should not be in this venue of trying capture the POVs of an ongoing controversies, only documenting their facts, and should instead look at the situation well after time has passed, where emotions both in reporting and in WP editing are no longer there, to make that summary judgment of how to describe the public opinion on the matter. If editors are going to ignore RECENTISM and summarize current and ongoing public opinion on a heated topic, then there needs to be an stronger evaluation of sources to make sure editors are not letting their own bias get in the way of seeing the differences between objective and subjective reporting. I am fully aware of the fringe minority issues you describe and agree we don't want those editors to keep trying to force facts from these non-RSes into places, but realistically it is easier to fight that fire with rational, unbiased discussion about an article's approach than with an emotionally-driven bias and shutting discussion down completely. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"as long as editors drop any personal bias" - This does not make sense. How can one "drop any personal bias"? I am convinced that the earth is round, that evolution has happened, that climate change is man-made, and that President Trump and his minions are incompetent in many areas, especially when scientific questions are involved. I have good, solid reasons for all of those. So, when editing, which of those "biases" should I drop, if any?
The only way out of this is to say: reliable sources trump what editors think. The reliable source agree with me (or rather, I agree with them). So I don't have a problem. Only editors who disagree with RS have a problem with Wikipedia, but they will to live with that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a separate issue here that came around from a different discussion and that's recognizing that there is a difference when it comes to topics like fringe science, alternative medicine, etc. and political and ideological debates. In the former, there is generally a means of doing objective research or other determine that follows scientific methods to come to a reasonably confident conclusion that the fringe science is unlikely, etc. (eg "The earth is flat"). That is, these are broadly accepted as "truth" or "correct" and thus we would expect editors to accept these as truths in how they approach editing (we would not tolerate people trying to put the earth is flat on various articles). When it comes to political or ideological aspects, there is no formal way to come to a conclusion, as much of this is trying to make assessments about what a person or people are thinking, and that's impossible to capture; we can only judge actions. As such, there is no "truth"/"correct" position as there is in the scientific field, nor should we act like there is such a position. In those areas, that's where I would expect editors to recognize their bias towards or against a position and put that aside in necessary discussions and editing. You're free to express your bias, but not being able to see through that personal bias is where most discussions then start to break down. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
but realistically it is easier to fight that fire with rational, unbiased discussion about an article's approach than with an emotionally-driven bias and shutting discussion down completely. So WP:IRS is, as it currently stands (which I've made quite clear is exactly what I'm defending) is an "...emotionally-driven bias..." which "...shut[s] discussion down completely"? Your implicit proposals is that we permit highly biased, unreliable sources to be used to gauge the validity of less-biased, more reliable sources. I contend without reservation that this proposal would introduce far more emotion and bias into the equation, and shut down far more discussions. After all, it means we have to judge the validity of the opinions of the relatively small number of people who work in climate science by the relatively large number of pundits who disagree with them, at least in part. And that's just ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your implicit proposals is that we permit highly biased, unreliable sources to be used to gauge the validity of less-biased, more reliable sources. No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I've been arguing that we as editors are competent enough to recognize that the media today, when discussing political and ideological issues, are very far removed from reporting objectively on these topics, and expressing the "news" as their opinions without clearly marking them as opinions. That doesn't change their RS nature, it doesn't change the core principle of RS that we should only include facts that originate from RS (we definitely should not be going to non-RS sources for factual inclusion), but it does affect how WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE should be handled, in light of WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOT. Take any nearly issue with Trump: it would not take long to compile a list of negative opinions about him from RSes, but expressing these as facts/not titled as an op-ed. I've yet to find one of these where it is easy to tell by the language used that it is written as an opinion piece and not a valid news piece. However, editors that also loathe Trump (which is fine: you're allowed to have your personal opinions) have been using these to push a lot of the anti-Trump opinion across the board. This is first something we're supposed to avoid in the first place with RECENTISM, as we have no idea how Trump will be seen after many years have passed from his Presidency. Yes, there are a few things about public perception that are unavoidable, like the Woman's March and the reaction to the immigration bills, but the stuff that I see added all the time are media opinions trying to sway public perception, which we absolutely should be avoiding per RECENTISM. And then these are added without considering that they are just opinions, and treated as fact. That goes against YESPOV. This is the only place where non-RSes come into play as per WP:RSOPINION, we're allowed to consider opinion statements from non-RSes for valid inclusion, weighed appropriate with UNDUE, if we're going to ignore RECENTISM. Otherwise, the situation is: we become an echo chamber for what the media has to say; that's how a strict interpretation of the policies would lead us. I know we're supposed to summarize what RSes say on a topic, and that makes perfect sense for something non-controversial or that has been done and over with for many years, but when it is part of an ongoing intense debate, it's rather difficult to be summarizing everything when the big picture is not yet know, and that's why we have RECENTISM, to avoid trying to be this detailed before we can really understand the larger situation. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise, the situation is: we become an echo chamber for what the media has to say; I fail to see how we could do anything else without putting our own biases into this, and I've not seen any arguments which are even remotely convincing that our biases are better than any other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
For one, we could force RECENTISM adherence more closely and avoid including significant opinions on a controversial subject until the book is well and truly closed on the matter, limited ourselving to just documenting the major elements of the controversy while it is in progress, and not trying to determine who "won" it based on current media sources. This is probably the singlemost important step to take to defuse the situation. Second, as we are an open wiki, that means there will be a plethera of voices, spanning the spectrum, compared to any single media source which is likely going to have a narrower distribution. Consensus and discussion without forcing one's personal bias in the matter can do the job, but that also requires all editors to abide by that, from IPs to experienced admins. This has worked well in topics far less controversial, so there's no reason it can't work in these, just that editors have to be fully aware of how they may be letting a personal bias sway discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
For one, we could force RECENTISM adherence more closely and avoid including significant opinions on a controversial subject until the book is well and truly closed on the matter, limited ourselving to just documenting the major elements of the controversy while it is in progress, and not trying to determine who "won" it based on current media sources. That's already policy; so you're not proposing a change in policy but a change in mindset; something which you can only affect for one particular Wikipedian.
Second, as we are an open wiki, that means there will be a plethera of voices, spanning the spectrum, compared to any single media source which is likely going to have a narrower distribution. Guess what that sounds like to me. Not that I'm suggesting you're advocating OR, I'm just pointing out the impression that a sentence like this gives.
Consensus and discussion without forcing one's personal bias in the matter can do the job, but that also requires all editors to abide by that, from IPs to experienced admins. Again, I'm not seeing any proposed change to policy (in this; when I cut out the preceding sentence as I just did, it suggests a change but I'm not trying to cherry pick your arguments to put words in your mouth, so I'm not assuming you're actually making that claim). Your previous comments in this, in this thread and in the last (I believe it was at RSN but I'm not sure) suggest that you are proposing that we alter WP:RS such as to permit us to weigh and validate the claims of reliable sources by the claims of non-reliable sources, but every time I mention that, you disclaim it and instead, make comments like these, in which you suggest that it's a lack of enforcement of current policy which produces the problem you've seen.
I actually have another suggestion: I suggest that we accept that controversial subjects will have controversial talk pages, and that the consensus of reliable sources on these subjects won't be palatable to everyone. We can then stick with our current policy which, while failing to fully curb all the bickering, still produces good articles more often than not at the end of the day. I don't believe, for one second, that there exists any possible solution which would both preserve WP's neutrality and put an end to all the POV arguments going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, while RECENTISM is based on policy, you'll note it is not listed as policy, which is why it tends to get ignored. Particularly in current controversies, this really needs to be put front and center to more people. We shouldn't be trying to be as current as editors want to be while a situation is still developing.
And yes, some of what I ask is "original research", but it is the same type of backend original research that we allow to develop the encyclopedia, such as determining what actually is a reliable source, or making the recent decision about the Daily Mail. We're making OR about how to summarize a topic, which is a necessary element of being a tertiary source. This is not bad OR by any means.
you are proposing that we alter WP:RS such as to permit us to weigh and validate the claims of reliable sources by the claims of non-reliable sources Again, nothing needs to be altered, just recognized that policy allows for this. If we are talking claims and opinions, then that means that if one is trying to evaluate UNDUE, they should consider all valid sources that meet RSOPINION, which is broader than the set of sources that are allowed if we were talking about strictly factual info. (keeping in mind, that doesn't mean every claim from an RSOPINION should be considered appropriate to include particularly if they edge on BLP violations) But editors frequently dismiss the set of sources that met RSOPINION and fail RS because, well, they fail RS. The other facet that is part of this is using the "acceptable" OR to take an article from an RS and judge whether is it objectively asserting facts, or if it is engaging in opinion but not clearly labeled as such, as to then judge how NPOV would apply (as documented per YESPOV). It is very easy that if you personally agree with the stance of a opinionated article, you're going to want to present that as fact; that's human nature, but that's what we need editors to work against. It doesn't mean the stated opinion can't be included, but it must be treated as opinion (attributed in prose and not in WP voice), and should be judged relative to all opinions from the set of RSOPINION sources, or considered omitted if we're still in the midst of a controversy per RECENTISM. All this is set by policy and guidelines, but these facets tend to get lost by the volume of editors just insisting we follow RS blindly. I fully realize that at some topics, "following RS blindly" is a necessary step to avoid junk science, fringe theories, and other nonsense from entering WP, but in the areas of politics and ideological topics, we need to be a lot more open minded as editors as what the full situation is to simply avoid being a mouthpiece for the Fourth Estate. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, nothing needs to be altered, just recognized that policy allows for this. No. And to that I add, Hell No. (capitalization intended). We should never judge the quality of a New York Times news report by the vociferousness with which Breitbart calls them liars, nor should we humor editors who insist on doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet said anything about using non-RSes to disprove what an RS says, which I agree we should not do. I do however think editors are intelligent and competent enough to recognize the bigger picture of how the media sources (RS and not RS) in general are speaking to a topic, particularly if they are involved in a topic, to understand where there is controversy that may not be rigorously documented, and to consider if the situation is still developing before engaging in trying to document a topic fully. I also think editors can, without bias, recognize between objective and subjective reporting, and can figure out how to handle subjective statements with more care (eg as attributed claims rather than fact in WP's voice). It is the blind adherence to only sticking to what the RSes say and presuming they are always factually correct which creates the problem; policy and guideline is not that blind, but editors take a strict read of p/g to maintain this position. There's the other extreme of including every random blog which we clearly have to avoid, but nothing I've spoken to is about weakening how RSes are meant to be used per documented policy/guiideline, only to offset the selective interpretation of that. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have not yet said anything about using non-RSes to disprove what an RS says, which I agree we should not do. That's not what I was suggesting. I said you seem to be saying that we use non-reliable sources to judge the neutrality of reliable sources. Breitbart regularly gets downright vitriolic about how "dishonest" the NYT is, and if we were to use it to evaluate a NYT source, we would inevitably conclude that the NYT source was chock full of bias and opinions and was useless for anything but the views of the author. And again: hell no. What Breitbart says should only matter when we're discussing what Breitbart says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not an issue of neutrality, but objectivity. Objectivity is one of those things that we can judge for ourselves as informed readers, not requiring any specific sources but just having knowledge of a topic at a 60,000 ft level; the lack of objectivity is one of those evidenced by tone and wording choices. Only once you have shown that RSes covering a topic are not reporting on it objectively, and determined through consensus what are opinions and claims rather than fact as outlined at WP:YESPOV, then you may want to turn to looking to RSOPINION-meeting sources to decide if there are reasonable counterpoints to those opinions in a current ongoing controversial topic, or keep in mind RECENTISM and avoid including the opinions altogether. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not share your trust in the wisdom of all the editors here. I know there are editors for whom some scientific facts are just opinions and claims, and it seems to me that those editors would profit from what you are suggesting. Again, climate change is a prime example. The crackpots doubting it are currently pretty active, some of them are in positions of power, and your RECENTISM seems to apply to them. The same is true for my other example above, evolution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hob completely. I've just recently interacted with an editor who insisted that "false" (used synonymously with "incorrect") is a value judgement, and accused me of playing semantic games when I pointed out how wrong this was. Any path forward which requires constant good judgement is doomed to failure the first time someone uses bad judgement. And this doesn't just apply to a minority of Wikipedians: Each and every one of us has made a really stupid choice at some point. Without exception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry to pick this up again much later, it dropped off my radar). To Hob's point, there is a very big difference between how to handle controversies in the areas of science and health, where there is scientific method-obtained objective studies to disprove points against the fringe views, and political/ideological aspects, where there is no way any objective study to determine the truth can be done, as you cannot directly measure human intentions (you can ascertain them from actions and words, but that's not the same as actually knowing what they are thinking, and depending on your goal that ascertainment can be subjective). That's why this concept is meant to be apply to the political/ideological topics that would fall within RECENTISM, rather than something like global warming which is far far far outside that and has a body of study to demonstrate that.
As for good or bad judgement, that's the point of consensus discussion; the problem is that editors who wear their personal POV on their sleeve often do not consider their judgement as "bad" or do not leave room to consider other people's judgement as "good". I don't know if that false vs incorrect is over Pizzagate but I know that came up there before, and that's the type of case where editors who feel very strongly for left-leaning (or more likely, very much have strong feelings against the far right) seem to be letting that POV override good judgement. "False" can mean "incorrect", but it also has a meaning that implies lying or deceit (a type of purposely malicious action). It doesn't have to be that, when used in the right context, such as talking about boolean variables or psychological aspects like false memories, but these contexts make it clear we're talking about "incorrect" meaning. When used in the context of a political/idealogical controversy like Pizzagate without further context, it gives a tone that attacks those that made the allegations as they were purposely being deceitful. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't but again, we can't ever prove intent objectively (or without the ruling of a court). It's why it is a poorly selected word for a neutral work. Yet, the mass media use the word at large to describe it, so these editors think there's no problem using that word. We as editors can be intelligent enough to recognize that the media themselves have clearly expressed detest for the sites that propagated the claim, and thus using "false" over other more impartial terms falls right in line with the media's stance. So despite the large number of sources calling Pizzagate as "false", we need to be more impartial in tone, as well as considering how RECENTISM applies here (knowing the short term bigger picture). Now maybe in 20 years, we can recosider the word if that is how writers of the time refer to that event, since RECENTISM no longer applies, but if we're going to be breaking NOT#NEWS and writing on short-term events, we absolutely have to be aware of the environment of those reporting, and that can be done by WP editors as long as they are putting their personal biases away in the consensus discussions. It's doesn't make it any easier, and could lead to more prolonged, but less disruptive, discussions prior to including material that includes strong opinions on a breaking news topic. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Either a pizzeria does have a basement, or it doesn't. Pretty easy to find out: grab a gun, go there, let them show you the basement.
No, some facts are just facts. Alternative facts are lies, and alternative fake news are probably true. The big lie can be recognized as such by contemporaries too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is not at all trying to say that Pizzagate is in any way truthful, but understanding that choice of language affects tone that can be used to enforce a non-neutral viewpoints. Too many editors that likely share the same POV/bias as mass media (eg to the left) are going to be dismissive of anything that seems contrary to what the mass media presents, even though we are not supposed to repeat that bias, but unfortunately, when such discussions like this issue on "false" vs "incorrect" in regards to conspiracy theories is always dismissed, it makes it impossible to actually address the core problem. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
A quick addition: I do think there is a time and place we need to be dismissive of editors asserting counterclaims or trying to force a false balance; editors coming along and asserting that Pizzagate must be presented as true when no RS even comes close to offering it as such, absolutely we should not spend excessive time trying to entertain those claims. But I have found many many times (including on these pages) editors dismissive of issues with respect to impartiality, recentism, and other factors that do need more discussion, with the editors ignoring some RSes (including those that fall within RSOPINION) in favor of the majority view provided by RSes for topics related to current and active controversial topics. There are very subtle but important differences being arguing for false balance (which we can't do) and arguing for impartiality (which we are supposed to do), but these are routinely lumped together because both ideas seem to go against the mainstream view presented in RSes. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Often the answer is easier than people want it to be. When there are significant viewpoints on both sides of a statement, then the statement is merely an opinion and should be worded (with attribution etc.) as such. And it doesn't matter what credentials the "source" has, for that statement they are just a primary source on their own opinion on the topic, not secondary source coverage of the topic. But people don't want it to be that simple, because that would work against their use of wiki-lawyering to POV an article. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


The checklist

There's a fairly simple checklist we have when assessing whether something is considered default-reliable versus default-unreliable. It has to meet all of the following criteria:

  • Expertise, in the form of credentialled writers and a robust procedures defining who gets to write for them.
  • Credible editorial oversight and independence (i.e. not "fact-washing").
  • A reputation for commitment to accuracy, including fact-checking prior to publication and correction or retraction of erroneous articles.

The last is what failed with the Daily Mail. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The checklist for "POV-pushing" vs. "including important point of views"

The above checklist is OK for checking against reporting of facts. However reporting of opinions is more tricky. While all the above is applicable, I would suggest to add one more rule, similar to our concept of WP:!vote:

  • We add an opinion, if the person cited provides compelling reasons which have led them to this opinion.

Rationale: a "bare opinion" is more a statement about the person cited (about their views), rather than about the subject at hand. For an encyclopedia it is more important to see the facts which have led an expert to that opinion. It is easier to dismiss an opinion rather than facts. Compare which of the two texts are more credible:

  • "Putin wants to restore Russia's domination"
  • "Putin tries to restore Russia's domination: he grabbed Crimea, split Georgia, meddles with Ukraine, acts in Syria. Putin says "Make Russia great again".

Clearly, the first one, taken in an isolation, is easily dismissable: "Of course American hawks they say so because they hate Putin". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_56&oldid=1137435740"
  NODES
admin 2
Idea 13
idea 13
INTERN 1
Note 14
Project 7
USERS 1
Verify 1