Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by N8wilson (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 2 October 2022 (→"Generally acceptable" USERG: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

zakzak.co.jp

Moved to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § zakzak.co.jp

Preventing Ad Hominem

Sock drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was reading the definition of a source section and read that "any of the three can affect reliability" (The three being, author, publisher, piece of work itself). Might I suggest adding that the extent to which any of these three affects reliability is context dependent. For example, for a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the publisher is a lot more important than the author. That is what the peer-review process is about, being able to be confident that at least when it comes to factual matters, even though the author of a paper may be biased, said factual matters have been checked and double checked by disinterested reviewers. Ohcanada123 (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias" doesn't necessarily prevent a source being reliable. But subject to that, isn't the guideline already saying this eg WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point to suggest "context matters" isn't prominent enough. Why are we giving WP's definition of "published" right after the list of RS criteria, since it is used as a qualifying criteria of a source, not a qualifying criteria of reliability. Thus it should go in a separate section, or simply be limited to WP:V and WP:PUBLISHED. (Also this propagation of tangential policy cross-refs can be problematic, as I recently edited to show.) So I propose a cursory, if any mention of what disqualifies a source from being usable -- just wl to WP:V#Reliable sources == WP:SOURCE and separate the disqualifications there, as the point here is to talk about evaluating reliability. Then remove the "published" section (wl PUBLISHED and/or V), and presto, ContextMatters is now right after the list of three major things affecting reliability. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine CE here, but not on my post, to make this point: I made the mistake that WP:PUBLISHED above should actually be WP:PUBLISH, because the former redirects to the RS section, while the latter is its own information page, to which I suggest we wl instead. Is that potentially confusing? Needless duplication of identical material? Nah, that's just crazy-talk. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's confusing. I feel like both should lead to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_published, which provides a link to Wikipedia:Published where people can drill down. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suggest we change the following:

"In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. The relative importance of author, publisher and publication also depends on context. For example, a non-peer-reviewed scholarly book might be unreliable if the author is known to be biased. However, if a publication is peer reviewed in a reputable journal, or if the underlying data is verifiable in public data bases, then the author can be irrelevant." Ohcanada123 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This extrapolation is simply incorrect in general -- I don't know what to tell you. What's wrong with just noting the three criteria affecting reliability to consider, and context matters? Stuff about peer review, bias, etc. all belongs in subsections explanatory essays and policies specific to news and academic fields. Not sure what public databases have to do with anything -- they range in reliability from useless to gold-standard (depending on what you use them for and how). As a running theme on RSN, bias in general does not affect reliability. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly books are never peer reviewed. All the good scholarly books are "biased" in some way (e.g., toward my idea of why they ousted the old ruler and away from your ideas about the same event). I wonder if we still aren't internalizing the idea that biased sources are okay. Wikipedia articles should not be biased, but reliable sources can be biased. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct to simply say that "scholarly books are never peer reviewed." Academic presses do employ peer reviews of their books, sometimes of portions of the books and sometimes of entire books. That is the primary thing that makes them academic presses (aside from their specialized topical foci, of course). ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo Interesting, I was not aware of that. In that case I cannot think of a situation (at least when it comes to scholarly topics) when the author of a paper or a book is really relevant to the reliability of the source, if their work is checked and approved by independent scholars in the field who work with reputable publishers. Does anyone know of an example when the author of a a piece of scholarly work that is published by a reputable academic publisher or journal can affect reliability?Ohcanada123 (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crude “reliability” isn’t usually the differentiator between academic authors if they’re published by reputable publishers. It’s usually about weight (WP:DUE etc). A world expert’s work is goingto carry more weight than a monograph based on a recent PhD thesis. But I come back to my point earlier in thus thread: context matters is already appropriately covered: nothing needs fixing, particularly asis demonstrated by this thread trying to “fix it” digs a hole full of cans of worms…DeCausa (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know crude reliability is not usually the differentiator between academic authors, but I was wondering about situations where it was. If these situations are exceedingly rare, may I suggest simply saying that the more the author's work or claim has been vetted by peer-review and other scholars in the field, the less relevant the author becomes in terms of reliability, but there still may be concerns about due weight. Ohcanada123 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within academic sources, author identity usually matters at the extremes: the widely recognized world experts on the one end, and the crackpots and disgraced fraudsters on the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought, but think of the following situation. Suppose Deepak Chopra ran a large scale double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial and found that homeopathy actually works. Suppose after intense peer-review and scrutiny The New England Journal of Medicine found that this study was of sufficient methodological quality to allow publication. Is it really relevant that the author is a crackpot or a disgraced fraudster? It seems to me the definition of ad hominem. Indeed, if a crackpot like him was able to jump through all the necessary hoops to get their methodology checked and their results published by a respected publisher, then in my opinion that is worth at least a mention. Ohcanada123 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I'd probably believe that NEJM is trying to get some publicity. They're known for running controversial articles; getting people to cite an article for the purpose of disagreeing with it or using it to claim uncertainty in the field can do very good things for a journal's magic numbers. Also, you wouldn't be able to use it in any medical-related content on wiki, because it's a primary source instead of a review article. With the usual systems, there's a 5% chance of an erroneous outcome in a randomized trial.
But: If we leave aside all the details, and instead say that it's a famous woo-woo person, whom we'll call Cheeky Doppa, in a strictly non-medical hypothetical field of alternative babblology, who got an article published in one of the leading journals for the field, then I think the article would be considered reliable at least for some limited claims ("Cheeky Doppa claimed that..."), and the next step would be to figure out whether mentioning that was WP:DUE. Also, I'd suggest as much patience as you can manage, since complaints about bad work tend to surface fairly quickly, especially if it's made a big splash in the media. (Of course, that same level of media attention increases the demand for Wikipedia articles to say something, even if all they say amounts to "Yes, we know that he published a paper, okay?") WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emails as references

Is it possible for an email by a reliable scholar to be used as a reference in an article; particularly for resolving ambiguity about an earlier, already published work of his/her? I am almost certain that i have come across a couple of such references in the past, but unfortunately i cannot recall exactly in which articles i saw them. I initially asked RoySmith via email about this, and he forwarded me here. I thought there was no guideline or policy that explicitly touches upon this subject; however, having been forwarded here, i noticed that there is some relevant information in the FAQ template, at the top of this page. Specifically we read:

  • Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?
No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.

Furthermore, the information page WP:PUBLISH – that is wikilinked above – includes the following:

  • All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people[; ... however, the definitions of these terms] are separate from the idea of "reliable". [...] All reliable sources are published, but not all published sources are reliable for encyclopedic purposes. [...] It is necessary for the information to be made available to the public in general, not just to individuals or selected groups of people. [... An example would be a] broadcast email, including email-lists if they are archived and public—but not email messages or other forms of personal communication sent only to you or a small number of people[.]

The idea of reliability is not really an issue here, as self-published sources by an established expert on a subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications can be considered reliable; per WP:RSSELF. The necessity of publication and accessibility could also be addressed if the email was to be published in the talk page of the corresponding article, that is accessible to everyone. The only real issue that i see, is how to provide confirmation for the authenticity of the email, in order to show that it indeed originates from the established expert in question? A possible solution to this could be a direct communication of the expert with the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, explaining his/her view about a topic or reporting content that is erroneously attributed to him/her (already covered by the team's activities via reports of article errors); then the confirmation of his/her identity by an agent (assuming this is even possible), and the publication of the email and the respective VRT ticket number in the talk page of an article. As for the article itself, a properly written explanatory footnote meant to clarify an ambiguity of a published work that is referenced, would be sufficient in my opinion. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related conversation about being published above - in my opinion, no, it would not be published if it was a private email. However, perhaps the policy should be clarified because, if published just means "made available to any subset of the public," I guess an email would qualify. In my opinion though, a test of being published is whether it was made available to the general public at large, either through a posted website, publication of a book or journal or article or periodical etc, or arguably, a public sign or public archive, but I do not think a private email should be included. Andre🚐 23:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail and sports

It seems absurd that I can't add a section to an article about a current event that dozens of association football sources are talking about [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] because they are all citing the Daily Mail, and Daily Mail is considered unreliable by WP. Clearly the rest of the published world does not agree with WP in that regard, at least not on the topic of sports. - Keith D. Tyler 05:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talkpage for discussing changes to a specific WP-guideline. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard you'll find the page for "posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This process is extremely obfuscated, as if to dissuade such discussion. There should be a discussion page for every source, not just an endless unorganized list of archived talk pages for all sources. I can't find the link where it is considered "correct" to discuss a given source. Keith D. Tyler 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN is usually the place, but sometimes the talkpage of the article where you want to use it can be a good place. You can find links to old discussions about DM at WP:DAILYMAIL (More than 50, from 2007 and onwards). That link goes to a page which is a list of sources that has been discussed multiple times, usually at RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its been brought up dozens of times at the RSN. Ultimately the Daily Mail is incredibly libellous and allowing it even for something seemingly trivial/non-controversial such as football would open the floodgates. DM is just not a good source period. It's not even worth the risk of some of the legal issues wiki could get embroiled with because of DM's dangerous reporting. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINES

While the premise of this guideline is clear, I think it should be expanded to make explicit that the rule of thump here applies to all kinds of titles, not just in the news. The way it is currently outlined, the emphasis is on news headlines, but books titles are just as subject to sensationalization by publishers as news headlines are by editors. Similarly with academic writing, titles often oversimplify and eschew the most precise terminology. I think book and academic titles should be explicitly incorporated into the text, if not already understood, to make it clear that all headlines and titles are fundamentally flawed as an informational resource. There is of course a due weight argument underpinning all of this in that a title appears just once, while a work's subject will be mentioned again and again within the body of the work, thereby making the mentions in the body automatically more relevant than any singular titular mention. However, I was recently engaged in a discussion where an editor did not appreciate this implicitly. Hence my sense that this to be made explicit. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling of name

How can I or somebody correct the spelling of a name on a Wikipedia page? Page: the lovin' spoonful Under past members: David Jayco should be David Jayko Thank you, Roxane Rclbuss (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be every mention of him in the article, they're all Jayco. You can, see WP:TUTORIAL, but I'm not sure you should. Afaict, everyone Google has heard of spells it like WP does.[8]. Could be citogenesis, of course, but I'd like to see a WP:RS that supports the spelling. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

Dear Wikipedia, I am Fiery Cushman's mother and I am asking that the Entry for Fiery Cushman be changed from "his mother taught psychology at American University." to "his mother was a clinical child psychologist practicing in Washington, DC and Maryland." While I did teach child psychology for a semester at American University that was not my primary occupation, and I was not on the faculty there. Sincerely, Lynnwood Andrews 2601:18C:4280:7130:1C2E:6936:44B6:5B44 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally acceptable" USERG

A concern was brought up at WT:ALBUMS regarding a difference in language around WP:USERG between here and the project page. Over here it says USERG are "generally unacceptable", whereas over there we have it as "should never be used". A counterpoint was made in that discussion that "generally unacceptable" may be too soft and could lead to arguments about how any given source should be a specifically acceptable exception. I happen to agree with that point and think changing the phrasing here could be helpful in avoiding that. Thoughts? QuietHere (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the other one thinking it sounded kind of soft. In what scenario do we actually cite USERG content? I know it's acceptable when a reliable source reports on USERG content (for example, the New York Times does a story on users "review bombing" music/film/games on Metacritic's user reviews. But in scenarios like that, you'd be citing NYT, not MC. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in question at the discussion in WT:ALBUMS - user-generated content should never be used (emphasis added) - appears to be addressed already in the FAQ at the top of this talk page:
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. (emphasis added)
Is there another proposed re-phrasing we should consider? --N8wilson 🔔 15:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources is that the way it summarizes WP:USERG fails to make it clear that Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which contains WP:USERG, says that if a claim on a site with mostly user-generated content can be verified as belonging to a particular human author (not just a screen name) then it can be treated as a self-published source. Self-published sources can be used if the restrictions are satisfied. The Albums project subpage appears to say user generated sites can never be used, even if the author can be verified and the author satisfies the criteria for using a self-published source, which is not true. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question - I know SPS sources can be used in some instances. But what is the instance where we allow USERG sources? I'm drawing a blank outside of the scenario I mentioned above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The summary at WP:RSPTWITTER mentions a couple narrow cases for appropriate use. --N8wilson 🔔 17:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's really more about SPS and PRIMARY than it is USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if USERG and SPS are guidelines at odds with one another here. Both agree that such content is in general not acceptable and yet both also refrain from firmly excluding all such content on the basis of it's qualification as user-generated or self-published. The fact that Twitter is mentioned by name at WP:USERG and still permitted in narrow circumstances by WP:SPS (which specifically mentions "tweets") is indicative of how frequently these two types of content may apply to the same source. --N8wilson 🔔 21:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not at odds, but they're also fundamentally not the same. You can split hairs all you want, I'm still not understanding a scenario where we use a USERG violating source. A general allusion to citing Twitter isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something but it looks like those two guidelines are fundamentally the same. From WP:USERG: generally unacceptable, and from WP:SPS: largely not acceptable. Neither one totally precludes the use of such content except in certain BLP cases.
One scenario where we use a USERG source is just what Jc3s5h described above: when a resource qualifies as both USERG and SPS and also meets the standard for use outlined in SPS. This RfC for example established that Fantano's Needle Drop does qualify as self-published despite being distributed on a user-generated content platform.
Perhaps there is some alternative wording that could work in the case of WP:ALBUMS but none has been proposed here or there. The problem with "never" is that it can get in the way of developing an encyclopedia by shutting down discussion where there are perfectly valid reasons to have one. IMO the bigger problem though is that WP:ALBUMS improperly attributes the "never use" guidance to WP:USERG. That is simply wrong. USERG does not say that. --N8wilson 🔔 20:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've already established that USERG doesn't say never. No one is contesting that. No need to keep pointing that out. We're trying to get to to bottom of why it doesn't. To clarify for you, SPS is more like someone uploading content straight to their Wordpress blog or social media, where USERG is a more collective thing, like citing other wikis/wikias, using the Metacritic aggregate user score, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we have reached agreement regarding the incongruence of USERG and what WP:ALBUMS/Sources attributes to that guideline I would respectfully request that you undo this edit or allow me to. The discussion here after all, was started as a result of a previous discussion over that edit and I think formally resolving the first discussion would help narrow the focus here to why USERG says what it does. --N8wilson 🔔 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&oldid=1113691105"