Club

Go to The Main Page Add Club to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources 

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page.


Archives


Contents

WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

What happens if a reliable source publishes an unreliable article?

This is particularly a problem with citations from newspapers, but what happens if a reliable source publishes an unreliable article? For example, if an article from a major newspaper quotes a census figure, but gets the number wrong? Is the "original research" of looking at the census data acceptable in this instance? Is it worth having a section on this problem in the project page? Even the most reliable of reliable newspapers have filler and wire articles where the standard of journalism is not as good as the rest of the paper. --Surturz (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

First, we need to acknowlege that ANY source can contain an error... barring a deliberate misstatement of the facts, an error could be a simple typo, or due to faulty research on the part of the author. Reliable sources are those who keep such errors to a minimum. Discovering an error does not affect whether the source is reliable or not. However, discovering an error might affect whether the source should be used in support of a particular statement in a particular Wikipedia article. Such decisions are a matter of editorial judgement... and have to be made at the article level.
Second, in your situation both the newspaper and the Census are reliable sources... so we need to ask, which is more reliable of the two. We need to search for collaboration. What do other sources say? If there are no other sources for the fact... the census is the more reliable of the two. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to look at multiple sources. We need smart editors who can identify mistakes and correct them. That's all we can do. AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kolubarska bitka/kolubara battle

Concerning all the non confirmed data and doubts about facts listed, please consult for all the relevant data in the book
 Zivojin Misic "My memories" (unfinished because of Z.M. death 1921) and inclosed text by army historian Lt.colonel Savo Skoko.

In this book the list of all relevant historical documents from most the world war historian library's are available to support

every word in this Wikipedia page concerning Kolubara battle.
Moreover , the details of this battle  could be find as analytic
subject (as a sample of unique strategy) on many  World Army Academies's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleor (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, wikis and webforums

I've often seen it said (and I often say it myself) that blogs, wikis and webforums are not usable as reliable sources, but on coming to this page I find that these sources aren't even mentioned. Is there a page that specifies what internet material is suitable? I'd like to have backup for the debates I sometimes get into on this (eg here and here. If there isn't a page or section I'll write it you like. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The initial paragraph of WP:V#Self-published sources, and the associated footnote. As with all things Wikipedia, this may change over time. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's great, now I know where to find it, cheers! 12:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Totnesmartin (talk)


Needs list of sample authoritative sources for medical articles

...that way, I can insert cites quickly without having to first determine what is an authoritative source. Medline is assumed to be okay by it's very nature. But e.g., what about an article on webmd? What about a university site? Yes, at first some good sources wouldn't be mentioned but over time a valid list would be built up - always a work in progress. My case in point: while reading up on Amicar, I came across a med animation at youtube. I see it as an illustration, rather than a reference, but the whole issue of what sources can be used is not obvious and I'd rather not spend a great deal of time in learning the ins and outs.

Or maybe what I'm talking about exists somewhere else here on wikipedia? If so, please point me there. Thanks. Kenmcl2 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That link is useful for me also! AdjustShift (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

JJ's restaurant

I have owned JJ's restaurant since 1991 & I dont remember Paddy Mcguiness working for me. Andy Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.20.226 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this Talk:Patrick McGuinness. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Given the above comment, I removed the mention of his working at JJ's as it is unsourced.Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Good job! False information should be erased as soon as possible. AdjustShift (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are court documents reliable sources?

On a Talk Page discussion, an editor has put foward the opinion that court documents are not acceptable sources for wikipedia. I looked through some policies and couldn't find any information referencing this. Is there anyone with experience who'd like to take a look at the discussion? McJeff (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. Court documents are typically primary sources, and as per WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources it's generally better to cite secondary sources. For specific facts, such as the date the judge ruled and so forth, court documents are reliable; but for other things (e.g., if a document contains an argument by a plaintiff, and if Wikipedia cites that argument in support of a claim) they are not particularly reliable. Looking at Tucker Max #Legal troubles, this particular case, it seems clear to me that we have a case of WP:OR; the first paragraph calls on primary sources to advance a theory that the primary sources themselves do not directly support. I'll follow up on the talk page and tag the section. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It is always better to cite secondary sources. That's the best way to stay out of trouble. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Generally, as a lawyer, I would treat trial court documents (including judicial decisions) like primary sources and therefore with much caution (since many poorly-trained lawyers from third-tier schools tend to play fast and loose with the facts and law in their briefs). Appellate decisions tend to be a bit more reliable and neutral since the appellate court has the benefit of looking at the whole record after the parties and the trial judge have fought over the issues; also, appellate courts tend to have law clerks, staff attorneys, and editors who revise opinions for accuracy. But it's important when citing opinions for factual statements to make sure that one is citing them only for (1) undisputed facts or (2) facts which were found to be true by the trial court and affirmed on appeal. Anything else is still technically disputed even after the appellate decision comes out (because an appellate court can't find facts on its own, it can only review the evidence and confirm the trial court's findings or reject them and remand for a new trial). For example, a decision affirming the sustaining of a demurrer may describe a factual situation that is a bit wacky because both the trial court and the appellate court in examining the demurrer are required to assume the facts are true for the purpose of that exercise (but that doesn't necessarily make the facts really true). --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note what?

This edit inserted the following text into WP:RS #Self-published sources:

It is important to note that some non self-published sources of the origins listed above can be used, if they do not break any other policy/guideline, with exceptions.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what that text means. It's trying to say something, clearly, but I can't make heads or tails of it. For now, I undid the change; perhaps someone can explain what's going on? Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically the cite note on WP:V on self published sources that people seem to gloss over, miss, and indubitably misrepresent the policy, I've seen it quite often, and WP:V says that its a policy and WP:RS should be updated accordingly, so basically adding it, sorry, not good at wording. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

About popular press and scientific facts

Ludwigs2 has repeatedly deleted text added eleven days ago by Eubulides that reorganizes existing information about news organizations and clarifies its applicability in several contexts.

In particular, it adds a link to WP:MEDRS, which is the crux of the problem, because Ludwigs2 is one of two people (the other a professional journalist) that objects to MEDRS's preference for citing scientific sources, such as peer-reviewed scientific articles and textbooks, instead of popular press reports. This has been discussed at great length at WT:MEDRS, but fundamentally the reasons are these:

  • Journalists make mistakes. It's beyond foolish to assume that every newspaper and magazine article gets every single fact correct, the first time, and every time. On the common sense scale, this is not very far different from saying "Please check the original document instead of relying blindly someone's notes about the original document."
  • Journalists leave out critical information. Most news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits.[1]
  • Some journalists simply don't have the necessary background. Around my house, we refer to some particularly dreadful newspaper stories as having been written "by someone that majored in journalism because science was too hard." This results in things like every investigational new drug as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. They also tend to express risk in useless terms, leading people to believe, for example, that breastfeeding prevents childhood leukemia (and it might: but you'd have to exclusively breastfeed four million babies for a year to prevent a single case of leukemia).

For these and other reasons, the editors at WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:MEDRS have included a section in MEDRS that explains the relative strengths and weaknesses of the popular press. Overall, it prefers citing scientific sources for scientific facts (and non-scientific sources for non-scientific facts). This recommendation was appropriately and briefly summarized here as follows:

For medical and scientific facts and figures, it is typically better to cite the scholarly research behind a newspaper story, rather than simply citing the story itself. Newspapers tend to overemphasize the certainty of results, and often fail to adequately report methodology, error, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.

Ludwigs2 has repeatedly deleted this information from this guideline today, and despite his assertion at WT:Consensus (where he discovered this addition) that he thought it should be discussed, I find no discussion here. So here's the explanation; are there any objections by anyone other than Ludwigs2? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection here of course. The change reflects consensus at WP:MEDRS, improves the structure of this page, and causes this page to reflect WP:MEDRS's contents more accurately. Eubulides (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that I'm on the same page, I still have the same misgivings about focusing on a single area when the problem is universal to academic topics. I agree with the other bullet points. I made another draft that I feel serves the intended purpose (User:Vassyana/news). Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, a nice job of rewriting. Some minor comments:
  • "news media often fails" should be "the news media often fail", since "media" is a plural noun. Or, if that grates, say "news reports often fail".
  • It'd be nice to mention medicine as an example here, as well. One way would be to replace "information about academic topics" with "information about academic topics such as medicine". This would help to avoid giving the implication that scholarly sources are preferred only when talking about pointy-headed topics like philosophy.
Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Revised per suggestions. I went with "physics or ancient history" for the examples, for the sake of breadth and variety. We want to be clear that this covers the whole spectrum of academic subjects, both "hard" and "soft". Medicine is used as the example in the other draft and medical treatment is mentioned in the closing statement. Physics and ancient history are both examples where fringe and pop understandings of the subject can be problematic. Any other tweaks you think it needs? Vassyana (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would endorse this, it is an improvement over what we have. Jayen466 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I also endorse. I like the "ancient history" (Wikipedia circa 2004, say?....). Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text, and hope that we can focus on Vassyana's #Scholarship proposal now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

About Scholarship

  • Reading the summary version above, I was deeply wary of the change. Too much emphasis on individual studies (which can be often difficult to properly interpret and place in context, even for experts) was my primary concern. However, after checking the suggested version, I'd agree this is the proper direction. However, I do have a couple of misgivings. Textbooks and academic press books should be mentioned alongside review and meta-analysis literature. They often provide excellent overviews of the accepted mainstream in scholarly fields. Also, there seems to be a bit of undue emphasis on science, which comprises only a portion of scholarly study (though certainly a significant one). The changes should take a more neutral position addressing the whole of scholarship, rather than being so focused on "hard" science. It could also stand to be more concise, but I have no problem addressing that at a later point. Vassyana (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Vassyana/scholar is a substantial expansion, and should probably be discussed separately. All I care about is stating a preference for scholarly works (when reasonably available, WP:IAR, etc.) "For medical and scientific facts and figures". Do you have any objection to this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There must be some confusion here. User:Vassyana/scholar is a rewrite of WP:RS #Scholarship, but the changes Ludwigs2 reverted are to a different section, WP:RS #News organizations. The two sets of changes are pretty much unrelated, as far as I can see, so I inserted an #About Scholarship subhead above Vassyana's comments. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me while I wipe the egg off my face. :-) I did confuse the sections, mainly due to the subject of the discussion and a lack of care (bad Vassyana!) in checking the diffs. Thanks for taking the proposed changes seriously nonetheless. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments on Vassyana's proposed changes to WP:RS #Scholarship:

  • User:Vassyana/scholar is a very nice rewrite overall. It prunes away redundant text and it makes the section easier to read. Most of the comments below are about minor points.
  • The phrase "cover academic topics and" is redundant and should be removed. That phrase might tempt editors into thinking that for many topics, academic scholarship is irrelevant and should not be searched for.
  • "However, some material" should be "However, some scholarly material" to avoid confusion.
  • "cover all significant published views" should be "cover all significant views published by reliable sources"
  • Please don't add "philosophy" as an example field where single studies are less definitive. In some parts of philosophy, e.g., formal logic, single studies can be quite definitive (more so than in most fields). The current text's use of medicine is better as an example, and one example suffices here.
  • "Care should be taken to avoid" should be "Avoid".
  • Omit "academic press books" from the list of preferable sources. They aren't in the same league as meta-analyses, textbooks, and reviews. For example, Targeting Autism (ISBN 978-0-520-24838-0) is a fine book from a respected academic press about autism treatments, but Autism therapies is right to prefer Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921), a reliable review: it's much more authoritative and is more carefully reviewed.
  • A nit: "Meta-analysis" should be "Meta-analyses", right?
  • The phrase "review literature" is a bit ambiguous; are we talking about the New York Review of Books? Perhaps "scholarly review articles" instead?
  • Wikilink to Meta-analysis.

Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Draft altered accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the latest draft looks good. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for the constructive feedback. Vassyana (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the points made in the previous discussion section, I see a potential problem with

    Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views published by reliable sources, doing so in proportion to their published prominence. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.

  • As was discussed above, an announcement such as "Alzheimer's breakthrough" may be far more widely published than the actual research paper(s), which may make a far less confident claim. So could we think about whether the "in proportion" could be improved? Jayen466 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe reword it as "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among reliable sources."? That is, it's prominence among the reliable sources that counts, not overall prominence. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The potential problem with that is, we have classified mainstream newspapers as reliable sources as well. Jayen466 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is why MEDRS encourages people to cite the actual paper instead of the newspaper's version of the paper. I think we can consider these two proposals separately: if #News orgs points out (per the proposal above) that newspapers aren't necessarily the single best source for medical facts, then #Scholarship doesn't have to be as restrictive about the general case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That is fine for medicine, but I think any scientist would be able to offer examples from his or her field. This report on using salt water as a combustible fuel may be one such example; while I am not an expert on the physics of water, and you should take what I say with a grain of salt (pun intended), I have heard it argued that these reports failed to mention that the amount of energy that needs to be input to make salt water burn far exceeds that released by the combustion. I fear that generally, items are sometimes deemed newsworthy even if they have only a tenuous grounding in scientific fact, whether it's medicine or any other field. Jayen466 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, how about this rewording instead? ""Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." The new words here are "the most". Eubulides (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that could work, well done! Jayen466 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Revised accordingly.[2] Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I like what Vassyana has written. The last bullet currently reads:

* Single studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.

and I'm inclined to suggest a few minor changes:

Neither of these changes are truly important to me; they're just suggestions. Thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What about replacing "single studies" with "isolated studies"? Would that accurately convey the point? Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. (Thanks for your corrections today.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The page later uses the more-standard term "primary sources"; how about if we use that here, with a wikilink, and then mention a single, isolated study as an example? Something like this:
A primary source, such as a paper reporting experimental results, is usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a primary source depends on the field. Primary sources relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using primary sources in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.
Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's a lot of baggage with the term "primary source" that I would rather not drag here. For example, a common argument has been that only the lab notes are primary sources, while the study papers are secondary. I would prefer to avoid opening that can of worms here. Vassyana (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're better off avoiding that term here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

General question

Feel free to respond here or on the page the question came up, WT:WIAGA, or not. There's a question over whether this sentence should be re-inserted into criteria for nominating Good Articles: "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable". I'm uncomfortable with trying to define a class of "not reliable, but not that bad" (IMDB was suggested) sources that might sometimes be acceptable in Good Articles; what do you guys think? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it really depends on how the sources are used. When I think of "not-the-best sources" (my preferred wording) I think of self-publications by experts, or primary sources. I would never use such a source for information that doesn't seem in line with the reliable sources present, but I would use it to provide more context for something from an RS. Thus, I think editors have gone over the line if removal of all not-the-best sources leave not just little details, but a significant fact/claim unreferenced. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
One of these days we will actually put the RSN mantra in WP:RS: "No source is universally reliable. Whether or not a source is reliable depends on how you use it."
I think it's acceptable for GAs to have some weak sources, particularly for non-controversial statements. It might be better to cite a textbook for some widely accepted fact, or a newspaper for a political event, but when the fact in question is not actually being challenged, it's probably okay to support it with, say, a website run by a small organization, or someone's lecture notes. Complete perfection of all sources is perhaps best reserved for FAs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That resonates with my view exactly. Horses for courses. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS vs.WP:RS#News_organizations

Having read the prohibitions regarding the use of trivial sources in WP:NOT#NEWS, I propose that we change the wording of WP:RS#News_organizations so that it addresses these issues. Whilst I am not proposing that WP:RS#News_organizations should repeat these concerns verbatim, at the very least I think there should be some sort of link to WP:NOT#NEWS. If you compare and contrast these two sections, would anyone agree that they need to reflect each other more closely?--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They relate to completely different things. WP:RS#News organizations refers to the reliability of using a newspaper as a source. WP:NOT#NEWS refers to writing articles about recent news events. Apples and oranges. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the content of articles about recent news events is likely to be drawn from newspapers and similar sources, I would have thought they were dependent on one another. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they are dependant on each other... in the case of an article on a recent event, first comes the decision as to whether to create an article or not... that is where NOT#NEWS plays a role. If the decision is to create the article, then we have to write it, and use reliable sources to support what we write. That is where RS#News organizations might enter the picture. They apply to different parts of the article writing process. Also, RS#News organizations discusses using news media as a citation in any article, not just those on recent events. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Any apparent problem is a matter of vagueness in N and NOTNEWS. A news article isn't rendered unreliable by reporting something new. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • However, a news article is rendered unreliable if it is "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" per WP:NOT#NEWS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You are conflating distinct concepts. "Not appropriate for Wikipedia" is not the same as "unreliable". You have noted in notability discussions (no pun) that just because we can verifiably and reliably relate some information doesn't mean we should. To take two further examples from WP:NOT, WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NOTGUIDE both exclude content that can be reliably sourced. Vassyana (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana is right. Many reliable sources present information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia for some other reason (e.g., not being encyclopedic). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Third party

I cannot find where the term 'third party' is directly explained. It links to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, which doesn't directly explain it either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary: wikt:third_party. The second definition is the relevant one. Note please that "third party" is used loosely and is not meant to imply that all disputes/other situations always have exactly two sides that are always represented by exactly one party each. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this qualify as a Reliable Source?

Resolved. Wrong venue.

If the subject (David Copperfield (illusionist)‎) of an article links from his website to [3] (the memorial site for Copperfield's father), would material in the rememberly site be considered a reliable source? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See notice at top of page. Questions about specific sources go to the noticeboard. — SMcCandlish talk cont ‹(-¿-)› 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Too academic and corporatist

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise presents some proposals to water down WP:N in ways that I think would be potentially disastrous. WP:N has a clear deletionist bias that is a major reason for the dissatisfactions that led to Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. However any version of WP:N, however good, has to rely on WP:RS, and any defects in WP:RS cause defects in WP:N.

WP:RS looks OK to me for "academic" subjects where there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles - I've had no problems over whether specific sources for paleontology articles are eligible. However the situation in popular culture topics is a mess. I'll stick with the sub-domain in which I've done some editing, video games. The main sources WP:RS appears to accept are articles in "big name" hard-copy or online mags. However there's widespread dissatisfaction with these: reviewers admit they have very little time to play the games they are reviewing; they sometimes even misread game manuals and print their misinterpretations; mags are under commercial pressure to make reviews more favourable; there are even reports of game publishers trying to influence Metacritic! Real gamers don't rely on these mags, they rely on top designers' / developers' blogs and on the top clans in their respective games - which WP:RS disallows.

WP:RS needs to sort out such problems before dissatisfaction reaches the level it has for WP:N, as I would hate to see similar watering-down proposals for WP:RS. -- Philcha (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is amusing... to combat "watering-down" WP:N, you propose that we water-down WP:RS. I understand how frustrating Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are for those who write on pop culture topics. We have to write guidelines that fit Wikipedia as a whole, and many of the sources that discuss pop culture don't fit a definition of reliability that is useful for Wikipeida as a whole. It makes sense that those who want to write articles on pop-culture want an exemption of these sources. Of course, on the other side of the coin are those who say that Wikipedia has too many articles on pop-culture as it is, and we should actually tighten the rules to limit them. It's the old "inclusionist" vs "exclusionist" debate that has been a part of Wikipedia since it started. We are at our best when we blend both extremes... inclusionists write new articles that expand Wikipedia, exclusionists remind us that some things are not encyclopedic. By debating such issues on a case by case basis, we end up with the right balance. The place to debate this is at the Wikiproject level. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to "water-down" WP:RS - I've no patience with fanboys, POV-pushers or promoters.
In principle I agree that "The place to debate this is at the Wikiproject level". But:
  • the current academic and corporatist bias of WP:RS' phrasing makes such discussions unproductive as there are is usually someone around who takes the most restrictive interpretation of WP:RS.
  • without a guideline that is rigorous but not biassed towards / against certain types of subject, it's too easy for fanboys, POV-pushers or promoters to set up their own Wikiprojects or pack existing ones (many of which are somnolent to say the least) and define the rules to suit themselves. This is a concern raised several times in the debate about Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise - if you check my voting record you'll see that I think it's a very serious concern.
I also tend to agree that "inclusionist" vs "exclusionist" debates should be settled on a case by case basis, but such discussions become shouting matches if the guidelines show unclarity, bias or maladaptation to the subject area.
I don't pretend to have easy solutions since the issue is complex and, like most editors, my experience is limited to a handful of subject areas. I suggest the sensible course is to start by compiling a list of the areas in which the shoe seems to pinch. -- Philcha (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-open tertiary encyclopedias [Store norske leksikon and Citizendium]

A development in Norway's largest and most respected paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon ([4]) brings up a question which might be of interest here. I think the issue also has relevance when discussing Citizendium.

Up until the end of 2008, Store norske has followed the traditional encyclopedia model, very much like Britannica. However, they have recently announced that they will "open up" the encyclopedia from 2009. The Google translated press message is here. (Not a perfect translation, Google tried translating "nynorsk" to "English"). The new model is not as open as the Wikipedia "anyone can edit" model, in that they will have around 1000 "fagansvarlig", people responsible for a specific topic in the encyclopedia.

The model seems to have some resemblance to the Citizendium model, which features a tiered system, with some users deemed experts in the field. This provides some measure of review and fact-checking.

I am interested in a discussion of whether sources like the upcoming version of Store norske leksikon and Citizendium qualify as "reliable sources" which meet the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. (In the case of SNL, even if the upcoming version is not reliable, the old versions which are on paper are most certainly reliable, and will remain reliable.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I think the wording of WP:RS has excessive academic bias (#Too academic and corporatist), I'd say open encyclopedias are way off-limits. Irrespective of legalistic debates about the meaning of WP:RS, there's a fairly simple but serious practical danger that one "open encyclopedia" cites another,which cites another, ... back to the first. So for example some POV-pusher could create such a circle of citations for a personal prejudice. -- Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur. We have enough problems as is with articles being vandalized on a daily basis. I have seen major articles like World Wide Web and Freeway get badly vandalized and NO ONE NOTICES for five months. It would be too easy for a clever POV-pusher to insert circular references and no one would catch it for a year (if ever). --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, that is what worried me about the opening of Store Norske Leksikon. That has been the largest and most respected of the Norwegian encyclopedias, and it's reliability for us will take a dive from new year. That will reduce us to referring the old paper version which remains reliable if more and more out of date as time passes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When any published source is biased by definition?

How can you deal with the case where any published source is, by definition, biased? This usually happens in the case of arguments over significance of topic.

This arose in a discussion of whether Second Life should be regarded as a "game" or not. There are several books published about Second Life which mention that it is not a game (although they do not discuss or justify this point). Arguably, however, these sources must be biased because spreading the "mystique" of Second Life being more than a game would be necessary for the books to be published and then to sell (they are all sold by commercial, not academic, presses). Many regular people, however, consider Second Life to be at most a game and at worst a talker - but a book pointing this out wouldn't sell.

WP:RS allows judgment of "bias" only in "questionable sources". I think this should be revised - just because a statement appears in a fact-checked book (for example, in the foreward) does not mean that particular statement has been fact-checked or is unbiased. Either this, or all commercial publishers should be flagged as questionable sources because, ultimately, they publish books that will make money.

161.73.146.153 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all sources are biased here. Some sources classify Second Life as a game... some state that it isn't a game. Then there are sources that discuss the debate that exists over how to classify it, such as MSNBC. Our policy is to remain neutral on the issue, to discuss both sides of the issue. The facts are that different people have different opinions on whether it should be classified as a game or not.
Taking your question beyond the specific... if all reliable sources agree on some point, then Wikipedia must follow suit. We can not (and should not) insert our own opinions, or opinions that are not discussed in reliable sources. That is at the core of several of our Policies and guidelines, including WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of our NPOV policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The point here is that the encyclopedia article we write should not be biased towards one view or another, not that sources that express a particular viewpoint are disallowed. Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is exactly what I'm talking about, though. The problem is that if commercial publishers are seen as reliable sources, then a company can publish a product (such as SL), and hype its significance to the public. Commercial publishers then publish books about it, not because it is truly significant, but because they can benefit from the hype and hear the sweet cha-ching; and of course all those books vouch for significance, since their target market is those who've bought into the hype. And.. suddenly, the claim of significance, originally just a few lines on an advert, has been magically whitewashed into a "reliably sourced" statement that can appear in an encyclopedia? That just seems fundamentally wrong, and not what the policies should be allowing, no matter how they're written now.
161.73.146.153 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You are making this much harder than it is.
If you suspect bias in a source, then you present the plain, unadorned facts that form the basis for your suspicion (but not your suspicion, which would violate WP:NOR). So you write "Jane Smith, author of the best-selling book on the social aspects of Second Life, says that it is more than a game." Where reliable sources disagree, you present all sides: "but John Jones, reviewer at Games Mag, says that Second Life is just a game."
If you want to get into the motivations of different sources to promote it in different ways, then you absolutely must have a published reliable source that specifically and directly addresses that issue. In the absence of such a source, you must omit your personal views on why certain sources tend to hold certain views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A work of fiction (or fact) not a reliable source for its content?

According to the article at present, a work of fiction (or fact) - A Christmas Carol, say - is not a reliable source for information that appears within it (there is a character called 'Scrooge', say). The idea that a third-party source of information about what appears in a work of fiction (or fact) is more reliable a source than the work itself is untenable. Using my example, we're supposed to regard various sources telling us that a character called Scrooge appears in A Christmas Carol as being more reliable than actually reading A Christmas Carol? I don't think so. This guideline needs amending to make clear that a work of fiction (or fact) is a reliable source for its content. Otherwise we are going to get into a reducto ad absurdum; what is the source showing that your reference or citation says what you say it says? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This has never been true. Between WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, WP:PSTS, and WP:SPS, I don't see how anyone could honestly arrive at the conclusion that a work of fiction is not an RS for what it, itself, says. Third-party sources are needed for any manner of interpretation of such a work, but they still have to be reliable in their own right. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


That's pretty close to calling me an idiot! :) If you can't see how, then it must be obvious to you why not; and if it's obvious why not, then you should be able to point out to me why not? My problem is the requirement for a third party source - how can a published work be a third-party source for itself? At the very least, the guideline is not clear on this subject, and a specific statement that published works are reliable sources for their content should be included for the avoidance of doubt. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. I see a post like this, I sort of figure you came here after hearing this from someone in dispute resolution. I was referring to their hypothetical selves. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources has a few problems. Here's what it says:
Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
Critique:
  • "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts" does not fit well with current scientific debates, where there often only a handful of protagonists, who would count as "key figures". In such cases "the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources" are less authoritative because the protagonists are the experts in the field.
  • "Tertiary sources" are often essential because secondary sources, e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles take some important points for granted because they were agreed long ago, avoid some becuase their scope is too wide for a journal article, or avoid certain topics because they are still poorly understood, and only the better text books explain such points and the reasons for uncertainty. I found this the hard way when working on Arthropod and Mollusc.-- Philcha (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section. There was a lot in the previous wording that simply confusing and some things that were, frankly, wrong. I think we do need to state clearly the few the key points that are commonly the cause of debates: a) primary sources are considered reliable in some situations, but are considered unreliable in other situations. b) articles should rely primarily on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source question - Japanreview.net

Hi! On Talk:Debito_Arudou#Comments_on_.22The_Dave_and_Tony_Show.22.2C_and_the_significance_of_these the subject in question, Debito Arudou, says that Japanreview.net is not a reliable source, while some other users say it is. I would like to have some thoroughness and I would like some more opinions on whether it is a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take your question to the reliable sources noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Explaining revert

I reverted this set of changes. It expanded the guideline unnecessarily and was also largely a regurgitation of other policies. Both points have been seen as a serious problem with this page in the past. I restored this change because the edit makes a valid point and the previous language contradicts other standing principles. Vassyana (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to make a distinction between a source that's not reliable, but is still not fringe, (eg. an article in a newly established minor magazine), and a fringe one (eg. a magazine published by the Communist Party of America. I've pared down the addition to one paragraph. lk (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling verifiability

Cross-posting from WT:V#Self-fulfilling verifiability - raising an issue there that may be of interest to watchers of this page Fritzpoll (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By chance I just posted about a specific example of exactly this issue at the noticeboard! Times are hard in the news rooms! Carol Moore 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Proposing addition to News Organisations

Given the above thread and past encounters with this problem, I was wondering if a note about the possibility that Wikipedia is used by the news organisations should be included? Something along the lines of:

  • Reputable news organisations have been known to use inaccurate versions of Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work. While it is impossible to ensure that this indirect self-referencing does not take place, editors should take care with inserting controversial or suspect information that material from news organisations is not the only existing source. Generally, a source that predates the material's inclusion in Wikipedia is preferable.

Or something more eloquent. What do people think? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good addition. I tightened it down a little bit and avoided painting all news orgs with a broad brush.[5] Good revision? Vassyana (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Just wanted it on file somewhere for us to refer to it all later on. Hopefully see what other people think first. 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of #Overview

I'd like to take this sentence from the end of WP:RS#Overview:

Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

and turn it into its own paragraph:

Proper sourcing always depends on context. No source is universally or inherently reliable because the reliability of any given source depends not only on the source itself, but also on how the source is used in the article. Common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

We keep having to say this. It's practically the mantra at RSN. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No Discussion on Rewriting "Extremist/fringe" Section to Advocacy-related "Questionable Sources" Section??

I note the the "Extremist/fringe" Section has been changed to an Advocacy-related "Questionable Sources" Section - without any discussion here. Advocacy groups are something we've discussed here a lot before. New proposals, including my own, have always been shot down before on the "we have to judge them case by case" argument. So this also seems overly broad, more so than what I proposed in the day, so I'm just surprised there's no discussion and this is slipping into becoming policy.

September 18 "Extremist/fringe Sources" Version

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources
Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.
Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as certain forms of revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view.
Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded from Wikipedia if there is no independent acknowledgment that the sources in question are representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion.

October 8 "Questionable Sources" Version

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated and should not be used to support any contentious claims. Questionable sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.[1] Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

Carol Moore 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Overall, I'm not entirely satisfied with the direction of the changes. I suspect that the recent writers aren't quite grasping the point. The "Extremist" stuff is supposed to deal with, say, publications by the Animal Liberation Front, or the Flat Earth Society. They seem to be re-writing it so that it could apply to "normal" minorities, like small (but officially registered) political parties with unpopular views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
while I think this wording could use some tweaking, I think the overall idea is an improvement, neutrality-wise. 'questionable sources' is more descriptive and to-the-point than 'extremist' or 'fringe', which both have pejorative connotations. need to think about it a bit more, though.--Ludwigs2 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We might need both, because there are certainly sources that are questionable but not fringe or extremist, and sources that are unquestionably fringe or extremist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
yeah, that makes a certain amount of sense. do you think two separate sections, or maybe split the text of this section into subsections? --Ludwigs2 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My problem is with the wording "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature" since they could be interpreted to mean sites that publish a lot of opinion promoting an allegedly minority view, from both lay people and experts, saying that even if a renowned academic expert published there with footnotes it's too "questionable" a source to use the article. Right now the only examples given are the previously used ones that were considered extremist or fringe before, so unless there is some expansion to some other example, it just seems to allow a certain subjectivity to creep in that people can misuse. So unless those who wrote or accept this wording can insert in the text other examples of what they mean by "questionable," I think we should change it back to "extremist and fringe." Carol Moore 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I took part in the edits last month. There was a bit of back and forth and some discussion on this talk page. The idea was to bring the section more in line with what is at WP:V which talks about Questionable Sources that include many types of sources that are questionable, not just extremist sources. The section on extremist/fringe sources was removed a few days ago without discussion. I have reinserted it. LK (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see one post by an anonymous IP. Doesn't seem like much discussion to me. Best to reexplain with example of what kind of source your are talking about to make it make any sense, per my comment above. Carol Moore 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
LK is correct in saying that this was discussed at WP:V (see: WP:V#Is a publication from a fringe group a Questionable Source?, the conversation bleeds over into several other threads as well).
We do need to remember that WP:V is a Policy page, and that WP:RS is a guideline designed to explain one aspect of WP:V. Thus, if WP:V is changed, it may require updating this page to better reflect what WP:V now says. I strongly urge anyone who watches this page to also place WP:V on their watchlist (and vise-versa).
That said... Carolmooredc is also correct in saying that, before you update this page, it is helpful to a) explain that a change was made at WP:V that requires a change here and b) include a summary of why the change was made to WP:V (or at least a link to the discussion at WP:V).
And that said... I support any effort to avoid conflicts between the two pages. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

<---Indent: First, I don't have a problem with including a new section that is just a repeat of WP:V though it does make page become more and more redundant. Second, [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] doesn't refer explicitly to the V:Talk page. And that discussion doesn't seem to be finished or to have considered the issue I am bringing up. In fact, here's what I just put there:

Having heard one of the editors involved in these changes misquote WP:V and WP:RS essentially to assert that a certain political/economic class of widely quoted sources are basically all fringe wackos who aren't reliable at wikipedia, you'll have to pardon me if I grow a bit suspicious when the editor makes/supports changes that make pages with "opinons" be the first most questionable category!! The relevant changes are in the second sentence.

Original Sept 30 version: Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
New October 10th Version: Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience.

Because sites that rely "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" has been moved up first it casts suspicion on many sites (left, right and libertarian) that offer opinions promoting allegedly minority views, often from both lay people and experts, and infers that even if a renowned academic expert published there with footnotes, it's too "questionable" a source to use the article! I think it is best to go back to the original so the emphasis starts with extremist and promotional. Also "personal opinions" might be modified to "lay person personal opinions" just be 100% clear. Carol Moore 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I would definitely put any source that "relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions" into the Questionable source category, so I think this is a good change. Remember that "Questionable" is not the same as "Unreliable". We can use Questionable sources, but there are restrictions as to how we can use them. In short, they can be considered reliable in some situations but not reliable in other situations. A Questionable source is certainly reliable for statements as to the opinion of the source's author. In most cases it isn't reliable for a statement of fact.
To me, "questionable sources" is a fairly broad category... at the "somewhat questionable" end are mainstream political advocacy groups. Extremist and Fringe sources fall at the "highly questionable" end of the spectrum. So it makes sence to me that we first define the broad category... and then narrow things down to the sub-categories. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense the way you say it, but not the way it reads or could be interpreted. As I've said before, the spectrum language needs to be in there and there needs to be a way to make it clear that a notable person who footnotes his material can be quoted for fact but a layperson even with footnotes cannot. And where does, for example, a Nobel winning economist publishing an article on economics in a large conservative paper fit? Only useable for opinion? Or useable for fact?? Or do people have to keep running to WP:RS/noticeboard to clear up something that better guidelines might make clearer?? Carol Moore 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
hmmm... I think part of the issue here is that the word 'source' is used interchangeably to refer to venues and people (thus Carol's objection that a reliable person can publish something in an unreliable venue, and less commonly vice-versa. maybe expanding the description like so (rough draft): "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions or are promotional in nature, or organization or individuals who express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscientific. It may be necessary to evaluate the venue and the author independently." does that move in the right direction? --Ludwigs2 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. I keep thinking in terms of a chart, and depending on the score the source got on different variables, it would show how far along the spectrum they are. Weeee! Maybe I'll play with it in spare time ;-) Carol Moore 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Economical with the truth

There's an interesting article in The Economist this week. This says that prominent papers in leading journals are quite likely to be wrong and suggests why this happens. Two passages are quite shocking:

...incorrect research partly on a study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists. They were, in other words, well-regarded research. But he found that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies.
There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. For instance, a study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to America’s Food and Drug Administration about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results were.

This has some implications for our guideline which seems to overrate such sources:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...

This is a bold claim and yet it is not supported by any sources and, if this were an article, would be attacked as weasely OR. Since we now have sources indicating that academic peer-review is no guarantee of accuracy, we should adjust our guideline accordingly.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry H. Bauer's "filter" (diagram page 45) is a pretty good model. In Bauer's model, the worth of journal articles can be discerned from the presence or absence of future textbook citations. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The sad truth is that there's no guarantee of the reliability of any source. I'd advise caution with any source under 5 years old, for the reasons given in the Economist article. Even fequency of citation is not always a good guide, for exmaple Ruben & colleagues' articles on dinosaur respiration are generally cited and then ignored (see Physiology of dinosaurs). -- Philcha (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the statement is still valid. We do not say that academic, peer-reviewed sources are always reliable... simply that they are usually the most reliable. While a specific article from an academic, peer-reviewed publication may end up being flawed, as a class they are still more reliable than any other type of source.
Remember that no article in Wikipedia is ever "finished". Wikipeida articles are meant to evolve. When new scholarship on a subject is published, our articles may need to be edited to reflect that new scholarship. If the sources that we rely on are discredited, the article needs to be edited to reflect that fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The actual paper being discussed is Neal S. Young*, John P. A. Ioannidis, Omar Al-Ubaydli,"Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in PLoS Medicine v.5 no. 10, article e2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201 open access link]; that's a some shortened summary, the full version is at [6] (The Economist paper shows dramatically the limitations of using even good magazines and newspapers--their article, as usual in such cases, gives no exact references to the actual published work.) I'll make a more detailed comment later, but but I want to make a general one quickly:
Of course most published findings are eventually proven false. That's the basis of the scientific method, that research will be repeated and corrected and refined and developed. Knowledge is not static. The scientific method requires subsequent analysis. At Wikipedia we do not try to do the necessary analysis of primary journal publication, but just report it in the context of analysis published elsewhere. Among the places this is done, is in subsequent journal publication itself in primary journals--most primary articles analyze the previous literature, not just cite it. There is no clear separation between primary and secondary publication in science. And our general rule is that RS is not a matter of yes or no, but a spectrum. And all the inaccuracies of publication in academic research are magnified and distorted in subsequent popular and textbook presentation. DGG (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces from news organisations

The guideline currently reads: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. I suggest this part of the guideline should discourage the uncritical derivation of factual assertions from opinion pieces, rather than say that they are never reliable.

For example, if a fact is asserted in an op-ed piece in a major newspaper such as the New York Times or Guardian, it is as likely to be accurate as anything reported anywhere else in the paper. (Unless the article is obviously aiming for humorous or absurd effect, of course.)

For example, it could read: Opinion pieces are often only reliable for statements as to the opinion of the authors, not for statements of fact, and should not be used as sources of fact unless there is no other source and the news organisation in question is a highly reputable one. (Others can doubtless word this better, it's off the top of my head.)

Views? Barnabypage (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree. News articles are (presumably) fact checked by the editorial staff of the paper, and if the reporter gets a fact wrong the paper is held accountable. The paper will issue a retraction or correction. The same is not true for an op-ed piece. The term "op-ed" means "opinion-editorial"... ie what is written is someone's opinion. Op-ed pieces are not given the same level of scrutiny that news articles are given.
The key here is that the reliability of an op-ed piece depends on its author. Let's take an example: Suppose US Vice President Dick Chaney wrote an op-ed piece stating that the "surge" in Iraq was highly successful. Is this a reliable statement of fact? That probably depends on the reader's political views and whether they trust Vice President Chaney. Some people will say it is reliable, but others will say it isn't. We can not definitively say "The surge in Iraq was highly successful <cite to op-ed piece>" However, what we can say with reliability is that this was Vice President Chaney's opinion on the subject. We can definitivly say: "According to Vice President Dick Chaney, the surge was highly successful <cite to op-ed piece>". Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
What's frustrating about this is now I'm editing an article where statements by govt employees or academic experts given in Congressional testimony or in speeches are considered unassailable statements of facts, while an op-ed by the same individuals stating the same facts - or those by others of equal stature refuting those facts - is NOT considering WP:RS!!
So there are a lot of inconsistencies in WP:V and WP:RS that should be clarified on those pages so people don't have to keep running to the noticeboard.
As I know from having put together this selectionof most of the discussions of important general and political oriented sources in WP:RS/noticeboard archives. Carol Moore 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Carol, You missinterpret the guideline. Nowhere does it say that an Op-ed piece is unreliable. It says it IS reliable... as an opinion. Instead of saying "blah blah blah is true" you have to say "According to govt employee X, blah blah blah is true". Also, I certainly would not treat a statement by a govt. employee as an unassailable statement of fact... even if it was included in Congressional testimony. I would state that as an opinion as well and say: "In his testimony before congress, Govt. Employee X stated:... <cite to congressional Testimony>." Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar - I think it depends on the kind of fact. I agree that, in your example, Cheney's assertion of success should be treated as an individual opinion rather than a fact - almost by its nature it's a subjective judgement, whoever makes it. However, if Cheney's same article asserted "the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003", would there be any reason to trust that less than a news article in the same publication saying the same thing? Virtually no - if any - publications formally fact-check news stories these days, so the editing process for an op-ed piece is not much different from that for a news article (as far as accuracy goes).
Incidentally, "op-ed" comes from "opposite editorial", not "opinion editorial". Irrelevant to the subject at hand but a potentially useful bit of trivia. ;) Barnabypage (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Something like "the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003" can probably be cited to something more reliable than an op-ed piece. If not, I would definitely question whether it is, in fact, accurate. For example, suppose that there were covert forces in Iraq as early as February. Is Chaney still accurate in his statement? That depends on what he meant by "invaded".
The point is, a statement in an op-ed piece may be accurate, or it may be inaccurate. We have no way to know unless we check it against other sources... in which case, we should use those other sources instead of the op-ed piece. If the only source for information is an op-ed column, we have to treat the information as opinion and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Could not update stat
UP