Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Google to 'derank' Russia Today and Sputnik

I thought that RSN regulars might find this interesting. Google is going to derank Russia Today and Sputnik in its search rankings.

Google to 'derank' Russia Today and Sputnik A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this affects their RS status.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't affect their RS status at the time. This seems to be more political motivated to me, as they are trying to deflect blame or make up for the possible election interference. However this means that RT and Sputnik might resort to clickbaity headlines from social media leads as they won't be getting them from Google. It is worth keeping an eye on these two though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this affects RT and Sputnik's RS status here (which I believe is close to zero). Such a move might however affect our view of Google's bias (and while not a source in and of itself, many editors do rely on Google's various tools (search, news, books) to locate sources) - it is telling they are "deranking" Russian sources (that are admittedly appalling) while not addressing other similar or even worse propaganda sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware google search hits (or rankings) were RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I explicitly said they weren't - however this is a meta-source used by many to locate sources. If google is mixing politics (of whatever vein) and search results - well...Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's about bloody time. Now if they will only get rid of the bots (Russian or similarly politically motivated) that screw up the rest of the Google results, that would be even better. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel you have made the same mistake that others make about Google - that it has scruples. Google rankings are directly affected by how much money Google can extract. So search results that are less useful get promoted as they earn Google more. The point at which Google de-ranks things is not because it recognizes or agrees there is a problem, its because the bad publicity affects their income. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Saying that, this wont affect RT or Sputnik's use as reliable sources (or not) since there is broad consensus they are a mouthpiece for the Russian POV already, and so stories from them are treated accordingly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I have no illusions whatsoever about Google. Ever since ca. 2009 they have sucked. The Book results alone are laughable and 95% of them are unrelated and useless. That said, the Trump campaign and its aftermath and concurrent effects have made Google much worse than it even was: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This (the thread, not the last post) has stuff all to do with RS issues, can we just hat this now?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How about we hat you? It would be an improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Strategically placed hat? —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

YouTube video of event at Speakers' Corner

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people#YouTube video of the assault RS question. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability in general

Should a discussion on RSN be focused on the context in which the source is being used or could such discussion be extended to the use of the source in general without providing any diffs? For example, the discussion on reliability of www.theindependent.sg.

How is consensus determined? Would there be a poll? And what are the consequences after consensus is achieved? Would there be a total ban on the source and removal of all content sourced from it in all articles on Wikipedia? Jane Dawson (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Just looking through recent threads, it's clear that RSN includes both discussions about specific usages of certain sources, as well as general discussions of sources' reliability. No consensus on RSN is any more binding than any other consensus, nor can an RSN consensus lead to a total ban on a source, so I'm not sure what your second question is referring to. This is simply a place to check with other users on the reliability of sources.
Also, if you're going to strictly enforce adherence to some perfect standard of what RSN is supposed to be, then you should at least be consistent - I see that you've completely ignored every thread except for the one about the Independent, including some that violate the supposed standards of RSN far more blatantly. This gives me the impression that you only care about this issue to the extent that it impacts usage of that specific source. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, this is just a general query that I wanted to ask a long time ago. It doesn't have to apply to one case, I just quoted it as an example because I happen to participate in it. I am all for fair and consistent application of all Wikipedia policies. So, your response need not be restricted to it as I have titled my question clearly. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
For almost all discussions you need to follow the instructions. Article. Source. Material in article it is being used to support. Otherwise reliability cannot be correctly assessed. Some sources that are not considered reliable may be reliable for specific material in a particular context. This can be widened slightly, if you asked 'Is this self published blog reliable for use in BLP's?' without providing specific context, you would likely get a general answer. And a request for articles its used on. There are exceptions, a certain news publication which over a period of YEARS kept coming up, so a more 'really don't use this as a source in almost every circumstance' was appropriate. But that took years to get to the stage where that had to be done. And it was their record of blatant fabrications that tipped it over the edge. So follow the instructions at the top, everyone stays happy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • People posting here should follow the instructions for posting. Too often there is a push to try and get a source prohibited or given carte blanche when it's always more complicated than that even The Big Book of Alien Abductions is a reliable source for statements of the type "According to the The Big Book of Alien Abductions ..." but is unlikely to be reliable for assertions of fact in the outside world. In general, if people folowed the instructions and gave us focused questions, a lot less volunteer time would be wasted IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is a complicated issue and ironically we would need to know the specific situation for us to decide this, but in the majority of cases giving the information mentioned in the instructions is the best thing to do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

TheIntercept.com article

This story is a few weeks old. I remember hearing something about this on the radio at the time, but didn't really look into it until I stumbled into this article the other day. Anyway, I thought RSN regulars might find this an interesting read: The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages and Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean Glenn Greenwald flogging --yet again -- his RUSSAGATE IS FAKE NEWS FAKE FAKE schtick, like he has for the last year? Well 1) someone already tried that bit of FUD here; and 2) WP:NOTAFORUM. --Calton | Talk 20:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that this concerns issues of reliability which is the subject of this noticeboard and may be of interest to RSN regulars. This is why I put this on the talk page. If this topic doesn't interest you, please ignore. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this really does impact reliability. The article notes that CNN issued a correction within a day - several hours after the story was shown to be false. Editors are already cautioned against using breaking news stories as sources. This very article you linked came out only 24 hours after the events it describes, and hasn't been updated since later that day - I think that counts as breaking news. Of all the people they criticize as failing to acknowledge the story as false, how many of them still haven't? I think 24 hours after a story first comes out is a little early to start condemning every single person who commented on the story for failing to say they made a mistake. Has there been any reporting on this in the 3 weeks since December 9th? The Intercept clearly has their own agenda, which is to criticize the mainstream media. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The perceived bias of mainstream media has long been an issue of debate. However, we know that stories will occasionally be wrong and will be subsequently corrected. This story was debunked hours later by the Washington Post although unfortunately CNN took a few hours more to issue a retraction. I do not see any way Wikipedia articles can be more accurate on current events than mainstream media. TFD (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
But that is the problem perhaps. Wikipedia should not strive to be about current events as we are not news. In the case of the MSM they have to rush to be first to break a story for reputation and financial reasons, but I have never heard anyone complain to me that Wikipedia was up to date but just that it was inaccurate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I meant not up to date Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but it is not simply a matter of lack of transparency (and I disagree with the source article, I can think of much worse examples (Pizzagate anyone?), News media have never discussed their sources if they can avoid it). The issue is one of a deliberate attempt to create gotchas, and the laziness of all news media now. I think it may be time to say "NO news STORIES AS SOURCES FOR 48 HOURS AFTER PUBLICATION".Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
I have readily argued that we have to be fully aware of the problems of news media today - not just in making mistakes, but trying to fight for their survival from citizen journalism which has forced a change in how they report the news, less objectively and more subjectively, to the point of losing objectivity, to appeal to their reader base. They're taking the approach that made Fox News so popular with conservatives, and doing the same on their side of the spectrum. And that was before Trump was in office; that event worsened the situation. This doesn't make the bulk of their reporting unreliable, but it requires us to be much more cautious when they start throwing contentious claims and statements around. In other words, we as WP editors should have the autonomy to be able to judge when there's a questionable parts of reporting and opt not to include or to word carefully with attribution or the like, and other necessary steps to keep WP's language neutral and impartial. Unfortunately, I've seen far too many editors go "It's an RS, we can't question them at all". We're not supposed to be that blind to media problems like this. --Masem (t) 14:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"has forced a change in how they report the news, less objectively and more subjectively". This is just absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Look up "opinionated reporting". eg [2]. It exists, and its gotten worse, most sources (those that cover the state of the media) agree on it. --Masem (t) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in that opinion piece about NYT, WaPo etc. publishing subjective news reports. Editorials and analysis are clearly identified as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not said we cannot use them, only that no source should be used it it is less then (for argument) 48 hours old. Real time reporting invariably is riddled with mistakes and assumptions which waiting two days normally shows up and is redacted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
There is the idea of holding off on a source, particularly if it presents a yet-proven opinion or claim, but there's also recognizing that even after 48hrs from a story breaking, there are still problems in this area, part of the overall laziness of the news media. It doesn't change their general reliability but it does change how we should be handling them. --Masem (t) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with what I perceive to be a fuzzy consensus on this: first this type of problem does NOT in itself mean we can't use mainstream media. All sources are imperfect, and aiming at perfection is a false standard that leads to bad results (also in other facets of life). Second what might be more relevant is indeed whether or not WP should try to cover everything in real time, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. (I guess it is a subject where it might be hard to actually write a strong practical guideline that everyone can agree on though.) I think in general Wikipedia is at its least impressive when it tries to go beyond being a neutral encyclopedic summary of clear published sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI - Here's Slate's take on this: We Still Don’t Know Why Three Different Outlets “Confirmed” the Same Bogus Russia Story Last Week. It's written a few days after the Intercept article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, Glen Greenwald has his own agenda. No doubt about that. Still it's an interesting look and reminder that reliable sources make mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Editing Britannica.com

It seems relatively easy to edit an article online. All you have to do is join and then edit it. It does say "Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval. Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions." which sounds great. Yet I've found one of our prolific socks, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive, has edited the Mona Lisa article.[3] If you look at the article history you'll find that Roni Kempler of the Kempler video (a professional accountant) has added his favorite ideas to it. I've been reverting socks of his for a few days this week. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Britannica.com is no longer reliable? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I've always thought that we should avoid using generalist encyclopedia's as a source, which is not quite the same thing. I don't think this particular article is a reliable source, but I doubt that we could get a consensus not to use the EB. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There was consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL to not use a somewhat generalist news source, but that was a special case indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake Science Paper About 'Star Trek' and Warp 10 Was Accepted by 'Predatory Journals'

Here's another interesting article about the reliability of some journals that I thought RSN regulars may find interesting.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It happens all the time. I have a loooooong list of predatory journals and have removed thousands of cites to them. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey Voyager had it's moments! PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But that episode where Janeway and Paris turned into lizards was... not a high point in the Star Trek franchise. Reyk YO! 13:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... Might not be the best moment there. I will give you that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the predatory journal took down the article, but you can still read it here. It reads almost as if it were made by an automated gibberish-generator. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually a number of predatory journals were caught by a paper that was written by a gibberish generator. I cant recall it offhand, but I am sure a google search will bring it up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it was SCIgen? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thats the badger. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, the publisher of the journal, American Research Journals, is on Beall's list. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A courteous reminder

I would just like to courteously remind the editors who who are regularly active here that my inquiry on the main page concerning DBase has been posted for four days but has yet to receive a response (it is currently section five, titled "DBase"). It appears some discussions below it attracted significant interest and diverted attention away from some of the unanswered queries above (one about Jeremy Bates and another by Eik Corell have also seen no responses despite both being four or more days old). Any responses would be greatly appreciated. Please remove this comment if my placing it here is inappropriate—I only wanted to make this known because they seem to have been overlooked. Thank you. LifeofTau 10:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia's Coverage of Folklore Articles

As some of you are aware, we've had a major problem with pseudoscience in our folklore-related articles for a long time now. I've been pushing back on this for some time, and I've put together an article reflecting what I've been seeing. I welcome feedback and input going forward. You can view the writeup here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources has been made. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Fox

User "Shrike" seems to think that he controls this page. Reliable coverage of Fox News publishing falsehoods should be discussed, not ignored.

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/10/13/fox-news-just-was-just-busted-trying-to-frame-liberals-for-a-riot-in-humiliating-fashion-2/ http://gothamist.com/2018/10/13/proud_boys_beating_video.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.217.70 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have meaningful content for discussion on this noticeboard, please propose it. However, this noticeboard is not intended for pointing out every falsehood that might be published in the press. General Ization Talk 13:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I did propose it then you removed it. What the dishonest fuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.217.70 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Please note the word meaningful above. We are not going to discuss the two links you offer that suggest that Fox News trades in misinformation; this is not a newsflash. General Ization Talk 13:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fox isn't news. It's just propaganda. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/05/how-right-wing-fox-news-became-donald-trump-s-state-propaganda-channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.217.70 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And righting great wrongs isn't productive editing. Please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Reported for block evasion: 73.6.213.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) General Ization Talk 13:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I make two separate inquiries for two separate sources?

Is it okay for me to make two inquiries on the page regarding two sources?SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In many cases I think it would be better than one merged inquiry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Closed discussion on Books published by Healy Gross an opinion on WP:RS

I rather glossed over the discussion and came up with an opinion that may or may not be applicable to that discussion but since its closed I suppose I should prefer not to edit the discussion in-line. So I'll leave it here. It concerns flexibility of RS in specific cases though not necessarily in general as a rule. Since I only glossed over the discussion and am not familiar with any of the circumstances or the author in question, and nor would I be considered an expert editor with full familiarity of the preferred guidelines of WP:anything I'll posit my opinion pose it as a hypothetical scenario and leave it for debate or to be ignored whatever happens first. Opinion. In a case regarding a historical event where there is only one "expert" witness. The event has become notable. and the witness has educated themselves on the overall topic related to the events to any level of scholarly degree(in this case a baccalaureate)and without dispute of facts presented or any dissent by any of equal or higher degree of expertise in the field regarding a published work even "self published"..then that person becomes the expert and their published and widely distributed work BECOMES or remains the "reliable" source provisionally reliable at least as it is in its way the ONLY reliable source(again provided it is not disputed on factual or analytical basis). This could apply in a situation where say for example: a wikipedia article discusses such a war and makes a reference to the historical events during the war related to the author's literary account and further more states an incident in that event and puts it into a say a political context that could only be gathered in detail from that author's account..and so cites the account as a referenced source. Like I said, I don't know how relevant this opinion is to the specifics of that discussion but it seems logical to me enough to present in the discussion or rather here in the talk page. That is the opinion so now I present the scenario that maybe best describes what I think would be an appropriate situation where that concession would be followed as a guideline. I'll try to keep it relevant to the situation I gathered from the discussion but again I admit I only glossed over the debates.

Okay during the historical even in the war being referenced in the article I'll say the author was a tour guide in that region and very close to the war and very knowledgeable of the terrain and population and political landscape of the area at the time. Regarding events occurring in that region this author already has the credential of being a WITNESS of the historical events being described..and would actually qualify as a party to any fact checking of the events should such an inquiry proceed. SO education aside there would be enough alone to be considered at least one source of journalistic accounting(and it could be as dubious as a mere diary), but of course we like our journalism to also be accountable by comparison and fact checked in cross references..so what happens when either a there are no other journalistic accounts and or b) No other witnesses and/or the recorded consensus of history itself verifies or at least fails to dispute any of the factual claims in the journalistic account..what happens is that it becomes by default considered reliable especially if its the only reliable account..now lets say 20-40 years later this travel guide took interest in the overall war which she has witnessed and goes to university earning her bachelors degree on the subject of that war or military /political history itself overall..and focuses on that war. writing a book where she analyzes the socio-political and strategic military impact of the historical war events in that region she lived through and comes up with some conclusions in the book that are often quoted in other authors works on the internet and in print..but for some reason no other scholar of baccalaureate or better degree in the field of study or specific to the analysis of that war sees fit to challenge dispute,refute,or even offer alternative review detracting form hers of the historical event in question or even further analyze the event and apply their own expert opinion on the matter. What happens then? What happens is that hers remains the prevailing "expert" or scholarly OPINION on the subject of that event. That in my opinion is what it means to have a degree and un-peered scholarly review on a subject. The scholarly review process has a tiered approach but it is not necessarily preclusive of having the distinction of being the only first hand or valid perspective. The fact that she does not have a PHD on the topic may be merely a matter of formality or standards in proportion to her understanding of historical war events in general. As far as scholarly concerns go she is the prevailing expert on that particular event, and possibly always will remain so if noone steps up to investigate with deeper knowledge of the intricacies of that field of study. This makes the scholarly review system more adaptive to processing and assimilating knowledge from the unknown. eg We finally go to mars then the first scientific accounts of practicing engineering in Mars gravity are likely going to prevail over armchair reviews of the same subject even if the pioneers of that subject retire before going to claim higher degrees of education from university. Eventually someone will probably do better and refine the body of knowledge and become paramount in the field of engineering on Mars..but until then..the pioneers' remain the prevailing opinions and reports. That plus peer consensus system pretty much prevents someone with nothing more than a higher degree from jotting down a few extra notes on the subject to avoid plagiarizing her book and suddenly becoming the highest authority on her subject of interest and expertise. And as the unchallenged authority on the subject(assuming this isn't evidence that its not a notable subject and shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia , means that we should possibly be able to cite her work though I might do well to note that the work was never reviewed/challenged by peers in that area of study. So in light of this opinion I welcome any other thoughts on the matter. SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You should be aware that writing very long blocks of text like that greatly reduces the number of people who read it. You could have made your points in 1/3 of the space. As far as I am aware, none of these things apply in this case: "there is only one 'expert' witness" (she is not a witness at all, and others have written on the subject), "educated themselves on the overall topic related to the events to any level of scholarly degree" (no evidence that her degree was related to the events), "the author was a tour guide in that region and very close to the war" (the author was not alive or a baby at the time). So you are working on misconceptions. Zerotalk
This is actually not a difficult question to answer, and is found in a section of the NPOV policy. An aspect of a subject that is covered by zero reliable sources is generally considered insignificant and should be ignored. The witness in your example would be more like a primary source. Primary sources are sometimes cited for elaboration and quoting of uncontroversial facts and statements if they are already the subject of secondary reliable sources, or are the subject of the article itself. But Wikipedia editors are not supposed to decide in a vacuum which parts of which primary sources (including witness accounts) should be trusted and reported. Same goes for self-published content that is not primary.
The simple fact is, when there is an account of an event floating around, that no one with good credentials has even mentioned, we don't know why. Maybe that account is considered so obviously false no one even discusses it. Maybe it's considered superfluous to existing accounts. Or maybe just no one cares. It's not up to us to suss that one out. I'll also note this argument reminds me of discussions we used to have all the time about UFO researchers - the argument was made that the people who study UFOs and publish the most books about them should be considered the foremost experts in the field, which would of course allow any pseudoscience subject to be written exactly as its proponents desire, almost totally insulated from the rest of the academic world. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lulu.com

In case anyone is interested in a project, this search will show many of the citations to self-published Lulu.com books. Some of them will be reliable per WP:SPS, but most of them probably need to be replaced with better citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. This is a plague on the project. I have removed thousands, and many thousands remain. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Determining a source's reputation

The recent RFCs on the reliability of various news sources has me thinking... our policy calls for sources with a “reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”, but how exactly do we determine what that “reputation” is? WHO determines the reputation of a source? Is reputation determined by what we (the editors of WP) think of the source in question? Is it determined by what other sources say about the source in question? How do we account for the fact that "reputation" can itself be based on bias? (Note - this bias occurs in both directions... Conservatives are quick to decry the inaccuracies and poor fact-checking of liberal sources, while liberals are quick to decry the inaccuracies and poor fact-checking of conservative sources - and both tend to give sources on their end of the spectrum a pass). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I think if a source has some kind of editorial oversight that is usually sufficient for non-contentious claims, such as historic sport results etc. I agree that is subjective and as such is only appropriate for content that is non-contentious/libelous. If a source is regularly cited by other reputable sources then that is probably the gold standard because it takes our subjective opinion out of the equation. For example, many UK media outlets often cite the BBC so the perception among other mainstream media sources is that the BBC is generally reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The BBC's reputation for international reporting is second only to Reuters I think. Domestically they have editorial and fact-based reporting, and follow the current regrettable trend in blurring the line between the two, and actually that results in fewer citations tot heir reporting in other media as far as my personal impression goes. Given a choice between the BBC and RT, I would trust the BBC every time. Same of given a choice between The Times and the BBC. The FT is probably the least politically biased source in the UK, as long as yu don't count economics as politics. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
We go by what RS say, and especially fact checkers. I may address this at WP:QUICKRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of three sources

This is interesting:

  • Ralph, Pat (September 29, 2018). "How Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, and Sean Hannity opened their shows for a week perfectly illustrates how Americans see the news differently". Business Insider. Retrieved September 30, 2018.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this fair? Hannity is not a news show, it's more news-themed performance art - the editorial page of Breitbart as TV. Maddow refers constantly to sources - and I do mean constantly. Cooper is more editorial, presenting a synthesis of the sources generally in a "trust me , we checked this" tone. Maddow is the only one I would cite as a source for anything. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hannity doesn't claim to be a news broadcast. Our own article about the Rachel Maddow show calls it a news and opinion show, so I'd have to ask if the show is news, do we need to adjust our article or is it a healthy dose of opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a lot of opinion. She takes sources and then draws her personal conclusions. She should be treated the same as Hannity for how we would use them as a source. Basically for their opinion if it is notable and not statements of fact. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious as to whether you have ever watched either show. Hannity is an opinion show. Maddow cites sources. A lot. It's really easy to distinguish between Maddow's openly admitted liberal bias and opinion, and Hannity's belief that his bias constitutes neutrality. Hannity rarely cites actual sources. He rarely takes any time to present the charitable interpretation of anything. Maddow is a journalist with a liberal bias, Hannity consistently fails to acknowledge obvious facts that contradict his narrative. Of course if you are a conservative this is likely to be hard to untangle from the fact that reality has a well-known liberal bias, but the difference is pretty stark here. Hannity is not a journalist by any rational definition, whereas Maddow undoubtedly is. Watch Shep Smith and Sean Hannity discussing the same story on the same network. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is odd to me that you do not classify Maddow's show as opinion. I do not think anyone would reasonably see it as anything but that. Anyhow yes I have seen both unfortunately, I say unfortunately since neither are particularly good. I have also read articles about both shows for previous research. Again neither would be appropriate for statements of facts, the sources and facts cited by either are best referenced to their source material. Rather then trying to put one of them into an article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy is correct that the difference is "pretty stark". Maddow is a professional journalist, and Hannity doesn't even pretend. Both have opinions, but hers are fact-based, and she presents plenty of evidence throughout her show. Hannity doesn't. She is rarely wrong. He is rarely right. She has a full team of investigative assistants and journalists who follow very thorough procedures, including reading every source "all the way to the bottom". She is often ahead of the curve, and all other RS come along a day or two later, proving that she was indeed right. That's because her team investigates things very thoroughly. When she makes a mistake, she apologizes and clarifies.
No, they are not two sides of the same coin, but are radically different in several ways. Scholarly data analysis, published in the Oxford University Press book Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, shows that "liberals want facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda.... The right-wing media ecosystem differs categorically from the rest of the media environment." The authors have documented that the right-wing media ecosystem is more susceptible to "disinformation, lies and half-truths", results documented by numerous other researchers and authors.[1]
Unlike right-wing outlets, which rarely criticize and expose the false stories on other right-wing sites, whenever a false story rarely makes it to the left-wing media, they are immediately fact checked and criticized by other left-wing media, and the story dies very quickly, with apologies. In fact, there are "no significant Web sites on the left that parallel the chronic falsity of those on the right".[1] There are huge differences between left- and right-wing media, and between Maddow and Hannity.
Otherwise, I think we usually quote Maddow's sources for facts, and when we do quote her (I don't recall doing it myself), she's attributed. That's the right thing to do, even though her opinions are based on RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ a b Toobin, Jeffrey (August 28, 2018). "A New Book Details the Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016". The New Yorker. Retrieved August 30, 2018.
This is not exactly a good race to be in. Both are bad for statements of fact. One turd being more polished than the other does not mean it is not a turd. Your last line is correct and mirrors what I have been saying the whole time. PackMecEng (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng Your Fallacy Is False Equivalence. http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/false-equivalence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.217.70 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That article is not especially meaningful because the shows have different formats (opening monologue that may not be the most important story vs going straight into the top stories of the day). Of the three, Cooper strives to be unbiased in his reporting, while Hannity and Maddow are red meat for their respective bases and don't pretend to be anything else. They provide affirmation, not information. Only far-left or far-right ideologues think that Maddow or Hannity are unbiased. Depending on the topic, there may be some reliability there, but with both of them, I would seek to find a better source because you are getting primarily their slant on the story. Cooper gives you his opinion, certainly, but when he reports the news, he does his best to give it with less bias. --B (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That is unfortunate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What's more unfortunate is that a longstanding editor responded to it by dragging out that tired old canard about how fact checkers all have liberal biases. This is why I don't edit in AmPol anymore. Stubbornly willful ignorance gets old after a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Just another sampling of poor journalism from Business Insider. It's an attempt to portray Hannity as comparable to Cooper and Maddow. He's not. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's humorous to consider an article in Business Insider rating other sources in general. O3000 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

[This discussion] has been archived without any firm conclusion, as with all previous discussions on this subject. Can we un-archive this? We really need some advice to on how to obtain a binding decision one way or the other, or else it will never go anywhere. --Andromedean (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

To say the least there in no consensus that the source is reliable but in my opinion there is a rough consensus that the source in unreliable.--Shrike (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just been looking through [WP:CON]. A weakness of the consensus process is that no arbitrator examines the stength of the arguments. Can the discussion on this subject be passed to the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) or Requests for arbitration? --Andromedean (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking back through that discussion I noticed Shrike (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) had struck out a discussion by a user asking why Electronic Intifada can't be allowed whilst the *Jerusalem Post" can, because the user have less then 500 edits. However, it was an interesting comparison. I also note, that this paper doesn't appear to be a member of a regulator, and refused to reply to me regarding an untrue statement they had made. More recently, they published this appalling headline 'Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?' which confirms the extreme bias of the newspaper and level of interference they will engage in to undermine British democracy. --Andromedean (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

An RfC of possible interest to users who frequent this page Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Official" Facebook Profile as a source?

Hello, I'm new here and curious as to the consensus on this, as I couldn't really find a whole lot online about it. But are "official profiles" accepted sources? The way I read it is that sometimes it can be? Say an official webpage for an individual points to their profile, could information found there be used for minor biography information of living persons, such as DOB, high school, etc? If Ivanka Trump's official website links to her official FB page. Would that not be an indication that the account is genuine? Obviously, Ivanka Trump has been reported about everywhere so that kind of information may be readily available elsewhere, but for some, it may not be. Thanks! IrishRhino139 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSSELF Cabayi (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes an official facebook profile can be used for non controversial matters (DOB may well be depending on the person). I would say that as official facebook account are marked as such, no if it does not say it is not a given persons official account just linking to it does not in dictate any official status (beyond liking it).Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
A Facebook page is a reliable Primary source (and as with all Primary sources, they need caution to use appropriately). Also... while a reliable source, this does not mean it is the most reliable source. If other reliable sources give conflicting information, the Facebook page does not out weigh these other sources (people have been known to spin the facts on their Facebook pages). Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Ok, so in this case, the profile in question is not marked in facebook as an "official" page with the little blue check... but the person's official Web page has a "Follow me in FB, Twitter, etc..." link. So though it's more than likely their official page, it probably should not be used then? IrishRhino139 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say not, it is not hard to make it "official" so it is a choice not to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC NYT as Reliable Source

Seems as though “closing” an RfC within less than an hour of it being posted does not seem appropriate. The reasons cited were that the formatting was “incorrect”, that the subject wasn’t worthy of discussion, and that it violated WP Point.

1st, I followed the link on how to format an RfC and while suggestions are provided, it clearly states that their is no absolute right or wrong format. The editor that closed it for this reason has an issue with formatting and would like to see a Survey or Discussion sections other than what I proposed with a Supoort vs Oppose heading, then I’d suggest just adding those sections or making other edits as they see fit. 2nd as for the topic being worthy of discussion, one way to guarantee almost no discussion (or opposing view from outside a singular echo chamber) is to close the thread. Why not wait to see what others have to say. 3rd As far as hijacking reliable sources and grinding away at a point, I provide a pretty straight forward and solid argument that should be debated on its merits, not on the whims of a few editors who simply want to “end the discussion”.

If there are a few editors that agree with my viewpoints, I request that they re-open the RfC. 

Wcmcdade (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times is as reliable a source as they come. Full stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The RfC was also closed as pointy. Which I agree with. - Donald Albury 02:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
​In addition to violating WP:POINT, the RfC was malformed because it didn't start with a {{rfc}} template, which Wikipedia:Requests for comment instructs editors to use. This template is important because it lists the RfC in the selected categories, and announces the discussion to editors subscribed to the feedback request service. As a result, RfCs receive much more attention than plain discussions. Without the {{rfc}} template, a discussion is not a RfC and doesn't hold the same weight. I hope this clarifies my comment in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 07:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Where should WP:DAILYMAIL redirect?

Participate here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 26#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Nardog (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Network propaganda and left / right media reliability

JzG posted a most interesting comment on the main page. My response may be a little meta, so posting here on talk. Network propaganda is in many ways a fine book and a most impressive marshalling of the data. On the other hand, I disagree that it contains much insight, and am concerned that taking simplified summaries of the books conclusions at face value only risk accelerating trends that are taking Wikipedia away from NPOV and a collegial editing environment.

Insight often comes from inside knowledge, from at least some exposure to the praxis of what you're studying. (I.e. some actual experience of participating in the info wars; be it in politics, motivated journalism, PR or whatever) Im sure the authors have this, but it doesn't seem to come across in the book. Possibly the idea of feedback loops driving sections of the right to the extremes may be fresh to academic discourse, but it's old news to those working in the field. IMO, theres more insight about the threat of fake news in this short web article than the whole book.

Insight also often requires an open mind and a willingness to contemplate how ones own actions and cherished beliefs many have contributed to the issue at hand. The book is good in suggesting that you must look back at least as far as the 1970s to understood why fake news has become such a problem. But it hardly touches on how the left have contributed to the issue. Many might know about elite right wing warriors like Grover Norquist being horrified at the success of the Left from the 1930s – 70s, especially how we forced even right wing administrations to govern "as if from the left". In the 1970s they were openly encouraging right wing groups to adopt the same tactics that the left had used so effectively in previous decades. What's perhaps less well known is how this included intellectual tools suitable for encouraging extreme scepticism - deconstruction, discourse analysis, postology etc. One of the worlds most respected theorists on this, Bruno Latour, wrote on how the left were paving the way for the rise of fake news 15 years ago. This Latour paper gets a little heavy towards the end, but at least the first 7 pages or so are well worth reading.

Im not intending what Im about to say to come across as hostile to JzG or others who agree with the Network Propaganda book. It's hard to open discussions of these important and interesting questions in a balanced way, especially if you want to avoid TLDR. But making strong generalisations against a group, without qualifying why its important not to act on said generalisation, is the very essence of prejudice. Granted, I'd certainly agree that overall, right wing English speaking media is vastly lesss reliable than left wing media. But it would be hugely harmful and unencyclopedic to suggest we can go about dismissing sources just because they are recognised as right wing. Sources should be evaluated case by case, ideally even article by article. Probably JzG didn't mean to encourage blanket dismissal of right wing sources and was making the meta point that any apparent bias from Wikipedia towards the left is actually bias towards reliability? In that case Id agree, much evidence does support this. Yet it's essential we don't allow this sort of analyses to become an excuse to bully and exclude right wing editors in the same way as regrettably happens with the overused term "fringe". Much as it lessens us to exclude minority voices, we can survive without much fringe. Yet there is no way we can be a useful NPOV encyclopaedia without the help of right wing voices. Us lefties do not know everything! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The book is not about fake news, other than inthe context of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda and bullshit. Example:
"our fundamental observations regarding the asymmetric structure of online media receive clear confirmation from a 2014 Pew survey about media consumption and patterns of trust. That survey found that respondents who score as “consistently conservative” on a survey of their political views reported that their most trusted news sources were Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. “Consistently liberal” respondents placed NPR, PBS, and the BBC in those top three most trusted positions. 18 This pattern of trust in television and radio sources—one side trusting a highly partisan commercial outlet and two of the most incendiary personalities in American political media, and the other in three public institutions of the most traditional journalistic form, suggests that the overall pattern of the media ecosystem is highly congruent with the patterns we observe online."
The polarisation of media lacks symmetry. in fact, centre left and centre right media alike have improved their game. The issue is that conservative media have become radicalised. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is a recent study that compares changes in both right and left over the last 50 years. It shows that the left has shifted more to the left... while the right has remained fairly constant. However, this shift by the left has dragged the center further to the left with it... which makes it appear as if the right has moved further right. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar, do you have a link to this study? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
He could be referring to [this Pew report](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf) which showed that self-identifying Democrats have become way more pro-immigration and less racially resentful over time. Or [this report](https://theintercept.com/2018/11/06/progressive-democrats-midterm-elections-2018/) of how Democrats increasingly support universal health care (something that conservatives and the left supports everywhere in the developed world except the US) (the Intercept story annoyingly does not link to the purported "study"). However, every measure of legislative behavior by the two parties that I'm aware of have shown in the last 20 yrs that the GOP has moved drastically rightward whereas Democrats have moved slightly to the left. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That report is based on just US then. Left and right don't correspond perfectly with Democrat and GOP. Legislative behaviour doesn't necessarily affect media reliability. We should be careful with jumping to left and right as a major part of looking at reliability, even if there are very find people on both sides. Interestingly cencentrist media seems to have been neglected in this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That is a perverse finding. The Overton window has moved a long way to the right on economic issues - virtually no mainstream politicians support collective ownership, for example - and towards more progressive social attitudes. We live in a more capitalist (economically right-wing) world but one with if anything a more libertarian or utilitarian view of individual rights.
Sure, the Democratic Party now has a consensus view that some form of universal healthcare would be good, but that is largely an artifact of the four decade experiment with fully commercialised healthcare, which has comprehensively proved that natural monopolies, necessary regulation to protect the public (e.g. drug trials) and the like make healthcare, specifically, a terrible fit for laissez-faire capitalism. The US spends two to three times as much on healthcare as any other advanced democracy, with vastly worse outcomes for most of the population. It's like climate change: the evidence all points the same way. If you want a population able to work for low wages, you have to prop up their healthcare - or accept a dystopian nightmare where plebs die in their fifties and the elite live to a hundred and three. Even Ayn Rand did not walk that walk towards the end of her life. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This particularly struck me:

“THE CONSISTENT PATTERN that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms.”

— Network Propaganda

That explains a lot of the problems we have on our political articles. And let's not forget that Roger Ailes founded Fox News because he believed the real bad guys in Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Roger Ailes died at 77 and founded Fox News over 20 years ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@ JzG, My main point was however correct these generalisations against right wing sources may be, we should beware of prejudging and continue to assess them individually, ideally on an article by article bases.

Studies claiming the Dems have moved to the left these past 50 years do seem to be correct on certain social questions, and the shift is even more clear if we look further back. Once the Dems were the party of slavery. It might be interesting to reflect on how the very fair way Abe Lincoln treated those racist Dems gave them the space for their long leftward journey, also causing Abe to be venerated by isolated tribes across Asia who otherwise hadn’t even heard of the U.S. , and Tolstoy to say Abe was history's only real giant.

I guess it was hard for you to grasp my other points as you interpreted "fake news" in the narrow, original sense, while I was using the term in the broad sense as per the first line of our fake news article, which is now by far the most common. No worries, after re-reading network propaganda, I see I was wrong and you were right. Its an extremely insightful book. It was hard for me to see that straight away, as many of its assertions run counter to the accepted wisdom of those of us who work on the border of MediaLand and politics. No way was I expecting that a bunch of academics would know more than many of the brightest operators in the field. But looking closely, the data is on their side.

The authors generously made the book available for free download via open access – as you suggest it's an outstanding source for editors who want to improve how they judge the reliability of political media coverage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Democrats were never really pro-slavery, see Dixiecrat - it was an uneasy minority in the Democratic party and has become a much less uneasy minority in the Republican party. The Democratic platform has moved to the right economically (it now embraces a version of economics that most Republicans up to the end of the 20th Century would find largely acceptable) but society as a whole has become more socially liberal, and that applies to both parties. Only the extremists in the GOP would support recriminalising homosexuality, for example.
But the point of the book is not about bias, per se. It's about the recent disconnect between right wing media and the mainstream, leading to a positive feedback loop, hyperpartisanship and a false equivalency between fact and ideologically consonant bullshit. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Using new-ageist propaganda source discrediting me, the victim in the Ram Bahadur Bomjon article (and yet again and again)

The article Ram Bahadur Bomjon mentions my name Zsuzsanna Takacs as one of the victims of Ram Bomjon. Yet the information given in the article is untrue and based on a very dubious new-age style personal blog source (https://lalitmag.com/the-eternal/) while there had bee published numerous serious Nepali and Western media articles about my case, which are accurate. Moreover, this very propaganda source writes this: "We already know from first hand accounts that stories about kidnapping, etc, are all false… I carry the wind that the universe blows." By this the person who edited the article wanted to manipulate with the readers and try to give a sense that my kidnapping, torture, beatings and rape were made up. I protest against Wikipedia using their pages as a propaganda tool for a cult which caused my all-life handicap and caused hellish suffering to me and my fellow victims! Please correct the untrue information as myself am that victim and know best and replace it with a quote from one of the below links. This Wikipedia article had been a tool of manipulation by Bomjon's followers repeatedly, always sticking inside some of their own sources to alter the very clear information from dozens of mainstream media links.

From time to time, Bomjon's followers vandalize this entry to discredit the claims of his victims and manipulate with the readers. They do it covertly, seemingly supporting the claims, but then I am shocked that the Wikipedia editors do not ever click on the links provided to check if they re the proofs of the sentence's claims or rather redirecting the truth to some advertising of their guru.

Mainstream media links which could replace the unreliable cult-propaganda source:

THESE SOURCES DO MENTION MY NAME:

https://www.newsweek.com/buddha-boy-spiritual-leader-investigated-over-missing-followers-sexual-abuse-1281863

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/asia/top-stories/buddha-boy-leader-probed-over-missing-followers/ar-BBRXhlO — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Two women held captive in Bamjan's ashram Bamjan's aides free Slovak woman Buddha's men detain two women Buddha Boy men detain two women One foreign and one Nepali woman held captive

I have mentioned this and other problems of the given Wikipedia text on the Biographies of living persons Notice borad as well, as the concerned person mentioned in the text is myself.

ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna Takacs, The Halkhoriya TimesZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but none of those sources seem to mention you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also which information is untrue?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So I take it from you removal of the claim none of the information on the page is in fact incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
​ Done I've removed the defamatory claims. The content was originally added by Bhaktasha (talk · contribs) in this edit, and included links to self-published sources. I will also request revision deletion. — Newslinger talk 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

THESE SOURCES DO MENTION MY NAME:

https://www.newsweek.com/buddha-boy-spiritual-leader-investigated-over-missing-followers-sexual-abuse-1281863

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/asia/top-stories/buddha-boy-leader-probed-over-missing-followers/ar-BBRXhlO — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And how do these sources contradict what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I think ZsuzsannaTakacs is asking editors to replace the defamatory information (now removed) with information from Newsweek (and its republished article in MSN). — Newslinger talk 11:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Which is odd as the material (well the stuff about the kidnapping, which the user is talking about) is duplicated in the Newsweek source, it says exactly the same.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
​Thanks for noticing that. The edit that included the information added a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and I didn't expect Newsweek to echo the one claim that ZsuzsannaTakacs is disputing. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi ZsuzsannaTakacs, you have the option of adding this information to the article yourself, provided that you cite the Newsweek source. If you would rather ask other interested editors to make the edit, please post your suggestions on the article's talk page, at Talk:Ram Bahadur Bomjon. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
​If you see problems with the content in the Newsweek article, you can communicate with their staff using the contact information listed on their corrections page. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Newslinger, for the corrections. I am sorry I have no knowledge to edit Wikipedia articles, could you please do it? I lost my patience with the other editor's approach now and don't feel strong enough to struggle for my right not to be defamed, if I immediately get attacked. Thank you that you have a different approach. Could you please dd that quote from Newsweek yourself? The only mistake they write is that I was kidnapped from my hotel. ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So they are correct that the police rescued Ms Takacs?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, yes that is also not correct: police never came there, I have not seen them even the day of my release. Only after Bomjon had sent them on me, because I could not extend my visa while I was chained to that tree 3 months, and Bomjon told them I overstayed my visa, so i have found myself, raped and with broken two wrists (not arm) in immigration jail, untreated, with wounds and bruises... But that is another story. So yes, please also that is not true, police did not rescue me. I walked out after they were pressured to release me, and they took me in a car to Simara, until the police came for me and arrested me. I was barefoot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is we can only go with what RS say, you you have any sources for these claims?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact sources for this whole incident seem a bit scarce.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What or who is RS? Tell me concretely which incident is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

See wp:rs. We need reliable third party sources for any claim. What we seem to have here are two sources that contradict each other (and no way of knowing the source of the contradiction). But none say anything about Visa restrictions or jail.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in truth. Only when one tries to pick on the evident and ignore the logical. You can check the mention about me being kept in immigration custody (=jail in practice) on the Himalayan Hot-Potato Archives :"Marichi –– whose passport bears the name Zsuzsana Takacs –– came to Nepal to see Ram Bahadur Bamjan. She has been kept in the custody of Immigration Department in Kathmandu as her visa expired on June 3 last year." The original, s nearly all Bomjon-topic articles, had been deleted from The Himalayan times after a government intervention in autumn 2012. And this archived link surprisingly works... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally suggestions should be like "... should be changed to ..." or "... should be deleted". Otherwise is not clear what you want us to do. E.g., we're not connected to Newsweek. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What I mentioned as incorrect was already fixed by another editor, so thanks, now it is better. ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to add something about the murder-by-lynching accusations reported by two eye-witnesses, who brought police to raid the ashram: "“Around half a dozen disciples then beat the duo with sticks, pipes and kicks. Bomjon ordered to bury Waiwa’s body on the hill behind the house he lived in after Waiwa died, according to the witnesses. They claim Bomjon ordered to scatter around 25 packets of salt above the body. “Salt apparently helps in early decay of the body,” the witnesses reminisce.” Setopati

A more detailed article about the rape of 18 years old Gangamaya, who was a minor when first raped by Bomjon is here .

So I on't know, but there are just too many independent news which describe similar events that I am describing concerning Bomjon. It is not about two contradicting claims: as we, victims, do have physical evidence, witnesses, mainstream media writing about us, always mentioning the policemen's names who registered this or that criminal case about Bomjon - while the cult has only their new-agist propaganda to balance them. One should be really a conspiracy teorist not to see what is real and what is not in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The police raids are very recent, and are an emerging situation. I have asked at the relevant page talk page for local opinions about the reliability of a media source that documents these recent events in detail, as I'm not an expert in Nepali news media. However, inclusion of these within-the-last-week developments will depend on us finding references in reliable sources, not on any sort of conspiracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You might want to read wp:blp. Also not too sure about setopati.net as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup, without strong sources (not rumors) Wikipedia defaults to "he is innocent". Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this Kathmandu Post article with the photo of police raid does not look like "rumour", at least not as much as the personal opinion of some Helen in the original link which was shining there in Wikipedia for long, and describes nagas and mythical things as a "proof". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Till now these are allegations or ongoing investigations. We will write condemned for murder/rape after he is definitively convicted for it (and there are sources). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you delete my links, which are from Nepali mainstream media, again and again, and then accuse me of not showing reliable links? All the below ones are Nepal's oldest mainstream media houses, with about 20 years of leading position, also own TV channels: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2019-01-08/bodhi-shrawan-dharma-sangh-refutes-charges-against-bomjan.html - with photo of the digging while searching for the murdered body by CID police.

http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2019-01-06/police-suspect-missing-nun-sanchalal-waiba-murdered.html Photo of the raid. Names of policemen included.

https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/police-find-murder-clues-in-buddha-boy-s-ashram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating two things the alleged rape and the alleged murder. Some of the sources are about one, some appear to be about another, and none say it is true, only that it is an allegation. You are doing yourself no favours here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
See WP:PROMO for what's wrong with that. We're not a substitute for Police work or courts of law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Who are you replying to?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
To Z.T. She should also see WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ZsuzsannaTakacs, Wikipedia editors are only allowed to include information from reliable sources. We're not allowed to add original research. If Newsweek has incorrect information, then you'll want to request a correction from their editorial team or wait for different reports from other reliable sources.

If your first-hand experience conflicts with media reports, your best course of action is to get an interview with a reliable publication or news outlet. I'm very sorry for what you had to endure. However, Wikipedia is just a tertiary source, and not the right place to introduce new information that is not reported elsewhere.

Articles from The Kathmandu Post are generally reliable, but the information has to be presented neutrally in the article to meet Wikipedia's policies.

I've marked the article as a current event to let readers know that there are ongoing investigations, and that information in the article might become out-of-date as new developments emerge. — Newslinger talk 23:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on nude photos in Going commando

Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the reliable sources noticeboard? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Reliability

I've just reactivated WikiProject Reliability, and amended its scope to include three main goals:

  1. Improving the reliability of sources cited in articles
  2. Contributing to discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard
  3. Maintaining the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page

If you're interested, please feel free to add yourself as a participant of WikiProject Reliability. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are the section uneditable? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
​One of the transcluded templates on the page is adding __NOEDITSECTION__, but I'm not sure which one. I considered overhauling the project page some more, but WikiProject X is coming soon, and waiting for that might be a better option. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on List of Photographers

You are invited to comment on a discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers, which includes a dispute over the reliability of the New York Public Library's Photographers' Identity Catalog. Qono (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources

ONE TEMPLATE FOR ALL SOURCES:

There is a strong consensus for Option 1: One template for all sources that are deprecated.

Newslinger has incorporated Sunrise's suggestions into a modified template. The modified template can be implemented since it has not been objected to. But in the event of a dispute over the modified template's wording, the original option 1 template should be considered the default version since editors explicitly supported it.

The other options, Option 2: One template for each source, Option 3: RfC closing summary for each source, and Option 4: RfC link for each source received minimal discussion.

Cunard (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Among the 11 currently deprecated sources:

An edit filter request was submitted for WorldNetDaily at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 12 § WorldNetDaily, but the request was stalled because we don't have a suitable warning message.

The easy solution would be to adapt Special:AbuseFilter/869 and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail for each of the 4 deprecated sources that don't have an edit filter yet. Alternatively, we can modify Special:AbuseFilter/869 to cover all of the deprecated sources, and create a single warning template that applies to all deprecated sources.

What do you think is the best solution? — Newslinger talk 08:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated to include The Daily Caller. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Updated to include Last.fm, NNDB, and Rate Your Music. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful before we down this path of "deprecating sources". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should definitely be careful. Each of the seven sources listed above was deprecated after its RfC showed consensus to do so. The RfCs also showed consensus for adding edit filters (set to "warn") for these sources. The edit filters allowed by the RfCs don't prevent editors from citing these deprecated sources: it shows them a custom warning message when they try to cite them, and gives them the option to either submit or reconsider their edit. To implement the edit filter, we'll need to decide on the contents of the warning messages. This is a discussion on how to enforce current consensus, and any RfCs on whether a source should be deprecated still need take place on the noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The content of the edit filter message should correspond to the result of the relevant RfC. With the current Daily Mail filter, the text "If the only source you can find for the claims is the Daily Mail, then you should not add the content in question." may not be appropriate because the RfC does not mention anything like that. It should also contain more information from the RfC discussion, including (but not limited to) an exception for historical reliability. feminist (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to standardize the process as much as possible. Ideally the edit filter for each source would use a standard message with the agreed-upon definition of deprecation (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?), a link to that source's RfC, and any source-specific exceptions or caveats such as DM's historical reliability. I'm not sure what to make of the differing closing statements. "If the only source you can find for the claims is the Daily Mail, then you should not add the content in question" isn't really specific to that source; it's just the standard way that we handle claims that only appear in unreliable sources. Likewise, the Sun and the Daily Mail RfCs seem to be different ways of saying basically the same thing. They're both very well written, but these subtle differences are the type of thing that folks will use to argue that one is less restrictive than the other. I guess I'd like to see a situation where "there is consensus to deprecate this soure" carries a universal meaning, just as an AfD close can be written as "Consensus is Delete" instead of "There is consensus that this article, its talk page, and its edit history should be removed from English-language Wikipedia ..." Sorry for the long rant, but I feel that establishing a process would streamline the whole thing and prevent future difficulties. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn’t anything TO standardize. Each of these sources was depreciated for unique reasons, and each closure spells out a different definition of what being “depreciated” actually means. Each has unique limitations on using the source, and unique “exceptions” to those limitations. Thus, we HAVE to take each case individually. Indeed, we need to look at every citation individually to see if it fits the unique “exceptions”. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Got here because I was curious why so many of the deprecated sources didn't have edit filters. Why can't we just send a warning that says, "This source is deprecated" with a link to the appropriate discussion? Good-faith editors will check it out. Bad-faith editors won't bother to read even the most carefully-crafted message unique to a given source. If we come up with a better solution later, we make a change, but in the meantime good-faith editors are being made aware that a source they're trying to use is deprecated. Am I stupidly missing some important point? valereee (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Prior arguments were RfC: use of edit filter against unreliable sources and Edit filter for the Daily Mail. The wording of the Daily Mail edit filter is not what the closers of WP:DAILYMAIL said, and this looks like an extension so that more edit filters will display contentious essay-based summaries instead of RfC results. Oppose. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome to suggest improvements to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail and the new proposed templates. However, if you want to overturn previous decisions, you'll need to start a new RfC at WP:RSN. — Newslinger talk 18:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you welcome it or not, opposing proposals that don't use what the closers said is legal, and the idea that following an RfC requires overturning is not based on logic that I'm familiar with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
​To clarify, I meant that the RfCs (including the eight deprecation RfCs and the two additional RfCs you linked in your previous comment) established that there should be an edit filter of some kind for all of the deprecated sources. The original Daily Mail RfC concluded that "An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference", which corresponds to the "warn" setting described in Wikipedia:Edit filter § Basics of usage. Since all of the other deprecation RfCs are based on the original Daily Mail RfC, they're also subject to the same edit filter treatment. As a result, this discussion is about the content of the warning templates that are required to implement the edit filters, and not whether there should be edit filters in the first place. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but if you don't want the edit filters implemented at all, then your best course of action would be to start another RfC on WP:RSN that overturns the previous ones. If you're disputing only the content of the templates, then you're welcome to share your preferred versions of the warning messages here. — Newslinger talk 21:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I said "oppose" to your proposals, not to an edit filter, and I too am sorry that you misunderstood and continue to misunderstand. Why you want to make such proposals, rather than accept what the RfC closers said, is your affair, but opposing them is anyone's right. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
​The verbatim closing statements of the RfCs are not appropriate for warning templates (unless displayed alongside a summary), because they are too long. Having no words in the templates is also inappropriate, because editors of all skill levels expect to understand why their edit was filtered without having to read a long debate (although the RfC is linked in the templates for those who do). Your "Oppose" !votes at "RfC: use of edit filter against unreliable sources" and "Edit filter for the Daily Mail" were minority viewpoints, and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail was implemented in Special:AbuseFilter/869 despite your opposition. If your only objection is that these templates lack the "explicit approval" of the closers, this can be resolved through another RfC. But, if you would like to suggest different wording than what is proposed below, you're still welcome to do so. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with some of the above but think further argument wouldn't interest others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter Gulutzan and Valereee, I've added "Option 3: RfC closing summary for each source" and "Option 4: RfC link for each source" below, which is what I think you're proposing. I don't want to misrepresent your views, so please feel free to edit them to something that would be acceptable to you if I got something wrong. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe "3" and "4" should not refer to your "deprecated sources" essay, and the closing statements of Daily Mail don't contain the word "deprecate", so I'd change the start of all "3"s to: "An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to (name of source). A request for comment at (link to RfC) concluded: (text)." and the start of all "4"s to: "An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to (name of source). A request for comment about this source is at (link to RfC)." I don't know whether "3" or "4" address concerns from valereee or feminist. I don't know whether it's proper to change The Daily Mail warning without notifying more editors. I don't know why this would not apply for Breitbart, its RfC is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template that simply links to the closing statements of the relevant RFCs. This would alert editors to the potential problems with using the source (and situations where the source shouldn’t be used)... yet also ensure that editors understand that there are nuances, caveats and exceptions that exist (situations where the source can be used). Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
​I've just applied the changes you described. We might want to run these templates through a new RfC, but we should probably wait until everyone gets their proposals in the workshop first. Breitbart News and InfoWars are excluded because they're already blacklisted (on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist), and an edit filter wouldn't make a difference. — Newslinger talk 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that an administrator spamlisted Breitbart despite the Breitbart RfC and a removal request was declined. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
​Removal inquiries should be directed to JzG, the administrator who added Breitbart to the spam blacklist. Once the edit filter is in place, it may be worth considering removing Breitbart from the spam blacklist and applying the edit filter as a lesser restriction to be consistent with the other deprecated sources. This would only be done if links to Breitbart are no longer being spammed. — Newslinger talk 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Template workshop

These templates use {{edit filter warning}}, which is also used in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-dailymail. — Newslinger talk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: One template for all sources

With one template for all sources, we could implement all of the warnings with just one edit filter. However, the message would be confusing to editors who try to add links to more than one domain in one edit. The message would also lack a direct link to the RfC that shows consensus for deprecation, and the editor would have to click through Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to find it. — Newslinger talk 11:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I like option 1, as a starting place to simply make progress while we tweak a more perfect solution. I'm nto too concerned about confusion when editors try to add links to more than one domain in a single edit; I feel that's a move made by fairly expert editors who will know how to figure out the issue. valereee (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't the filter display the link(s) that triggered the message in the message? I thought that was possible. Or the filter could call the template with specific parameters depending on which source(s) was/were used? I would also support having only one template that links to an overview page and if the template could automatically display the links that triggered it, it would also be sufficiently informational. Regards SoWhy 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi JzG, as an edit filter manager who has contributed to these templates, do you have any insight on whether this is possible? — Newslinger talk 09:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I support this, especially if there is a way to name the specific source per SoWhy. The description is brief and clear, directing the reader to WP:DEPS for a more in-depth plain English explanation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the simplicity of this option. With a link to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources where an editor is given simple information and links to in-depth detail should an editor really require it . To my limited understanding it allows for easy expansion if other poor sources are added. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy and others, it is not possible to have the message be customized based on what source was blocked; but this (Option 1) is the only viable option since one filter for every source would get out of hand really fast. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Thanks for the update. I opened phab:T216001 to request a check whether such functionality could be added. That said, I'd prefer Option 1 even without it since clearly linking to a page where all the sources are mentioned is sufficient (the warning should probably be more prominent, e.g. by adding a sentence like "You can find an overview of all deprecated sources alongside explanations at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources"). Regards SoWhy 08:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added the suggested sentence to the above template mockup. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ideally we would have the name of the specific source in the message, but since I understand that's not possible that makes this the best option. Since it seems likely this will be the basis for the final version, I have a few thoughts on improvements:
  • I think there should be a brief description of what "deprecate" means for those unfamiliar with the term, ideally a direct reference to the fact that whether they’re acceptable is determined by WP:RS. This would also give an opportunity to link RS more prominently than in the current version, which I think is especially important in order to avoid confusing new editors. For instance, it could be inserted as sentence 2, e.g. These sources usually fail Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability. Other options would include using it as an opening clause to the current sentence 2 (e.g. These sources usually fail Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability, and references to deprecated sources are generally prohibited, especially when more reliable sources exist.) or replacing the first link with the description (e.g. An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a source that usually fails Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability. References to these sources...)
  • I would replace the word "overview" with "list," since as long as the name of the source is not in the message, since I think that's what people who read the message are most likely to be looking for and "overview" is a bit nonspecific for that. I would also remove "do" from "If you do believe...
  • The request to discuss on the associated talk page should include a link, if it's possible. I’m assuming it is since it's on various templates: it looks like the syntax is {{#if:{{{talk|}}}|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#{{{talk}}}{{!}}talk page]]|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}{{!}}talk page]]}}.
--Sunrise (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The above template mockup incorporates Sunrise's suggestions. The talk page link syntax is included, but it doesn't show a link because we are currently on a talk page. Suggestions for changes to "which generally does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability" or any other portion of the message are welcome. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I adjusted the first sentence a bit more to try and improve the flow, although a split into two sentences might work better. Also, if this is formally closed at some point, for the avoidance of doubt I'd like to emphasize that this should not be interpreted as a counter-proposal in opposition to the first version, but rather as as a way it could be further developed given (as seems to be the case) the already-existing consensus in favor of the original. Sunrise (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is important that an editor knows which particular source inserted in an edit triggers the filter. A generic filter for any source is counter-productive as it forces the editor to spend time checking which source has to be replaced. feminist (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Option 2: One template for each source

This requires one edit filter for each source, each of which is linked to a unique template. Editors receive a tailored message for the specific source they're trying to link to. The message contains a link to the relevant RfC and mentions exceptions to the deprecation, including WP:ABOUTSELF and any other exceptions carved out in the RfC. — Newslinger talk 11:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I like this layout. It is clear and succinct, even for novice editors, and a more in-depth explanation is only a click away. It addresses two questions which lead to frustration and disruption when unanswered: "why am I seeing this message?" and "what should I do if I disagree?" –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Option 3: RfC closing summary for each source

This option was constructed using feedback above from Peter Gulutzan. Including the RfC closing summaries verbatim is uncontroversial, and helps ensure that edit filters are put in place for newly deprecated sources promptly after consensus is established. However, the longer closing summaries may be intimidating or difficult to understand for less experienced editors. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this version. Closing statements have very little meaning outside of the connected discussion and are often nonsensical to the novice editor. For example, the Occupy Democrats statement does not actually explain what "deprecation" means before listing the exceptions; the reader is instead referred to WP:DAILYMAIL (via a link) and Breitbart (above???). The template should provide a plain English summary of what it is that we're trying to communicate, not send the reader down a rabbit hole of Wikilegalese. –dlthewave ☎ 18:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Option 4: RfC link for each source

This option was constructed using feedback above from Valereee and Peter Gulutzan. Editors see a link to the deprecation RfC, which is uncontroversial and easy to implement. Including only the link encourages editors to read the discussion, but also requires them to navigate to another page before they can understand when it's (un)acceptable for the deprecated source to be used. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment behind simply linking to the RfC, but it's still important to have some explanation of why the reader is seeing the message. This version does not convey the fact that there are special restrictions on the source in question and may easily be mistaken for a filter that notifies editors every time they try to use any source that has been mentioned in an RfC. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Next steps

The above discussion has stalled for a month. What are the next steps?

A closure has been requested at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources, but I'm not sure where to go from here. — Newslinger talk 05:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Header text

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Even though it has been 106 days since the last edit to this RfC and it has been archived, it still deserves a formal close. Based on both the number and the strength of arguments below there is a rough consensus in favor of including the proposed text. Although judging consensus is not merely a matter of counting noses, there are more editors in favor of the text and the opposing views are mostly couched in terms of convenience and preference of regular RSN readers. The exact wording of the text itself has also been cited in objections, but that can be addressed through the normal editing cycle. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header include the following text, shown in Special:Diff/896371688?

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here.

— Newslinger talk 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

With regards to the four-answer RfC format, the second sentence of the proposal only says that people sometimes use it if they want to start an RfC. It doesn’t say anything about when to use it, so that isn’t directly an issue for this RfC. That said, I have no objection to adding something about that if agreement can be reached. And if the usefulness of the format comes up, I will point out the recently-closed TRT World RfC, which was nearly inactive for a month before being relisted, but subsequently became a productive discussion after I added the options (before and after). Sunrise (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Newslinger now acknowledges that only some of the listed items were of the supposedly common format, and I'll in turn acknowledge that's maybe more than 0.00001% of the discussions that have been on WP:RSN. Re (1): I believe the contradiction should be clear to a careful reader; re (2): Newslinger is correct that I am referring to Newslinger's essay, and I apologize for my false and careless statement that it was promoted by Newslinger rather than Sunrise; re (3): Newslinger is incorrect that I objected to deprecating, I objected to what is being misleadingly called deprecation; re (4): Newslinger's "filibustering" accusation is something I will ignore, apparently it's used here as a synonym for "commenting"; re (5): I think it is correct that JzG coined this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - There are a lot of garbage websites out there that should never be used as a source for any Wikipedia article, and the community should be able to judge them as such without the need for going through them on a case by case basis. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Some sources really are just complete trash, and should be deprecated explicitly. We shouldn't have to go around them again and again and again - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The format is convoluted. As the Daily Caller RfC's closer Drmies confirmed here, an editor who opposes deprecation must explicitly "oppose deprecation" and !voting for a lesser option does not imply opposing deprecation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No There are too many bad sources to deprecate. The current procedure seems fine. If a source is actually used in an article, it can be challenged here. The result of the discussion may be that the source itself is less than reliable and any editor may then post the editors' views at Perennial Sources. Besides, in the vast majority of cases, it should be possible for competent editors to quickly determine reliability. TFD (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: RSN is the logical place to hold RfCs on general reliability / deprecation of sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No one poorly attended discussion can result in an unreasonable and unfair decision, and the reliability of sources can change over time so a sequential approach is best imv, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The deprecation RfCs and the Perennial Sources page have helped avoid rehashing some of these, well, perennial discussions. It's good to make others aware of this common practice. –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Same as Dlthewave, I waste a lot of time going through a rigmarole about certain sources - it is possible to discern between wheat and chaff, so why not do it? Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the general idea. Still not a fan option 4 though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No for now I think encouraging RfCs will lead to an even increased flood of them. Formal RfCs should be used when local consensus is not clear or needs to be challenged. RfC should not be a first resort but a last. If there are 10 or more RfCs here all the time, won't it decrease participation and cause them to be ignored by people watching for RfCs? If the wording of the proposed text were changed with some advice to reflect this I would support it. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. If you can't tell us what subject you want to write about, then we can't evaluate the source usefully (unless it's pure garbage, in which case, you probably don't really need to be asking anyway). Also, this noticeboard has a specific function, and filling the noticeboard with requests to please rule that every magazine or website I dislike can't be used anywhere for anything interferes with the main function. Those conversations can and IMO should be had elsewhere. This page should be reserved for questions about source+article+statement, not "So I think this magazine is bad, so can I declare it 'generally unreliable'?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I see some of the comments on this subject as ultimately driven by opposition to deprecation as a concept (to the point that some of the arguments cited above are actually about opposing deprecation instead of addressing the actual question). However, in response the main point is the same as in the first paragraph of my comment above: we have an existing consensus based on the precedent of over a dozen RfCs, most with medium to high participation, and some of which were formally closed against the same arguments being repeated here (e.g. [5] [6], section links here and here). I would also note the RfC on this page about the language to use in the deprecation edit filter, which was closed with a strong consensus; such a result would be highly implausible if the community did not already consider deprecation to be valid. WP:RS itself contains multiple comparable reliability evaluations, including entire categories of sources (e.g. search the word "generally"), and the word "deprecate" in this context is used as a wikt:term of art defined at the relevant page in exactly the same way that we use the word "reliable". Sunrise (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit intro

Have you all ever seen the buttons on wiki that type the format of what you're supposed to write, straight in the edit box? So if, for example, you want people to list the name of the article, the name of the source, and the sentence that's supposed to be supported by it, then it might give you (in the old wikitext editors) something that looks like this: 

* The source I'm asking about is:  (Please include a link, if possible)
* The Wikipedia article I'm asking about is:  [[NAME OF ARTICLE HERE]]
* The content I'm asking about is:  (Replace this with the exact statement that would be in the article)
* The reason I'm asking is:  

~~~~

This is in addition to the orange Wikipedia:Editnotice, but it should have a higher success rate (because it's right there in front of you).

You can see a version of this on Wikinews (be careful that you don't accidentally save that test page!).

Would you like to try this for this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEWATCH Launch

See this Signpost article that was published today. This has been the results of nearly 9 months of efforts. Feel free to share the article (and the WP:SOURCEWATCH link) to relevant people and communities you may know! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And it even lists MIT Technology Review as a "hijacked journal" when Beall does not treat it as such. Out of the 4000 sources listed as likely to be bad, a substantial majority are respected journals, with articles on Wikipedia stating them as peer-reviewed journals per WP:RS. This list should have been vetted with far more care than it has been. And I do not understand what obviously proper "blue wikilinks" are doing as "bad cites" in any event. As over 30,000 articles are affected, and the rationale of the "list" was to instantly deprecate anything remotely "pseudoscientific" (including religious articles) or "not WP:TRUTH", I fear I find the project has significant and fatal flaws as it stands. It needs to get down to under 1000 journals to be usable, IMHO. And note that a huge number were removed by Beall from his list but we would be making the removal non-existent. I recommend that all entries which are not on his list, and which represent journals generally considered as meeting WP:RS be removed before some tabloids get ahold of it. Collect (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The massive "Disclaimer / Warning" at the top of WP:SOURCEWATCH provides a complete explanation of the project and appropriate guidance on how to properly use the list. "This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them." Regarding the MIT Technology Review, the list says: "Hijacked journals are legitimate academic journals with imposters pretending to be the legitimate publication. These citations are likely not problematic, but it is good to check that the real journal is being cited." — Newslinger talk 23:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Where the objections were made well before "publication" and no efforts were made to remove the most blatant errors, how useful is the massive list? If it were reduced by 80%, it "might" be useful, but its current state makes its "disclaimer" risible. Note that the list is huge, vast, all encompassing, and containing thousands of recognized major journals. Sorry - it needed to be checked and vetted and not rely on a strangely worded "disclaimer" - Really. Collect (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
SourceWatch doesn't claim that all of the sources on the list are questionable. For the journals on Beall's "Hijacked Journals" list, SourceWatch advises editors to check whether Wikipedia citations point to the authentic journal. For example, since TECH REV: Technology Review is a predatory journal that masquerades as MIT Technology Review, interested editors can check citations of MIT Technology Review to ensure that they point to the actual MIT journal, and not the predatory journal. Nothing on SourceWatch makes any claims against the reliability of MIT Technology Review or the other authentic journals on the "Hijacked Journals" list. As this is all explained on the page, I'm not seeing any "blatant errors". — Newslinger talk 03:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"it even lists MIT Technology Review as a "hijacked journal" when Beall does not treat it as such." It does. See [7]. There's also a lot of misconceptions and false claims in that post, no theology journal is including simply for being about religion, for example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm dubious about the claim "The SourceWatch is something that should be usable by the community at large." It seems to give weight to what editors have added in article categories or pages that have no more than essay status, which I fear means bypassing discussion of reliability by editors on WP:RSN, and indeed would be contrary to what editors (by which I mean people (I hope)) are supposed to do always: examine individual claims in their context according to WP:RS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The "Disclaimer/Warning" on WP:SOURCEWATCH advises editors to discuss sources on this noticeboard: "The SourceWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source)." — Newslinger talk 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you read the WP:RS/N discussion on misuse of sources to have them say the precise and exact opposite of what they say.' The "hijacked journal" is the "sham" while all the sources call the "authentic journals" "authentic." WP:RS/N#Hijacked_journal_problems Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Mass purging is regarded as potentially disruptive behaviour which can lead to blocking, yet that quote says you can go ahead (but discuss "things" first) (but you don't have to discuss unless you're doubtful). I read this so-called disclaimer as actually advocacy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You're reading the warning in a really perverted way then. By the time you get there, you were warned about the multitudes of ways that being listed on the SourceWatch isn't prima facie evidence that a source is unreliable. I removed all references to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology a few months back. The other day another one popped up, so I squashed it again. This is not something that I needed to discuss at the RSN, because it's patently obvious that this is not a reliable source. This would not the be same if I started to remove all references to say WP:SOURCEWATCH#Frontiers Media journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That said, if you have improvements to the wording of anything, please make suggestions at WT:SOURCEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a proposal to do anything, so no need to argue further. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Can this system by gamed?

Assume for a moment that for ideological reasons a fairly large number of Wikipedia editors dislike some reliable sources and like other, unreliable sources. Given the above assumption, is there any way that this list of questionable sources be gamed in such a way that it can be weaponized in the ongoing bare-knuckle, no-rules brawl between Team Blue and Team Red? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that this is as 'gameable' as any of the original sources themselves. Debate about whether something on Beall's list (or Quackwatch, or anything) is reliable has occurred countless of times. The answer with Beall is usually Beall was right, this is a garbage journal, but since Beall classified questionable journals alongside literally zero academic worth journals, these discussions often result in 'Yeah this is published by X, which isn't the greatest, it's not zero worth'. Facts backed up by those journals would usually fail a WP:MEDRS check, but would be often be considered perfectly valid sources for basic claims that aren't at the cutting edge of research (e.g. Foobarin is a complex protein discovered by James of Foo in 1942) and aren't used to back up completely wild OR/POV claims. Likely all this list will be doing is accelerate the rate at which those discussions occur, since it makes finding these potential problematic citations easier.
The list is a tool, and like any other tool it can be abused if you really want to. But you'd have to ignore the bigass disclaimer the top of the list, saying that the SourceWatch is only a starting point, that it's not perfect, that it doesn't know the full context in which a source is used, and tells you that you shouldn't go on a mass purge without discussing things at the RSN first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia editors determined en mass to ignore policy, they could. Or they could change the rules. But in general, topics are distorted by distorting the facts presented or the weight of content. TFD (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it could be, but then almost any thing is hypothetically possible.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it has already happened before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay to request review of a source for general use across music articles?

I discovered SecondHandSongs, a site dedicated to documenting the history of songs from the perspective of their being covered, and they seem potentially reliable. I was about to post on the noticeboard to get feedback, but it appears that we need to be specific about exactly what claims on which articles are in question with regard to specific individual sources; there are hundreds or even thousands of articles this source might be useful for, and I was rather hoping to just discuss the condition of the site's editorial oversight and their own sourcing. Shall I go ahead and create the request on the noticeboard? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It doers not appear to have any editorial oversight that I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Not a direct answer, but you may find this list compiled by WikiProject Albums to be useful. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for responding; on second thoughts, I'll take it to WikiProject Music instead. Probably too specific for "general reliability" discussion here. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Financial Times unpaywalled

For the next ~24 hours the Financial Times has dropped its paywall. A great opportunity for Wikimedians needing to check sources (or submit them to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Now paywalled again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors who use Firefox or Chrome might be interested in a browser extension called Bypass Paywalls, which allows your browser to disable paywalls on a number of news sites (currently 76 of them). You can install the Firefox version and the Chrome version from the respective links.

Also, editors with at least 500 edits and 6 months of experience can sign up for The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, which provides access to a variety of paywalled content from academic publishers, newspaper archives, and other sources that normally require paid subscriptions. — Newslinger talk 04:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat

If another Bellingcat RFC is opened in the future, I think that its alleged links with the Integrity Initiative should be taken into consideration.     ←   ZScarpia   12:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Saltwater crocodile

Excuse me. I have three sources here: https://projectorangutan.com/salt-water-crocodile/, https://marinebio.org/species/saltwater-crocodiles/crocodylus-porosus/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-heaviest-living-reptiles-in-the-world.html. See if which one of them is reliable source to provethe saltwater crocodile is the largest living reptile. --Manwë986 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see the telegraph (which is an RS) makes the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I ask again: Apart from the telegraph, which one of the other sources I placed earlier is a reliable source? --Manwë986 (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Village Pump: Proposals

I've started a discussion here about a proposal to have semi-regular RfCs about sources from systemically-biased-against regions (and topics) in order to reduce systemic bias (particularly in relation to new page patrols). Editors watching this page are encouraged to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

List of deprecated sources somewhere? Which bot identifies them when editing an article?

Ashley Alexiss (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was giving me a message about a deprecated source in it somewhere after I went over the article. I can't get the message to appear again, so I'm guessing I removed the ref and the bot was misbehaving. How do I check? I assume there's a list somewhere that a bot is using. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We have around 1300 cites to Reddit, excluding IAmAs.

I just noticed, in a quick search, that we have roughly 1300 cites to Reddit, excluding R/IAmA. At a quick glance, the vast majority of these seem totally unusable - often just cites to random reddit posts saying something. Even the IAmAs, though they often pass WP:SPS / WP:ABOUTSELF, should probably get a look, but the ~1300 cites in that link are almost all unusable. Unsure if this is worth raising anywhere, but I thought I'd mention it here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Can they be converted to the original source if its reliable ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • In a few cases, but in the majority that I've glanced at, either there's no original source (ie. it's just some anonymous user saying something), or the original source is unreliable (eg. a screenshot of someone's twitter feed). Right now the ones at the very top of the search lean more towards borderline because I've been removing the obviously unusable ones as I come across them, but even they don't generally seem easy to convert. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining, that is a pain to resolve Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on mainstream newspapers as RS

See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Mainstream newspapers: please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Automatic archiving not fully working

In the past month, Lowercase sigmabot III has not archived a significant number of discussions on this noticeboard that have been inactive for at least 5 days (the duration set in the User:MiszaBot/config template at the top of the noticeboard page). These discussions do not contain the DoNotArchiveUntil tag. Since the bot operator did not respond to my inquiry at User talk:Σ § Automated archiving on the reliable sources noticeboard, I am now going to use OneClickArchiver to manually archive all discussions that:

  • Have not received any new comments within the last 5 days, and
  • Do not contain a DoNotArchiveUntil tag

Hopefully, Lowercase sigmabot III will work smoothly after this one-time operation. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This problem appears to be recurring. "Is wikispooks.com a reliable source or should it be deprecated?" is an example of a discussion that was not archived after almost 8 days of inactivity. If anyone else sees discussions on the noticeboard that are not archived despite meeting the above criteria, please help reduce the clutter by archiving it manually. Scripts like OneClickArchiver can help. — Newslinger talk 08:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_6"