User talk:Uwishiwazjohng/Alternative News Weeklies

I believe that alternative news weeklies need to be used with caution. They are not always reliable sources. I came to this opinion from being involved in a long edit war that still continues to this day. I am on somewhat of a quest, to make sure that Wikipedians use these sources appropriately

Below are all the comments I could find regarding Alternative new weeklies on Wikipedia:RSN.

The SF Weekly in particular is a target of mine. It is a local paper and while I do like it, it should not always be considered a reliable source for encyclopedic content. Scroll down to the bottom of the SF Weekly page and see what Yelp users have to say about the article. They don't always complain about the quality of the writing, nor are they consistent, but the general sentiment is that the paper's feature articles can not be considered fact.

In particular, one article I had a problem with used a source about which this was written SF Weekly: Letters to the Editor: Con Art: Poorly spoken. Not a huge vote of confidence.

I searched Wikipedia for how many times SF Weekly was used as a reference. On the day I did this, it was 202. I didn't read through all of them, but in general, the articles mostly mention how the SF Weekly voted the subject of the article best something of the year. In the case of the article I was disputing, the subject of the article was a secondary subject in the sources, so I would guess that the fact checking about this person's claims would be minimal to non-existent. That statement is bolstered by the editorial above. When SF Weekly was used to support a fact, it was used carefully, similar to the way User:Yilloslime suggests below, as in "Tom Lehrer has said that ..."

sfweekly

On the Violet Blue page a section about VB's attempt to file a restraining order against WP editor BenBurch was removed for WP:Note. After the removal, an article was published in sfweekly that covers the issue. So whether the material gets added back in seems to hinge upon whether sfweekly is a reliable source. Editor Tabercil notes on the discussion page for violet blue that sfweekly is used at least 475 times on wikipedia. SFWEEKLY is a well established publication, with significant ad revenues, professional staff, and both RL and Online circulation. Here's the sfweekly page, http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-08-20/news/sex-columnist-violet-blue-tries-to-restrain-online-foes/ Any thoughts?C4VC3 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For goings-on in SF and the Bay Area, the SF weekly is a reliable source. It is one of 2 Alt weeklies serving SF. It is a "real" newspaper, with significant distribution and readership, an editorial board, professional reporters, etc. Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Skinny, The Aquarian Weekly

Are The Skinny (magazine) (some information about it here) and The Aquarian Weekly reliable sources? They obviously seem to be, but I would like to be sure whether they really are. Thanks everybody for answering :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Skinny is a "listings" throwaway, it appears. I suppose it is valid for dates something was scheduled to happen, but not much else (no sign of "editorial oversight" to be sure.) Aquarian would depend on when the cite occured in its strange history. I would not recommend using it for political facts when it was unchecked radicalism <g>. Collect (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some album reviews like this or this...?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Aquarian might be reliable, based on this jobs page. It's hard to say since it may be they want to hire editors, but don't have any now. The Skinny doesn't give enough to go by on there about page. I would say The Aquarian probably, The Skinny probably not. It would be nice to know more about their staffs and editorial policies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Skinny seems like a ragtag thing that is dumped in pubs for bored people to pick up. It doesn't look RS to me. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative weeklies like The Aquarian Weekly, the Boston Phoenix, and The Village Voice are reliable secondary sources just like other newspapers. A listings magazine like The Skinny is probably reliable but the listings section would be a primary source. You could use it to say when a band was playing or for uncontroversial reviews but not to demonstrate notability for the band. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are not only listings on The Skinny homepage. There are also reviews like this or even propper articles like this. These are secondary sources...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Guardian.co.uk. states:"The Skinny is the online wing of one of the best listings mags in Britian. "Fresh journalism from a talented and expanding pool of over 50 locally based writers … actively involved in the different cultural scenes they cover." So … the skinny straight from the hipster's mouth, as it were."[1]. Are their reviews and articles from the online wing of The Skinny non-reliable?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is probably reliable, based on this. They appear to have at least one level of editor above the writers. Probably two, since Jamie Borthwick (from the above review) isn't on the editor list. In general, this is the kind of thing you want to look for. Everybody has writers, what we require is editorial oversight, someone checking the writing for accuracy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative New Weeklies

I have two questions. Sorry if this has been asked already, 1. Are Alternative News Weeklies, such as those published by Village Voice Media, or local weeklies, such as the Bay Area's 'East Bay Express' considered reliable? 2. Also, is anything that is not Op/Ed, such as an arts interview written by a stringer for national publication like the San Francisco Chronicle, considered reliable?

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

w/r/t/ #1: Generally, yes, but it depends on the specifics. For example, the features in East Bay Express are certainly reliable when it comes to news in the Bay Area. It's reviews of music, theatre, art, etc, are citable too. But it's opinion pieces, columns, and such are probably not reliable sources for factual information. Opinions expressed therein may be citable under certain circumstances, though.

Specifically, if a reporter for one of these outfits interviews another person for a piece and the person is quoted as saying, "I did X, and worked with Y person" can we assume it's fact-checked and reliable? Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Without specifics I wouldn't want to say for sure, but can't you just phrase it like, "So and so told such and such paper that ..."? Yilloslime (t) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

w/r/t #2: what's a stringer? Yilloslime (t) 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stringer_(journalism) Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)