Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

CTSWyneken's Summary of Discussion

CTSWyneken, The last dozen posts to the subject of list archives have been in the section immediately above and is titled, "Further Revision of Electronic mailing list archives", which is a subsection of "Revised proposed text" which in turn is a subsection of "Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives." Now you create new headings, reframing the discussion from that of "revisions of proposed text" to all comers versus your version, that you falsely and repeatedly claim is the "consensus" and "original" version. Against your alledgedly accepted version, you deridingly call Doright's a "unilateral version," which can have no effect other than to "poison the well," and to make the casual reader think your position carries greater authority. This is shabby rhetoric and a waste of our time. If you want to join in the discussion, please feel free, but don’t create POV forks, they are a nuisance. Other editors and admins pointed out this kind of behavior in your failed attempt to become an admin. Please stop it. -Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Since this conversation has ranged across several subheads, Let me try to summarize what's being said here.

We have two proposed texts:

CTSWyneken's Alternative adjusted version

(title clarification added by Doright)--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Written by CTSWyneken, adjusted in conversation with two editors and posted:

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available.

Proposed alternative

Written by Doright, unilaterally substituted for the original version.

CTSWyneken, please stop this corrosive rhetoric.--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Antisemitism), that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Other proposed alternative

Written by Alienus in response to discussion

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If the contents of a list are available on the web in an archive or forum so that they can be verified, they can be cited and carry all the authority (if any) of the author. Citations must include the name of the author, message subject line, archive or forum name (and URL) and date. A good faith effort must be made to ensure that the named person is in fact associated with the email address used, and as always, that they are notable. Al 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Summaries to follow when a moment presents itself.

CTSWyneken's Summary of discussion so far

(title clarification added by Doright) NB: This summary is misleading and skirts many issues. I'm not interested in having a meta-debate over CTSWyneken's Summary. I advise interested editors to read the appropriate section for themselves and to respond, if desired, at the appropriate location. The below is a POV fork. --Doright 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: please do not engage any of these points here. Go to the comments section below. You may feel free, of course, to edit these to reflect what has actually been said, or add something I missed. I'm hoping this will serve as an "executive summary" to help us focus.

Points agreed to

1. Archives of scholarly email-based discussion groups, when moderated and posts signed can be allowed as evidence that a scholar said words attributed to him or her.--CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Favoring full endorsement of moderated discussion archives

1. Moderated groups are at least filtered, if not vetted and so should be allowed without qualification.
2. Scholarly literature relies on rare and unique sources all the time. We would be unable to say nearly as much in scholarly discourse if we do not cite them. One of the things students of these disciplines must take into account is it may become impossible to verify a citation. It tends to weaken the case case for an argument when this happens, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it. --CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Favoring "Last Resort" language

1. Emails have very little, if any jurying. While we may be more or less confident that a scholar wrote the emails in question, we cannot assume the work has been reviewed in the same manner a scholarly journal article or monograph is reviewed.
2. Email archives are often not backed up, are rarely mirrored at other sites and when backed up are often done on unstable media by preservation standards. (no degrading of information on the master item under 100 years of storage in optimal environment) It is better to depend upon items which exist in a number of placed.--CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright Attacks Again

Please cease characterizing my opinions, misstating facts and attacking people. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to Clarify Issues, Once Again

Since there are a few new editors in on the discussion, let me once again try to summarize the issues here.

The current version

The current version has been contributed to by more people than your so-called “consensus” that you slammed into the article. I suggest interested editors not rely upon these summaries.

CTSWyneken, Please cease characterizing my contributions, misstating facts and attacking people. I view this summary like your last, as biased. They take up more space in the table of contents on this page than any other single topic. Perhaps you might consider not making a new heading in the TOC each time you attack me, like here and here --Doright 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

History

A text was composed and adjusted by three of us. Here is the place where we were just before the text was posted: state of discussion before guideline added

This is the form that I posted at that time: Guideline addred

User Doright then substituted his own version without first discussing the guideline. See Doright's unilateral replace and Doright's first talk page contribution after guideline post.

Since then, some discussion has occured, while I have reverted the text to the original guideline and Doright has either reverted to his version or replaced the original version with modified versions of his own, reflecting views he agrees with.

If no one thinks this kind of behavior a problem, I will drop it.

Where everyone seems to agree

High quality lists are solid enough to quote as sources.

Issues

Three of us at least believe these sources to be of lesser quality than formally published works, especially those formally juried.

1. One of us argues the fact that electronic sources are easily faked, hacked and are backed up, if at all, on unreliable media.
2. My argument is that emails tend to be written more quickly than typical publications, tend to be less well researched and do not have the formal review that goes into journal articles and books.

Because of this, we put "last resort" language into the article.

So far, the new folk have yet to reply to the original guideline. So, may I ask, what do folks find unacceptable in it?

It is:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message. Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen Doright spell out what problems he has with the black box warning that he so avidly removes either. (In fact I'd prefer to have it in.) Dr Zak 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Doright Version

Rather than contiuing to revert Doright's unilateral text insertion, I have revised the text currently on the page to add the concerns of Coolcaesar, SteveMcCluskey, Dr Zak and I. The reasons why we feel this way are outlined above. If anyone objects, please explain why here so that we can discuss it. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ArXiv preprints and conference abstracts

I'd like to add a statement to the discussion of sources in Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine that ArXiv preprints and conference abstracts are not peer reviewed publications and should not be cited.

I know there are good pieces on ArXiv, but I've seen a number of ArXiv papers cited on Wikipedia that seem to be little more than self-published pieces that would not be likely to be approved by a refereed journal.

Conference abstracts pose a similar problem, where controversial topics are accepted for a conference but get shot down as soon as they're presented (or soon after).

I think an encyclopedia (even one on the internet) can hold off citing the good preprints or conference papers until they get published.

Before rushing on with this, I'd like to see the reactions of people involved. --SteveMcCluskey 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this. Published papers are reliable; preprints are not. --Coolcaesar 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about that but with the single, narrow exception. The same exception that is widely recognized about personal websites' opinions. That is, in an article about a particular conference, the abstracts from that conference might be quoted and cited in that particular article.Terryeo 00:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's a first draft; I see it as going after the subsection "Which science journals are reputable?"

==== arXiv preprints and conference abstracts ====

There are a growing number of sources on the web that archive the full text of articles before they have been published, and publish abstracts of papers to be presented at conferences. Editors should be aware that preprints in arXiv collections may or may not be accepted by the journal for which they were written — in some cases they are written solely for the arXiv and are never submitted for publication. Similarly, papers presented at conferences may not merit publication after presentation at the conference.

For this reason, arXiv papers and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published and should not be cited as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles until the results appear in a peer-reviewed publication. Abstracts and arXiv versions of published papers may be cited.

--SteveMcCluskey 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an important point, and a case that attempted to cite self-publication on arXiv is presently on WP:DRV. I would observe, however, that many publishing organisations provide abstracts through their search engines, and that these, being the abstracts of peer-reviewed, published work are citable. I say this because in some cases, abstracts are available to Joe Random, whilst the full text is available only to those with a subscription. -Splash - tk 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed in the discussion archives that this concern about arXiv is a long-standing one, with no follow-up to date. That seems to suggest going ahead with this new guideline. --SteveMcCluskey 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I really really don't like the paragraph in its present form. On one hand one can upload complete bollocks to arXiv, on the other hand an established researcher won't intentionally ruin his reputation by publishing random crap. Besides, the fact that something is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it true. Papers can be retracted or turn out to be outright fraud. It was in the news today: the author of the "MMR-causes-autism" study has now been charged with professional misconduct. The study did get published in 1998, a few months later ten of the twelve people on the paper withdrew from authorship, subsequently the journal kind of backtracked, and no one takes the study serious. What counts is the scientific consensus.

The second paragraph should be changed into something like:

For this reason, arXiv papers and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published and as such should be approached with extreme caution as they have neither been peer-reviewed nor has there been time for any scientific consensus to be formed. Preprints by unknown authors should not be cited as reliable sources; preprints by established reseachers should bear the caveat that the scientist may turn out to be wrong. Abstracts and arXiv versions of published papers may be cited. Dr Zak 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for making the change; I especially like your attention to scientific consensus. The one problem I have is that most of the criteria on RS so far have been looking at authoritative sources by considering different kinds of publication venues. Identifying quality publications is fairly easy: established presses with a good track record in publishing serious work, established journals or magazines are serious, blogs are not.

Your change adds the question of the quality of the author. It certainly is a relevant factor but off the top of my head I'm not certain whether the question of identifying "established researchers" may be opening another can of worms. Major bibliographies and citation indexes suggest a starting point. But really, do we want to discuss "established researchers" or just let the term stand with all its ambiguity. I know who "established researchers" are in the fields where I work and read. --SteveMcCluskey 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just see if we can live with the term. :-) As you say, people working in any academic field know who the relevant figures are, and they can back up their opinion by pointing to a couple of review articles, where $BIGWIG's work is extensively cited. Dr Zak 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Does arXiv section refer to all conference abstracts?

The heading WP:CITE# arXiv preprints and conference abstracts could be read to apply to arXiv preprints and all conference abstracts, or it could be read to apply to arXiv preprints and arXiv conference abstracts. Which is intended?

Perhaps someone will think I'm being pendantic, but that is not my intention. Online access to official full-text journal articles usually costs money, while access to abstracts is often free. Access to arXiv is also free. Thus I think some people might lump arXiv preprints together with all abstracts from all sources, since they all are often free. Gerry Ashton 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source but false claims -- Part-2

I need to post few more problems. Just like I already said that WP:RS need to be changed so that every claim of otherwise reliable source (a book) is accepted by default but it should be valid claim. Hence, It is not important that a Book ABC has said something, it is also important that if that thing is right or not. See following The Dhimmi article marriage-section.

"Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non muslim) may marry a Muslim woman. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the People of the Book because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed."

Now Obviously according to above text MOST of the scholars does not think that wife is salave of husband. However, all the scholar agrees that a Muslim women cannot marry any non-muslim man. So the above text leave a question in the mind of any fair user. What is the logic of not marring non-Muslim wowen by MOST of the scholar. Why the logic of SOME scholars is presented above and hidding the logic given by MOST. The WP:RS should empower users to remove such propoganda statements without even going though the trouble of finding the book and verifying the existance of wrong claim in it. --- Faisal 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor introduces "Some scholars have an opinion...(any opinion), then it is on the shoulders of that editor to present citations from "Some scholars". That might be 2 or 3 scholar citations to published, scholar's opinions. If only a single scholar has that opinion then the statement should name the scholar and cite his published work containing his opinion. Terryeo 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying truth, only accuracy. As long as a book did say something and the book is accurately cited for that proposition in a Wikipedia article, the article is fine, even if some people do not like the proposition. The neutral point of view policy implies that Wikipedia is a secondary source that merely summarizes the content of debates in a neutral fashion. But it does not get involved in them.

For example, as a lawyer, I am deeply offended when people say there are too many lawyers (a common complaint in America), because statistics from the American Bar Association and the federal government show that there are not enough lawyers to enable all Americans to properly enforce their legal rights. However, when I rewrote the Lawyer article, I specifically went out of my way to identify and cite several sources for that proposition (see the Criticism of lawyers section of the article). Do I believe those sources are correct or unbiased? Of course not. But they do exist, so I cited them. --Coolcaesar 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only add here that Faisal has misrepresented the marriage section as it currently stands, which is easy to verify. Pecher ^Talk 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher you have written following. Based on the Quranic verses ^{[Quran 2:221]}, ^{[Quran 60:10]}, and ^[Quran 5:5], the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. Tell me that which book what page number I should see to verify this great consensus that has nothing to do with Quranic verses you have quoted. Also the consensus is among whome. All mankind?--- Faisal 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your approach to the situation, Faisal. If it isn't published then its not wikipediable. Terryeo 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Revert without discussion, Feldspar?

I made several small changes in the article. Feldspar reverted them without discussion. Why? None of them were large changes, they seem to me to more accurately state the situation than the present edit does. Terryeo 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What article, or is this a misplaced private conversation? --SteveMcCluskey 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS, here on 6 June Terryeo 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OPPS. The link is this difference [1], sorry. That link to the Dianetics article, please ignore, my mistake. Terryeo 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo's remark is indeed displaced and should properly be on the discussion page of the Dianetics article.--Fahrenheit451 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for, once again, as with every opportunity which you reply, for recognizing my special status, User:Fahrenheit451. You might notice the subject of the discussion and reply to it ? The discussion about the article, "Reliable Sources" which is the discussion page to, you see? Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to describe them as "small" changes, since you have previously indicated (for instance, on Talk:Dianetics, as F451 mentioned) how you intend to interpret the phrases you inserted into the article, and those interpretations represent very large changes in policy. For instance, as has been pointed out to you, under your interpretation of "Published means 'published to the public'", Wikipedia could never mention anything about the contents of the Pentagon Papers, since the Pentagon did not make the choice to "publish them to the public". Frankly, some of your changes don't even make sense. "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information." How does information view information? No, I don't think your changing definitions such that a person, rather than a person's statement, is now considered to be the "primary source", is "more accurately stating the situation". Frankly, I think it's introducing inexactitudes into the article, inexactitudes which the unethical could then try and crowbar further away from the spirit of the rules to create loopholes. Not that you should presume I am accusing you of deliberately trying to create loopholes; I merely point out that people who like to wikilawyer to serve their agenda also like to introduce unnecessary changes into policy which they can then misrepresent to speciously claim support for the changes they wish to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't reply to the question I raised. I asked why.

• I call them "several small changes" because they were a word or two here and there in the article. Their total might be something like 20 or 25 words. Not all of them had to do with "published to the public" Yet you simply looked at what I had created and removed every word of it. It appeared like more like a personal issue than a content issue.
• I simply don't understand what you are talking about with your mention of "F451" and the discussion on the Talk:Dianetics page. Certainly a talk page is the place to talk about how guidelines and policy apply to a particular article, there is no better place to discuss such issues. What are you talking about?
• You use an example of "published to the public" where the creater of the domuments did not intend they be published. But Wikipedia could not include such documents, nor citations to the actual documents unless those documents had been previously published to the public. Which is why my modification to WP:RS spells out more explictly in a single phrase, Previously published to the public.
• My statement, "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information." is not a good one but this statement would be: A secondary source is composed of published information which has been created by someone who has viewed the primary source information.
• I ask you why you revert without discussion and you reply by accusing me of wikilawyering. Previously published to the public is already present policy. WP:V states, ..already been published by ... It is not something new that I am suggesting. I did create that particular phrase but that idea is already present in WP:V as a first statement. The reason I would like to have WP:RS use it as a phrase is because a number of editors, in a number of articles do not understand that personal websites can not be used as secondary sources of information in articles. User:Fahrenheit451, whom you see has posted my status without replying to the issue raised, in Patter drill is presently insisting on 4 cites to personal opinions on personal websites. A well written WP:RS would prevent such insistance by an editor. Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The legal definition of publish is, according to Oxford, "Communicate to a third party". A website that is publicly locatable by a search engine, advertising, or referring links, is published to the public. RS is a guideline, banned user Terryeo clearly wants to make it a policy to facilitate his POV. --Fahrenheit451 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, once again you are unwilling to say anything about the issue I raise without stating my status. I am attempting to tell you, Fahrenheit451, that the present Wikipedia Policy is that Personal websites of personal opinion are not published. There are verifibable, they are attributable (sometimes) but they are not published. This is not my personal attempt to change any policy, nor any guideline. This is simply a statement of long existing, Wikipedia Policy. Despite your particular definition from the Oxford Dictionary which is 100% accurate, that definition is the not the definition which Wikipedia uses. Terryeo 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is an opinion on a personal website a "published" opinion?

This guideline begins: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources". I understand "published" to mean "In the past, published to the public" and "published to the public" to mean, "Published by a reliable source to the public". Yet not every editor understands those words in this manner. User:Fahrenheit451, for example states: The legal definition of publish, according to Oxford, is "communicate to a third party". Websites whose content can be found by search engines or is advertised or referred to, is published. Thus, lermanet and xenu.net are published sites. here and here. User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely. At Patter drill the following links are cited by him within the article. personal website, opinion and robertdam's personal opinion and another robertdam opinion. Is User:Fahrenheit451's understanding the correct one, and I am mistaken? Terryeo 04:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the phrase "reliable published sources". The key part for analysis is "reliable", not "published". F451 is correct that "published" should be understood to have its ordinary meaning, that is, "communicated to a third party (or parties)". When I put up something on my personal web site, I have indeed "published" it, for all legal and common-sense purposes. However, that does not mean that my web site is a reliable source. Think for a second: if, for Wikipedia purposes, "published" meant "published by a reliable source to the public", then the word "reliable" in the guideline's sentence "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources" would be redundant and meaningless.

This does not mean that any of the material referred to above is necessarily a reliable source, nor that it should be used to write Wikipedia articles; merely that it is, in fact, published, as both common sense and legal definition will confirm. --MCB 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, ty. So then, a man who places a soapbox in the village square, stands on it and speaks day and night of the coming of the savior has "published" his opinion. The notice which is stapled to the telephone pole, telling of the coming yard sale is likewise "published, is that right? Terryeo 14:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with reliability of sources, not with issues of prior publication as relates to copyright law, the appropriate meaning of "published" should be the academic sense. In that context publication requires that the item

• Has gone through a formal review process before being accepted for publication.
• In the course of the review process has been checked for factual accuracy (and often for omissions of relevant detail).
• Has been copy edited for logical coherence and style.

By those criteria a personal web page is definitely not published. --SteveMcCluskey 14:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, We need to differentiate between "peer-review" as you describe in the first two points you state above, "copy editing" as you state in the third point, and "publishing" which is communicating a work to a third party. The reliability of the work is verified only by the first two processes that you describe. So, I have to correct you here, a personal webpage IS published if it is publicly accessible and locateable. It may or may NOT be peer-reviewed. Let's make this distinction explicit.--Fahrenheit451 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

F451, I'm coming from an academic perspective, where we evaluate our colleagues' publications every year. If someone were to claim on their productivity report, that an unreviewed essay on a personal web page is one of the publications required for promotion, it might give the personnel committee a bit of a laugh, but the committee wouldn't recommend a promotion on that basis. In academia, if it isn't published by a reputable independent publisher, it isn't published.

If Wikipedia means to be a serious encyclopecia, it needs to maintain scholarly standards. --SteveMcCluskey 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I agree wikipedia needs diligent standards. In academia, polish, peer-review, and publication in an established media is the criteria for credibility. However, we do not need to redefine a word in the english language to effect proper standards. During my involvement with academia, "published and peer-reviewed' was a criteria for advancement. Let's just say what we mean using standard english. --Fahrenheit451 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I had an interesting experience editing voting method articles. One editor wanted to include citations to his original research from his website, which was Not peer-reviewed, even though it was indeed published. I disputed his opinions and inclusion of his site as a citation, but was overruled by consensus of the editors at that time. Checking those articles several months later I found that he moved on and new editors had a different consensus. There went his citations. I don't think it is realistic to expect academic-like standards on wikipedia, although the pattern I have seen is that in the long term, articles Do approach diligent standards. They do become more credible and better in quality. --Fahrenheit451 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two elements to the phrase, "published, reliable sources" and the first elements is "published". F451 suggests a certain definition for the word and it comes from a recognized dictionary. But what about a large company who "publishes" orders to their distributers? In a sense, their distributers are a third party, (not part of the management stucture which originates such orders). I feel like, for Wikipedia purposes, we need to define Published to mean Published to the Public and include the whole phrase. Also, I agree with SteveMcCluskey's statements. Terryeo 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments about what I think "published" should mean with respect to reliable sources. We should use the ordinary meaning rather than restrict "published" to publication in a peer-reviewed medium, because academic journals do not address all areas of life, and limiting ourselves to peer-reviewed sources would preclude coverage of significant areas of life (much of popular culture, for example.) Also, we should not expand "published" to "published to the public" in part because it is redundant, and in part because whenever a customary word or phrase is altered to an unusual form, people tend to think the alteration is to create some new, non-obvious meaning.

If someone were to cite a source that was only communicated to a limited number of people (for example, a technical computer standard that is only supplied to people who sign a non-disclosure agreement) the citation could reasonably be attacked as (1) not truely published, or (2) not verifiable, because the practical steps necessary to verify the citation are unreasonably burdensome. Gerry Ashton 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Published" to a limited number of people is the difficulty I too have with the definition mentioned, to a third party. Other examples might be Ford Motor Company's annual publication to its dealerships or an internal directive about the company picnic. The intent is not to "publish to the public". If we can eliminate confusion in guidelines, then we should. Doesn't it make more sense to use Published to the public to define what sources can be used ? Terryeo 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good observations and sensible commentary, Gerry. --Fahrenheit451 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not a reliable source by its own standards. A house of sand

I recently tried to point this out in the article, and was immediately reverted. I will include the dialog which followed, so you can all see what happens to people who dare to raise serious questions here.

The policy page on verifiable sources contains no verifiable sources (by its own definition). The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources (by its own definition). Please explain why pointing this out is disruptive. Is what I have said not true? Sbharris 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Harris, I'm afraid you are totally correct, but there is a logical structure to the reliability of WP:RS. It rests on WP:V which rests on WP:NPOV which our founder states is non-negotiable. Therefore, the manner in which Reliability of Sources is defined depends on creating a Neutral Point of View. Now other wiki have been known to include newsgroup data and personal website data. The threshold for inclusion into wikipedia articles has to be placed somewhere, but it is an arbitray decsions. It could be placed very low (as some wikies do) or it could be placed very high. It is placed just above including personal websites, but allowing major newspapers. That is the grey area which gets discussed again and again. The single verifiable source for WP:V is our founder's statement of Neutral Point of View. Everything more than that is simply examples of how NPOV is normally achieved, achieved by other encylopedias and recognized reference works. Terryeo 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us where Jimbo has stated that the WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable? The policy page itself only gives two quotes, where he states that NPOV is non-negotiable. This is widely interpreted as referring to the Neutral Pont of View principle as explained at the top of the policy page. This has been the official interpretation ever since the quote was added to the policy on 5 November 2003.

(Please note that I'm not trying to advance my opinion on the negotiability of policies here; just trying to find out why you (and probably many others) are convinced our founder has stated that it is.) AvB ÷ talk 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's Jimbo's statement that I refer to. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable.". And that statement is the foundation of all our policies and guidelines. From it springs WP:NOR, eliminating a source of non-neutrality. Then comes WP:V which insures neutrality by insisting that "widely published" be presented in articles as being widely published and narrowly published, likewise. Thus, Neutral articles present how much, and what quality of information, has been created by mankind (about a subject).Terryeo 19:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources..." Can you point me to a reliable source that supports your assertion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is more clever than useful. It is obvious by inspection, and the burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources for citation, not the revising editor who removes material because such sources don't exist. Do you need a citation for that? It is WP:RS. Why do you fail to see the problem here?Sbharris 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious by inspection? It sounds like you want to be released from the very requirement you demand we adhere to, in order to make your case that we should adhere to it. Appropriately enough for something that will ultimately approach solipsism, you can have the last word. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism would be avoided if the policy-makers of WP simply held to their own rules and published policy in another venue than WP, thereby bypassing the whole problem. And since your own comments above have been less than helpful, I'm simply going to paste this exchange in the appropriate talk page, and let other people comment. Sbharris 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion totally misses the point. An encyclopedia article reflects expert opinions about a topic; it requires citations of outside sources as evidence that those opinions are held in the larger expert community.

A policy page asserts policy. It is not based on evidence, hence it does not need to cite such evidence to support its assertions. --SteveMcCluskey 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A policy page asserts policy, yes. It certainly must be based on evidence, since how else would you know whose policy it was, or if correct? I can change it to assert MY idea of WP policy. Then you will certainly dutifully change it back to reflect what you assume is WP policy. But how do you KNOW any of THAT? Did WP issue you a set of guidelines, written by Jimbo and signed and notarized, in the mail? All you know is generation 58.3 of what you see in the Wiki. And you think it's scripture, don't you?

Where is the verifiable WP policy? How is it verified? What is the citation. Where did it originate from? How do we know? What is your reliable source for WP policy? How do you know the source is reliable? All these questions are very, very basic. They cut across all WP articles which are modifiable by users, and WP:V and WP:RS are no exceptions (why do you think they are?). The problem here is we're all arguing over what Jimbo Wales thinks and nobody knows what Jimbo Wales thinks. Do you notice him as one of the contribuing editors to either of these Wikis? And if you did, how would you know it was him? The demand for outside publication (of some kind, even electronic, so long as it's verifiable) on facts, is not done lightly here on WP. Sbharris 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some orgnaization is better than no organization. A policy is a statement of what will work. It is an organizational effort. NPOV is our policy, our stable datum, the platform on which we edit. Neutral talks about the quality and quantity of information published. It leads to Widely published (by good sources) is to be widely present in articles. Without that foundation articles would be full of personal opinion from personal websites and blogs. Wikipedia is a creation, it isn't based on published, established ideas but is a creation. Its organization and implementation are based on a single idea, NPOV. Terryeo 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiny suggestion: maybe familiarise yourself with the *namespace* concept, before continuing this discussion. The namespace concept is explained at wikipedia:namespace

Different namespaces have different rules. Just giving some random examples:

• some rules are for all namespaces, in all Wikimedia projects, e.g.: m:Don't be a dick
• some policies are for *one* namespace in *one* project, e.g.: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), applies only for the "category:" namespace in en:wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view only applies in main (or: article) namespace, in category:, and part of template: namespace (the "reader-facing templates")
• There are content guidelines specifically for what happens in "wikipedia:" namespace, which is the "project" namespace for en:wikipedia. For instance, WP:V does not apply in wikipedia: (or: "project") namespace. Wikipedia:how to create policy on the other hand applies to a part of the wikipedia: or "project" namespace, that is the part that contains "policies" and "guidelines" (so, for example, it does not apply for the *essays* in that namespace).
• There are namespaces you maybe didn't even hear about, like the "MediaWiki:" namespace (the namespace with the system messages). The major rule there, is that you can't edit it if you aren't a sysop. Afaik there's no "written" rule about that, it's just: the software is built that way.

--Francis Schonken 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. How do you know where these rules come from, or who made them up? You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Perhaps it's time you reexamined your premises. Because you read it in a Wiki, you think it's true. But go back through the history of the Wiki and see if it's the same. If not, who made the changes? And what makes those people different from you or me? THINK. Sbharris 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The implicit issue in this section seems to be, how do we know what the policies are if the policies themselves can be edited by any editor? I suggest that hierarchical policy-making is not the only model for making policy.

Yes. I just had a note from some other editor that he was going to revert some of my discussionon this point on grounds that Wikipedia is not the medium for "extended epistemological discussions". Maybe the long word scared him, but RS and V are intrinsically epistemological topics, and if they left free to float as editorial policy, then extended discussion can hardly be avoided, can it?Sbharris

The policies exist, and although they could be drastically altered every ten minutes, they are not. Indeed, the changes that occur only affect a small number of articles. Most good articles satisfy most versions of the policies, and most bad articles satisfy hardly any versions of the policies. Therefore a rough consensus has been achieved. Those who have the technical ability to freeze the policies have elected not to do so, so we can infer that the powers-that-be concur with a consensus-based policy process, even if some of the powers-that-be might not concur with the wording of a certain policy on a certain day.

I follow your logic, but your use of the word "infer" above highlights my point. If you don't mind my saying so, that's a sad state of affairs, and worth pointing out. It especially rankles in a project which takes verifiability as a standard for most of what it does. Sbharris 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been argued that making the policies uneditable would reduce time spent arguing about policy and increase time spend writing articles. The powers-that-be are always free to decide that arguing about policy has become an unprofitable diversion, and make them uneditable. So far that has not happened. Gerry Ashton 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It has not happened. We can only speculate about why. The parallels with religious and scriptural interpretation arguments are striking, are they not. And it's sad because it doesn't have to be this way on WP Sbharris 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some things have needed to be flexible (aka editable) due to changes from scaling. PROD (although only a pseudo-policy right now) would never have been conceived of when there were only two hundred articles. - brenneman ^{L} 09:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:DICK. Hiding Talk 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• • You insolent little pickle! How dare you cast aspersions at my esteemed personage in that manner! Trouts at thirty paces, you have only to name your second. - brenneman ^{L} 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you amended my format in order to take offence at a comment not directed at you but at the thread originator. I have amended the formatting, since, when I offer offence, I would rather defend myself against the original target and not engage in that American practise of friendly fire. I'm aware of my own danger of dickish behaviour in suggesting the link, but I think the original point is merely an imponderable extension of the term pedantic into areas where it ought not apply, and where the guidance at WP:DICK really ought. If you really would like to take offence, however, I have no option but to declare Sbharris as my second, since he has demonstrated a well developed sense of process and I believe I can trust him to serve me well as second. Hiding Talk 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point that User:Sbharris is trying to make is that Wikipedia (specifically this page) holds wikis are not reliable (including Wikipedia), so how can it be reliably held to pronounce anything? There's are lots of interesting points to be made here: this line of reasoning is similar to that offered by many critics--yet, we all seem to consider our efforts here to worthwhile, and many many many people out there consider us a useful resource. Likewise, many articles here do link to other wikis as sources, particularly MeatballWiki and WikiWikiWeb. Personally, I think it's time to reconsider language which regards wikis as inherently unreliable; instead we should consider numerous factors:

• The quality of the wiki's engine: Does it provide a complete history (like Wikipedia), or does it routinely discard all but the most recent edits (like WikiWikiWeb)?
• The wiki's user/authentication policies. Who gets to post? How good is the maintenance? How well does the site fend off vandalism? Is it possible for users to impersonate other users?
• The wiki's editorial standards: Is the wiki edited/authored by experts in a particular field, or is it a free-for-all? Does it have published standards (like, say, WP:RS)?
• The wiki's reputation: Is it highly regarded, lowly regarded, or seldom regarded at all?

Now, Sbharris may have pointed out a bit of an inconsistency; though it's not a new one. His doing so will not, fortunately, cause Wikipedia to annihilate itself in a great burst of energy, as the contradiction causes it to cease to exist.  :) Far too much heat seems to be being emitted in the above debate. --EngineerScotty 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One more point. What does the panel think, if we do permit linking to wikis, of linking to specific versions of articles, rather than the latest version? Doing so potentially sacrifices up-to-date-ness (a wiki advantage) for stability (the main objection to linking to wikis). --EngineerScotty 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of us appreciate the point, but just don't see it as having any real worth as something debatable. Wikipedia itself has long been held to be not a reliable source, so why should consideration of this point change anything? One could make the same point about any facet of life; for example who has the authority to state that the Queen is the Queen? It's a redundant point of little interest outside small circles. It's a bit like that mathematical proof where 1+1=0. Fabulous, but it doesn't help me tie my shoes up in the morning. As to your point, my argument is that we don't reference wikis, we reference the sources they cite. Just as I would recommend anyone coming here does. Hiding Talk 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For some topics, at various points in time, a particular wiki might be the source; wikis can be primary sources, in which case there may be nothing else to cite. As social software evolves; I suspect we will see more and more examples of websites where wiki functionality is integrated with other arrangements. Using WP as an example, again, the wiki is a great idea for article space, but the protocols and procedures used on talk pages essentially provides a poor emulation of forum software within a wiki. At any rate, a key point that must be made is that ultimately, the authority of any source, like it or not, is only really determinable by what others think of it. WP's reputation has grown over the years, as have the reputations of many other non-traditional publishers. I think, FTMP, we're in agreement. --EngineerScotty 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't appreciate the point. WP:RS and WP:V are self-published sources in articles about themselves. I wouldn't think twice about citing to the AOL homepage for information about AOL's privacy policies; why should I think twice about citing to WP:RS for information about WP guidelines?TheronJ 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The point SBharris would make is that nobody can edit AOL's privacy policies (not without authorization from AOL, at least). In theory, a vandal could edit WP:V to make it say something else (there are no technological impediments to doing so); in practice such vandalism would be reverted in minutes if not seconds. It's a standard anti-wiki argument. --EngineerScotty 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm not making that standard anti-wiki argument, but something a little more subtle (give me credit, please). These "policy pages" change in a slow way over time, by a kind of consensus creep. If you compare WP:V with a version 500 changes ago (less than a year) you'll find it's a somewhat different article, and not just in punctuation, style, and moving text around. Whole sections and arguments and subpolicies have been added. Now, if somebody was to have done all 500 changes at once back in Sept 2005, they'd have been reverted as a vandal. But apparently if it's done over a longer period of a time, it's like cooking a frog who has dT/dt (rapid change in temp) sensors but no absolute T (temp) sensors. It can be done without him jumping, but only if you do it slowly. What looks like vandalism when done fast, is not vandalism when done piecemeal.

Now, I have no problem with policy at WP being set by slow editorial consensus (hey, it's a neat experiment), and not by authority "from the top." But for consistency, I'd like to see this and its corollaries boldly stated in the relevant policy articles, so that they are widely understood. One of these corollaries is that policy is negociable, not "non-negociable". Just because you find it in a policy Wiki, does not mean it wasn't put there by some lay-editor long ago, and managed to slide by, by concensus. And maybe, just maybe, it's not such a good idea, on second thought. Maybe it's no longer relevant to our time. Fine. So change it. A second corollary is that WP policy changes can't be used in the way we've seen them used, to bludgeon people over the head with, in edit wars. They aren't scripture. They're just a slowly building and changing concensus of stuff which is out there, some of which is bad and hasn't been changed because it hasn't been noticed or thought about. Sort of like irrelevant and no-longer enforceable laws on the books, or case-law. We'd hate to have cops shoot people on the basis of obscure case law, would we not?

I've gone too long without an example. In WP:V you'll find a new section on "self publishing". In it you will find the following: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. I've objected to this paragraph, because it seems to place ANYTHING a professional journalist writes, on equal reliablity footing with what a professional researcher writes in their relevant field. I argue that the only "relevant field" a professional journalist has any expertise in, is journalism itself. I got reverted for suggesting this. And yet the original statement was placed by somebody else (perhaps a journalist?) and survived. Is that because nobody thought too hard about it at the time; or because most people don't agree with me, and ascribe nearly omniscient powers to professional jouralists, making their writing comparable to the writing of any other professional writing in the professional's field of expertise? Discuss. Anyway, overlook the issue and consider it as example. At present, this paragraph is WP policy. And is quotable as such, by those who don't seem to understand where WP policy comes from. Sbharris 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with your proposed changes concerning journalists (though I'd modify it a bit). I would consider Woodward and Bernstein to be experts on Watergate, for example. I don't consider Andrew Orlowski an expert on WP or on encyclopedias, even though he seems to fancy himself as such. Most journalists are not "experts" on the subjects they write about, though their accounts may still be acceptable as primary sources (which need not be penned by experts). At any rate--did you propose the change here, on the talk page? Or did you just make the change without discussing it first? The latter is generally considered inappropriate, and grounds for a revert.

Regarding "negotiability"; the only policy I've heard pronounces as "non-negotiable" is WP:NPOV. Now, I cannot provide off-hand a link to where Jimmy Wales uttered this; mainly because I'm too lazy to search for it at the present time. Many other policies are grounded in encyclopedia science, but are "negotiable" in that the community can change them and how they are applied.

--EngineerScotty 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion requested on this issue

A difference of opinion has arisen at this discussion.#Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives Additional opinions are requested. --CTSWyneken 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What about things that don't have reliable sources?

Like in AOHack Programs there's a link with a history of it all. It's not a published research journal, but it's important info for the article. Some things just don't have professionally published references, so I don't think their sources should be held to such high standards. Whereas things like famous people and big news topics and anything really well-known should. Any thoughts on this? DyslexicEditor 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the WP article stated a person had been convicted of an offense; fortunately that allegation was backed up in the cited Wired article. If the allegation had not been backed by a reliable source, the proper course of action would be to immediately edit the page to remove the allegation.

Ideally the author of the unreliable source could be persuaded to find a reliable publisher for the information, if it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.Gerry Ashton 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Affidavits

What makes an affidavit a published document? A notary must witness an affidavit for it to be one, but a notary only confirms the person is who he says he is and does no fact checking about the validity of the information comprising an affidavit. That a statement is sworn and witnessed does not make it published, does it? This is the affidavit in question, in html and on a personal website [2]. It is being used as a secondary source of information in Scientology, portions of paragraphs are quoted. There are two problems with it (I think). One is the signatures, neither the instigator of the statement nor the norary public who witnessed it appears. And the person's identity who typed it up for the website does not appear either. Finally, there is no clear indication (as I understand the legal jargon) that the affidavit was actually part of a court record. Could someone who understands legalese take a look at it please? As comparisons, here is a genuine affidavit [3] and the same affidavit in html [4] Terryeo 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would Andre Tabayoyon's affidavit of 5 March 1994 not be a "published source"?

• It is widely available, in English, in French, etc...
• Its author is known (Andre Tabayoyon)
• Its copyright holder is known ("Copyright © 1994 Andre Tabayoyon Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes" appears on several of the web copies)
• It is quoted in scholar works (Misunderstanding Cults, edited by Benjamin David Zablocki, Thomas Robbins, University of Toronto Press © 2001 - Page 357 - ISBN 0802081886)
• The original publisher of the affidavit is known ("UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA", see e.g. p. 377 of the publication mentioned in the previous point)

Really, establishing whether something is "published" is not the hard part. --Francis Schonken 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That affidavit has at in its header "Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx)". Seems to have been filed in a case between COS vs Fish and Geertz. Note that an affidavit can be used to provide the supporting material for WP:V as it pertains to the POV of the person signing the affidavit (i.e. so that the statement by the signatory of the affidavit can be verified), and not for any other purpose. An affidavit, is different from a scholarly source in this respect. What I mean that an affidavit is a reliable source for the statement of the signatory but not a reliable source for other purposes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, as a primary source document it could be used in an article about Andre Tabayoyon and his views. But it is being used as a secondary source and the threshold for inclusion is "previously published by a reliable, reputable source". So that's why I ask how I can be sure it has been published by such a source. Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, if there is a problem with the 5 March 1994 Tabayoyon affidavit being used as a source in the Wikipedia article on Scientology, than such problem would be linked with it being used as a primary source. If it is a primary source, it isn't turned into a secondary source by the way it is used or referenced in a Wikipedia article. Even less would a primary source be turned into a secondary source when it is linked from a different Wikipedia article. Neither could the Zablocki/Robbins book be turned from a secondary source into a primary source by the way it is used in a Wikipedia article, nor by linking it from a different Wikipedia article. Inviting you to read the definition of "primary source" on the WP:RS guideline page, in the "definitions" section. I'm quite sure you'll find all you need there. --Francis Schonken 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean, whether it should be treated as if it were a "self-published" source? Terryeo asked about "published" (and that of course includes "self-published" sources). Like I said, distinguishing between the "published" and the "non-published" is not the hard part. FWIW, I don't think Tabayoyon's 1994 affidavit is a "secondary" source. As far as I can see it is very "primary source".

So using (for instance) the Zablocki/Robbins book (which is definitely a secondary source) as a reference for the Wikipedia article on Scientology would probably be a better choice (but you made that suggestion already below - copying after edit conflict).

Anyway, as far as I can see, in the Scientology article Tabayoyon's affidavit is exclusively used to provide the supporting material for WP:V as it pertains to the POV of the person signing the affidavit like you put it. So there appears to be no problem there either. --Francis Schonken 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is used to present a negative slant to an aspect of Scientology which I am pretty sure is completely untrue, though I don't oppose that Tabayoyon has another view. What I am questioning is whether his personal opinion ((that document) has been published. If his personal opinion is published, then it meets WP:V and can be used as a secondary source. But, if his personal opinion (that document) has not been previously published by a reliable, reputable source, then that document can not be used as it is presently being used.Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis has already explained quite accurately the difference between primary and secondart sources. The question that begs to be asked, IMO, is the notability of the author of the source. If the author is notable, he will be surely quoted and referred to by a multiplicity of sources. In this case we have one book (Zablocki's) that mentions it, so I would argue that it may be cited only in the context of that book and not directly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely more books quoting this source. I counted at least three at Google Book Search ([5]), and this is probably a fourth: [6] - above I just picked the one that looked most scholarly, and showing page content without subscribing. If wanting to write about the "celebrities" aspect of Scientology (that's what the Tabayoyon quote in the Wikipedia article tried to elucidate), I might recommend this replacement candidate, maybe somewhat less "academic" than the Zablocki book, but "secondary" source by all means: Andrew Breitbart, Mark Ebner. Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon — The Case Against Celebrity. Wiley, 2004, ISBN 0471450510. p. 137 --Francis Schonken 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As this document in cited in Zablocki's book, I would argue that it can be used by citing Zablocki's rather than a direct citation from that affidavit. As this subject is highly contentious, I would suggest that it is discussed amongst editors involved in that article, rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, the Zablocki book quotes another part of the Tabayoyon 1994 affidavit than the Wikipedia article on scientology. I'm perfectly OK to leave it with the editors of that Wikipedia article. The affidavit "not being published" should however not be an argument in that discussion, that's the question I tried to answer. --Francis Schonken 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. When was it published, how can a person know that it was published just by viewing the HTML page?Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editors of that article will have to weight if OK to use the primary source, or the secondary one. I would argue for the latter, but I agree that making the right choice is to be left to that article's editors.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a general guideline and not trying to get into any specific difficulty. My question was about the HTML presentation of an affidavit. It doesn't have a notary signature block, its only indication it is genuine are the typed words of the author's name at the end. The person who typed it didn't even give their name or date. It appears on a personal website. Apparently you are both more familar with the document than I am. I think you have both affirmed that it is valid and was present in a court case and become published because A) it is part of court records and B) because, in addition, Tabayoyon published a book which contained it? That answers my question about its validity. But doesn't quite make it clear how we can know that "affidavits" are published or not. As part of a court record, sure, they are published. But an individual HTML document (unsigned, undated, un-notarized) hwo can we know they have been previously published by reliable, reputable sources? Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions would be to look at whether there was any serious dispute about reliability. I'm normally not a big fan of the "WP:RS is flexible" argument, but this might be a good place for it. Some things to look for might be:

1. Is the affidavit available from the Court? Even if you would have to go to LA (or whereever) to see it, that makes it verifiable, and at that point, I would say it's the same as a website excerpting some rare journal article or book from 1852 - unless there's some particular reason to doubt it, it's probably fine until someone gets the original and argues. (You can call the court clerk's office with the case number and date and see if the documents are available for review.) Alternately, some court documents have probably been published.
2. I would approach these on a case by case basis. If most people think the transcription is probably accurate, it's probably reliable enough.
3. A closer problem would be if the original affidavit was not publicly available. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts about that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs)

That is why we are much safer by citing a reliable source, in this case Zablocki's book. Zablocki surely did not get the affidavit he cited from an unsigned and unverified transcript of it on a personal web page. My opinion is that we should not rely on uncorroborated transcripts of anything, including radio and TV interviews, legal documents, etc. These are as easy to falsify as personal websites are dime a dozen. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on any aspects of the Scientology debate (a hornet's nest I will studiously try to avoid)--perhaps we can make a distinction between a particular document and a convenient electronic copy? Nobody objects to electronic copies of the United States Constitution being used as a reference; even though they aren't the genuine article found in the National Archives. Likewise, I've included references to electronic copies of research papers whose authoritative version is in print; am I sinning if I don't hop down to the nearest University library and ensure for myself that the electronic copy I provide a URL to is exactly the same as the official dead tree edition? How often haw Wikipedia linked to electronic "copies" of some document which misrepresented the original (intentionally or otherwise)? --EngineerScotty 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The United States Constitution is not a good example, as it is widely available from a variety of sources, and its content easly verifiable. What we are discussing is the use of uncorroborated transcripts of court orders or TV/radio interviews hosted on personal webpages (that in themselves are not an acceptable tertiary source). Big difference, Scotty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Allow me to abstract the situation, to avoid reference to any real-world controversies or sources:

Editor E makes reference to some document x, where the official copy of x is held by some party A. Assume that the veracity of A's x is undisputed. E refers to x by name in some fashion. However, x may be difficult to access--no certified-accurate (by A or some other mutually trusted authority) version of x exists online or in print publication; examination of x requires travel to the premises of A, and may incur even further restrictions. (A can be examined by the public, so it is "published" in that sense, but it isn't widely available).

To make up for this shortcoming, E instead uses document x_2, which is widely distributed (or made available online) by some party B (who is independent of A), and claims it to be a true and accurate reproduction of x. A does not certify (or otherwise comment on) the authenticity of x_2, perhaps by policy.

Editor F, who holds a position in some debate D which is compromised by the claims present in x_2 (and thus, it is claimed, but the claims present in x as the two say the same thing), challenges use of x_2 as a proxy for x, on the grounds that its veracity hasn't been demonstrated.

The question is: When should such challenge be considered legitimate reason to disregard x_2?

• If B, the publisher of x_2, takes a position on D (likely one favorable to E and unfavorable to F)
• If B has been shown in other manners to be untrustworthy?
• If B, while not an untrustworthy source, isn't a particularly authoritative one either?
• If F asserts that he has side-by-side compared x and x_2, and observed significant difference?
  • If F enumerates the differences?
• If F asserts that he has seen both x and x_2 (though not together), and insists that there are significant differences
• If F has no evidence that x and x_2 are indeed different; but merely insists that E must prove they are in fact equivalent before using x_2 as a proxy for x?

I would think that any specific enumeration of differences would be grounds for debate. Likewise, rampant and demonstrable untrustworthiness on the part of B (in other words, B has been caught engaging in fabrication or other acts of intellectual dishonesty previously) is probaby grounds to disregard evidence provided by B and not checkable elsewhere. However, absent reasons to presume otherwise; I think a default presumption that x_2 is in fact a true and accurate reproduction of x should, in general, apply. Thoughts?

--EngineerScotty 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gawd. Yeah, that's the situation I was asking about all right. LOL. Terryeo 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-withstanding the brilliant exposition of yours above, the issue I have with it is that I would not think that we can make generic descriptions such as these. In situations were there is a dispute about accuracy of a reproduced source, consensus of involved editors is needed to assess the verifiability/accuracy/trustworthiness of the source. In addition, WP:V does not pass judgement about the difficultly or ease of accessing a source. If a source is verifiable, e.g. actually going to a public library to check a source, rather than googling it and finding an uncorroborated source, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with EngineerScotty's extremely naive trust in the reliability of Web sites, and I concur with Jossi that electronic copies of documents should be relied on only when they are republished by a reliable neutral source like LexisNexis or ProQuest. It is simply too much work for Wikipedia editors to have to cross-check copies hosted on personal Websites pushing personal agendas word-for-word against the original copies, particularly when those originals may exist only in court archives (which can be very difficult to access). --Coolcaesar 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jossi, assuming I've understood him/her correctly. (1) If the source is verifiable (for example, available from the court) and there are no specific concerns with the website transcription, then it's probably fine - the website isn't any worse than some editor just typing in the stuff and citing to the court docket entry. (2) If the source isn't verifiable, then it's probably up to the concensus of the page's editors, with the burden on the people who want it in. TheronJ 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An affidavit which is presented in a published book will (probably) give more information about it than the affidavit itself. A book, being published, is also a pretty good indication of accuracy. The problem I was having was an HTML presentation, without the signature of the notary who witnessed it and without a date of creation. In the Scientology articles, such citations to "Affidavits" are not uncommon. If they were in PDF, the signature block could appear and the author's signature could appear. But a re-typed HTML duplication (even if it doesn't have mispellings) has none of that information. Therefore, the only confidence we have in the reproduction of an affidavit is how well the website owner typed. In addition, a simple HTML presentation might give no historical context or use of such an affidavit, as in the affidavit I asked about. Whereas PDF is generally used by legal websites and can contain signatures, date stamps and other information which contributes to authenticity. You all have made helpful comments :) Terryeo 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I've changed the implication that self-published abstracts of papers submitted for peer review are reliable sources. Self-published material is only a reliable source in very limited circumstances, which the policy explains in its own section, so I've referred the reader to that section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The serious problem with this guideline as regards the physical sciences is that so much reference is made to peer-review and not enough to scientific consensus. It can't be said often enough: Just because it's referreed is isn't necessarily so. A fact or method that has made its way into a review article is important and is accepted research, an article in a journal may turn out to draw the wrong conclusions, be irrelevant or, sometimes, outright fraudulent.

What we should ask ourselves is if we must really present the latest, best research the day after it appears in print (or is uploaded on arXiv), or if we can wait until a review appears where the material has been sifted. Dr Zak 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The change mentioned above is to the section WP:RS#arXiv preprints and conference abstracts. The section could now be read to mean that all conference abstracts are self-published. I must admit that I personally have not presented a paper at a conference, but my electronics engineering colleagues have, and the conferences I've attended only accepted a fraction of the papers submitted, and publish every accepted paper in a digest. While the article acceptance screening was not as rigorous as full peer-review, it was substantially stricter than the criteria for self-publishing (the criteria for self-publishing being having enough money to pay the printer). Therefore it is not accurate to label all conference abstracts as self-published. Gerry Ashton 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And, to completely dispel the myth of peer review, journals of type "Cold Fusion News" do peer review, and AFAIK recently the Creationists have started a refereed journal, too. Don't get me wrong, peer-review does an admirable job to keep the cranks and bores out of a journal but it does not establish "scientific truth". For that we have to wait for the "invisible boot" that kicks out the irrelevant bits. Dr Zak 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a fundamental misunderstanding?

Slimvirgin, could there be a fundamental misunderstanding between us about what "self-published"/"unrefereed" work actually is? Anyone who presents work at a conference or uploads a paper to arXiv has a reputation to lose and thus won't completely go off the rails. Conference abstracts and preprints are really done on a "best-effort" basis. The greater problem with brand-new work is that people don't really know yet what to make of it.

On the other hand, some dude who gets himself a domain and some webhosting can put forth whatever theory he wants. I guess that is what you mean by "self-published". Dr Zak 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I define self-published as published with the author's personal effort (i.e. the author operates the printing press) or by an information distributor who distributes anything submitted by an author with hardly any regard for the merit of the submission. Any substantial screening by the information distributor raises the standard above the level of "self-published" even if the standard falls short of peer-review. Gerry Ashton 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm using self-published to mean that nothing stands between the writer and the act of publication. In other words, no one is fact-checking, checking for libel etc. An academic who uploads a paper to his own website also has a reputation to lose, but the point remains that it's self-published, and if no one else publishes it, there might be a reason for that. Is there a need for Wikipedia to publish papers that were only self-published on arXiv? In other words, is there a lot of good material that is available only on that website? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's statement makes a lot of good sense. A non-fiction book wants above all to be accurate, undisputably accurate within its area of address. A university professor doesn't want his career ruined or his reputation smeared by his unconcious or unknowing published statements. Therefore "peer review" and "liability" are real concerns. As we attempt to apply these standards to new methods of publication, such as print on demand books and some of the other applications of publication raised here, the foundation which SlimVirgin spells out makes good sense. Terryeo 04:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the things us editors have to ask outselves. Is the paper on a preprint server because no credible journal wants to print it, or is it there to be published faster than in a regular journal. That's the advantage of preprint servers, it appears there a few months earlier than in the journal. Hence the advice to take "extreme caution" in the old version [7] as it hasn't been reviewed in any way. We really need a black-box warning there.

The question is this: Let's say someone well-known uploads a paper to arXiv or gives a talk at a conference, stating he has solved the problem of baryon asymmetry. Should we be allowed to say so-and-so claims to have solved the problem, should we wait until the paper is past the reviewers, and then say so-and-so claims to have solved the problem (because these are ideas that haven't been digested by the community of physicists) or should we wait until an authoritative review on baryogenesis appears and then say that the problem has been solved?

Note that what we are doing here is sifting and grading sources. Per WP:NOR we can't add our own opinion or interpretation about any source, we are however allowed to judge how crediable the available sources are. Dr Zak 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is better served by keeping the bar a tiny bit too high than by lowering the bar a tiny bit too low. Let us err on the side of caution rather on the side of inclusion. For example, the KKK might hold a "conference" and and a speaker might speak there and "publish" the same speech on a personal website. This almost fulfills all of the definition above for "self-published" Terryeo 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to wait until the material has been published by a reliable source other than the author. By "published," we mean made available to a wide audience, so I would include speaking to a conference as "publication," so long as it's a conference that will make papers available on request, and which is organized by a reputable body. Although no one is fact-checking what the author has written, there are people standing between him and the act of publication, in that he had to be invited and had to agree the topic in advance, and so on.

None of this is the case with arXiv, as I understand it. Anyone can publish anything on that site, is that right? If so, it is the author, and the author only, who is making it available to a wider audience, which makes it entirely self-published, and there are obvious problems with that. If famous Professor X claims on arXiv to have solved famous problem Y, someone else will write about it soon enough, and then we use that publication as a source. If no one writes about it, that suggests it's not notable, not correct, not interesting, or whatever. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The selection process for conference presentations goes like this: One submits an abstract (half a page), and the organizers choose those talks whose topic and speaker promises to be sufficiently exciting. No extensive checking if the data supports the conclusions is done - the audience will see to that.

With preprints it's quite the same - you put your reputation on the line; if you publish too much junk people won't believe you any longer.

Our article on the arXiv actually says that there are some preprints that were never formally published - because everyone believes that they are key papers anyway. There are some more key papers that were never published in a refereed journal. The publication on transposable genes that earned Barbara McClintock her Nobel Prize is the 1951 Cold Spring Harbor report. According to your position we couldn't cite it, which would be silly. Dr Zak 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(What I'm trying to say here is that only scientific consensus, not peer review that makes a paper relevant.) We need some guidelines to help people gauge the relevance of non-conventional sources, like preprint servers, and the text as it stands now is unhelpful. It lumps together self-published material within and outside the scientific environment. Dr Zak 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I looked at www.arxiv.org. It seems that they divide the subjects they cover into topics, and they may require that a user either have already uploaded papers on a certain topic, or be endorsed by an existing member from that topic area. Of course they reserve the right to delete any paper, but it appears once a contributor has been endorsed, there won't be further review when the member uploads papers on the topic that he or she has been endorsed in. Gerry Ashton 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "self-published"

Anyway, could we have a definition of "self-published" in the guideline, for instance in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions? Seems like you all are talking a bit next to each other, each of you taking his/her own definition, and adapting the guideline from that angle. I suppose that, anyhow, and for avoidance of later disputes, we need a definition of "self-published" about which there is consensus, for the workability of this guideline.

I don't know whether this would work (just proposing what pops to my mind):

Self-published: a source is considered self-published when, for all the available publications of the work, the author of the work can not be distinguished from its publisher.

This includes "anonymous" works for which there is only one publisher (unless it can be verified with external sources that the identity of the author is different from the publishers' identity)

This includes (for instance) also "book catalogues" published by reputable publishing houses: however "reputable" the publisher is, when that publisher provides a list of works that are available for purchase, that is a self-publication.

This includes websites where it is only the author who decides on the content of what gets posted and what doesn't (even if the author had to go through an acceptation process as trusted person: if after that the content of what such accredited author contributes is always accepted for publication, it is self-published). Note that for most "forum" applications moderation is a post-publication process (usually restricted to removing some contributions). Since in such case there is no "filter" prior to publication, forum/blog contributions are nearly always "self-published". Examples:

• However much I appreciate Scott Adams, and the courage he has in discussing "hot" topics with the general public in his blog, none of that falls outside "self-published"; Scott Adams also has an e-book published concurrently in webspace and on paper, God's Debris. The publisher is Andrews Mc Meel. Not self-published.
• The Erik Satie website published by Niclas Fogwall has a forum application (here is the archive for the 2000-2004 contributions to that forum: http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/satie/newsg.html ) and "publishes" contributions by Erik Satie scholars (for instance, Articles listed on this page). One of these articles is an English translation of a piece that, on paper, was only published in French (Give a dog a bone). As the author of that piece (O. Volta), and the translator, are not the same as the publisher: not self-published. In the forum application on that website, however, almost anything is self-published, except in a few rare cases where Niclas Fogwall quotes an answer he received by snail mail from one of the scholars contributing content (reviewed by the publisher prior to publication).

The definition proposed above includes printed books where the means (money) for getting the book printed and distributed is provided by the author, even if that printing and distributing is done by third parties. However, if a printed publication is distributed by a publisher different from the author there's no pre-emptive assumption the publisher works "on hire" for the author, unless this can be verified by thrustworthy sources.

My proposed definition for "self-published" includes an editor-in-chief's editorial in a newspaper: the author of such editorial can be assumed to promulgate the stance of the periodical that publishes the editorial, so in that case there's no distinction between the "publisher" and the "author". However, regular journalism regarding events and topics in periodicals can be assumed to have to go through an acceptance procedure by the journal's editorial board, so then there is a distinction between author (journalist) and publisher.

In some of the other definitions proposed above I saw a danger of OR, I mean: Wikipedians are not equipped to assess whether an editorial review (exercised by universities, editorial boards and the like) is "sound" or not. So I tried to center my proposed definition on the author/publisher distinction, not on the "quality" of reviews prior to publication (which is a much more subjective area).

Unless there is a better proposal, I add the definition proposed above to the list of definitions on the guideline page. --Francis Schonken 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of that is needed. None of your examples includes working scientists either. We aren't really discussing if any source is self-published, what we want guidelines for is if a source has been fact-checked or is reputable.

Grigori Perelman published his paper on the Poincaré conjecture on arXiv in 2002. As of 2006 it is still under review and hasn't been formally published. It is however believed by people working in the field that he has indeed solved the problem. Should we be able to quote that paper, if so, with what qualifiers? I think we should be able to, pointing to the scientific consensus as we find it in review articles. Dr Zak 14:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition stated above has a weakness in that an author can form a corporation to publish his own works. Therefore, I think a more applicable definition is:

Self-published, works published by an author or an entity substantially under the control of the author. --Fahrenheit451 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Today we have "print - on - demand" books. The costs to publish are greatly less than years ago. Tomorrow the costs of publication is likely to be even less. We need a good definition of self-published. However, an entity might be only a tiny bit under the control of an author and then only for the micorsecond it takes for the author to mouseclick and make an agreement with said entity (organization). The element of action that self-published revolves around, I submit, is the element of action every substantial book revolves around, that is, a persistant effort by an author to create original statements that will entertain his readers. Terryeo 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Self-published: An information is self-published when, for all the available publications of the information, the attributed author can not be distinguished from the attributed publisher. Terryeo 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

None of this is needed. The leading paragraph says what this guideline attemps to do - "to provide guidance about how to identify [reliable sources]." The discussion is about arXiv. What we are trying to do is to give guidance to editors how to distinguish crankery on arXiv from normal, accepted publishing practice in mathematics and physics, where people commonly make preprints available before regular publication in a journal. That is why it's entirely out of place to compare arXiv with Scott Adams' writings or a webforum run by an Eric Satie scholar. Dr Zak 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite the whole story, though. This guideline is one of a series of policies and guideline which work together. They reference each other. They have a foundation which is Jimbo's statement that Wikipedia shall present a NPOV. The philosphy which we follow is stated in the 3 policies. The guidelines work together and provide a coherent whole. The problem of "how to identify reliable sources" first manifests as "what is a previously published, reliable, reputable source". That decision rests on the philosophy of WP:NPOV as explained by WP:V and WP:NOR. Then our concensus is presented in the WP:RS article and will include that arXiv can be used, can be used with restriction, or can not be used at all. But its inclusion rests on the concensus of understaning of editors of WP:NPOV as explained in WP:NOR and WP:V.Terryeo

N.N. keeps stripping the opening sentence

Dr. Zak seems to want to strip our guideline of much of its substance. I keep putting in Wikipedia articles should use previously published reliable and reputable sources which is a re-statement and reference to WP:V which is both accurate and useful. It is direct quotation. It presents the logical basis of WP:RS and therefore provides a logical coherency of policy and guideline. Dr. Zak keeps stripping it out to become, Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. This guideline is based on WP:V. The part of WP:V which this guideline is about is the "how do recognize and deal with" a portion of WP:V. Let us begin this guideline with the datum we are using to build this guideline. Why shouldn't that fuller statement be used instead of Dr. Zak's stripped down 1/2 statement? Terryeo 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"published" should be neither overemphasised, nor obliterated from the opening paragraph, as far as I'm concerned. So neither Zak's, nor Terryeo's version has consensus currently. If you want it differently, convince your fellow-wikipedians here on talk. Starting semi-revertwars, with versions that have been reverted before, is one of the least convincing "arguments" if you want to convince your fellow-wikipedians. I've not been convinced by Terryeo's arguments before, and Zak's arguments above are not of a very convincing sort either (ever heard about "being in denial"?). --Francis Schonken 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the complaints or misunderstandings sometimes raised is about how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines don't seem to present a coherent whole. WP:V uses a phrase which WP:RS is the guideline to. . .have already been published by reliable and reputable sources is the portion of the Policy, WP:V, which WP:RS (this guideline) adresses. Definitions of "published" are provided, and other definitions. It would provide a better guideline, I think, if that portion of the policy which this guidelines addresses were presented at the head of the guideline. You want (something), then you read the first line of the (something guideline) and you find you are at the right place, you see? To make it easy for editors, to make it so easy for editors that it would be difficult for an editor to make a mistake, to make navigation easy. Terryeo 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is senior to guidelines but policy is broad, general statements of intent. Policies do not give specific, exact direction for editor actions. Instead they present the philosophy which we follow. Guidelines, however, do give exact and specific directions which editors are to perform. If a guideline will reference to policy and then spell out that portion of policy which the guideline is providing editor directions for, I believe it will be helpful to editors. I believe it will be easier to understand, provide editors with more helpful information and reduce confusions. Therefore I would like to present that portion of WP:V which this guidelines, WP:RS expands and gives editor directions to. ...have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. This guideline tells how to find and recognize such sources. WP:CITE then tells how to include an editor's recognized source. Terryeo 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A certain banned user keeps trying to redefine Guideline here so that Office of Special Affairs collaborators can rewrite Scientology articles. --Fahrenheit451 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Being in denial? Do expand! Anyway, I genuinely thought I had reverted to the long-time version. Dr Zak 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to apologise, since your deletion of "published" from the opening sentence appears to have been unintentional. WP:V is about verifying w.r.t. sources that are as well "published" and "reliable" (not only the one, nor exclusively the other). WP:RS explains both concepts.

Re. the "denial" remark, there had been some edit-warring whether or not arXiv publications would or would not fall under the same guidance as what is described about "self-published" sources higher up on the guideline page. Currently arXiv is described as a self-published source on the guideline page. And the guidance about self-published sources has no different arragements for the type of scientific topics that appear in arXiv. If you have no problems with that, I think that incident can be closed too. Otherwise, of course the demarcation of "self-published" is relevant for your problem. --Francis Schonken 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit warring around the "arXiv section" shows that the guideline could do with some explanation what that website actually is and why people publish preprints (to assert priority, to get the word out about things that are still under review, or to publicize things that have been rejected by the proper journals). I'll try to come up with something. Dr Zak 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Organizational websites - Personal, Self-published, or what?

The following questions have come up in an article about a fraternity: Is the official website of an fraternal organization a "personal site"? Is it a "self-published" source? Does the size of the organization (ie its membership) matter? Blueboar 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: If there is no legal/fact review process by other parties, and a frat member can upload any material, then it is definitely a personal site.--Fahrenheit451 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is legal review... the fraternity in question has a law committee that makes sure there is nothing said on the web page that would violate the laws or cause a law suit. As for uploading material... no, you can not upload anything. The site contains pages along the lines of "Who we are", and "What we do". Just so you understand, I am not talking about a web page that a bunch of college frat buddies threw together about the local chapter of I-Tappa-Keg ... I am talking about the official web page of an adult fraternal order with chapters in many different countries. But this is really a broader question... the issue is how and when can organizational websites be cited to? Lets use a different example ... Would something like official web site of the "Boy Scouts of America" be considered a "personal site" or a "self-published" site? Can it be cited in articles to verify statements about what the official policy of the BSA is? Blueboar 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see that question is answered in WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources. Is anything unclear about that section of the guideline? I mean, I don't think it's rocket science to interpret how "[...] when we are writing about the owner of the website [...]" applies to your boy scouts example. --Francis Schonken 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That is my feeling as well... but apparently there is still confusion. To go into greater detail, the specific issue at the article in question is this: Can the website of Fraternity X, be used as a citation to support a statment about the views of Fraternity X towards Fraternity Y in an article about Fraternity Y. The debate seems to hinge on whether this website is "self-published" or "personal"

One side of the debate is arguing that since the web-site of Fraternity X is a "self-published" or "personal" site it can not be used (at all) in an article about another topic (fraternity Y) ... that only the statements of Fraternity Y can be included. This side points to the last line of WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves (Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above) to back up their argument. This side argues that since the citation is from a self-published, personal source, and is used in an article about another topic (ie another fraternity) it can not be used... and thus, any statement about Fraternity X's official stance re Fraternity Y is un-cited and must be removed.

The other side of the debate says that since Fraternity X is an official legal entity, an organization rather than a person or small group of people, their web site should not be considered a "personal" or "self-published" source. Thus the last line does not apply.

As an aside... I have tried to mention the "... when we are writing about the owner of the website..." guideline to resolve the issue, saing that even if it Fraternity X's web site were self-published or personal, the citation can still be used - since the statement in question is about the views of owner of the website, but at the moment no one seems to be paying attention to that... the argument seems to be going in circles on the first point, and so that was the point I wanted clarified). Blueboar 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent point to clarify. That it uses some buffering between the member's wish to post to the site and the members posting (legal liability checking), qualifies it as a higher quality site than some fraternities might run. But the basic question, what is the step just above personal websites, that question is not well addressed by our WP:RS. Terryeo 02:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, one clarification... the site does not allow members to post anything. The site simply contains offical informaton and policy statements about the fraternity. There is an appointed webmaster who is the sole maintainer of the site and who is, along with the elected leaders of the order, legally responsible for the content of the site. It is more analagous to a corporation's website than anything else. Blueboar 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting clarification. Some fratenities and probably some sororities will present excellent quality information. But some are likely to present information of a less excellent quality. "Intercollegiate Knights" comes to mind in the latter quality, heh. If we make a solid guideline which included every fraternity and every sorority's site, we might get into difficulty. Terryeo 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The antagonists in this debate are now arguing over whether an organization's or corporation's website is a "personal" site (thus falling under WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources or a "self-published" site thus falling under WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. So which are they? Or are they in some other category all together. We really need to clarify this as it is leading to revert wars over the validity of adding citations. Blueboar 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves has been amended. It clears up many of the issues that were being argued about in my example above. Thank you. On a less immediate note, I think we do need to take a second look at corporate and organizational websites, and define how they are to be treated. At the moment they tend to fall between the cracks. They are not really a "personal" website, unless you define the corporation or organization as a person. I may be wrong, but there might be a legal distiction that could help us determine their status (perhaps corporate and organizational websites can be used in libel cases, while personal sites ie an individual's website can not?... something like that?). As for "self-published"... I suppose corporate or organizational websites could be considered "self-published" if you mean "created on behalf of the corporation or organization". But is this really what "self-published" is inteded to mean in terms of Wikipedia. I suspect not. I suspect that the term entered the guidelines in its academic meaning... and refers to academic papers, essays, abstracts, etc. that have not been peer reviewed and published in an academic or professional journal.

I would like to suggest that we create a new heading for corporate and organizational websites, and clarify when and how they can and can not be used. Blueboar 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Other wikis?

I have come across several articles that contain citations to other on-line encyclopedias - encyclopedias that, in some cases, simply copy Wikipedia articles under GNU Free. The Guidelines say we should not cite to Wikipedia, as it is not a reliable source... so how can anyone justify citing to other encyclopedias if they simply copy what we say here? Blueboar 20:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I too have seen that sort of citation. In particular there is a Wiki which presents information in the Scientology articles which I am active in. I think the Wikipedia policy to apply is "Previously published by reliable and reputable sources". If our Wikipedia (which has fairly good standards) doesn't meet those standards, how can another wiki (some of which have even lower standards) meet them? WP:V. Terryeo 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-referencing is not an accepted practice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

copyright holder not useful

The question is the reliability of the publisher. I can't recall ever seeing a disputed situation where the publisher was unknown and the copyright holder was known. Junk has copyright too, and a copyright holder. Rjensen 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Does the policy on excluding blogs as sources for quotes apply in case it is explicitly stated that the quote is an opinion of the writer? If this is the case, then many political articles on wikipedia will require change, since so much of what is political argument in the United States now takes place in blogs. --CSTAR 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea of blogs as not being reliable sources needs to be adjusted, if not otright changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For what reason? Do you have any effective rebuttal to all the arguments given above and in other parts of Wikipedia that blogs, like personal Web sites, are inherently unreliable as sources for anything other than the personal views held by the author? I doubt it. --Coolcaesar 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the guideline needs some refining. Look at these articles for instance: Ben Domenech, Cindy Sheehan. I'm sure we can pile on more examples. These articles mirror political controversy in the United States where blogs are now playing a more important role. If we enforce the no blog guideline, many of these articles are largely reduced. I'm fully aware of the dangers here. But this needs some thought.--CSTAR 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS differentiates between facts and opinions regarding blogs. The mischief the guideline strives to avoid in unverified facts. In mainstream media, there are mechanisms for checking and verifying facts. Reporters tradition, reputation, editors, newspaper reputation. Opinion is different. Everybody has an opinion, they are like buttholes. If the blog is notable, the blogger is notable, the opinion is in his relevant field, then the opinion should be admissable. In quotes and verbatim- straight out of the horse's mouth would be my prefernce. The case in point that set off the discussion comes from the controversial Juan Cole article views and controversies page. He has earned the interest of the Israeli lobby for his interest in the plight of the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran and has been criticized heavily, inter alia for his blog "Informed Consent," for allegedly having poor scholarship, and for being too polemic. The best quote in his defense comes from James Joyner who is a sometime critic of JC but comes to his defense as far as the blog, academic expertise and publishing. i believe it is crucial to the article. There is no other way to make the point that needs to be made of the function that Juan Cole's blog has served in society- a role that educates the public in an expert way more beneficial than pedantic nit-picking. Here it is in context.

"Zachary Lockman, a Middle Eastern studies professor at New York University's, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, says "It's fair to say he is probably among the leading historians of the modern Middle East in this country." Joshua Landis, an assistant professor of Middle Eastern Studies at University of Oklahoma, says that Cole is "top notch." Landis continues: "He was the wunderkind of Middle East Studies in the 1980s and 1990s. He can be strident on his blog, which is one reason it is the premier Middle East blog.... [But] Juan Cole has done something that no other Middle East academic has done since Bernard Lewis, who is 90 years old: He has become a household word. He has educated a nation. For the last thirty years every academic search for a professor of Middle East history at an Ivy League university has elicited the same complaint: 'There are no longer any Bernard Lewises. Where do you find someone really big with expertise on many subjects who is at home in both the ivory tower and inside the Beltway?' Today, Juan Cole is that academic." Efraim Karsh has challenged Cole's expertise on subjects he addresses in his blog: "Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world." . Other critics, including Washington Times columnist Joel Mowbray have described Cole as having "a résumé thin on recent scholarship and a long track record of highly inflammatory and often inaccurate statements"[8], and stating "Mr. Cole has written considerably little in academic publications since launching his blog in early 2002". Frances Rosenbluth, a Professor of Political Science at Yale University, has stated that within "the field of contemporary Middle Eastern studies", Cole "is very highly regarded as a scholar." Critics have characterized Cole's extra-academic work as promoting, "polemic over scholarship" Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School, James Joyner argues that "While there’s no doubt Cole is polemnical, the idea that he has “abandoned scholarship” is rather absurd. For one thing, one could argue that interpreting current events through an expert lens for the mass public is scholarship and provides a greater service than writing obscure articles read by a handful of other experts, mostly to cite in their own obscure articles. Moreover, Cole has continued to publish at a more than reasonable rate for a tenured full professor. If one looks at his CV, one finds nine book chapters or articles written since 2005."" Take Care! --Will^(talk) 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Web forum quoting a newspaper article

I've been trying to find out whether we can include a piece of bad press about Presbyterian Ladies' College, Perth, in our article. There has been a bit of discussion at the PLC Perth talk page and the WikiProject Schools talk page on this topic. I remember hearing about the incident on the national news when it happened, but the only source I can find is [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991640/posts this] which was already in the article. It is a post from Free Republic, an online forum, including a copy of a report from the West Australian newspaper, however the original report is not available at the West Australian website. Is this allowable as a source? Blarneytherinosaur 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fast answer is NO. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet says not. It is possible that particular newspaper report appears cached 100% pefect, exactly as it was published. But if that cached newspaper report is the only existing copy then it was not widely published and therefore, according to WP:V, would be at best, a borderline piece of information to include in an article. But an online forum (generally) can be contributed to by anyone, and in an anonomous, unattributeable way. The standards which make a published document of good repute include attribitability (who created it) and legal liability (sometimes called fact checking). As a secondary source, that is, as a quotation which is cited to a newspaper article the answer, as appears in an online forum is no (my undertanding). Does that newspaper have a website? For some documents a personal website owner might purches the right (or make some other agreement) to present a past article on a personal website. Then the personal website can be linked to, to present the article (usually with the author of the article attributed). Terryeo 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: Terryeo's fast answer is "NO". However, it should be noted that part of the recent ArbCom case against him was due to his insistence on a very idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS, such that if an article contained a reference that originally came from a reliable source such as a book considered a classic in its field, but the format of the reference included a convenience link to a copy of the article on a website owned by any individual, that this constituted all the permission he needed to remove that reference and everything in the article that cited that reference. His argument was that, if the reference included such a convenience link (the kind that are encouraged by WP:CITE) he was entitled to assume that whoever cited that source had only seen the content in question on that website and furthermore that any transcriptions done by the website owner had to be treated as being utterly unreliable (especially if the site owner had a disclaimer on his site declaring that his opinions were his own, which Terryeo tried to argue was equal to an announcement that everything on the site was a personal opinion.) Terryeo later claimed that the ArbCom had supported this extreme interpretation, but that is utterly unsupported by the facts, as can be seen by looking at what the ArbCom actually said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up my AbCom case again, User:Antaeus Feldspar, and feel free to bring it up at any time in any situation, even if it is not germane to the thread of the discussion. I did misunderstand an element of reposited publications on a personal websites. In WP:RS discussions since my arbitration, it has been better spelled out and I, for one, appriciate that. It has become more clearly stated that a repositied piece of previously published information on a personal website is an acceptable citation. But, a source other than a personal website is a more desireable source of citation. For one thing, personal websites sometimes have copyright issues which Wikipedia wants to avoid. Also, if a personal website is used for such a citation, an indication of the orginal publisher is desireable. These are efforts toward maintaining good Wikipedic standards of reliable, reputeable publication. It would give our readers more confidence to link to the Times Magazine site than to link to a personal website, containing a Times article, when that can be done. Terryeo 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You have what would, in an alternate universe, be a point. Namely, if you had said to Blarney first what you are saying now, then it would not be germane to the thread to point out your history of misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies on this matter. However, as anyone can see for themselves, you started by telling Blarney "NO" (emphasis in original), that because a particular news article is not available on the newspaper's website, that means it is not widely published (which I think rivals some of your past interpretations of policy on the misinterpretation scale) and therefore cannot be used. Why are you changing your position in mid-stream and acting as if anyone who points out the flaws in your first position is inaccurately criticizing your second position? -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a response, Antaeus Feldspar. But because the issues you raise are more personal than addressed to the thred of topic, I'll reply to you on your discussion page. Terryeo 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The reliability of a a partisan web forum or personal website as it pertains to WP:RS will dictate that such forum cannot be used as a source for anything other than the article about itself or its owner, in particular if the subject is controversial. (quote: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.) On the other hand, as not all newspaper articles are available online (not yet...), not having such an article online is not a reason not to cite from it, if the article itself is mentioned by a reputable source or if the article is available in a library or archive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is which of the two separate meanings of "source" is indicated here: "source" as in "someone whose research, testimony, or analysis we are drawing on" or "source" as in "someone we are trusting simply to reproduce accurately the contents of a newspaper article or similar". I notice that this is a recurring problem, that people will cite the policies regarding sources in the first sense as if they applied to "sources" in the second sense, and as already mentioned, this has led to some people removing from articles information that came from hard copy books on the "reasoning" that the passages being quoted were available on a "personal website" and thus unacceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright to use the forum copy of the article to get the information to fill out {{cite news}} thus {{cite news | first=Susan | last=Hewitt | pages= | title=Schoolgirls caught with homemade porn | date=September 27, 2003 | publisher=The West Australian | url= }} ? This relies on the forum for the details of publication (author, publisher and date), but not for the details of the incident. (I don't know how many people have access to old copies of the West Australian, but if they do they could find the article). Blarneytherinosaur 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The way to cite a primary source that you haven't inspected yourself but is mentioned in a secondary source that you did inspect is "$PRIMARY source, as cited by $SECONDARY_SOURCE_(full bibliographic data)". Now this webphorum you refer to really doesn't rise to the level of reliable source by any standard, and citing a source that you haven't inspected is a big no-no. Dr Zak 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Generally, among scholars, lawyers, and other professionals, it is considered a sign of laziness, dishonesty, or incompetence to cite indirectly to a primary source through a secondary source. The better option is to obtain a copy of the primary source, examine it to see if it includes the assertion described in the secondary source, and then cite the primary source directly. The only time lawyers cite to a primary source through a secondary source is to show that the secondary source relied upon the primary source in a certain way. For example, rather than cite directly John Adams' famous words about a government of laws and not of men (see Rule of law for more information), I might cite to it as cited in a Supreme Court of California case to show that the highest court of my state has endorsed his words. But if I wanted to just make a statement about the rule of law in general, I would just cite directly to Adams. --Coolcaesar 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've run into several documents which are cited but appear as HTML on personal websites. They appear to be copies, hand typed from the original document. Court Affidavits are one example, but newspaper articles too. Personal website owners who like a particular document often forget to properly attribute it to the primary source. Sometimes the date of publication is missing or the author of a newspaper article or, in the case of Affidavits, the notary who certified that the individual who swore the statement was the individual who signed the sworn statement. Any indication back to the original, primary source would add repute to articles, I think. Terryeo 04:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not touch a typed transcription or HTML version of a court document, TV/Radio interview, newspaper article, book, etc. with a 10-foot pole, if that transcription is on a personal web page, discussion forum, or USENET, for the simple reason that it defies WP:V (e. g. we cannot tell readers to trust the accuracy of that transcription). As said before, we can only cite reputable sources. If we do not have that primary source available to us when adding material to an article, I would strongly argue not to cite from it, in particular if the subject is controversial, and the secondary source is a non-reliable source as per WP's definition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my consideration too. How can we have confidence a strongly POV person exactly duplicated a document? If WP:RS would specifically state HTML, hand typed duplications of Court Documents and Affidavits could not be used as secondary sources, the Scientology article series would be enormously improved. Almost all (maybe all) of the Court documents and affidavits are hand-typed HTML versions on personal websites. Terryeo 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jossi and Terryeo. The risk is just way too high that the transcriber may have deliberately inserted subtle errors or omissions to push a POV. After all, they know the chance anyone would bother to sue to have a minor inaccuracy fixed is very small because the subtle nature of the error implies there are no legally cognizable damages! --Coolcaesar 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet if the exact same person who made the transcription for the website were to become a Wikipedia editor and transcribe directly from the primary or secondary source into the Wikipedia article where appropriate, not only would that be allowed, but anyone choosing to object would need to actually show some evidence that there was some inaccuracy in the transcription. Yes, one can construct some scenario where some devious POV-pusher might in fact have craftily faked up what looks like a court transcript and kept it up on their website, sometimes for years, risking exposure by anyone who had a copy of the original to compare it with. But we must consider that anyone so deceptive and malign would have other, far easier methods by which to subvert Wikipedia, and even the known incidents where these methods have been employed have not resulted in blanket-ban policies such as the kind that is being proposed here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia and all other MediaWiki sites have full version tracking and transparency. There is actually a mechanism to challenge the veracity of material (called the talk page). So if something gets posted on Wikipedia that's wrong or a little bit off, someone will challenge it, and then if anyone else cares to defend it, they can dig up the source. Please scroll up to Section 28 of this talk page, where the Wikipedia challenge-and-defend verifiability process actually worked. Faisal questioned whether that article really said what it was being quoted for in that article. I knew nothing about that topic, but my curiosity was piqued, so the next time I was at Stanford doing research on other issues, I looked up the Goitein work and verified that it was cited correctly.

As you should know, the vast majority of Web servers do not have a talk page feature, and thus it is impossible for casual users visiting a Web site to know that at least some visitors dispute its content. Complaining to the owner's ISP about their Web site will usually not help, since most ISPs don't interfere with Web site content unless it's blatantly libelous, obscene, threatening, or constitutes copyright infringement. --Coolcaesar 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how hard it is to get the West Australian article from an online archive, unless Australia is so backward that none of its newspapers are preserved by any of the large news databases (LexisNexis, ProQuest, Infotrac, EBSCO, etc). --Coolcaesar 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue my point further by saying: think of the reader. Antaeus may be rigth in his description of a possible scenario, but the issue at hand is that if we allow such transcriptions hosted on pesonal websites, forums or blogs, as sources for our articles there is no way that we can vouch to our readers that the information is accurate. That is the whole point of WP:V and of this guideline: so that our articles can be trusted by our readers as being accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V tells us the general idea. WP:RS is ours to write in order to implement that idea. We have to set the bar somewhere, the "what can be included" bar. We have to set it somewhere and we need to word the guideline so the bar is spelled out in a pretty clear manner because there are all manner of editors, from scholars to people who barely speak English. At one time, as Wikipedia was forming and it was unclear that editing would be popular, many things were not clearly defined. As time goes on, we can gradually improve reader confidence, but we will do it only if we set things out clearly. Else it all becomes a jumble of opinion and arguement. Better a clear guideline that doesn't include enough than an unclear guideline that allows many issues, each subject to arguement about individual websites, I think. Terryeo 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we can never vouch to our readers that the information is accurate -- or inaccurate. I've seen certain editors, for instance, remove citations, including citations they themselves had requested, asserting that they had checked the citation and it didn't say anything about the matter under discussion -- an assertion which was, in fact, completely false. Yet we've passed no blanket policies to prevent anyone from ever doing so again. That's the position that I am recommending here, that we not alter policy to conflate the two meanings of a "source" in such a restrictive way. I fully concede that there will be websites, forums, et cetera, which we simply cannot trust at all -- not only can we not trust their interpretations or their analysis, but we cannot even trust them even to transcribe or reproduce with honesty and accuracy. I simply think we should handle the issue of such websites on a case-by-case basis, rather than by default treating all of them identically to the worst of them we can imagine -- and even that is still being over-restrictive compared to what the situation normally is on Wikipedia, where our hypothetical mis-transcriber could simply add the bad information directly, with a correctly-formatted but incorrect citation, and there would be no blanket bans in place to try and address the scenario that perhaps he was misrepresenting the source he was quoting in some way. If and when Wikipedia stops allowing anyone with an IP address that hasn't been blocked to sign up for a username and edit, then it may make sense to pass such restrictive policies. Until that happens, it seems to me that straining at the gnat and swallowing the elephant is also harmful to the reader, even if the harm is less visible in its manifestation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with what you say, specifically about doing this in a case-by-case basis with the added caveat that if in doubt, don't use it. Better not to have such a transcription than to have it, if there is an obious doubt expressed by involved editors as for the accuracy of it. Furthermore, I would argue that some editors use this "link to transcription" as a subterfuge to link to transcribed sources in websites that othweriwse will not be allowed as reliable sources for any material in the article, just because that website promotes their POV, such as a partisan website. So, proceeding with caution and disallowing obvious disregard for WP:RS, should be the way to address this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have read the above twice, and perhaps I'm just confused, but it seems to me that you all are talking about two different situations:

a) A Wikipedia editor look at an offline/not easily accesible source, cites it, and also provides a link to an online version/summary/commentary for convenience and

b) A Wikipedia editor uses said online version/summary/commentary as the source.

Which leads us to two varying ideas of the needed reliability of the online source (see definition of "convenience link" on the Project Page):

a) The convenience link may be from an unreliable source, but so long as the editor used the actual, original source, it is the reliablility of that source which matters, not the reliability of the convenience link.

b)Wikipedia readers must have confidence that such links present the original information in the manner the original author intended it be published, per WP:V.

In my view, "convenience link" applies to the former situation, but it seems to be a point of contention.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

arXiv, part three

There has been an edit war going on about the section covering arxiv and related sites. As the purpose of this guideline is to give advice on how to ferret out proper, credible sources it's not helpful to declare preprints selfpublished sources (which of course they are). Rather what is needed is some words on the purpose of such sites.

There is a growing number of websites that carry preprints and conference abstracts, the most popular of these being arXiv. Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. Any material downloaded from such a site must be considered self-published and should should be approached with extreme caution. See the section above on self-published sources.

Researchers may publish on arXiv for different reasons: to establish priority in a competitive field, to make available newly developed methods to the scientific community while the publication is undergoing peer-review (a specially lengthy process in mathematics), and sometimes to publish a paper that has been rejected from several journals or to bypass peer-review for publications of dubious quality.

On the other hand, editors would do well to remember that scientific ideas are not accepted because they have passed peer-review; they are accepted because they are part of the scientific consensus. Therefore, if any editor wishes to present a statement in a preprint as accepted fact s/he won't use the preprint as a source; instead s/he won't have trouble finding a credible third party citing that preprint.

Dr Zak 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:V, previously published by reliable and reputable sources completely blanket and cover such presentations? They aren't actually published, the are merely presented, thus WP:V prevents using such presentations as secondary sources? Though of course such a presentation could be used about a particular author, in an article about the author, as a primary source. Isn't that right? Terryeo 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we arguing (again) about the definition of "published"? A paper uploaded to Arxiv is published, since it is available to the general public. Also, the fact that an idea has gained acceptance in the scientific community should make the source (the paper!) "reliable and reputable". Dr Zak 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The meaning came accross that such "publication" is actually seeking acceptance from the scientific community and that is why it is published in that manner. "Reliable and reputeable" are what such a paper stands to gain (from what you said) and not what such a publication has already achieved? Terryeo 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a fundamental (and widespread) misunderstanding how science is actually done. Any publication, be it in a refereed journal or informally as a preprint on a website is seeking acceptance. Once the results have found acceptance the statements made become part of the body of knowledge. Dr Zak 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between self-published material on arXiv and material published by a serious journal. The rule-of-thumb question is always: are there people standing between the writer and the act of publication? In the case of arXiv, there aren't (as I understand it), which is why it's problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the question that we should be asking is: do we have assurance that the material in question represents the state of knowledge. Peer-review is one way of assuring that; indications that the publication has received an equivalent degree of scrutiny is another. Dr Zak 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

It looks as if the section on "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" was originally drawn up to assist with statements that individuals make about themselves. The advice in that section isn't so suitable for self-published scientific literature and could do with some improvement. Dr Zak 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it covers any self-published material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Errors

There are errors being introduced into this guideline, and it's not being edited to be consistent with the policies. The section below, for example:

Published : In the context of this guideline "published" means a source that is available to the general public and that, additionally, meets at least two of the following three conditions:

1. It is known who the author is;
2. It is known who published the source or who is its copyright holder;
3. The source is quoted in scholar works.

Something isn't published unless it's quoted "in scholar works"? (whatever that means). It's not published unless we know who the copyright holder is? (So if a freelance writer gets something published in a journal, we can't use it until we find out who holds the copyright.) It's not published unless we know who the author is? (So editorials in newspapers aren't published.)

And: "By fact we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

That's not what a fact is. A fact is a piece of information, an actual state of affairs, regardless of who disputes it.

Please do not add any more contentious material to this guideline. It must be consistent with WP:V and the other content policies, and it has to make sense, and be written clearly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If this page is edited in an unstable way and errors are added, it will end up with the status of the MoS, which is still called a guideline but in fact people pay it very little attention, because it goes through periods of wild editing and can't be trusted. It would be good to get a stable version of this agreed upon, but major changes have to be discussed, be correct, be well written, and be consistent with the policies. We will confuse editors if we say one thing on a policy page and the opposite on a guideline.

I'm going to go through this and restore some of the sections that have been heavily edited, have mistakes in them, or are not consistent with the NOR, V, or NPOV, and then I hope we can discuss any changes other editors want to propose or retain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak, could you please stop reverting while I'm editing? Otherwise, we'll end up with chaos. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I've finished. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailing lists

This section contradicts the self-published sections of RS and V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated or hosted by a reputable organization then postings may be cited and quoted with care. For example, all postings to all H-Net lists have to be approved by editors, and all editors have their identities confirmed and have scholarly credentials. Therefore these mailing lists do not suffer from the identity problem of Usenet and most mailing lists. They can be cited because they carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. However, very rarely are posts on these and similar lists juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Like all references, superior quality sources are preferred. Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar.

As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is a reputable source. If the list does not meet these criteria, it may not be cited. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject header, the archive or forum name, the URL and date.

Dear Slim: The discussion which lead to the introduction of the text and the one before it went on for over two weeks. While the parties agreed on little else, they were able to agree on this. Would you please explain why you think the reasoning that went into this is wrong or in conflict with other guidelines and policies? While not a fan of Elist archives, I do see value in them here. --CTSWyneken 02:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The material on the mailing lists is self-published. Self-published material isn't allowed except in limited circumstances, as the page says. That section contradicted the self-published section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see moderated mailing lists as self-published. In the case of H-Net lists, for example, a credentialed scholar is selected by academics to watch the list. All posts go through this moderator to see if it is suitable. In my view, that makes the posts H-Net published, not self-published. Now that doesn't mean it is a high quality source, as Doright has tried to argue, but we can be confident that the scholars are who they say they are and that the opinions are at least informed by their scholarship. In some cases, these posts include full citations (although not always). --CTSWyneken 14:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, do not misrepresent my views. Personal attacks are not helpful.--Doright 08:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All the H-Net lists have teams of editors with academic credentials, all of whom are vetted and approved by a central academic committee. Furthermore each H-net list has an editorial board. All daily postings have to be approved by the editor on duty that day, making the H-Net lists resemble an academic newsletter published by a scholarly groups. H-Net book reviews very closely emulate the reviews published in scholarly journals, and go through an even more rigorous approval and editing process. Rjensen 14:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of open source developers communicate via mailing lists. The developer's mailing lists may contain valuable information regarding internal development / technical issues / social structure. While I agree that these sources should be used with extreme caution, there are circumstances where they may be acceptable, or at least serve temporarily until a better source is found. For example, this message on the netbsd-advocacy mailing list announces a logo competition, while this more official announcement states the results. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We are asking here how to deal with informal knowledge. In specialized research areas there is no need to publish in journals because all the relevant people know each other and exchange ideas via private communication. My degree supervisor once said that "only two dozen people in the world understand direct methods, and the problem is that half of those are over 50". We should point out that informal knowledge exists instead of discounting such material because it "contradicted the self-published section". Dr Zak 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I agree that such material needn't be discounted, though I'm not sure the best way to deal with it. The example I gave above is from Comparison of BSD operating systems. (And yes, I know the article still needs some work on referencing, but its getting there....) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, neither RS nor V exclude self-published sources entirely but merely limit them to appropriate usage. The electronic mailing list archives policy falls within this appropriate usage by requiring the person be reputable and of authority.

The text of the electronic mailing lists policy clearly limits usage of electronic mailing lists consistent with RS and V.

Both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability state the reason for limiting Self-published sources is that, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

"Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material."

Secondly, in the example of H-antisemitism there is someone that "stands between the writer and the act of publication." Furthermore, the policy requires that the list is moderated or hosted by a reputable organization. Although it's not necessary, one could reasonably argue that H-antisemitism is not self-published.

Restoring electronic mailing list archives because, as written, it does not contradict RS or V.

--Doright 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright, mailing list material comes under "self-published sources." If the material falls within those exceptions, it's fine. If it's doesn't, it's not. We therefore shouldn't have a special section for every single type of self-published source, because of the danger of introducing loopholes and inconsistencies. The way the section was written, it contradicted the self-published source section.

What stands between the writer and the act of publication on H-antisemitism? People can write whatever they want, without editing. Or have I misunderstood it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see above that people are saying it's moderated by an academic. I find that hard to believe, but it still doesn't mean it's edited. Moderated could simply mean they check to make sure it's not completely inappropriate. I'll take a look at what they say about their publishing criteria. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the rules for h-antisemitism. They say: "Postings shall in no way be censored. Nor will they have to conform to some preconceived philosophy or agenda. However, the moderators propose to distribute only those messages which meet the standards of scholarly seriousness and reasonably good manners. Let us emphasize that our intention is not to exclude for the sake of exclusion but rather to maintain quality. We are well aware that valuable contributions can come from people who have published little or nothing in the field."

That obviously isn't enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Note in particular: "We are well aware that valuable contributions can come from people who have published little or nothing in the field." Also, the section as it was said mailing lists should be regarded as though they were television interviews. But with television interviews, people are selected beforehand for certain views, asked certain questions, then the tapes are mercilessly edited before going out. People don't just turn up at random at a television studio and get to say whatever they want on air so long as they maintain "reasonably good manners." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The key H-Amtisemitism phrase is "moderators propose to distribute only those messages which meet the standards of scholarly seriousness". That is if messages do not meet scholarly standards according to the editors and editorial board, they do not appear. That does not mean the editors agree with the posting. It does not mean the posting = consensus of scholars. Indeed on any given topic you will probably see multiple opinions, some overlapping and some contradictory. For consensus, we should look to the academic books reviews. Rjensen 08:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that that's the key phrase. The key phrase is that that they allow posting by anyone, published or unpublished. The posts simply have to meet what the particular moderators call "scholarly seriousness." I could write a post about anti-Semitism right now that would meet a criterion of "scholarly seriousness," but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use me as a source. The forum had to be closed down at one point because of flame wars, so clearly the moderating didn't work very well. The posts aren't edited in any way, and the list moderator is a postgraduate student. (Or rather, she says she is doing preliminary research with a view to starting a PhD, but currently teaches English as a second language.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why anyone would want to use this as a source; that is, does anyone have an example of good material that could be obtained there, but not anywhere else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, The electronic mailing list archives policy falls within this appropriate usage by requiring the person be reputable and of authority. Nobody is suggesting that all messages on H-net meet this criteria. That's why it's added to the mailing list archives policy statement. Again, there is no contradiction. Robert Michael has authority in his domain. When his arguments are published on H-antisemitism, they meet all necessary criteria articulated in V, NOR and NPOV.--Doright 09:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the need to explicitly include this "special section" has been created by the efforts of CTSWyneken where he deleted [this] and is now proposing to delete all citations to scholars on H-antisemitism, e.g., [here], where he states, "Email list archives no longer recognized as sources" and "please removed all citations to such sources and the quotations they support."--Doright 09:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The material on those lists is self-published because no one edits the posts in any way. Anything deemed unsuitable is not published. Anything deemed suitable is. That's the extent of the moderation. There is no editing, and so the material is self-published.

That means it is covered by this paragraph in RS, which says self-published sources should not be used, but ...

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. (my emphasis)

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog [or similar self-published material] is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Therefore, Robert Michael, who is a well-known academic, can be used within his field of expertise, so long as there is no doubt that it really is him. He should, however, be used with caution, because he is not being edited. Therefore, we shouldn't overuse him; for example, by peppering articles with lots of h-antisemitism posts from him. And it's always better to use a quote from him that has been published by a regular publisher. But bearing those limitations in mind, his posts on h-antisemitism may be used under V and RS, as they stand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what "editing" is. The key decision an editor makes is to NOT publish an item. In scholarly journals it is common to reject 50+% of all submisions, primarily because of space limits or poor quality. Journals do not reject articles because of the status of the author, nor does H-net. H-Net lists have very generous space limit so the primary reasons for rejection are poor quality and duplication of points already made. Editors on H-Net often ask that submission be rewritten and sometimes they make detailed suggestions about exactly how to rewrite it. (I have been an H-Net editor since 1993, on H-ETHNIC.) In general, however, editors are not in the business of rewriting submissions. (Copy-editing is another matter; that means spell checking and style consistency.) So bottom line: H-Net lists are all fully edited by disinterested scholars (who have editorial boards supervising them). However, any one H-Net posting is not designed to represent a consensus, That comes from reading a lot of postings, as well as book reviews, articles, and books. Wiki should be reporting the consensus, and therefore should not rely on a single posting. Rjensen 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors check and edit the material they decide to publish. They edit the writing, they check the facts, and they check for libel. None of this is done on H-net. Material posted there is self-published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the particular H-net list that's being discussed, and that prompted this section, is edited by someone who teaches English as a second language and is not a scholar. More importantly, I ask that editors stop trying to change policies and guidelines so as to allow them to make particular edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is "self-published" or not, I do not know. However, as I said before, it's not necessary to make that determination, since the text of the electronic mailing lists policy clearly limits usage of electronic mailing lists consistent with RS and V, because the list archive policy effectively requires something similar to the "exception" criteria for self-published material. Yet, I'm sympathetic to Slim’s concern that we shouldn't have a special section for every single type of source, because of the danger of introducing loopholes and inconsistencies. This may be a case of less is more. I agree with the analysis of the current problem, i.e., of being one where an editor should stop trying to change policies and guidelines so as to allow them to delete particular edits. Here is the [first policy edit] on the subject and here is the [first talk edit] on the subject and here is [what preceeded it] and here is [what immediately followed from it] and again [here] and yet again [here]. My own POV is enough time has been wasted by many people and this should come to an end.--Doright 05:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Query for Dr. Zak

Dr. Zak, I'm not clear on the meaning of the sentence you keep reverting to:

For statements that individuals have make [sic] about themselves, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources.

Can you elaborate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where the misunderstanding comes from now. You wrote above that you understood the section to be about self-published sources writing about themselves, but in fact it covers any kind of self-published material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The section "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" is taken word by word from from the WP:BLP, where it deals with statements that individuals have made about themselves. It does a good job in that context and probably was originally intended to deal with such material. However, if we take a "self-published source" to mean a source without editorial oversight, such as a preprint, then a statement like "not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing" is out of place and "not contentious" is too weak.

For publications that are not peer-reviewed we need criteria like "recognized by the scientific community at large, as proved by review articles". It would be over-cautious to exclude material that received no external scrutiny at the time of publication when there is proof that it has passed scrutiny after publication and is used by the intended audience. Dr Zak 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, do you mind looking through Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#arXiv.2C_part_three? Dr Zak 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dr Zak, sure, I'll take a look through that section. Just to clarify: the section we're talking about was here first, and was copied over to BLP because it's relevant there too.

I'm not sure I can see what you're getting at. You say: "However, if we take a "self-published source" to mean a source without editorial oversight, such as a preprint, then a statement like "not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing" is out of place and "not contentious" is too weak." Why is "not unduly self-serving" out of place? It is not the only criterion, but it is one of them and an important one. This isn't a question of simply "not peer-reviewed," but of actually being self-published, and it has to deal with all types of publications, not just scientific ones. In fact, it will almost never have to deal with scientific ones, because any serious science papers do have to be peer-reviewed before being included.

Also, I don't get this sentence at all: "It would be over-cautious to exclude material that received no external scrutiny at the time of publication when there is proof that it has passed scrutiny after publication and is used by the intended audience." How would we know that it had passed scrutiny after publication? If another publication refers to it positively, then that secondary publication becomes our source insofar as it refers to the material in the first. And if it's an acknowledged expert publishing in his field, we can use it anyway even if self-published. But if it's not an acknowledged expert, why would we want to include it?

Sorry if I'm missing your point and being dense! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If a consensus of experts emerges that some statement in a source that isn't peer-reviewed (i.e. a preprint or a conference abstract) is is fact true then we should be able to present that statement as fact. Recognized subject experts supporting the statement in the editorial part of respected journals would pass the mark, IMO. On the other hand, if a subject expert makes a statement we should be cautious - sometimes the subject expert may turn out to be wrong. Dr Zak 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope I'm not interrupting here,

1. I'd like to request some clarification re. "the section we're talking about was here first, and was copied over to BLP because it's relevant there too" - I think we're talking about Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves which is currently, as far as I can see a merger of the former "Personal websites as primary sources", and the former "Self-published sources in articles about themselves". The first was not BLP-specific, and generally acceptable as far as I'm concerned (also its corner thoughts were "primary source", and "allowed with caution", but not specifying in which types of articles). The second was moved here by me 3 weeks ago [9], so that was not the basis for the related section of WP:BLP. On the contrary, I imported it here from WP:V, and that version was, as we now know, derived from WP:BLP. So, no, the current version of that section, which has the specific BLP restrictions, "was not here first". The BLP-specific material should be clearly marked as such IMHO. Or am I missing something?
2. Another suggestion, maybe sowewhat indirectly related: Dr. Zak has a few times used the Poincaré conjecture article (and Grisha Perelman's involvement in finding a proof for that conjecture) as an example for what he'd like to see changed to the WP:RS guideline w.r.t. preprint type publications. A few days ago I worked on the referencing system of the Poincaré conjecture article, and re-arranged some of its content, all of this finished with input by others.[10] For me, I think the Poincaré conjecture article is currently completely OK with WP:V, WP:RS, etc. (except that I'd still remove one of the external links, linking to a blog discussion from a few years ago, don't see that as very relevant any more). Further, I don't think we should rewrite policy/guidelines to get another way of inserting the references (and extent of claims) in that article. Do both of you agree with that? I mean, maybe the reworked article is a good example to find out where there are still differences (or not?) --Francis Schonken 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In science things are considered part of the body of knowledge by a consensus of experts, and I'm trying to adjust the guideline to reflect that fact. Peer-reviewed publications have been scrutinized by experts, and that's why we allow those as sources for articles. We should also allow self-published articles, provided that they have been subject to a similar level of scrutiny. The reason why preprints are especially popular in mathematics is that in discipline the peer-review process can take years, and meanwhile the author might wish to present his newly developed methods to his colleagues - each of them with their own set of eyeballs. At some point (for a sufficiently important paper) a consensus emerges if the preprint can be trusted or not.

I have no particular connection to the Poincaré conjecture, it's just a good example for the role preprints have in the mathematical literature. Dr Zak 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Still,

1. You didn't yet answer the question whether you think the (current version) of the Poincaré conjecture article OK or not (as an example)? The article doesn't state anything in the sense of "Wikipedia confirms that Perelman proved it", but it contains the links to the relevant primary sources (Perelman's three papers) in the External links section; and the article contains ample links to secondary sources that describe the validity of these papers; and links to some sources stating that Perelman's proof was "finished" by two Chinese researchers publishing in a Chinese journal (so some people assert, apparently, that Perelman's work still needed "finishing"). The rest is left to the reader. Is that OK for you? Or are you still insisting Wikipedia policies & guidelines should allow to state in the article "Perelman proved it", with a reference to his three arXiv papers? Note that nor "Poincaré", nor the conjecture named after him, are mentioned in any of the three arXiv "Ricci flow" papers by Perelman (I checked). So one would still need other sources to ascertain that the "Poincaré conjecture" is a specific case of the "geometrization conjecture" mentioned by Perelman in his papers. So, in all, I think all this is covered neatly in the present version of the article text & references, and doesn't call for a rewrite of WP:RS (nor WP:V) in the sense of accepting preprint papers as "proof" for a statement: the acceptance, by the scientific community, of the "proof" is referenced by secondary sources in such case.
2. Maybe also have a look at the new footnote I added to the WP:RS page.[11] For Jimbo there appears to be no problem to "cite original research" in Wikipedia articles (if I'm not erring, arXiv type preprints would often refer to original research, at least the Perelman papers can be considered so). Isn't that a part of the answer to your concern too? --Francis Schonken 09:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the self-published sources section was copied into BLP, either from here or from V, but it was definitely in one of those first. It was not written with BLP in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here [12] you say what you have in mind as the scope for a self-published source. Self-published scientific publications isn't thought of at all. Per the verifiability policy self-published material that by consensus of subject experts is part of the body of knowledge would constitute a "reliable and reputable source." What I've been trying to do is to come up with some guidance how to spot such material. Dr Zak 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning efforts

@SlimVirgin: I appreciate your efforts to get this guideline a bit cleaned up. It needs it badly. But IMHO not the way you're going at it, seems like you're loosing it completely.

First you undermine the status of truly non-negotiable policy, wikipedia:neutral point of view, which has, for as long as I know: "By fact we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". The definition of fact you re-inserted reads like a definition of "truth", and, as we all know Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (so you're bringing down the stature of another non-negotiable policy, wikipedia:verifiability, too). Wikipedia is about recording facts in the meaning the NPOV policy gives to facts.

Then you remove the definition of "self-published" that has been in this guideline for I don't know how long ("self-published, ... means ... not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking") [13] (edit comment: "[...] completely wrong"). Then half an hour later, you re-insert this definition in another place [14]. Was it no longer "completely wrong" then?

It was the section that I moved to talk that I said was completely wrong, as the diff shows; not that one sentence, which I simply moved elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this method of yours can only be described as de-stabilising: "... adding things, moving things. People are losing track and the page is becoming unstable" [15].

Please do as I did with my recent changes to this guideline page, find consensus for them on talk page first. For the time being I'm going to revert to Zak's last version before your fit of guideline-edititis started, and hope you can leave it at that. If you're tempted nonetheless, may I recommend Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics? --Francis Schonken 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing "tit-for-tat" because your attempts at policy re-write were rejected is not a good example of the collaborative kind of work we should be doing here. The guideline has gotten filled up with junk, and SlimVirgin and Jossi are cleaning that up. Please don't be obstructive, Francis. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, saying that someone, at a fundamental level, is messing with Wikipedia's core content policies WP:NPOV and WP:V is not a "tit-for-tat". I'm going to remove the current inappropriate "fact" definition, and refer to the relevant WP:NPOV section, without copying the definition given there to this guideline. --Francis Schonken 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not WP:NPOV and this is not WP:V, but a guideline. This is not a "core policy" but a guideline interpreting those "core policies". It is by concensus that WP:RS comes into existence, not by decree. And your tone, User:Francis Schonken is more argumentative than seeking of cooperation. Terryeo 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem you are dealing with is that "Self-published" has a defined meaning in academia, but is not as defined to the general public. This is why a separate category is needed to deal "personal websites". Yes, these are "self-published", in that they are uploaded onto the web by the person or entity who created them... but they are not "self-published" in the academic sense, as some "personal" websites (specifically corporate and organizational websites) undergo extensive legal and factual checks before being uploaded onto the web. They would pass the academic standard of "peer review". They are "personal", in that they reflect the POV of a single entity (the organization or corporation). Please return the differentiation. Blueboar 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean biased. We mean self-published. What is the academic definition you're referring to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not being an accademic (except in amature fashion), I caviat that I may get this slightly wrong... but "not subject to an independent form of fact-checking and peer review" and "not published in an academic journal, but instead published by the author" come to mind. Blueboar 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, published by the author. A self-published source is, as a rule of thumb, one where nothing stands between the writer and the act of publication. That isn't the case with large corporations, or even quite small companies. They all have to watch what they write legally; and they have staff to look out for factual and other errors. It's when you're dealing with tiny businesses that you might run into problems, but I think it's a matter of common sense rather than something we can define to cover all eventualities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

discussion on corporations and organizations continued below. Blueboar 02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites?

Would you please resolve your edit war... I have a codicil to add about corporate and organizational websites and need to figure out whether to place it under "personal websites" or "self-published websites"... there is a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 June 2006.

Woops... sorry about that...yes, that comment was by me. Blueboar 02:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Corporate and organizational websites have a great deal of oversight; corporations can be sued for anything they state which is inaccurate, by shareholders, or even by governments. Moreoever, they actually have the financial resources which would make suing them worthwhile. They are nothing like "personal" or "self-published" websites, and should not be included in those categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, I can see what you're getting at, but I think it's dealt with under "partisan sources." A large corporate website isn't self-published in the sense of having no editorial oversight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some do, and some don't... IBM might have oversight, and the Boy Scouts of America may have oversight... but Joe Blow, Inc. and Nut-job.org don't. It depends on the corporation and organization. That is why I was hoping to put them under "personal" webpages... as they reflect the views of a single entity that can be considered a "person". I can not do this while you are revert waring that section in and out of the guidelines. Blueboar 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you wrote wasn't entirely accurate. Corporate websites are not personal websites, and are not self-published, unless you also want to call the NYT self-published. It's not a question of how many people's views are reflected as such, but whether there's any kind of editorial oversight, in terms of fact- and libel-checking. That will vary from company to company. It's going to boil down to common sense on the part of the editor. I would say if you want to add something, it's better to do it in the part that talks about partisan sources rather than self-published ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But do they really count as "partisan"?... they are not necessarily pushing an agenda or a POV the way a religious or political website will. They are often simply informational... "this is what the entity is". Where they do have an agenda ("our product is the best"... or... "this is what our organization stands for") it could be dealt with under the "personal websites" category as far as referencing them goes... the entity says "this" about its self. They don't fully fit either category, but they fit "personal website" better than "self-published". Blueboar 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the second paragraph below to the partisan website section? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

=== Partisan websites ===

===Websites with extreme points of view===

Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources; that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

===Company websites===

Caution should also be used when using company websites as sources. Although the company is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available. Be on the lookout for vanity articles, and exercise particular care when using a company website as a source if the company is a controversial one.

Well... again, I would not really call them "parisan", which has negative conotations, but it does accurately discribe how we should treat such sites... And I suppose the same could be said for Organizational websites (in that, while the organization is a good source of information about itself, caution should be used)... I would change the wording to "...it could have an obvious bias..." or something along those lines - The "American Association of Wigit Manufacturers" is obviously interested in promoting the use of wigits, but the "Loyal Order of Lemmings" might not have any bias or agenda, other than eating a good dinner and collecting money for charity. I suppose it depends on the company or organization. Perhaps we should put the statement just above the === Partisan websites === line as it's own category? Blueboar 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It would be a good idea to come up with some wording, and I agree we could have it as part of that section but separate, so we don't imply they are partisan (though they are, in the non-pejorative sense). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, I added something here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a psychology phrase

The section WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources has some perfectly good reasoning in it. But it has some psychological mumbo-jumob, too. It stated: Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident... and I removed that. There is more there too. That section prattles on about psychology having studied people's memory as a method of introducing an editor to check multiple sources. Why do we need such nonesense ? An editor should check multiple sources, not because somebody is likely to "overwrite their memory" but because it is simply good practice. Terryeo 08:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From a Scientology paradigm, I suppose that makes sense. However I feel that the removal of the rational makes our reasoning less clear, which might lead to editors ignoring it. Jefffire 08:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't think a person is unaware of their information, their bias or the color of their hair. I don't consider that we need to tell someone to check multiple sources because they may have creeping bias, deep in their subconcious. Why do you mention "Scientology paradigm?" Terryeo 08:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I recognize you from the scientology pages, and was wondering if the scientology view that psychology was bunk might play a part in this. If you feel it's irrelevent then you have my permission to remove all mention of it from my comments.

Sticking to the issue, a person could be aware of their bias, but it could influence them we they think they are acting neutally, so I think the rational is useful here. Perhaps a reword of the rational could be useful rather than deleting it? Jefffire 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss any issue you feel relevent. My statement appears above. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident... Is telling editors that we understand, editors may have biases which editors are not aware of, then, to guard themselves against these biases and to guard Wikipedia from editor's biases, editors must check multiple sources. Its a pile of hogwash. Tell editors to "Check multiple sources to be certain of their information". That's plenty. Don't get into psychoanalyzing editor's deep rooted subconcious fears that their bias might creep into the article and they must, therefore, spend hours checking and cross checking multiple independent sources to be sure their personal creepy bias doesn't manifest unknowingly in an article. sheesh ! Terryeo 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a rewording then to make the explaination clearer? Jefffire 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. It seems derogatory when we imply editors may have "unconcious bias" which they must guard themselves against by checking multiple sources. It seems derogatory to me that we remind editors "their memories may be overwritten every time they look at something" and suggest they therefore "check mutiple sources" for that reason. I would delete large portions of that section and leave the solid information that it is a good idea to check multiple independent sources without the psychological mumbo-jumbo. Terryeo 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be reworded. However, I thought it was implying the sources could be biased, not the editors. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. But if we consider that sources are "unconciously" biased aren't we disrespecting the volition, the independent volition of sources of information? Without doubt Wilber and Wright were biased when they created their aircraft. But what need have we to seek hidden, unconcious bias when their love of aircraft is so clearly presented? "Check multiple sources" is an excellent advise, I'm all for it. But "Check multiple sources because a source might be unconciously biased" seems silly to me. And there is a lot more psychological mumbo-jumbo in that paragraph about "psychological experiments with cards" and "memories might be overwritten every time an individual views something" (Unproven). What need for an editor to wade through all of that? Terryeo 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now User:Antaeus Feldspar Feldspar is reverting without discussion. Antaeus Feldspar (restore per Jeffire) difference. Could we have some discussion about this rather derogatory implication of using multiple sources because information is "unconciously" biased and therefore, only by viewing multiple "unconcious biases" can an editor grow to know what is biased and what is not? Terryeo 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Innocent question

What is the difference between a reference and a citation? Or are they equivalent? I have asked this question before elsewhere with no reply.--Light current 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion... but I would say a reference directs the reader to an entire book, article, or website while a citation directs the reader to a specific page or section of that book, article or website. In common language, however, the two words are often interchangeable. Blueboar 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A Citation states: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage

While Reference states: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several important citations".

Reference has several possible meanings. Citation is a bit more limited in scope. The word Cite comes from the idea of to summon [16] while the word refer comes from the idea to carry. The Usage Note: here might be helpful. Terryeo 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation 2 : the citing of a previously decided case or recognized legal authority as support for an argument; also : the caption used for referring to such a case or authority esp. as published in a reporter. The <ref>bookname, page number, publisher ISBN</ref> is a citation as well as its quotation which would be called the cited text. Such a quotation comes from a cited source or, (just as good) a referenced source. Terryeo 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A citation is used in footnotes or endnotes to link a particular assertion to a specific page in a specific document. References on Wikipedia seem to be analogous to bibliographies, which just list sources but don't link them to particular assertions in the article which one is reading. The really confusing thing is that the current footnote system on Wikipedia uses a "references" tag! --Coolcaesar 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. <ref> </ref> and then <references/> flushes them into a list. So you feel <cite> </cite> and then <citations/> would be better? Terryeo 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, we are supposed to link our sources to particular assertions in the article. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Finding a good source may require some effort" and linking to things like the Amazon Online Reader

Fortunately, new tools are now available online to make this work easier. Services such as Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!” , the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project and the University of Michigan's Making of America allow you to search the full text of thousands of books.

I take this to mean that it is helpful to anyone trying to verify a book reference if we link to one of these search services, such as the Amazon Online Reader, which offers "search inside!". So even if I (or another Wikipedian) actually has the book, it would be a good idea to also provide a URL to (for example) the Amazon Online Reader, in case John or Jane Doe, who doesn't have the book or want to buy it, doesn't trust us and wants to check for him or herself. However, some people may see this as an advertising link. (See WP:EL#Links to normally avoid.) On the other hand, if it's a reference, does WP:EL even apply?

So, in short, should we link to book-searching sites such as the Amazon Online Reader?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation came from the bottom of the section:

When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. If there is an ISBN for the book, be sure to include it. Use the ISBN to link to the book, since several of these sites display only selected materials from the books they have online.

This seems to indicate to me that the search links should only be used for locating references to use. Once they are found, ISBN linked references should be added to the article and not the search links. The wording of the guideline is ambiguous, so after deciding if it is acceptable (or not) to include the search links in the article, we should update it for clarity. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is ambiguous, and should be updated (unless there is a lack of consensus, it which case it should probably say that). Do you feel that the convenience offered by an online (yet incomplete) site outweighs the fact that it's from an site trying to sell the material, or the other way around (based on what you feel the guideline should be, not what it already is)? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the commercial angle of the Amazon links outweigh their advantages. The links to buy the book are just too prominent for me. However, I am aware of my bias against commercial links and it's good to get other views here.

One question. Is it possible to embed referrer codes into links to that part of the Amazon site? If it is, it leaves linking from the project open to abuse by referrer spammers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with GraemeL. Not a good idea to link to online retailers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to a retailer like Amazon = pooridea. Godd idea = links to sites like google.books (free to all) and library providers like MUSE, Questia, JSTOR, Ebsco, Proquest etc (these providers sell to libraries and millions of Wiki users have free access.) Rjensen 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Such links lend themselves to an "Additional Reading" section, though. But as a secondary source, a quoted source within an article? Bah, it is too much like Wikipedia is attempting to run some kind of promotion with Amazon.com (my opinion) Terryeo 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

google.books requires an account, which, last I checked, required an invitation either from another person with an account, or a US or Canadian cell phone, which isn't exactly "free to all". Amazon also allows free searching, without the requirement of an account. And supposing we ranked book searching services in order of preference: would a search service lower down on the list be acceptable if none of the search services higher on the list had that book? (Also, the idea is to provide the URL to a searching service in the reference to the book, for convenience - not as a separate source.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Google does not require a cellphone or any such thing. It does require (free) online registration. Keep in mind that Wiki is not free to anyone--every user has to have an internet provider, which gets paid for its services. (Students pay tuition, local library users pay taxes.) Rjensen 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently it's just Gmail that requires a cell phone. (And, at least if a reader is on Wikipedia, we can assume they already have internet service.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Google books is also not usable for this as only registered users can have access to the "inside of books". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be biased in favor of convenient links to go along with books (which are far less convenient and free, and require at minimum a trip to the library), but I think that, if no better search service is available online, it should be allowed. I would be in favor of ranking book-searching services in order of preference (based on freeness/availability, whether or not they try to sell the book, etc.). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

<<<I don't think it is needed. If we have a book citation, and there is an ISBN number, we are done as it pertains to WP:V and WP:RS. Readers can find these books by whatever means are available out there. For example ISBN 1578632498 will take you to the book sources special page in which info is available about libraries, online retailers, etc. with "find this book in xxxxx" entries from many sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the material is verified, even without the ISBN. It's a convenience thing. What if I just want to check a fact online with the minimum possible link clicking? It's not ISBN xor (exclusive or) link to specific book-searching service. Both can be provided. The reader/fact-checker would still have a choice: to look at the full list of options provided by the ISBN, or to just quickly try to check a fact with the book-searching service. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Once these services are widely available and without restrictions, from non-commercial sources, I would agree with your proposal. But as it stands now, I wouldn't. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is feasible. The material is, after all, copyrighted. Commercial sources are in a better position to offer at least a limitted amount of this copyrighted material. I don't see how a compromise can be reached on this, but I seem to be in the minority. Perhaps you could try to convince me that linking to commercial sources is worth the extra trouble verifying facts? (Then at least there might be consensus.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The editors who make the links think it is worth their trouble. Users who click and get rich new material think it's worth their trouble. So keep the links. Rjensen 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add something like this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Finding_a_good_source_may_require_some_effort (feel free to modify): Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some users may also wish to add a direct link to some sort of online search-inside tool, or other material available online. This is disputed.

Arguments for

• It allows users to easily check a fact.
• Users may not want to buy the book, and search-inside tools are much quicker.
• Users may not want to take the time to look for a search-inside tool themselves using the ISBN.
• The time saved may encourage more people to check facts, catching errors and correcting them, improving the reliability of Wikipedia.
• Linking to a search-inside tool does not preclude linking to the ISBN. Both can be linked to, giving users a choice.
• more?

Arguments against

• Some search-inside tools (like Amazon) are from commercial sites. Linking to them is like advertising.
• Some search-inside tools (like Amazon) require 3rd party applications like Javascript.
• Some search-inside tools (like Google Books) require a login.
• If the ISBN is linked to, a link to a search-inside function is unnecessary, since the user can find the material a wide variety of choices.
• more?

Actual

Francis, I linked "actual" to Epistemology, because Epistemology is the study of actuality and how we know about it. Unfortunately, the word "actuality" links to Modal logic, which also studies actuality, but not quite in the same sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin. Epistemology is not that hard. It's taught in college philosophy classes across the United States. --Coolcaesar 16:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)\

I tried to add it back, but Francis has removed it again as part of his all-out revert war here and at WP:V. Utterly bizarre. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

we are in the encyclopedia business, not philosophy. If the consensus of experts say X, Wiki says X. Rjensen 07:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we were just discussing wikilinking "actual" to "Epistemology," which is the study of knowledge and how we know what's real/actual. Just a link. Even that is not allowed. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Epistemology" is a field of philosophy. I understand Rjensen's remark as that this linking of "actual" to a philosophy-related article is not useful.

Further, as I pointed out several times: the Epistemology article does in no way clarify the term "actual", the term "actual" is nor defined, nor explained on the "Epistemology" page, so the [[Epistemology|actual]] piped link is deceptive while clicking the link does not lead to an article where the reader is helped to understand the term (s)he is clicking. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken, I feel it worth pointing out to you, that if a person reads through this page, in nearly every instance of your posting, there is some difficulty. I'm not saying your posting is contankerous, but that generally, editors are working toward a concensus, toward an agreement, toward an alignment of editing effort. This is brought about by discussing issues, by the clearest possible communication and this is not always easy. Don't take what I say as a criticsm, please. Take it more as an attestation that many editors are working toward a common goal. Terryeo 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, apart from Terryeo's personal attack (for which he should in fact get blocked since he is under "permanent personal attack parole",[17] I've notified him about that several days ago,[18] and for me his "No" answer[19] is not sufficient), everyone seems OK with my argument not to mix in philosophy in the "actual" piped link. Or did I miss something? --Francis Schonken 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, the sentence:

To say of a [[Sentence (linguistics) | sentence]] or [[proposition]] that it is [[truth | true]] is to say that it refers to a fact.

is as far as I'm concerned redundant (not defining "fact", but drawing in an unrelated linguistics issue) and confusing (while seemingly contradictory with WP:V's "verifiability, not truth"). Does anyone have a problem I remove this sentence from the "fact" definition? --Francis Schonken 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it alone. It's simply a definition of a fact. It is only the word "sentence" that is linked to linguistics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Please leave it alone.", can't you leave it alone then? For what reason?
• "It's simply a definition of a fact.", no it isn't, please give at least some argumentation, if you think my analysis above is incorrect.
• "It is only the word "sentence" that is linked to linguistics." - And? Is that meant to be an argumentation? I'd rather say an irrelevant innuendo. --Francis Schonken 09:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, please don't take this the wrong way, but we link other articles mostly to give readers a fun way to navigate around the encyclopaedia (because it's a hypertext), not as a means of creating some sort of definitional structure. You can argue whether there's much benefit to linking these words, but arguing about whether the links are appropriate in a definitional sense is usually a waste of time and effort. Also, I think the reason Slim couldn't respond to your "analysis" was that it was not sufficiently coherent. Would you mind restating it in simple terms and we can have a go at it? Grace Note 05:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• [[Epistemology|actual]] is a deceptive piped link. "Epistemology" and "actual" are not synonyms. It would be OK if the Epistemology article explained, clarified or defined the term "actual". No such clarifications of the word actual can be found in the Epistemology article.
• Could you explain the sentence "To say of a [[Sentence (linguistics) | sentence]] or [[proposition]] that it is [[truth | true]] is to say that it refers to a fact." to me? I mean, in simple terms? --Francis Schonken 08:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives to "A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[Epistemology|actual]] state of affairs.":

• A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[Ontology|actual]] state of affairs.
  • The Ontology article has:

    Ontology has one basic question: "What actually exists?"

    If someone wants to give a philosophical elaboration of "actual" (which I still think not needed here), the Ontology article seems, to me, more appropriate than the Epistemology article.
• A '''[[fact]]''' is an [[wiktionary:actual|actual]] state of affairs.
  • Why does "actual" need a philosophical clarification? A plain dictionary definition like wiktionary:actual, if any clarification is needed, seems more than enough to me.
• A '''[[fact]]''' is an actual state of affairs.
  • "Actual" without any piped link works well enough for me. After all "fact" is already linked, non-piped – so what you see is what you get – isn't that more than enough? Note that the "fact" article more or less gives an overview of philosophical, scientific and other approaches to the fact concept. If we want to narrow that down for the purposes of the WP:RS guideline (do we?) that should at least not be done by a piped link.

--Francis Schonken 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposing "in a nutshell" formulation

What would all of you think about this "in a nutshell" proposal:

? (I'd have written "authored by authoritative authors" if that weren't such an alliterating alliteration - even "published by reputable publishers" is maybe not too ideal in that sense)

If such "in a nutshell" formulation would be a good idea, are we satisfied with this definition of "reputable publishers": published by scholarly presses [...] carefully vetted for quality control (derived from the present "secondary sources" definition)? --Francis Schonken 10:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The material doesn't have to be written by authoritative authors. If it's published by a reliable publication, we can use it no matter who writes it. Also, if it's written by an authoritative author, it can be used even if written on his own website, so long as he is a widely acknowledged expert in the field we're using him for, so the publisher doesn't always have to be reputable. Finally, a reputable publisher doesn't have to be a scholarly press. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The "nutshell" will not work, I don't believe. The moment "authoritative" is used to define what can be used editors will begin using personal websites whose "publication" editors believe to be "authoritative". Clambake.org, Dave Tourensky's personal site (bad spelling, Dave is a University professor who publishes anti-scientology junk). The KKK is "authoritative" and "official", the White Supremist movement is "authoritative" in its views. The problem with "authoritative" is that it means to use a definition something like this: Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources. and puts the judgement of what official is into the hands of editors. One editor considers Clambake.org to be the official view of anti-scientologists and the next editor considers the KuKluxKlan to be the official view of the white race. The reason why is because Authoritative = Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner. Anyone who commands any group or individual is an authority. Authority is based on the idea of commanding others, as well as based on the idea of providing law, organization and government. I don't believe that particular word will work. Terryeo 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No one need listen to me, but here is what I think. Policy is broad statements of intent, it is to be followed. Guidelines are broader than orders (such as pick up that nail and put it in the basket), but guidelines are interpretations of policy. Guidelines need specific editor directions, such as, No personal websites may be used as secondary sources and Past newsgroup posts may not be used except in reference to themselves and re-typed HTML duplications of court documents on personal websites are not acceptable secondary sources. I hope you see what I mean. Specific, exact examples. For 2 months I have seen editors slightly misunderstand and greatly misunderstand how WP:V applies to specific "publications". I believe this guideline page requires clear, specific direction, with examples and definitions of where Wikipedia's acceptable bar lies. I believe it is asking too much of the broad range of editor backgrounds which Wikipedia editors have, to not be specifically directed by guideline. Some barely speak English, others have a flame hot point of view. I don't believe a guideline in a nutshell is going to work. Terryeo 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)(edit conflict, markup changes)

The proposed "guideline in a nutshell" does not work for me. It is a narrow interpretation of the guideline. We will be better without a "guideline in a nutshell". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary/secondary sources

I thought primary sources were preferred over secondary sources. Or have I missed something? Blueboar 14:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred to primary ones, for the most part, although not always. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression a mixture of both was preferred. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The best option is to use excellent secondary sources, because we're not supposed to draw on our own intepretation of primary sources, but on other people's. If good secondary sources are not available, then good primary ones may have to be used, and sometimes it's good to use them, sometimes not. It depends on the subject, context, quality of sources, and whether the editor knows how to use primary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources are often biased. If so, they are great for finding information about a particular point of view/interpretation. They also provide a good summary, often. However, primary sources simply are what they are. If you are writing an article about Book X, then Book X is a reliable source (at least regarding the content of Book X), since it is what it is. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do understand the need to support any interpretive statement with secondary sources (actually, we should not be interpreting sources in the first place, we should simply report what they say) ... but when you want to include something that Mr. X says in an article, shouldn't you cite to where Mr. X actually says it, as opposed to article where Ms. Y claims that Mr. X says it. I would call Mr. X's statement a primary source while Ms. Y's article is a secondary source. Blueboar 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Armedblowfish, no, because if you had to interpret the book, that could amount to original research. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If a newspaper reported someone's statement in full, you could regard it as a primary source, but for the most part newspaper articles are secondary sources, at least for us. In hundreds of years time, a newspaper article from 2006 will be a primary source for this period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If a newspaper reporter is on the scene and talked to the key people, it is considered a primary source by historians. Rjensen 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If a reporter witnesses an event he's a primary source, or is in some other way very close to it, but otherwise not. It depends how he writes the story and what he includes. If all he does is arrive ten minutes after the car crash and collect a few statements about what happened, his article is a secondary source. It's all about proximity to the event relative to your own position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am looking at this from the point of view of the articles I tend to work on. I tend to work on articles about organizations. My fellow editors and I tend to think of citations to things like published bilaws and constitutions, or policy statments taken from the organization's official web-site, as being more "authorative" (about the organization) than secondary sources discussing the organization. Blueboar 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose anything other than copying verbatim could be called "original reasearch". However, if we are that strict about original research, then we become Wikisource, and we can only use free-licensed sources. However, WP:NOR states, Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're probably right that the primary sources are best in those cases. It's where the information has to be interpreted that the problems can creep in, or where they're used to draw conclusions or bolster arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you consider "interpreted". Does summarizing/pulling out key parts count as "interpreting"? (As for bolstering arguments, of course all of those should cite whatever parties support those arguments, and generally attempt to follow WP:NPOV.) Could you give examples of interpreting? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... hard to think of examples offhand. You mentioned writing about books. An article I've written about a book is Night (book). In the intro, it says: "Wiesel employs a sparse and fragmented narrative structure, with frequent shifts in point of view, a fusing of fact and fiction, lending the structure of Jewish folklore to that of the modern novel." The sentence is sourced, but I could probably have gotten away with writing that without a source, because anyone reading the book, and knowing a bit about Jewish folklore, will see that in it. (Even so, another editor could still have objected and asked for a source.) Another sentence in the intro is closer to OR: "In telling his story, he seeks redemption, reflecting the healing power Judaism attaches to the power of the word." This also has a source, but if it didn't, it would be more likely than the previous sentence to count as original research, because I'm attributing motive to the author, which without a source would be my speculation. So the key to determining whether an interpretation goes too far is whether what you're writing is very obvious from the text, or whether another reasonable person might disagree with you. If it's the latter, you probably need to find a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, in the case of your Night (book) example, couldn't you have attributed the statement by writing: "According to critic <source name> 'Wiesel employs....'" ? Then we as editors are not interpreting, but simply reporting the source's interpretation. Blueboar 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right, and I did in effect do that by citing the source after the sentence in the form of a footnote. I was giving those sentences only as examples, imagining they were unsourced, and whether they'd be too interpretive and would count as OR if unsourced. By guess is that I could get away with the first, though only just, but not the second. But you're right: it's always better to have a source, either cited after the sentence, or attributed within it ("according to ..."). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to critics, I'd reccomend both an inline citation and a within-sentence attribution. (Being a critic, it is a fact that they thought that, but not a fact that they are right.) Anyways, at a glance it looks like a well-referenced article, good job! Looking at the failed FAC, it seems the objection was lack non-synopsis discussion, which seems to have been fixed. Have you considered taking it to peer review and then back to FAC? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) The first time it was nominated, someone did it without telling me, and I was still writing the article, so it was a completely unfinished piece. Not that anything ever is finished on WP, but you know what I mean. It's better now, but I think it still lacks some analysis. There's one passage in particular I'd like to write more about: the child hanging on the gallows, which is an important moment in the novel. Once I've added that, I might consider resubmitting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Indirect referencing of blogs

Something like this occurs in a WP article: According to the column "Blog Corner" in QQQ Magazine, blogger X said "Bush is ...." and blogger Y said "Bush is ..." . Does this violate WP:RS even though QQQ is a reliable (if partisan) magazine? Precis 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO... Quoting a reliable published (printed?) magazine is well within the standards of RS... but the Wikipedia article should use an exact quote from the magazine, and give a proper citation with issue, date, and page so readers can fact check. Blueboar 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I followed your advice, quoting a blog at The Israel Lobby at time 23:13 14 July, 2006 Precis 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not true. Normal citation practice is to quote *your* source, not *their* source, so the citation to the blog is the accurate cite, also citing the underlying source, if in fact that is where the editor got their own information from. Wjhonson 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Student newspaper

Is a student newspaper a valid primary source of a racial slur in regards to a living persons page? A student newspaper has said that a particular media personality made a racial slur to a teen. This quote is not attributed at any other location other then blogs that link back to the student newspaper. Is this a valid primary source under these conditions? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think the fact that a newspaper is published by students is not what determines the credibility of the newspaper, it is the overall reputation for quality journalism that the newspaper has achieved. A student newspaper at a major university with a daily circulation of 25,000, with substantial advertising revenue to preserve, and run by journalism students with a reputation to protect, might very well be as reputable as a typical small-town newspaper run by a for-profit publisher. Gerry Ashton 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Student newspapers, no matter how good, are not run in the way mainstream newspapers are, and the sources for negative material about living persons have to be impeccable. In this case, the newspaper's source appears to be a blog, which makes it even worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you posting the same question in two different places? Here is my response from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Student_Newspaper

This source will be only valid on an article about this specific student's newspaper. Most definitively not as a source for a biography of a living person. See: WP:BLP. Also note that personal blogs are not acceptable as secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The source itself is not a blog, but the only items pointing to the quote are blogs. So if you were to look up the quote you would get tons of hits on google, but all are blogs and using the student paper as their source. The student paper being the only one claiming the event actually happened. I too think a student paper is not a valid source, however some users at the Ann Coulter page seem to think its a valid source for a racial slurs inclusion. I am hoping this is not simply because they do not like Ann Coulter. Debate is going on here --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the editors of the Ann Coulter article need to do a bit more research... track down the student newspaper article, verify that it says what the blogs claim it says, and quote directly from it. Blueboar 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) As a precedent, the February 3, 1998 New York Times carried a quote from the UCLA student newspaper, the Daily Bruin. The quotation relates to the Monica Lewinsky affair. See [[20]] Gerry Ashton 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No major media outlet picked up on this article, only blogs. Also one paper doing it once in over X ammount of years hardly makes it ok for it to now always be excepted on Wikipedia. Anyway its unknown if NYTimes did their own research to verify the claims, however no major media outlet has picked up this source except blogs, meaning it has not undergone any scrutiny except that of a college paper. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)