Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"Warning" signs on bio. pages and nomination for deletion

Have added a large number of {{Unreferenced|date=August 2008}} and {{BLPsources|date=August 2008}} to a large groupe of players in the swedish top league, aka Allsvenskan, i myself is a major fan of Halmstads BK, also a team in Allsvenskan, and have made major contributions to that teams and players articles, i am trying to improve all articles regarding to Swedish top fotball, Allsvenskan and Superettan mainly, and was hopping that some user and IP numbers would help if i added this tags, this however havent happend and i feel that i know to little about some players to writte theire bios on my own. I also added this signs to the articles since i dont feel like they reach the demands on Wikipedia regarding bios. So now i wonder how long i should wait before i put up a bio. page for deletion or if there is something else i should do instead? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles stand alone in terms of Verifiability

I have an issue concerning Verifiability that I could use additional input on at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#North_Sea_references. In short, I think an article should always be able to stand alone in terms of Verifiability, and leaving no doubt as to the article's sources. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Context

I want to raise an issue that has been bothering me for some time. It is mentioned in RS but I think it needs to be spelled out, at least succinctly, here.

Many times an editor adds a statement with a complete citation. The statement and citation are accurate. But upon investigation I discover one of two things: (1) I can find the source - it is verifiable - and I discover that the quote, while accurate, is taken out of context and in one just reads a little more, discovers that the quote is then contradicted, or revealed to be a fringe POV. My point is that part ov "verification" is the availability of context. But this leads me to my bigger worry, (2) I don't have the book in my local library and when I try Google Books I find just the page that is quoted - quel surprise - and Google Books tells me that the next page is unavailable. This means I cannot check the context.

I think we have to have a statement that the reliability of a quote depends largely on the context, and verifiability means that one must be able to check not just that the quote itself is accurate, but must be able to check the context.

To be clear: I am NOT saying quotes from Google books are not verifiable and violate policy - my example is only meant to illustrate how I have come to realize the importance of this issue. I am sure I can get the full book through inter-library loan, and verify the context.

I think the main value of adding something to the policy, and it need not be long, just a few sentences as most, is to do what our policies largely do: help educate newbies about how to do quality research. We need to communicate that research is not just hunting for quotes taken out of context, but for evaluating quotes in their context ... that this is essential to "reliability" and the ability of others to do this is essential to verifiability."

If others agree, does someone want to propose an elegant way to word this?

Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, suppose author A says that author B says the moon is made of green cheese, and author A goes on to dispute this view. In this case you cannot use author A to support the statement "The moon is made of green cheese." --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes the point, but perhaps a bit too broadly. How about:

Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, a quote that may at first glance have a straightforward meaning may actually be using a particular word in an unusual or idiosyncratic way; you may need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand how the author defines and uses an important term. Or, for example, a quote may seem to be making a strong assertion, when in fact the author is being ironic; you may need to read the entire article or chapter for this to be clear. Or, the author may go into some detail laying out an argument only to explain, later in the article or chapter, or even book, how and why the argument is wrong and rejected by most other scholars. In these cases, it is not enough to provide a quote and simple citation. You must explain the context, and an inclusive citation, or multiple citations, directing Wikipedia readers where to look to verify that the quote is being used properly.

Or something like this? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"You will often need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand the author's true opinion" would be a useful addition to what I previously suggested.

However the rest is too legalistic in phrasing. I think "an inclusive citation, or multiple citations" is not going to be clear to inexperienced editors. How about:

Be very careful not to quote sources out of context. For example, suppose author A says that author B says the moon is made of green cheese, and author A goes on to dispute this view. In this case you cannot use author A to support the statement "The moon is made of green cheese."

You will often need to read an entire article, chapter, or even book to understand the author's true opinion. In cases like the "green chesse" example, you should cite both the chapters / pages where author A describes the theory he / she opposes (if that theory is relevant), and those where he / she explicitly states his / her own opinion.

(Ain't political correctness a drag?) --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like something less condescending, and more useful, than "the moon is made of green chsses." We have some ideas out, how about we see what other editors think, and maybe some others can offer proposals or help improve what we have laid out? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also applies to the content of individual sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Slrubenstein formulation of 15:45 rather than blue cheese.Mccready (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<ud> This is an important issue, but to me it's an original research matter. Maybe something like "Remember that citations must accurately reflect the context of the source, and take care to avoid the original research of introducing a meaning not intended in the original source." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that has a loophole: selective quotation doesn't add info, it misleadingly withs the additional info that the context gives. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, it would be better phrased as "presenting a meaning not intended..." . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

introducing the concept of OR at this point will be confusing. NPOV and OR and V are inextricably linked, but it is clearer to use only one or another at a time when discussing something in particular. The actual motivation for problems of this sort is most likely to be carelessness---and, as originally mentioned, in practice unavoidable given the availability of good print library resources to most editors, together with their general unwillingness to use what they do have access to. Constructing one's own summary of an argument or the selection of just what to quote is inherently research, and necessarily involves one's own understanding of the matter and thus is to a certain degree unavoidable OR. Even the misquotation because of lack of NPOV is not necessarily conscious--we all have the tendency to find first what will support our position--I know that when browsing my own eyes will land to anything on a page I am hoping to see there--this is probably psychologically inherent in the operation of browsing. DGG (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well to put a slightly different complexion on it, I think it's a general problem with quotes. It's always best to read a source and then include the info. A simply statement to the effect that we should avoid over using quotations and that they should always "be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation." That's from WP:QUOTE. I agree context is important, maybe we should link to WP:QUOTE from here, and have a brief summary of what it says there? Alun (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a problem with quotes. With respect to DGG, most Wikipedia editors seem not to have access to good libraries. From what I have seen at the articles on my watchlist, many people rely on google books or other on-line resources that often do not provide the entire text. This leads to out-of-context quoting.

I think it becomes a verifiability problem when the source provided is a link to an online text. Of course that link enables us to verify that the quote exists outside of Wikipedia. But such links often take us to incomplete sources where it is impossible to verify what the quote means. For example,k if a link takes me to a page at google books, and the preceding page is not available through google books and the subsequent page is unavailable through google books, it can be very difficult to verify that the quote has been used appropriately. I do not think this is a matter of original research, it is a matter of appropriate source-based research which must be the basis of all wikipedia articles. Right now, this matter is broached in WP:RS which is a content guideline; I think it needs to be addressed in a core policy. I agree that this problem has NPOV and NOR dimensions - our three core policies often intersect or have moments of overlap. I certainly would not object to someone raising this issue at NOR or NPOV!!! But I do think there is a verifiability issue. Put most simply: quotes are often being to made claims that are verifiable, but require more information, either other quotes or multiple page numbers, in order to verify the claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG makes 2 good points:

• NPOV and OR and V are inextricably linked. However rather than try to narrow any particular discussion artificially to one of these, I'd be quite happy for each of these policies to say in the simplest, plainest terms that selective use of sources is unacceptable.
• I also agree that perfect observance of NPOV and NOR and V is impossible, becuase an encyclopedia inevitably summarises and selects. So what really matters is that we don't distort the source's meaning. So terms like "distort" and / or "misrepresent" must appear in the policy wording. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein is looking at the Google Books issue the wrong way. If the citation said nothing about Google Books and your local library can't get you a "dead tree" copy within a couple of months, you can't challenge the citation. In fact a lot of reviews WP:AGF on books. So Google Books gives sceptics such as the Slrubenstein presents a chance to see whether there is a real risk of midleadingly selective use. It's not Google Books that's the problem (in fact its' a help), it's selective use of sources. --Philcha (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What's happened to me is that I'll do a google search, and google books will pop up. The sections of google books that are available will only give a taste of the subject. But if I want to quote from google books it's easy to provide a link to the very page from the book I quote from. It's easily verified. Now if the quote is out of context even I don't know. BTW I never quote from google books, I don't see the point. If it's so easy for someone to check the quote, then they don't need it to be reproduced in Wikipdia, they can just follow the link to google books and read it there. I agree that we can use words like distort and misrepresent when it comes to quotes, but I also think we need to say "unintentionally" distort or misrepresent. If the policy acknowledges that many online sources are inclmplete, and that due to their incompleteness it may not be possible to get the full meaning of the author, then at least we're being fair and WP:AGF. Alun (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My point was only an example. But Google Books is often a problem since it often provides only portions of a source, in those cases it invites misleading selective use. And providing the citation to Google Books does not help because we get the citation for the page the quotation came from, but not the citation to those pages that make clear what the quoted passage means (because those pages are often not available through Google Books). But this is only an example. I have never suggested specifying "Google Books" in any edit to this policy. My point is that in adding a quote and a citation of the source, we need to be able to verify not only that the quote appears in the source, but that the quote is being used consistent with that of the source. To verify this, we may need to know not only the page the quote comes from, but other pages that provide the necessary context for the quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If Google books - or any text available to an editor does not provide enough text so that the editor can understand the authors intention in the quote ... that is, if a good-faith editor cannot be sure s/he is not taking the quote out of context, s/he just shouldn't do it ... to do so would be to make what is in effect a hard to verify claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No harder than citing a book that's not avaiable online. --Philcha (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. If you have the entire book in front of you, rather than a fragment (it doesn't matter whether the whole book is on-line or paper, and it doesn't matter whether the fragment is on-line or paper) it is easier to see the context for the quote - and provide a complete citation. That is my main point. That Google Books usually provides people with fragments, and lending-libraries usually provide people with entire books, is a secondary point. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Context of a source is more than just relevant, it's central to whether the source actually supports what it's being provided for. A change along the lines Slrubenstein suggests make a lot of sense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that change too, and Slrubenstein's wording, except perhaps a little tighter, and also probably minus the point about idiosyncratic word use, because that's more to do with basic comprehension than context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest our eventual wording be positive--we should, for example, talk about the need to make sure that quotes are in context, not that we forbid their being out of context. this is meant to be a guide o good editing, not a weapon. DGG (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's say what WP:QUOTE says about context, and link there. Alun (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy if Slim Virgin, DGG, and Alun crafted wording they felt appropriate and useful; I appreciate their suggstions and would like to see a concrete proposal .... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support Slrubenstein's proposed change, along with SlimVirgin, DGG and Alun's suggested modifications; context is everything. Dreadstar † 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So here's a suggestion. Currently the Burden of evidence section of the policy states:
"The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." Then there's a footnote <ref>"When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."</ref>
I suggest that we move the footnote to the main body of the text, and add a further two sentences from WP:QUOTE:
"Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation." We also link to WP:QUOTE at the head of the section. So we end up with:

For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

See also: Wikipedia:Quotations

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

How does that sound? On a different note I also noticed that WP:QUOTE is an essay, I wonder if it should be a guideline? It makes sense to me that we have a proper guideline for quotations. Alun (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that "Burden of proof" should be change to place the footnotes into the text. The section needs to by as succinct as possible. This problem should be addressed elsewhere. --PBS (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about adding the sentence "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation" to either the body of article in the section "Burden of proof" or to the footnote about quotations? It's quite a short sentence, and it addresses the problem of quoting out of context, which is what we want to address. Alun (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy

At the moment the Wikipedia:Editing policy (see WP:PRESERVE) contradicts WP:PROVEIT. See Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Demote to a guideline --PBS (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable efforts

AFAICT this edit on the 14 December 2008 was not discussed before it was inserted. "and it has always been good practice, and expected behaviour of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources onesself that support such material, and cite them."

Although the intentions were fine, I think it causes more problems than it solves, because it sends out a confusing message:

• A: deletes a sentence that (s)he considers dubious and it has no citation.
• B:"I am reinserting the fact because you did not make an reasonable effort to find a source"
• A:"I'm deleting it again because there is no citation."
• ...etc.

It is better that the policy is clear "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:PROVEIT) and if B wants to restore it (s)he does so with a citation.

I think that a comment like this would be better off in a guideline. So I am removing the addition. --PBS (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this april 2008 version? Or so many versions in between or before? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From all the random versions in the past that I looked at, "Uncle G's version" of paragraph is present in most of them. You need consensus for your change, as WP:V is such an important policy. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My error. I mixed up the difs. it's "your" version actually. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the diffs between the version you gave and the current one are here and it does not show that the 14 December 2008 addition was present before that date. --PBS (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Redesign of the edit box?

Hi, I don't know for sure if this is the right place to ask this but I believe it is relevant to verifiability. Well lately I've been thinking about the edit box used for articles plus how annoying it is undoing vandalism on pages and, in doing so, I managed to think up a possible way in which the edit box could be changed. At the moment, there is the ability to add, edit and remove using the edit box (like I am at the moment). However, there is nothing to stop those without verifiable material adding to any article they wish. So to help combat this issue (directly targeting those who intentionally vandalise and those who simply do not understand the need to source their content) I thought that the edit box should be redesigned for article pages. I don't know if this has been discussed already but if it has please let me know.

Idea: Firstly, the edit summary should be moved to the top and possibly renamed with a better description of its purpose (possibly even have the wikipedia copyright line at the top as well). Now this is where it gets harder to describe but I will try my best (I don't know all the technical terms so bear with me). So you are on the edit page like you usually are when modifying an article. However, you are not given the ability to edit anything this time. Instead, you see the text in the same format as the article itself but in a edit box (ie links still show as [1] etc). Now, to edit you need to highlight the paragraph/line/word you want to edit and click another edit button below the box, which opens a edit box this time under the one you are currently viewing (this helps to further define the edit being made). Okay so now we have two boxes: one acts as a preview displaying the change immediately and the second one is used to edit. Okay so the second one (the edit box) will have special functions like being able to identify verifiable material. For instance, say I'm in the middle of creating a new line of text, well the edit box will identify the full stop at the end and ask me to insert a reference before I can submit my edit (cause really everything must be verified). Well then I insert a reference like I usually do and click submit. So the edit box will then close and an updated preview box (the first box) will show my edit and the original text around it. Well before I can submit my change to the article I then must create a edit summary before the submit button will become available. Once that is done, I submit and the article is modified.

Obviously, I can't discuss everything involved with this ideo so, for everyones sake, I've just talked about one type of edit scenario. Like I said earlier, if this has been discussed already please let me know. Furthermore, please let me know if this is just not possible. If you are wondering why I came up with this idea it's cause I believe the current way of editing is simply not a viable solution for wikipedia if it intends to become "encyclopedic", especially since vandalism is all too common on wikipedia. Thank you for reading.- Jack ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. But what if I just edit the spelling, or wikify the text, or make some minor edit? Another problem is that people could add unrelated reference with the edit. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right! I forgot to mention the addition of a tick box that would be located under the edit box and would allow minor modifications (like a word change or whatever) to be submitted without the edit box protesting the need to add a reference. In addition, the new edit box would have a check mechanism, which would make sure the reference was valid particularly if it was a site.- Jack ^(Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to work. I'm working on an article now that has a few perfectly good refs in it... but the editor is misrepresenting what they say. So when I correct the text (to make it match the refs that supposedly support it), then I'm not actually adding any refs. But I am improving the encyclopedia.

Furthermore, if there's a simple way around it ("I'll just make a hundred small edits and call them all minor so I can avoid adding refs"), then it won't actually have the desired effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You make vaild points. But after going over what I had said about the tick box I decided that it would not be needed. Instead, the edit box would recognise that a word has been changed or whatever and as long as there isn't a new full stop produced it would not complain about there not being a reference. Furthermore, I do believe that one of the major problems is that people make edits without a 'edit summary' that lets people know what they have done. So, as I said before, the final submit button would not appear until that edit summary is filled out. Therefore, if the editor puts 'asdf' in the edit summary or whatever then everyone will know that the edit was pure vandalism. In any case, I do believe that the edit box and, for that matter, the edit page needs to be redesigned if not for now but for the future.- Jack ^(Talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So all vandalism and unsourced edits should be run-on sentences This will allow me to avoid adding references Have you noticed that there are no full stops in this? And the poor editor who tries to fix my punctuation mess is the person that will have to add the sources I guess that's okay if you don't mind whole articles being written without proper punctuation WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know the edit box could be implemented with similar functions to text programs (like MS Word), which would allow the edit box to identify run-on sentences, grammar etc. Furthermore, a capital letter could also be an identifier for a reference. However, as of now, I have thought of solution to the problem you continue to point out. After the editor has provided a new sentence of text they put in a full stop. Well now the edit box recognises that full stop and places the citation needed tag allowing the editor to now submit that text (without a reference). Of course, if you have a reference (url or whatever) you place it after the full stop and it overrides the command for the citation needed tag to be applied. Anyways, what I believe you are doing is really identifiying all the potential problems with this new edit box/edit page when, in reality, there are these problems and more currently faced by editors at the moment. The point is that this new system will potentially 'reduce' these problems but not eliminate them completely, because that is pretty much impossible to do.- Jack ^(Talk) 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For those people wanting to visually see a rough example of the idea I am proposing you can take a look here. Don't worry, this link contains nothing harmful or whatever.- Jack ^(Talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you're really interested in your idea, but it will not work in practice. So you demand a ref: Fine, I'll add http://mash-the-keyboard.com/ after every sentence. You want to add a fact tag after each sentence? What if the sentence shouldn't be supported by a ref? For example, the entire paragraph might be supported by the same ref. It might be summarizing a previous section. It might be introducing the sentence with a general topic sentence. It might be saying something so blindingly obvious that no ref is required.

There are no simple ways to do this. All blindly implemented, mandatory methods based on "the computer is smarter than all humans" will be worse that what we've already got. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay so you have decided to bring up a few problems with my idea. Well now I’ll take the time to address them. Problems: 1) Editors putting in invalid addresses. Solution: The edit box will run a check mechanism and ensure the url is valid and complain if it isn’t. 2) What if the entire paragraph can be supported by one ref? Solution: The edit box will recognise the continued use of the same reference and adjust in two ways: a) linking all references that are the same to the first reference produced or b) adding the reference solely at the end of the paragraph. 3) What if I want to insert a summary? Solution: There will be an option to insert text in the article without having the edit box perform functions. For instance, <nonwiki></nonwiki> or whatever could be used around the summary. 4) What if I want to insert a topic sentence? Solution: Again, use the code that would allow you to do it without the edit box complaining. 5) What if I’m inserting something that is so obvious that it doesn’t need a ref? Solution: Again, use the code. Finally, I think you underestimate the capabilities and usefulness of such a system; you are judging it without first seeing it in action.- Jack ^(Talk) 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again: If there's a magic word, or magic check box, or any magic way to avoid doing work that I don't want to do, then I and every other editor will use that every single time that we do not want to comply. Do you understand that? Your 'solution' amounts to "either add a ref or say that you don't want to". Everyone will just say that they don't want to, and you will not get any more refs than you would have with the existing system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that if an editor wants to be lazy they will not abide by the system and I agree with you about that to an extent. But really, should people who are not willing to provide a source supply information at all? Information that could be completely made up or inaccurate. Furthermore, my idea does not amount solely to just "ref or don't ref", it also introduces two new concepts: 1) defining the edit further then just a section and 2) asking the editor to provide a edit summary before they can modify the page. I'm not proposing this idea just to improve referencing but also to reduce vandalism and/or make it easier to remove vandalism. Fair enough if you're against it. I'm not going to hold that against you. But tell me, after Wikipedia decided to become a more legitimate encyclopedia did the edit box/edit page change? Anyways, I believe that at the very least the edit summary should be put above the edit box as I believe that its purpose is lost in amongst the content under the edit box.- Jack ^(Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that if an editor wants to be lazy, then s/he will be lazy.

About your edit-summary ideas, please see WP:PEREN#Automatically_prompt_for_missing_edit_summary. You're not the first, and won't be the last, to suggest it. But I hold out no hope for it ever being accepted.

(For the record, I've ticked the prefs box to always prompt for edit summaries. What I really need is the DWIM edit summary, because many summaries start off the same ("Welcome", on new users' talk pages), and the computer has a tendency to auto-choose the longest ("Welcome -- to edit, not to promote your website"). These mistakes doubtless confuse some editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reasons for previous rejection: It's already an option in the user preferences, and forcing users to enter edit summaries may annoy them enough they will not save their (possibly constructive) edits." What I don't understand is how I got specifically told to insert a edit summary shortly after joining, but now this seems to tell me, "well, it's okay if you don't".

If an editor spends so much time and/or effort into contributing then simply providing a brief summary would not hurt them at all. Unless of course they are not confident in their edit, are just vandalising and/or don't have a source, in which case I believe they shouldn't have edited in the first place. As a result, some other person now has to spend their time fixing up and/or referencing the edit. Anyways, in my opinion that is an absurd and poor excuse for not changing at least the edit summary.

Wikipedia is complicated enough as it is for newly joined members (with all the rules, guidelines and accountability). I can just imagine what difficulties non-members face and a lot of the times their edits are removed anyway just because they simply do not understand how Wikipedia operates (for instance, some help articles can be very difficult to find). But really, having the option to tick a prefs box for members with regard to edit summaries doesn't address edit summaries for non-members.- Jack ^(Talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Nobody's edits are removed simply for lack of an edit summary. Bad work gets removed on its own merits, not according to what the edit summary says or fails to say.

(2) Many times, particularly for anon editors, the actual edit is tiny. Fixing a spelling, punctuation, or grammar error often takes much less typing than adding an edit summary of "Correcting spelling" or "Fixing run-on sentence" in the edit summary.

(3) That someone asked you to provide edit summaries may say more about the kind of work you do, or about that editor's willingness to push extra work onto you just for his/her own convenience than about their true importance.

I (and apparently most editors) don't really care what the edit summary is, so long as I can see with the diffs that it was valuable. Edit summaries are valuable only when they obviously relate to the changes, and you won't know whether they're connected until you look at the diffs. Even then, they're not necessary in the vast majority of cases: I can spot "corrected spelling" and "added link to my favorite website" from the diffs without the editor telling me that's what s/he did, and I'll bet that you can, too. Edit summaries are really only important when you're doing something significant (i.e., not the vast majority of changes made to Wikipedia) that isn't going to be perfectly obvious from the diffs.

(Surely you don't automatically trust all edit summaries?! Some vandals give deliberately inaccurate summaries, such as "Adding sourced information" when they're actually adding unsourced nonsense, or "Restoring accurate information per talk page consensus" when they're deliberately editing against consensus.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For all articles I am involved in I always look at the differences between edits made, and don't solely trust edit summaries before I make any additional changes. I also believe it is not a question of what type of work I do, it just seems that an editor was having trouble understanding what edits I had made when I didn't provide an edit summary. Anyways, it seems to me after this lengthening discussion that you are just writing something to counter everything I say and/or debate all the issues/ideas/suggestions/opinions I put forward (i.e. a simple case of I believe the world is round and you will argue it's flat type thing). Fair enough if that is what you are doing, particularly if you are one of those people that when they know and understand a way of doing things you just don't want it to change. We all have the right to an opinion. Furthermore, I don't really know if you even supported the idea at its roots to start with but I won't hold that or anything else against you. Anyways, we seem to have gone off topic so I will say this: I believe that Wikipedia's edit system should continually be improved/updated/upgraded just like any good software is constantly updated. It is a changing world we live in and Wikipedia's edit procedures need to keep up with it or risk being left behind to clean up the rubbish (i.e. vandalism).

By the way, if I have personally offended you by anything I have just then I apologise, as that what was not my intention.- Jack ^(Talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

biased sources (more precisely: conflict-carrying sources): proposed discounting as a "reliable source"

I recommend adding the following bolded word/link to the following sentence:

"Articles should rely on reliable, unbiased, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Comments? Bo99 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(update, 2009-Jan-20: Such word "unbiased" incorporates the given link, and therefore is clear shorthand for the more cumbersome phrasing:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that do not have a conflict of interest on the proposition for which the source is being cited." - Bo99, 2009-Jan-20)

Then you violate NPOV, which assumes that no one view is "unbiased" and requires us to add all significant views. Even if you think they are biased. And biased views often come from biased sources. What is important is that the source is verifiable. If it has a bias, add other views from other sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are saying that a biased source is a Wikipedia-permitted reliable source. Is that right?

aside: My posting above probably did not talk about neutral-point-of-view as you suggest, merely about sources. Assume a Wikipedia article properly and neutrally presents majority view A, and minority view B, and excludes fringe view F. Under view A, the article cites source A1, A2, etc. Under view B, the article cites source B1, B2, etc. The issue i probably focused on in my posting above was: if there is a source B3 who has a personal motivation to support view B, then is B3 a Wiki-prohibited unreliable source? Then, if B3 is disqualified, that would not diminish the fact that the article neutrally presents view A (and source A1 and A2) and view B (and source B1 and B2), so there would seem to be no violation of neutral-point-of-view, as you suggest, in excluding the biased source B3. Bo99 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, it is worth raising. I think it is a more complex issue. If we just want facts on say the percentage of blacks in the US, we want a third party source that is unbiased. But if we want a source on American Nazi views, an American Nazi web-site, clearly biased, is a reliable source on what American Nazi's claim. See? A third example: a psychology journal has an obvious bias against mathematics or astronomy, thy will almost certainly reject submissions on those topics. But they are important sources on psychology. We ust need to make sure the policy is worded in a way that accommodates these very diferent cases. And, finally - remember than NPOV is the one non-negotiable policy. No other policy can conflict ith NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I agree that wording is important. We are not making up anything new. It seems to be a generally accepted principle that a person who has e.g. a significant stake on a particular view has a conflicting interest on that topic. In your example, the Nazi has no bias or unreliability on what Nazis claim. In your next example, a psych journal has no bias against reasonable use of math in a psych article.

On your NPOV point, i am not talking about precluding a view A or a view B, but about a generally accepted principle of recognizing when a source A3 or B3 has a conflicting interest. Bo99 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean about a conflicting interest on a topic. There is no reason a Nazi can't edit the article on nazis, as long as he complies with NPOV, V, and NOR - indeed i am sure it has happened in the past. Are you saying Jews cannot edit the article Judaism because of a conflict of interest? I think the key thing is that editors comply with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean that it seems to be a GAP (generally accepted principle) that COI applies to every topic. A nazi can edit a wiki article on nazis, properly, if s/he complies with all relevant Wiki principles, e.g., as you say, NPOV, V, and NOR, but also e.g. Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor, e.g. "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests ... unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." So far so good? Bo99 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this is already covered by NPOV, NOR, and COI. Why bring it up when it is well covered? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought up Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor because it is a Wiki guideline. So far so good? Bo99 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not related to this policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this Verifiability policy, i'm not yet returning to talk about that, as you are in your single sentence just above. But probably we agree that an editor should follow the following: not just NPOV, V, and NOR, but also for example Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor, which roughly says that if you are editing to further your own aims, you should not (subject to the usual caveats, exceptions, etc). Bo99 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The Conflict of Interest policy is very specific. You seem to b defining it too broadly - so broadly that you would undermine or do away with NPOV. NPOV assumes that all editors have conflicting interests, and that their views of what is best for an article are in conflict. Accepting this, rather than forbidding it, is the starting point of Wikipedia. Anything that interferes with this would threaten the whole project. We do have a COI policy, it serves us well, and it is clear and specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important for me to understand exactly what you are saying and that we therefore take things step by step. Let's focus for the moment only on Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor. I think you agree that:

1a. An editor should follow such COI(HBAWE) principle (in addition to e.g. NPOV, V, and NOR).

1b. Such principle specifies "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests ... unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."

1c. That principle seeks to dissuade some editing attempts by editors around the world. Yet the whole project of Wikipedia is not threatened by such principle.

So far so good? Bo99 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

COI lists exemplary COIs: Financial, Legal antagonists, Autobiography, Self-promotion, Promotional article production on behalf of clients, Campaigning, Close relationships. I think it is important to bear this in mind when discussing "interests." My liking and intending to vote for John McCain creates no COI in my editing the articles on McCain or Obama. My being a paid or volunteer employee of the McCain campaign may. COI policy encourages me to disclose this; if I do and am careful to comply with our core policies, I am not violating COI. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You mention some things that i think will be useful, but not just yet. First, the following is not a huge deal, but it really would be nice if you might Answer The Direct Yes/No Question i posed in my prior posting. (And when you do, fear not: even if i ever do wind up making a good case for reliable sources excluding e.g. highly-financially-interested sources, i'm just going to leave it as Discussion, and will not insist on anyone editing the guideline page.) Bo99 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already made it clear I support our COI policy. But the policy addresses editors, not sources. I do not see the relevance. Policies guiding editors' actions should not necessarily apply to sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's fairly clear that you agree with 1a and 1b above, but it's not clear that you agree with 1c above, and even if you think it's clear, it would be efficient and nice for you to Answer The Direct Yes/No Question, right? Bo99 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I I do not understand what 1c means. Look, this is not about niceness, or efficiency. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Verifiability policy. So far you seem to be avoiding that. Unless you have a proposal to improve the verifiability policy, this discussion is not appropriate. You did make a proposal above, which I disagreed with. So far no one else seems to support your proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bo, it would be better to ask questions about COI on WT:COI. This page is only for discussing the sourcing policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are serious problems with Slrubenstein's response above. I will detail them in due course. I continue not to see any valid argument supporting the idea that conflict of interest principles should apply to editors, and to essentially everyone in the world on whom others rely, but should not apply to sources cited in Wikipedia. I will detail counterarguments why generally-accepted COI principles should apply uniformly to all, and why such principles thus should deem-unreliable some sources, e.g. those with a financial stake. (SlimVirgin, thanks for commenting.) Bo99 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is the same reason for NOR, why Wikipedians do not put their own arguments into articles, but do put in arguments that come from verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When i first read the above sentence, i could not decipher what to respond to and so did not respond. But on second thought, if anyone can make the above clear to me i'll try to rebut it. Bo99 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo99, I wouldn't bother with your planned statements, because it's based on a misunderstanding of the existing rules, and it's not going to result in a policy change.

For one thing, it's not just the source. It's also how you use the source. So imagine that you have the owner of a publicly traded company trying to pump up his stock. He's got an obvious financial conflict, and he's obviously a primary source, his statements are self-published in this instance: At a stockholders meeting, he says something like, "In the coming quarter, sales will exceed anything the industry has ever seen before, beyond your wildest imagination." And the stock soars, because fools and their money are soon parted.

You already can't use his statement to support,

"Sales in the second quarter of 2009 will break all previous records.<ref>It's True™ because the CEO said so!</ref>"

You can however use his statement to support,

"CEO John P Umpindump projected increased sales during the second quarter of 2009.<ref>in front of four video cameras, and the Securities Exchange Commission is going to be having a friendly little chat with him.</ref>"

The fact that the CEO is inherently "biased" should not prevent you from reporting the actual, verifiable facts. Existing policy, however, limits how you report those facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

to poster "WhatamIdoing": There are various problems with your posting, but at least for now i'll limit my comments to the following:

(Bo99 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

2a. (This numbering starts at "2" to distinguish it from my prior posting's use of "1a" etc.)

I think you are unintentionally supporting what i believe is the view i have written (and the worldwide view):

The first thing i wrote above is that

"Articles should rely on reliable, unbiased, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The word "unbiased" incorporated the given link, and therefore was clear shorthand for the more cumbersome phrasing

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that do not have a conflict of interest on the proposition for which the source is being cited."

I think you agree with such view.

2b. I think you unintentionally oppose SIrubinstein and the current policy. (SIrubinstein believes that a source is a Wikipedia Reliable Source even if the source has a conflict of interest on the proposition for which the source is being cited. And the policy never simply says that a source, to be "reliable", must not have a conflict of interest on the proposition for which the source is being cited.) Bo99 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo99 are you being a disruptive editor? You seem to be deliberately confusing the issue. The word "source" has two (and more) meanings and you are mixing up the two. In the article on conflict of interest, you just added the word "source!" (and now you refer to it as if it supports your argument? How sleazy). And I forced you to clarify that you meant a human being, a person serving as a source of information for a reporter. That i indeed one meaning for the word "source." But here, a source is a book or article. The point is that books and articles are verifiable and reliable in ways that confidential informants are not. If you tell me your source for an edit was a friend of yours who works in the Pentagon, that is not a "source" in the way that this policy means, and none of us can verify it. But if you mean that your source is one of Jane's guides to armor, well, that is a verifiable source all of us can check and we know its reliability. You can't put lipstick on a pig and you have just spent a lot of talk here trying to do just that. Stop screwing around with this talk page, it is meant for improving the policy, not subverting it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SIrubenstein, you're wrong in all of your accusing and name-calling. I note that you continue to violate Wikipedia principles; if you care about that, please request a detailed list and i will provide specifics of your conduct and the Wikipedia texts you have violated.

You might be focusing on the detail that the author speaking in a document might have a COI but technically the document itself (which is the alter ego of the author) might not have a COI, very arguably. Either view is tolerable for me. To handle that alternative, the policy could simply be supplemented a bit further (see the following italics), to read as follows, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and whose authors do not have a conflict of interest on the proposition for which the source is being cited." Bo99 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I already explained how that would violate NPOV. There is nothing wrong ith using sources that exspress strong views, if anything we need more of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SIrubenstein: I believe your point about NPOV was already rebutted: even under the proposed improved Reliable Source definition, all relevant points of view would be presented in Wikipedia. It would just be that the cited support would be from actually-reliable sources i.e. sources that do not have COIs (on the specific view for which the source is cited) (or significant COIs if anyone desires that further word). Bo99 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo, read the WP:COI policy again... It focusses on editors, not sources. An editor might have a conflict of interest when he or she edits a particular Wikipedia article... sources do not have a conflict of interest. A particular source may have a bias, but that is handled by following the NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar:

No, i don't need to read again or glance again at the guideline you cite, Wikipedia Conflict Of Interest guideline. Yes, such guideline focuses on editors, not sources. The guideline is a subset of conflict of interest situations. Another subset is source documents whose authors have COIs.

You seem to be claiming that the author of a cited source document can't have a COI (if that's not what you mean, please clarify). The following seems to be a counterexample. (If anyone wants to make the example more realistic and/or detailed, please do.)

The wiki writer is any disinterested individual.

The subject is a company that has issued securities.

The source person is a supposedly independent securities analyst.

The source document is a document produced by the analyst that says that the company has excellent prospects.

The writer writes in wiki that the company has excellent prospects, and in support of that cites the analyst's source document.

It turns out that the company is paying the analyst.

So such source person has a serious financial COI that makes such source person unreliable.

And so the source document is unreliable too, even though the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy seems to label such document a Reliable Source, strangely. Bo99 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The wiki writer's "error" was that he should have written "Analyst X reported that the company has excellent prospects. (cite for the analysts report)". Then a later editor can add "On 21 January 2009 the Securities and Exchange Commission arrested Analyst X on a charges related to the collapse of the company." without having to completely rewrite the entire section based on false information. Roger (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I (Bo99) agree with these example variations or elaborations, regarding such things as what the writer or the USA SEC should or could do.

Regarding the source(s), and the example's conclusions: the conclusions seem to remain true:

The source person has a serious financial COI that makes such source person unreliable.

And so the source document is unreliable too, even though the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy seems to label such document a Reliable Source, strangely. Bo99 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my comments... Yes, an author can have a conflict of interest in writing a source. Wikipedia does not really care about this. It certainly has nothing to do with WP:COI, which is purely concerned with the situation that arrises when the author of the source (or someone directly tied to that author) edits a Wikipedia article.

In your example above... I agree that we need to take into account the fact that the Subject company is paying Author for his analysis, but the fact of payment does not make the analysis unreliable... For one thing, there we should not assume that payment influenced the analysis... the assignment could have been to give an independant expert critique. Even if the assignment was to give a glowing report, that simply shifts the analysis into the "Self-Published" category. It becomes no more reliable, but also no less reliable than an analysis issued directly by the company.

To put this another way, your concerns may affect what we say about the source, but they do not affect whether we can use the source.Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar: Yes, the fact that a source document's author can have a conflict of interest in writing a source document is not covered by WP:COI, which would be better titled as Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor,

Your other statement, that Wiki does not care about the source document's author's COI, is problematic. Such COI is covered by the Wiki article Conflict Of Interest Held By Anyone (and, for SIrubenstein, such COI was covered by such article before you and i jointly edited such article).

It's good that you Blueboar agree (and probably everyone above agrees, other than maybe SIrubenstein) that Wiki needs to take into account that in my above example the subject company is paying the author for his favorable writeup. No need to reply on the following, but keep in mind that yours is probably a distinct minority view worldwide when you say that the fact of payment does not make the author's favorable analysis unreliable necessarily. Yes it's true that conceivably the favorable analysis might be borne out in time, but the author would very likely be subject to financial penalties and prison, according to the earlier poster Roger and Roger's description of USA law, and i agree that penalties and prison would be the worldwide general-accepted approach.

Yes, your wording is moving in the right direction about generally-accepted COI analysis, as you write/think-through "[COI] concerns may affect what we say about the source, but they do not affect whether we can use the source." But Conflict Of Interest Held By Anyone can shortcut your thinking directly to the worldwide generally-accepted answer: in shorthand, "Disallow, Or Disclose"; in longhand, the best thing to do is to disallow use of the editor, professional provider, source document, etc on which others might rely, or as a second choice, at least disclose, in a prominent way, that such person, on whom others might rely, has (or if it's a document, then its author would have) e.g. a significant financial interest (and spell out the publicly known details if any) on the specific view/proposition/etc that such person or document is to be used for, and therefore is unreliable on such view/proposition/etc.

By the way, the proposed improved Reliable Source definition will rarely affect a Wikipedia article, probably. It will be fairly rare probably that it is publicly known at a timely date that there is such a triggering COI, for purposes of Wikipedia. For example, in my example further above, at the time that the wiki writer is writing, he would not know that the securities analyst and the analyst's document are tainted by a financial COI, so, for a time, that actually-unreliable source would remain a Wikipedia Reliable Source (even under the proposed improved Reliable Source definition). And no one has come forward with a real-life example in a Wikipedia article in which the proposed improved Reliable Source definition would prevent the article from voicing any view. Bo99 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, do you have any idea how many fringe theory promoters claim that mainstreeam sources are biased against them?

All of them. This proposal would cause a severe increase in tendentious editing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with your posting. I will reply when appropriate. Bo99 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

to the above poster "Shoemaker's Holiday": There are problems with your posting, but for now i'll limit my comments to the following. There would seem to be a simple and short Wikipedia response to your contemplated fringe theory promoter, as follows: Wikipedia requires reliable sources; if the promoter has no sources, either because mainstream sources are biased or for any other reason, then the promoter cannot write their proposition in Wikipedia. ("Shoemaker's Holiday", if you envision the dialogue with the promoter as being more complicated, please spell it out a bit more, for further analysis.) Bo99 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo99, I see that you have edited your comments today to assert that requiring unbiased sources will not prevent any articles from voicing any views. I submit to your attention Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, where even the best kinds of sources (peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals) have been denounced as "biased". As far as I can tell, exactly zero 'unbiased' sources exist on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

to poster "WhatamIdoing": There are problems with your posting. I will reply when appropriate. Bo99 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

to poster "WhatamIdoing":

There are problems with your above posting, but progress since your posting further above (2009-Jan-20).

Your first sentence overstates/misrepresents significantly what i wrote (a few inches above, at start of a paragraph): "By the way, the proposed improved Reliable Source definition will rarely affect a Wikipedia article, probably. It will be fairly rare probably that it is publicly known at a timely date that there is such a triggering COI ... . ... And no one has come forward with a real-life example in a Wikipedia article in which the proposed improved Reliable Source definition would prevent the article from voicing any view." (Such last sentence's adding, in this Diff page, seems to be what you are referring to in your first sentence above. Such adding was not a change in my view on the proposed improved Reliable Source definition.)

Your second sentence in your posting above seems to indicate that you are not yet talking about the subject of this entire Conflict-Carrying Sources discussion. The generic, broad word "bias" was never the subject. I used such word at the top of this discussion, not as the generic broad word, but rather as a link, as shorthand, with express emphasis to incorporate the COI discussion in Conflict Of Interest Held By Anyone. So one needs to look at that link, and/or Conflict Of Interest Held By A Wikipedia Editor. Of the many COI examples given in such two links, for most of the COIs there seems to be the rough commonality of a reasonably-specific, reasonably-direct, money-related involvement of the subject person (or a non-money-related involvement that is relatively equally serious) (in the specific proposition/view/project for which the person is being used). (I don't recall either of those articles expressing fear that their COI analysis is likely to, for example, prevent there being sufficient conflict-free editors to write Wikipedia, prevent any industry from functioning, prevent there being sufficient citable sources for an encyclopedia to exist; such prevention would indeed probably occur if the generic, broad word "bias" were the test.)

Regarding your third/last sentence in your posting above, please do say so if in the transsexuality article/subject-area you cited above (which i have not yet looked at) you still feel that 100% (or even 10%) of the sources in that area have the type of bias/COI we are talking about (i.e., again, a publicly-documented, reasonably-specific, reasonably-direct, money-related involvement, or a non-money-related involvement that is relatively equally serious, in the specific proposition or view for which the source would be used). Bo99 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo, please don't edit your comments or majorly reorganize threads after the fact. It is frowned upon. If you notice a mistake in something you wrote, or wish to indicate a change in your thoughts, may I suggest that you use the strike through function (<s>text</s> which looks like this: "use the strike through function.") Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, there are a number of problems with your posting immediately above. I will reply further when appropriate. For one thing, i don't recall having made (a) any major change to a prior posting by me, or (b) regarding any posting by anyone else, any change at all to the content, or even the meaning (which i recognized could be affected by some change to a prior posting by me), or (c) any change that made this Discussion-page topic less of a good record of the chronology of thoughts expressed. (And: (d): i already used a highlight-and-date-the-change technique (of which your suggested strike-through is a subset), near the top of this section.) Bo99 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to edits like this one. I have no problem with you changing your mind and deciding that you should have worded something differently... the problem is that others responded to your original wording, so makeing later changes impacts on the comments of others. By striking through what you want to change, you allow others to see your original wording, as well as your new wording. It isn't a big thing, but is a courtesy to others. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, maybe i previously expressed and covered your above point, in my above clauses a through c, especially b and c; the Diff page you cite shows a change to the topic title that was not intended to change the meaning significantly (especially within the context of title shorthand, in a title that was and is already too long for retaining struck-through words, a technique i was familiar with) (please ask if you would like me to write out the closeness in meaning of the former title words to the newer title words). I too have no problem with you or anyone changing the mind and deciding that one should have worded something differently, so long as one follows courtesy/clarity techniques/considerations like e.g. my above clauses a through d (including your suggested strike-through technique). Bo99 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To the Bo99 person: There is zero validity in the above 99 verbiage. To everybody else: If you liked this thread, you will also like Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#allegation by the BillyTFried person of view-pushing. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, you're deeply wrong, in terms of Wikipedia principles (and in terms of the substance of that other page); if you care about your violations of Wikipedia, please request a list and i can provide specifics, with links. Bo99 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do in fact care very much about my violations of Wikipedia. I hereby request a list with specifics and links so that I can mend my ways. Thank you in advance.

(I take it that your kind offer refers to an expertise about my entire recent editing history rather than just the calculated WP:CIVILITY and WP:AHI violations that I committed with the above single post, which I am already well aware wasn't the best way of saying WP:DFTT.) --Hans Adler (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, i intend to reply when appropriate to your above request. Bo99 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, as you requested above, here is an analysis of your above postings:

• You said above that you intentionally violated Wikipedia in multiple ways.
• You did not say that:

• You seem to be violating Be Helpful To The Discussion.
• You seem to be violating Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal, which states: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not ... other subjects ... ." (bold and italics removed)
• You seem to be name-calling, calling me a troll (not a person improving Wikipedia), in that you state that your "above single post ... [was a] way of saying" Don't Feed The Troll.

• Labelling someone a troll would violate Assume Good Faith.
• Name-calling would violate Veracity ("the usual concerns of Wikipedians [include] ... veracity ... "). "Genuine dissent is not trolling" according to Trolling Defined.

Bo99 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bo99, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, which you have apparently not looked at, has recently been accepted into formal mediation over allegations that the people writing all the reliable sources on the subject have a conflict of interest (namely, that they're sexologists who support a different idea of sexuality, and therefore couldn't possibly know what hundreds of transwomen clients mean when they say that they're women trapped in men's bodies, have a female soul in a male body, and so forth).

So, yes, either your "unbiased" language (which you will find in the second sentence of this thread) or your "conflict of interest" concerns would prevent this entire article from being written. (To the delight of several POV-ish and COI-affected Wikipedia editors, by the way.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

to poster "WhatamIdoing": There are a number of strange problems in your above posting (but such posting still is progress over your first posting further above). For example, for the third time, you pretend that a relevant subject is the broad generic word "bias", written without a link built into the word, and now for the third time i explain that the subject is e.g. "bias", with a link built into the word, incorporating all the general COI principles of the link (e.g. COI Held By Anyone and/or COI Held By An Editor), e.g. speaking grossly: Disallow, or Disclose. So i gather that precise full analysis by me of your postings does not progress things. So i'll just paint with your type of broad brush. Regarding the transsexuality article you cite above, i'll make the huge assumptions that the universe of potential editors and sources is 100% composed of:

(a) sexologists who have a true COI on the subject (not just lack of knowledge as you say above, which lack is generally not a true COI) (which COI means that such persons are unreliable on the statements they write on the subject),

and (b) transwomen who have a true COI on the subject (which COI means that such persons are unreliable on the statements they write on the subject),

and (c) no other person in the universe.

Still, under the above-grossly-summarized COI approach of Disallow Or Disclose, the sexologists and transwomen could e.g. disclose their COIs and thus be editors and sources. So the article you cite could be written. Bo99 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed on an article by article basis, depending on whether individual editors or groups of editors are letting their "conflict of interest" affect the neutrality of their editing. It certainly does not belong in WP:Verifiability policy. (and Bo... please stop saying that there is "a problem with (someone's) posting" without further explanation... If you see a problem, explain what that problem is, rather than just stating that a problem exists... without explanation, other editors will simply assume you are saying WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and will ignore your concerns.) Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, i intend to reply when practicable to each of your above views. Bo99 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar:

Your first sentence in your posting above seems to be about one or more editors considering their COIs, on a case by case basis as you say. I agree with such sentence, and i think wiki agrees and provides wiki guidance, at e.g. Handling COIs Held By Editors.

Moving on, if one is considering the similar issue of COIs held not by editors but by the authors of sources (and such authors may be some of the editors discussed in my prior paragraph), it would be similarly helpful for there to be wiki guidance on the topic. I.e. at a minimum wiki should state in some way either that COIs are, or are not, relevant to the reliability of a source. That's a fundamental issue for wiki. (Maybe you agree, because further above you wrote some words that might be relevant, "I agree that we need to take into account the fact that [a postulated source was paid] for his analysis ... . [Those] concerns may affect what we say about the source ... ." I removed some italics.) If wiki is silent on the issue of COIs held by sources, then wiki will continue to have the problem shown on this Discussion page, where one poster, at the top of this discussion, seems to believe that the arguable wiki-text silence on the issue means that a source can be severely tainted by a serious, true COI that is publicly documented (other than on wiki) and yet the source can be freely used in wiki as a "Reliable Source" without any discounting, disclosure, etc.

Then, if the issue of COIs in the authors of sources should have at least the tiniest bit of Wiki guidance, the question is where one would put such text. The logical place seems to be the Source Reliability section, because a source's reliability is tainted if the source's author has a COI (according to the directly applicable or analogously applicable provisions of COI Held By Anyone, COI Held By An Editor, and generally-accepted principles worldwide i believe).

Your second sentence in your posting above i think is saying that the issue of COI held by an editor does not belong in COI Held By A Source (also known as the source reliability policy). I'm okay with that.

In your third sentence i think you are saying that when i claim that there are problems in someone's posting i should give explanation on 100% of such problems (without making appropriate exceptions as i have been doing occasionally to shorten the numerous detailed explanations i have given). That added explaining is fine with me, because it's easier and quicker for me (i.e. to analyze each concept, in series, rather than to think about skipping lesser issues, combining ideas, presenting ideas in a more readable way, etc). My implementing your preference will take even more length in my replies, and that might be a bit less courteous to readers, but if someone does not like the length, i'll direct them to you, and also we can if necessary resume my former approach.

And if you think that there might have been any instances where i claimed to observe problems and where you think i can't supply support, please ask for that support.

I suspect you're not right when you might be suggesting that a hypothetical reasonable reader will simply assume in a particular instance that i am expressing a subjective preference and not an objectively supportable view; i think a hypothetical reasonable reader would at some point perceive that i have given so much detailed explanation, and rebutted carefully all counterviews in all sub-threads, that sometimes it would indeed be preferable to skip some explanation, for lesser-length. But again, we'll do it your way, with complete length.

It's interesting that you don't take into account the very extensive detailed explanations i've given in this discussion. From that, and from some of your other postings, i get the feeling that you just wish this topic would end. If that's your feeling, it's understandable.

The prospect of change (even improvement), can be troubling, especially when it's change to some text that connects with other detailed text, and when there can be unintended consequences.

And few welcome hearing that they and wiki have missed something or been thinking non-optimally about something.

I'm okay with this discussion ending, as you might want, or continuing. Continuing is better, because i have little doubt that wiki has a significant omission in not somehow simply stating more clearly that COI principles should (or should not) apply to sources' authors (akin to the fact that COI principles already apply to editors, who might be the very same persons as such authors). (That view would probably belong in Source Reliability.)

If posters continue to post counterarguments, i intend to continue to rebut each. (But the problem in my doing that will be that the rebutted posters might become more and more troubled, alienated, and resistant.)

If posters don't continue to post counterarguments, then there will be nothing for me to rebut, and eventually this discussion will be moved into the archives by a wiki robot.

Bo99 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo99, I think your proposal was made in good-faith and well-intentioned. But people have been discussing it for over ten days, and some very thoughtful people whom I respect a good deal (even if I have disagreed with them at particular points in the past, or they have disagreed with one another at one point or another in the past) have raised serious questions about your proposal. It certainly has not gined any traction. I think most would agree with me that V and RS and NPOV are fine as they are with regards to the concerns you raise; as Blueboar says, any other concerns (like this) should be raised on a case-by-case basis and discussed among editors working on a particular article, who are usually best-suited to judge the reliability and notability of a source, and how to use it in a way that complies with NPOV. You made a good-fith effort, nd it has gotten a fair hearing, and it didn't gain traction. I think we are all better off turning our attention to other endeavors at this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you allege that the proposal to improve Wikipedia has seen questions "raised". "Raising" is irrelevant, because i answered any questions and rebutted any counterarguments. If you think you see any open issue please quote it carefully for all to judge your allegation efficiently.

There seems no counterargument to the view that Wikipedia should be consistent with itself by stating that,

case-by-case, editors should (or should not) consider applying COI principles (i.e. disallow or disclose) to sources' authors, akin to the fact that Wikipedia already roughly says:

case-by-case, editors should (see here) consider applying COI principles (i.e. disallow or disclose) to editors

(who might be the very same persons as such authors).

Wikipedia's current ambiguity on the subject violates its express or implied principles of e.g. clarity, comprehensiveness, consistency, helpfulness, non-secrecy, openness, and quality.

Bo99 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bo99, the only argument that matters here is WP:CONSENSUS: You don't have it. That you personally reject all the arguments and perspectives of every editor that has responded to you is irrelevant. To make the changes you want, you must have consensus. You do not have consensus. You have active opposition. You may not make the changes. As for myself, I no longer plan to respond to your comments, as I think that further responses are a waste of everyone's time and energy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The above posting by the user "WhatamIdoing" is deeply wrong. I'll mention just the following highlights:

• "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their ... logic may outweigh the "logic" ... of the majority. ... Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people ... [but rather] on a system of good reasons." (quoted from the Consensus policy cited by the above poster "WhatamIdoing") (My opinion is a minority opinion among the handful of people who posted in this discussion. My opinion is that Wikipedia should be consistent with itself: Wiki should state more clearly some principles regarding COIs held by sources -- any principles, whether permissive or constraining to such COIs -- just as Wiki already states some principles regarding COIs held by editors.)
• Such poster "WhatamIdoing" grossly misrepresents my approach (which is: presenting objective reasoning) as being the same as me "personally reject[ing] all the arguments and perspectives of every editor" (italics added). I am not presenting my subjective preferences but rather am presenting reasoning that seeks to be objective, that is supported by other reasoning, and that is not disputed by any posting that has survived objective publicly-detailed analysis. There has been no stated objectively-valid reason why Wikipedia should omit stating more clearly some principles regarding COIs held by sources (any principles, whether permissive or constraining to such COIs); if anyone thinks they can conceive of such a reason please post it for publicly-detailed analysis.
• aside: There was one poster who asked that when i state that a posting has problems i should enumerate every one of the problems. On second thought, i'm going to forego that approach (unless others desire that approach strongly), and just hit the highlights as i'm doing, especially because this discussion may be at or near an end.
• Far-above i wrote "i'm just going to leave it as Discussion, and will not insist on anyone editing the guideline page". If posters don't continue to post counterarguments that i can demonstrate to be erroneous, then as i wrote two postings ago there will be nothing for me to rebut, and after seven days this discussion will be moved into the archives by a Wikipedia robot, and Wikipedia's problem will remain for now -- there will continue to be a lack of clear principles on COIs held by sources (any principles, whether permissive or constraining to such COIs) (thus leaving Wiki inconsistent with itself and very probably inconsistent with worldwide generally accepted principles). That would be not good, but okay.

Bo99 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

---

This endless and pointless argument is a waste of time. Will anyone object if I archive it tomorrow? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could some small additional words reduce behaviour in conflict with other major policies?

I am increasingly seeing that good-intentioned editors are interpreting this policy to mean that Wikipedia is "not concerned with" the truth, and "not about" facts. Obviously that is not the intention of saying that verifiability is a threshold for inclusion, and I believe this needs to be made clear. Terms like "reliable", "verifiable", "checking process", "high quality sources" etc all only have a meaning if the implied objects involve concepts like "true", "correct". Too often this is being ignored now, and editors are feeling very self-satisfied and closed-minded about spending 15 minutes deleting and tagging relatively good materials when 10 minutes could have been spent looking up some good sources. When challenged about why one would decrease the quality of an article when increasing the quality would be just as much work, WP:V is almost always what people cite as a way of closing rational discussion, the opening paragraphs being interpreted as saying that Wikipedia has no policy of aiming at such targets as truth and facts. Wikipedia can not afford to encourage behavior which is conflict with WP:IAR, WP:BB, WP:NEWBIES and WP:IMPERFECT. Therefore I propose that a rejoinder needs to be added right near the top of WP:V saying that "This does not mean that Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of facts or truths" or something to that effect, with cross-references to WP:IAR, WP:BB, WP:NEWBIES and WP:IMPERFECT. The wording "threshold for inclusion" was carefully chosen for a reason, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Websites that have gone away

I am in a discussion about some text that is sourced to a website that appears to have lost its registration and the data is no longer available. The crux of the debate involves original research, so it is important to know what is in the text. Any thoughts? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Have you checked the Internet Archive? JulesH (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous sources within mainstream media

Users are constantly being confused on the issue of anonymous or unnamed source use within major news organizations, such as the LA Times or NY Times. They seem to equate the use of unnamed sources by news organizations that meet Wikipedia:Reliable_sources as unverified information. For an example, please see Talk:Rihanna#2009_Grammy.27s . Can we please add a note clarifying the legitimacy of this practice among the news section? More specifically, to clearly note that it is the duty of editors to verify the reliability of the news organization, not the sources they use. Magemirlen (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-English sources

I've made a proposal here for an explicit exception to the WP:NOR policy which bears on WP:V#Non-English sources. Please comment as appropriate. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Congressional Record as a Self-Published Source

I apologize if this has been brought up before.

From a concern I raised over at Ron Paul, I've noticed that we frequently cite the Congressional Record to information on the political positions of Congressmen. Since the Congressional Record is only a transcript of the discussions that take place in Congress, wouldn't it be considered a self published source for members of Congress? For example, how is "He also opposes the federal War on Drugs,[169] (sourced to CR)" any better sourced than a politician calling himself tough on crime in a speech? I'd like to believe that anything a Congressman says on the floor of Congress is trustworthy, but should we really but relying on a politician's own words when his actions (as reported by reliable sources) may not agree? Burzmali (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly this is a case of judicious usage. The Congressional Record or any other Hansard is a reliable record of the words uttered but conveys no additional credence on the veracity of those words. If Rep Jones says that the Martians have landed, it will record the words he used and the time he said them. We can use that as a reference to support an assertion the he said so, but not to support our own assertion that Martians have landed. In most cases a balanced discussion should also examine the reaction by other members to controversial assertions made in such a forum.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the Congressional Record also records votes, the Paul info may be citing one or all of the many times Rep. Paul has voted against bills in furtherance of the "war on drugs". There is also the all too common practice of revise and extend, whereby a member has 7 working days to correct any misstatements and errors, add extraneous material that did not appear in the floor speech, and basically prevent the official record of their statements from reflecting their utter inability to orate well. P.J. O'Rourke wrote on this in Parliament of Whores and you can view the process in action thanks to C-SPAN. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a self-published source, but in this instance that only affects how you use it, not whether you can use it. Try to reflect this source with great precision: "Ron Paul spoke in Congress against enforcement of marijuana laws", or whatever the exact issue is. You want a ten-year-old kid to be able to look at what you wrote, and what's in the CR, and see that the two things match. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I most strenuously disagree that CR is a "self-published source" as defined by our policy. Items published and disseminated by a member's office would be "self-published" in regards to that particular member but the CR is an official publication of the US government. CR is no more a "self-published source" for members of Congress than the New York Times is a "self-published source" for the work product of its reporters. Members of Congress have no control over the editorial process and decisions made at CR, therefore, I posit, it is not a "self-published source". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For most of the CR there is no editorial process or decisions. The main sections are the verbatim transcripts of the conversations in Congress, plus what Congresspersons add to sound better. The next section the "speeches they wish they made" section where the Congresspersons publish their own would-have-given-if-they-had-been-allowed-the-time speeches. Finally there is the daily digress section, when would have editorial oversight. However, frequently we are quoting from the speeches section, so since the speeches are written by the subject and printed without editorial oversight. Burzmali (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Catalogs?

Is it ok to cite a catalog as a source to back up a fact that a subject is being sold? And if so, how / what format? Shrumster (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm....like this page, for example. [1]. It's published by the same company that sells the models. Shrumster (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing this website to verify that the item is sold. However, do be careful... Wikipeida is not for advertizing. I do question whether this is something that needs to be mentioned in an article...

Assuming consensus is to mention it, cite it as <ref>[http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/IMPERIAL_GUARD_TANKS.html forgeworld.co.uk webpage]</ref>. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see how that would not amount to link spam. It only reliably verifies that the website advertises the product, not even that they make it. It the product and producer are notable, find a reliable source that demonstrates it. But this isn't the forum in any case.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we essentially have two issues here... 1) does the source verify the fact that the item is sold? (yes, becuase the website offers it for sale)... and 2) does the fact that the item is sold add anything to the article (probably not, but I would have to see the specific article to know for sure), and does mentioning that fact constitute advertizing? (I think so).

So... Yes, the page verifies the fact... but that fact probably should not be included (and there are other non-WP:V issues to consider.) Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with LeadSongDog and Blueboar, though it's hard to know for sure without knowing what page is being proposed for its inclusion. arimareiji (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Shrumster's edit history, the article in question seems to be: Vehicles of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Loophole

In my opinion, this sentence creates a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through: "For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
If Joe Blow once wrote something that qualified as an RS, is it truly desirable to open the door to anything Joe Blow ever says in his blog, forum postings, etc? Or should this be more tightly constrained? arimareiji (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your concerns. What is the relevant field? For example, Langdon Winner is definitely the authoritative exponent of technological determinism, but most historians would not consider him to speak for the whole field of history of technology in general. This loophole could lead to major problems. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A wider issue that didn't occur to me until later: If experts' blogs and forum posts are fair game, why do we maintain the prohibition against experts using their personal expertise to make edits on Wikipedia? I.e. if a Latin scholar comes across a claim that "void ab initio is a Latin phrase," they need to cite sources before correcting it to "void ab initio uses the Latin phrase ab initio". So why would we accept an expert's SELFPUB outside of Wikipedia when we reject an expert's SELFPUB inside of Wikipedia?

Clearly in cases such as these, "an established expert on the topic of the article" is the relevant part of the phrasing that limits the use in inappropriate situations. If somebody is only considered an expert on a very narrow topic, and that is not the topic of the article, then their self-published sources cannot be used. Seems fairly simple to me, and I really don't see a problem.

In response to the last query, I wouldn't expert anyone to need to cite a source to correct an error like that, but I see your point anyway. The reason an expert's self published work in wikipedia is not acceptable as a source is because it is difficult or impossible for somebody to find out who exactly has provided the information the article is based upon, at which point it becomes impossible for readers to trust the content. The solution to this problem (from the point of view of the expert who wishes to contribute to Wikipedia) is to self-publish the information first in a forum where it is verifiably their own writing (e.g. on their well-known personal blog), and then use this source as a source for the edit. JulesH (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. But still, two points: 1) An expert could presumably get published on a matter in their field if they felt it would stand up to peer review - given this, will we still trust all pronouncements, even those not subject to peer review? 2) The 'Net seems to encourage a level of intemperance in all of us (experts included) that we probably wouldn't display if we knew our words would be submitted for formal publication - given this, will we still give an expert's rant on his personal blog the same credence we would give his article in Science?

My suggestion isn't that expert SELFPUB should be excluded, but I think that at a minimum it should be qualified that expert SELFPUB is not a highly-reliable source. Stronger language used to specifically qualify the inclusion of blogs and forum posts might also be in order. arimareiji (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to generalize. A film expert or sportswriter, for example, may self-published a blog within the field of their expertise because they make money or enhance their reputation that way, or they have been sponsored to do so, or conversely, because their field is not popular and there are not enough journals and papers interested in publishing their wisdom. In other fields the so-called "experts" are in fact paid or interested parties for one side of a dispute (e.g. a controversial medical treatments, Arab/Israeli controversy, proponents of new theories, etc), dabbling in the practice of partisan blogging. Further, the right question is whether the person is an expert in the subject for which his/her self-published statement is being cited, not whether they are an expert in the subject of the article. Taking for example the case of the Palestine/Israel conflict, where I have been following some persistent BLP vios, there are prolific PhD academics, editorialists and journalists at partisan newspapers, and members of think-tanks funded to advocate one side of the issue or the other, whose self-published blogs accuse each other of everything from racism to resume fraud. Whereas the experts' analysis, cited as such, regarding the Palestine/Israel may or may not be reliable enough to include (that is its own debate), they are hardly experts in the art of mud-slinging to discredit their rivals. I think a simple change and narrowing is in order, to say the exception applies to "established experts [making uncontroversial statements] on the subject for which they are cited"Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposed change better than my own. I disagree in one aspect - I think some experts are much more expert at slinging their own poo than they are at critical analysis. But that's just a technicality. arimareiji (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

on-line sources vs. off-line sources

I recall seeing somewhere here at WP that on-line sources are preferred to off-line sources, but now I can't find this anywhere. This issue arose here where an editor pointed out that if anything off-line sources should be preferred because they can't "die". I was under the impression that on-line sources are better for the simple reason that the reader has better to access to them. I'm sorry if the answer is somewhere on some policy page or if this was discussed already. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither one is preferred. Both are fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both are fine, the basic rule is to give whatever are actually the best sources, print or online. But this needs a little further explanation: : But online sources should be given if they exist. We are after all an online encyclopedia, used by people whose main or sole information resources are online. Our purpose in sourcing is to provide verifiability by our users, as many of our users who want to check , and to permit them to investigate things further. for sources available both print and online, both should be given, especially if the online source has paid access and the print is in libraries. Publications vary about which of the two is considered the version of record, & we avoid the problem by giving both. The problem of unstable web sources is a very real one, but there are ways of handling it, such as WebCite--which i think should always be used if possible when the online version is unique. The goal is to document in as helpful a way as possible. DGG (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's more to this story than meets the eye. In this particular instance, an off-line source from Cold War Federal Germany (supposedly) makes sweeping historical "corrections" to early Polish history impossible to confirm of course, while contradicting the on-line overview provided by the city of Wałbrzych. The problem is causing a fiery exchange in Talk and an ongoing revert war to the detriment of the entire article. So, is the foreign off-line source from 1977 versus the on-line one (by Mayor's office) sufficient enough to go on like this ad infinitum? --Poeticbent talk 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The book in question is the second, improved edition, published in 2003. Thank you. Karasek (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It still does not matter that one source is online and the other in print... what you are dealing with is simply two sources that disagree as to the facts. When that happens, there are several things that can be done... first, realize that both versions probably have a bit of propaganda to them... all history does. Second, dont choose sides... mention both viewpoints (See: WP:NPOV). Third: do some more research... see what several other sources say (if most of the other sources back a particular viewpoint, that viewpoint can be given more weight... more often you end up with a third, different viewpoint). Fourth, avoid stating either viewpoint as "fact", instead phrase things as being "opinion" and directly attribute the opinion to the authors. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Polish and German historiography often disagree, and neither one can claim superiority over the other, anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not true. Modern Polish and German historiography nowadays often shares the same view. I would go even further: modern Polish historiography, published in the last 5 or 10 years, reached a quality which is sometimes superior to German historiography. The problem: this modern Polish historiography isn't often used here. Have a look at the Wrocław article. The majority of the Polish sources originates from Communist times. Maleczyński for example is pure propaganda, dito for Długoborski. Harasimowicz' book on the other hand is a gold mine, frankly the best book about the subject. To cut a long story short: if both sides use modern academic sources there is almost no disagreement. Karasek (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I’m not sure if I made myself clear, but when the text from an off-line source is added amidst an edit war, no-one can confirm its accuracy and make sure that nothing of importance was being omitted or maybe even beefed up. Instead, the reference becomes a way of silencing the opposition. I’ve seen it already before, for example, active links being left out intentionally, due to the selective nature of what was being used here. --Poeticbent talk 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Confirming the accuracy of an off-line source may take longer than it would with an on-line source, but it can be confirmed. As long as some editor somewhere can go to a library, or purchase the book, and actually read the section of the book that is cited, it can be verified and fact checked. Citing to an off-line reference does not "silence the opposition", because if the information being sourced is contentious enough, someone is going to go to the effort to do so. And if the source is being used inaccurately, that someone will raise a stink. What often does happen when someone cites an off-line source is that the edit war slows down. And you know, that strikes me as a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

it is appropriate in cases like this to ask for an extended quotation on the talk page. DGG (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal running WP:V

That is the conclusion of my academic article, finally published :) Read it here (seems free for now, may not be after it is archived). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to inform you that the article is not available in my Explorer due to forced redirect,[2] even when the entire site is tagged as 'trusted' in Internet Options/Tools. --Poeticbent talk 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing I can do about that, other then strongly recommend the use of Firefox (or anything else but the Exploder ;).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn... I was hoping there was a Cabal so I could join it. I was really looking forward to learning the WP:V Cabal secret handshake! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be happy being a member of the "Fraternal Order of Non-Original Researchers". (besides... the FONOR has better looking silly hats!) Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

nor did it work for me in Safari. DGG (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... how do we know that Piotr isn't part of the cabal, and only published this to throw the rest of us off the scent? devious, very devious... but of course, maybe I'm part of a cabal that's trying to throw suspicion on Piotr, so that people will continue looking for that other cabal (that doesn't exist), and miss the real cabal (which, uhhh... doesn't exist, of course).

man, I need a beer. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interestingly, the link didn't work for me the first time on a new session, but worked on the second one. I am also posting details at WP:ACST, and if that doesn't work, the article's title is "Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia" and it is published in Sociological Forum, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 162-192, 31 Jan 2009. Issue ToC: [3].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SPS- "used as sources of information about themselves"

I've been watching a discussion unfold about this term, and figured someone here would likely be able to explain the phrase more definitively. I'm trying to get clear about what exactly does or doesn't qualify by this: "should only be used in articles about themselves.". For instance, in a biography about a dead person could details from a self published book or website about the person written by someone else be included in the article? i.e. could details from where the person lived and went to school come from a self published website? Can it still be "about themselves" if the person the article is about didn't write the information, but someone else did? Elijah Walker (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It fundamentally comes down to the credibility of the work. Many people will, for any number of reasons, assert things which are not true about themselves, others, and even non-biographical subjects. The false assertion "The moon is made of green cheese" would not aquire any additional credibility by being self-published in Neil Armstrong's autobiography. On the other hand if he said "As a child, I believed that the moon was made of green cheese" on his blog, we might be tempted to use it, though the source could disappear the next minute. If he published the same statement in an autobiographical book it would be verifiable at the local library (remember those?) by any industrious reader, so we could assert "Armstrong recalls a childhood belief that the moon was made of green cheese".LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

P v. S

If something can be verified by both primary and reliable secondary sources, should the latter be eschewed in favour of the former for simplicity or ease's sake? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I would say both can be cited, but we rely on analysis from secondary sources as preferred sourcing - WP:OR.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Articles about themselves"

I see that we are back to the old language of saying that questionable sources should only be used "in articles about themeselves". I strongly disagree with that phrasing. Let me present an example to explain why...

I hope everyone here would agree that Adolf Hitler's book, Mien Kamph, should be considered a questionable source. If we keep the "in articles about themselves" phrasing, we would only be able to cite to Mein Kamph in the article Mein Kamph (and, possibly, in the aritcle Adolf Hitler... as the term "source" can refer to both the document that is being cited and its author). However, I would argue there are other articles where it might be both logical and appropriate to discuss and cite it... for example, I could easily see it being quoted and cited in the article on Facism, to explain certain aspects of Nazi political/racial philosophy. I could also see it being discussed and cited in the article on Anti-semitism.

I fully appreciate that there are articles where citing Mein Kamph would be inapporpirate (It would be completely inappropriate to cite it in the article on Jews for example)... and we do want to place restrictions on using questionable sources... but I find limiting questionable sources purely to "Articles about themselves" is overkill. Limited allowance needs to be made for appropriate use of questionable sources in the context of a serious and neutral discussion in articles not specifically about themselves. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That example, where the source is not reliable but is notable is of course very far from representative of non-RS: very few non-RS are themselves notable. In the example, it can certainly be verified that the text said certain things, and it is perfectly reasonable to infer that those were the words of the attributed author. No one should draw from that the conclusion that the things said in the text are accurate. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are valid... but they do not really address my concern. Yes, the notability of a questionable source is an important factor in determining how appropriate it is to discuss what that source says. My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill. I definitely want limitations as to when it would be appropriate to cite a questionable source, I simply feel the current restriction is not realistic. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main section on this says, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ...," which covers your concern. The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be this explicit, but for rare cases such as Mein Kampf, where a highly notable source is not reliable, I would simply ignore all rules and make judicious usage. If necessary a discussion of the usage on the article's talk page should be enough to justify the usage at reviews. Spelling this out at WP:V is pure instruction creep LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could invoke IAR... but that is something that should be rarely done. I really think that if we have to ignore the rules to discuss something as notable as Mein Kamph, then there is a flaw in the rules. However, I think the simple shift from "... used in articles about themselves" to "... used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" has fixed that flaw, and resolved my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Websites mirroring WP content

I have restored the passage about mirror sites. We must avoid using outdated versions of Wikipedia articles hosted on one of the many sites carrying WP content as sources for new articles. If the material was unsourced in the old version, it is still unsourced now, even if the old article version is hosted on a mirror site. Jayen466 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be sourcing our articles to websites that mirror or cite to WP content - period... even if they have the most up to date version of our article. Doing so sets up a circular reference (we cite them citing us). Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is actually important enough that I think it merits its own sub-section. I have also expanded it to caution against citing sources that cite us (ie sources that do not mirror us exactly, but where information is taken from us). Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Jayen466 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to add a policy shortcut for this. Would WP:WPNRS be okay? Jayen466 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am all for creating a shortcut... but I am less sure about the suggested WP:WPNRS (its not intuitive... what do the initials stand for?) Perhaps WP:SMWP (Sites Mirroring Wikipedia)? Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or WP:NMS No Mirror Sites? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPNRS was meant to stand for WikiPedia is Not a Reliable Source, which is a separate point from mirror sites (you get people entering something in one WP article and then citing that WP article as a reference in another). I was also thinking about WP:NCR (unfortunately taken) or WP:CIRCULAR for No Circular References, which would cover both cases. Otherwise, WP:NMS sounds good to me, it's short and sweet. Jayen466 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

At this edit, Blueboar is restoring wording that I believe is incorrect over my previous edit. It implies that the source is contained in another WP article, rather than cited by that article. His edit summary seems to concur with my reading. Am I missing something?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay. The name, author, publisher of the cited source may be contained in the WP article, and that information can be used to consult that source. Also, "may contain" is more appropriate than "should in turn cite" (we have many unsourced statements). Jayen466 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought, if "contain" really bothers you, we could perhaps say "may indicate reliable sources" or some such wording. Jayen466 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayden is thinking about mirror sites (which would probably include any citations listed in the Wikipedia article), while I am talking about sources that don't mirror Wikipedia exactly, but cite Wikipeida for their information.

Perhaps an example will clarify... Suppose you are editing our article on Horatio Nelson, and find a Website on the battle of Trafalgar that includes the statement: "Hardy, rather than Nelson, should be concidered the real hero of Trafalgar". You want to include that statement in the Nelson article, but unfortunately the website says it got its information from the Wikipedia article on Hardy. I think we are agreed that we should not cite this website for that statement (as you would be essentially citing another Wikipedia article). What you can do is go to the WP article on Hardy and note the source that it cites for the information. Assuming you double check it to see it is reliable, you can then use that source in the article on Nelson. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement on intent, Blueboar. It's just the wording that's problematic. Jayen's concern with "should in turn cite", that a journal citation at Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet may be missing (or for that matter invalid) is well founded but I think inconsequential. If missing, it won't lead to false inclusions. If invalid, the copier should catch it and in any case the copied citation will still be subject to checking by anyone verifying the Horatio Nelson article when it is at WP:Peer review, just like any other journal citation. My objection to "may contain" is simply that Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet will only contain a citation, not the cited work itself. Perhaps "may contain a citation of" would serve better? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus, not truth

User:QuackGuru has been engaged in a discussion on Talk:Larry Sanger whether the goal of Wikipedia can be fairly and neutrally described in the text of the article as "Consensus, not truth". Opponents repeatedly pointed out that the attested official principle is WP:Verifiability, not truth. Therefore, he recently proved his WP:POINT by creating WP:Consensus, not truth as a redirect to WP:Verifiability (a redirect to which he now kindly refers disagreeing editors). If anyone here happens to feel, strangely enough, that WP:Verifiability does not equal "Consensus, not truth" either in whole or in part, or at least that such an interpretation is not entirely obvious and uncontroversial, then I hope that someone will request the deletion of the redirect. Opinions could be useful on Talk:Larry Sanger as well. Personally, I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this (I'm having a wikibreak, and I'm not a very active editor in the first place), but I thought perhaps someone here might. If we on this encyclopedia can't provide the public with accurate information even about our own policies, then I'd say we're in very deep ... trouble.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding religous publication

I have a question I would like to pose to see if other editors agree with me. On many religous articles, primary sources and other non-third-party sources are used. For example, on Catholic doctrine articles, many of the works used for sources are the works of Catholic priests, although other critical works are also often included. In Mormon related articles, the writing of Joseph Smith and Brigam Young and used as sources in places. Similar occurrences occor on many other religous related articles. My question is this: "Is that acceptable, or does it violate WPRS?" My answer to this would be "In establishing the content of doctrines, beliefs, and some events, it is acceptable. In controversial events or disputed beliefs, third party sources are required." I say this because in many instances, especially in smaller denominations and groups, there are often few or no authoritative third party sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Other authorities should be used as well if it is controversial. The doctrine of a church is what it says it is. the history of it, and how to interpret it, and the influences on it, and the meaning of it, need a range of sources. But many such articles, such as a list of bishops, are not the least controversial. DGG (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Signed statement on company letterhead

I have a PDF of a letter on corporate letterhead, with contact information, signed by a corporate officer, confirming information about that companies research. The company itself is consider WP:RS. The letter is being rejected by others as a source (or even a convenience link for a $500 report) with the claim it is not verifiable. I would think this is extremely verifiable, you simply ask the company if it's real. Indeed I would have thought such a letter is what you might require to verify something. Any other thoughts? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's best to look at the specifics. I do not think the wiki of a company known for self-promotion is a reliable source for a claim[4][5] that an Amway product is "the world's best selling nutritional brand in tablet or capsule form". I'm having a little trouble identifying the problem. The verified claim from Euromonitor, in the form of a scanned certification form, looks like a primary source which, though seemingly trustworthy, is not entirely immune to being forged, taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Republishing the claim on a wiki does not change the fact that the source is a private research company - it only introduces some concerns about authenticity. The problem is we have no indication that this is at all a relevant or notable fact. If the claim were at all notable - meaning here if it were something that readers ought to know about in order to get an encyclopedic understanding of the subject - one would think a reliable secondary source would report the fact, and if you could find sources it would be verifiable. Wikidemon (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your "known for self-promotion" statement comes from. Indeed they're known for doing very very little of it until recently, compared to more traditional companies. In either case it's not really important what domain the file is hosted on, the dispute isn't about linking to the wiki, which clearly is not WP:RS, it's to the letter. It could just as easily be an IP address or some other address. Now, Euromonitor is clearly WP:RS and I would argue is not the primary source, the primary source is sales data from different companies, which Euromonitor collates in their reports as per WP:SECONDARY. So I cannot see how a citation to one of their reports can be disputed, and if the report can't be disputed, then a convenience link confirming it shouldn't be a problem under WP:CONV (yes I know it's not a policy), offering covnenience for the reader not available because the report requires payment. So where's the problem? Is the document verifiable? Yes. Is it from a reliable source? Yes - unless forged, which is why WP:V matters! If there's any concerns, verify it's authenticity, just like would be done with any other source. Interestingly, nobody seems to be disputing the claim --Insider201283 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the primary source nature is the issue. It is a source document. Unpublished research results, in general, are a primary source. You could always make that claim, that the data itself is primary. Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. It's not unpublished research results. WP:SECONDARY clearly states Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Euromonitor reports are clearly WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. It would seem the letter clearly fits this criteria as well. What I don't see at all is how someone could claim it is not verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the actual Euromonitor report, is a reliable source for statements about what is contained in that report. Unforunately, that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about a letter someone at Euromonitor (supposedly) wrote to you about what was said in their report. It is that letter which is unpublished and thus questionable as to verifiability. I would say that it probably isn't verifiable, and mentioning it may constitute Original Research. Can you not find a copy of the actual report? Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have a similar discussion with Insider on my talk page where he refused to deal with the fact that inherently the document is unverifiable per WP:V, especially as he needs to host it on his own website (which is the reason why it was removed from the Amway article). Shot info (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Insider, the letter can't be used because it's not been published. Our sources, whether primary or secondary, must have been published. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My question here, while it was raised in my mind due to a discussion over a particular letter isn't about that letter - I was never trying to use it as a source, but as a convenience link. I raised the question because when it was questioned (through misunderstanding) as a source, I decided to research further and it seemed to me it would be fine in that context anyway. It's an WP:RS source and is verifiable. As mentioned elsewhere (and noted by blueboar) in this specific case the original reports should be the citation and source, I was using the letter merely a confirmatory convenience link for those not wanting to spend $500 on the report, something which appears allowed (see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_15#Linking_to_an_online_copy_of_an_offline_V_RS). Now, User:Shot info claimed, with regard to it being used as a source that such a document was unverifiable. I've asked him to clarify how it is not verifiable and he has so far not explained this, just repeating his statement and citing WP:V. I can see nothing in WP:V that excludes it - indeed, to the contrary, it can be verified as from a reliable source. I'm guessing, thanks to SlimVirgin's response, that the issue is what constitutes "published" and neither WP:V nor WP:RS seem to define it at present. Perhaps needs doing? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bleh ... been searching through the talk archives and not surprisingy, this isn't the first time this kind of issue as come up. It didn't seem to reach any consensus previously, generally compromises were achieved, usually through finding alternative sources. It would seem to me that defining "published", with regards Wikipedia usage, in one of the policies might be a sensible step.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First, from what I can gather, you are not using the letter as a convenience link to the report... you are using your web page as a convenience link to the letter. That means you are using an unreliable host to link to an unverifiable letter.

Second, yes, the core issue (as SV correctly points out) is "publication". "Publication" requires requires that the source has been written for disemination to the public. From what I can tell, you are discussing a personal letter from the company to you, not something distributed to the public.

Finally, there is consensus on this... don't use the letter... find an alternative source. Since the reason you want to cite the letter is to confirm something in a report... why not cite the report itself? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar - forget any specific "letter", it's not relevant to the discussion, I'm not trying to get any specific document OK'd. I'm not using this specific document it as a source, I don't want to use it as a source, I'm not claiming it as a source, and what's more your assumptions as to it's origins (personal letter etc) are incorrect, but it doesn't matter - forget any specific letter, ok? (heck, "letter" probably isn't even the right term, it's a statement.) Anyway ... it simply was the starting point to lead me down a path where I discovered a "hole" in the policies that I think is worth addressing because it has come up before and will likely come up again. It's about improving Wikipedia, not just trying to get something put in an article, is that so hard for folk to accept? Now, if it comes down to the meaning of "publication", you've given a definition there, but that definition doesn't seem to exist in the policies, and the definition you gave appears from earlier talk pages to be up for challenge by others. Take another example that I've encountered. The FTC issues "staff advisory opinions" in response to requests from the public. The response is a written statement (a letter even!) back to original enquirer, but the response has official standing and as a government document is now available for anyone to request a copy from the FTC. Is that "published" or not? Like the euromonitor statement referenced earlier, it's available to anyone who wants to request a copy, so it's "published" in the sense it's available to the public, but not necessary in the sense of being "disseminated" to the public. I state again, I think defining "published" would be a useful addition to the policy. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... now I am confused. I thought the entire point of your thread was to ask if your letter was reliable. My answer to that was: No.

As to the need to define "published"... is this really needed? We are not using some unique definition of the term... so if editors don't know what it means, they can look the term up in any standard dictionary. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, I worded the OP badly. The statement (not letter) was simply an example, though I would ask you to elaborate on why you say it's not reliable, and here I'm referring to the statement itself, not any particular copy of it. It's from a reliable source, Euromonitor, and it can be verified by asking them, the publisher, for a copy, same as pretty much any other RS - so how does it not fit WP:RS and WP:V? Same goes for FTC staff advisories. Some of them are on ftc.gov, some are not, but they're publicly available. They're from a reliable source, the FTC, and they can be verified by asking the FTC for a copy. As for "published", like most words dictionaries give numerous alternative definitions. Think about "desktop publishing" for example - it covers printing out one copy of something at home. I think the question you're asking is whether it's available to "the public" in some form or another, and in both the examples I mention they are. So how don't they pass? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If Euromonitor published a report, then likely (but depending on the circumstances) that report is reliable as to the facts in it. If Euromonitor simply did research that is unpublished, and the letter confirms the results of the research, the letter is not reliable. I wonder why they would need to write a letter if the same thing is in a published report but that is a different matter. Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's comments are correct. But I am still confused. Insider, what is the exact statement that you wish to make, and what is the source are you using to support it (perhaps you could give us a link?). You stared off saying that you had a PDF of a letter... Is this actually some sort of published report and not a letter? Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, there is no statement I'm wishing to make. My point is that these type of documents don't seem to be covered by the current guidelines, I don't have agenda I'm trying to push in this instance (apparently this is difficult to comprehend :) ). By way of example is the Euromonitor statement (a copy here). The statement has been made available, I assume, because of queries. In this case the information is in their published reports, but the relevant report costs £5075.00 so isn't exactly something everyone splashes out to get for confirmation! Now, by way of explanation of how we got here, in this particular instance the report is clearly the source and is cited as such in wikipedia. I think the PDF statement should be made available as a convenience source to confirm the claim to those not interesting in spending 5000 pounds, but that's a separate discussion. The question I'm trying to address in this discussion is what if the report was not available? The statement is still a publicly available document "published" by a reliable source. Similarly with FTC documents I mentioned. They supply these advisory opinions, and they're available to the public on request. So they're from a reliable source, and verifiable, but not "published" in the sense that Blueboar talks about. Earlir V:talk in this area have also raised the issue of government documents that are available on request. My feeling is that if something is from an otherwise reliable source, and that source is willing to publicly and officially confirm it's authenticity to anyone who enquires, including (but not necessarily limited to, I'm open to options here) supplying further copies of the document - ie it's verifiable - then it should be an acceptable source. A hypothetical example - what if the US National Park's service received many enquiries as to whether Yellowstone was about to erupt and the produced a standard, official form letter stating their position on this and anyone who enquired could get a copy? On what basis should this be rejected as a source of the USNP's position? If they also published the statement on their website, then I imagine there would be no argument. If they published the statement in a book or pamphlet, then that too would likely be acceptable without question. So on what basis should the statement "alone" be rejected? I can't think of any. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's take another example of this kind of document. Let's say someone claims Coca-Cola contains heroin. Unlike the cocaine story, it's not a common claim but it nevertheless somehow ends up in an WP:RS and WP:V source. So it can be stated in Wikipedia (leave extraordinary claims issues to one side, it's the principle). So, someone writes to Coca-Cola and get's an official response stating Coca-Cola doesn't contain heroin. Anyone who writes to them gets the same response. It's "published", available to the public, and "verifiable" - anyone can get a copy - but such a document would not appear to be covered under current guidelines. Indeed the heroin claim would be acceptable in Wikipedia and Coke would have no right reply until the claim got enough airplay that they decide to publish it on their website or their denial is covered in some other WP:RS source. With wikipedia's prominence these days, that means WP would effectively be responsible for feeding an urban legend until it got to a size that demanded a very visibile and public response. I would think an official statement, on letterhead, that's verifiable by anyone who cares to ask, should be acceptable and needs to be covered. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Material is regarded as what we call "verifiable" if and only if it has been published, by which we mean made available to the public at large, not simply available by contacting you, or the man who wrote the letter, directly. If you have to go directly to the author to obtain a copy, the sense in which it's a published document is radically diminished.

We've tried in the past to come up with a definition of published, but it got bogged down by people seeking to introduce every loophole you can imagine, so we gave it up as fruitless and unnecessary. Broadly, if you can obtain something via an on- or offline bookstore, or a library, it's published. If, on the other hand, there's only one person in the world who can make something available, and he has to make a photocopy whenever anyone asks for it, it's not published. Your letter is closer to the latter. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that seems a reasonable enough position, but I'd suggest that the very fact deciding a definition got "bogged" down indicates a definition is needed, rather than unnecessary. Taking it on a case by case basis, which I'm guessing is where the discussion probably ended up, is IMO really a bit of a copout that says "too hard" but ultimately results in more time and energy being expended. If you can come up with a link to the discussion without too much effort I'd appreciate it. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to find the main discussion I'm thinking of, but I did a search through the archives for "definition of published" and found these, which might get you started. The links include a poll as to whether or not we need a definition, which tells you something about the frustration it was causing. :-) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Enjoy! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I didn't think to look in the WP:OR archives, some talk. Well, I stand by what I said - the very fact there's such dispute means a definition is a good idea and "case by case" is a cop out by folk sick of arguing :). Thanks very much for your help SlimVirgin. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, we have to put up a fence somewhere between published and unpublished, reliable and not reliable, primary and secondary, etc., and no matter where you plant your fence somebody can find a patch of dirt that straddles both sides of it. I would think that IAR, SNOW, Consensus, and a bunch of other policies and guidelines all add up to an admonition to use common sense in situations where the rules don't cleanly decide a matter. In the particular case at hand, if you (the generic you) promise me there's an expensive but available published report that says Amway makes the best selling supplement pills in the world, we have a scan / convenience link to an Amway site that says as much, and it's a believable claim, I'll assume good faith and say that the claim is believable, at least one can say that a Euromonitor study made that finding. Wikidemon (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources

I reverted to an earlier version of this, because recent changes seem to have altered the meaning slightly. For example, the header "self-published and other questionable sources" suggests that self-published sources are questionable, and they aren't always. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have unreverted... the language in question has been stable for several months, so we should not go back without some solid discussion and an indication of consensus.

I don't think the header is implying that questionable and self-published sources are the same (and reading the text will show that this is not the intent)... what it does imply is that they are similar... that we handle questionable sources in the same way and apply the same cautions as we do self-published sources. Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so others know what SV and I are disagreeing about... here is the diff. Blueboar (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of the changes SV made there, actually. I'd prefer Blueboar's version of the non-English sources section, but having the major section on types of source with "questionable" and "self-published" as subsections makes more sense logically than the current situation. It also removes the "relevant to the subject's notability" phrasing in the self-published sources in articles about themselves section, which is a confusing requirement that almost nobody seems to understand. I mean, even after tracking discussions here and at WP:ATT for the last 2 years, I still don't think I fully understand its point. JulesH (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "relevant to the subject's notability" stipulation really isn't accurate. We often taken dates of birth and other personal details from people's websites, for example, and they're not usually relevant to notability. I'd be fine with Blueboar's version of non-English sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned, though, not to let the SPS talking about themselves open the door to stuff like the following hypothetical, in an article about ferrets. "Ferrets should be legalized in California, according to Doctor X, a leader of the free ferret campaign. Doctor Y, on his blog, stated his opinion that Doctor X is on the payroll of the pet food companies and an academic fraud." BLP concerns aside (which is a big concern of mine, actually) this sentence would be excluded by the "relevant to the subject" caveat because the statement is about Doctor X, not ferrets. However, it might be permitted under the old rule because it is a SPS used to source a statement about the author, namely his opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this would be ruled out by BLP. Can you think of an example that doesn't involve BLP, for the sake of clarity? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for the delay. If instead you substitute "Organization X" for "Doctor X" there's no BLP problem, only perhaps a WP:COAT or WP:POV problem. The other problem with using unreliable sources for purposes of self-reporting their own opinions, achievements, etc., is that without the editorial oversight and accountability usually present in a neutral third party reliable source you don't always get an accurate picture of WP:WEIGHT or relevance. I guess using self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of potential violations of other policies and guidelines - demanding good sources helps police all of them. But thinking about this some more, I think my concern about expert SPS used for purposes not fairly related to the article subject would be the same as for any reliable source. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Wikidemon here. Allowing self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of problems. The Verifiability policy was a clear standard for inclusion, but opening up self-published sources to be used in articles or material not related to themselves allows a backdoor for original thought. Regards, -- 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar. The previous version, which listed self-published and questionable sources together, was better organized. SlimVirgin objects because it suggests that self-published sources are questionable -- but that is the point. They are prima facie questionable, but as the section makes clear, they are also useful in some cases. The previous structure began with a paragraph with neatly summarized the situation. I suggest we revert back to the structure which was stable for a few months. I guess I can see the merits of this organization. II | (t - c) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Help clarifying SPS

Hope this is okay to ask here. I'm involved in a discussion here where we're discussing different ways of leveraging SPS for and against content in that biography (not living). It's an article about a religious leader who is sorely lacking in WP:RS to begin with due to the fact that the larger group we all broke off from ex-communicated him (and us) early on. I'm one of his supporters, and believe a couple of the self-published biographies written by a few of his followers warrants inclusion per how me and the contributors to my RFC have interpreted WP:SPS and/or WP:QS. In a nutshell this biography, and a selfpub'd bio called Charles Mason Remey and the Baha'i Faith have been deemed "OUT" by the interpretations of two editors on the article (who btw consider him an enemy of their religious beliefs). My RFC brought forward 7 impartial editors who said basically it is relevant "about itself". Those two opposers claim it's not a majority rules situation, and that policy doesn't allow the biographies usage, as Remey himself didn't write them. Is that how to interpret SPS and QS?

I noticed above this section Bluboar noted "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.". Is that the general consensus here, or just his POV? In this case in question is anything not written by Remey completely disqualified as a source? Obviously no one is pushing for including anything that violates the 5 points for automatic exclusion per SPS (i.e. "unduly self-serving, etc), but rather the content in question is about series of events and details of his funeral, etc. Does SPS allow for using biographies from this man's believers? Any input is exceedingly appreciated. _Disarray^General 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that my comments were in response to shifting language... I would suggest that you consider my comments to be simply my POV. They do seem to be supported by Slim Virgin's subsequent edit, and no one has yet objected to her edit... so it may be consensus. But better safe than sorry. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The question here then is how do you define what is appropriate? Can I just self-publish a source, which is not notable, and then use it in Wikipedia. That's what the policy is trying to avoid, and this is what GeneralDisarray is trying to include; the sources he is pushing for are not notable in any regard, and are self-published. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"What is appropriate" isn't something that we can lay out in a policy... It depends on the article, the exact statment being made in the article, and the notability of the self-published source being used to support that statement. In other words appropriateness has to be determined by consensus at an article level. Remember something can pass the bar at WP:V and yet still not be included for a host of other reasons. Editorial judgement is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What is appropriate can't be completely included in policy, but policy helps to define it. The question is not what passes WP:V, but is not included (due to a host of other reasons including other policies such as WP:NPOV), but instead what doesn't pass WP:V but is included. Anyone can publish a website or a book and then want to include it in Wikipedia, and that is what is happening here. The sources are not notable in their own right. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, self-published sources are acceptable (within the limits set out in the policy) for statements as to their author's opinion. So the next question is whether the author's opinion is worth mentioning within the narrow confines of the topic under discussion. That goes to notability. If the author of the self-published source is notable within the context of the topic under discussion, then there is a likelihood that their opinion should be discussed. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite a lot of reliable sources for this article. The current version is using third-party sources from Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Peeters Publishers, Oneworld Publications, Greenwood Press and so on. These are sources that are not affiliated to either group, and some of them are academic press, considered to be the most reliable. The other sources in the article are the primary source material that the secondary sources point to and are included for reference.

The two sources that the other editor wants to include are self-published after the subject of the article's death, and include original work, and interpretation of primary source material that no other reliable source has deemed appropriate to publish. The exceptions allowed for self-published work include 1) when the work is written by an expert in the field whose work has been published in other reliable source, which these two sources fail and 2) when the source is being used as sources of information about themselve, which doesn't apply either; in this case the other editor wants to use the sources in articles that are neither about the authors of the two works or in discussions of the two works, but instead he wants to use the sources to include data about the principal subject of the article. As stated in policy "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.", which is what these two sources have done. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The "quite a lot of reliable sources for this article" Jeff's referring to are not references about the details of Remey's life, but rather reference what his stated enemies did to alienate and marginalize him. The one and only source to derive details of his personal life come from Smith's "A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith". It's used extensively, but as it amounts to 1.5 columns of a page to explain the life of a man that lived to be 99, the details are scant at best. The biographies I'm concerned about including are not being asked to state anything controversial, but rather for details. One was a self published book, and the other hosted on a website, which BTW is also presently used to reference another document called "The Proclamation of Mason Remey" that's used in the article. The arguments against usage amount to "policy doesn't allow it", even though no one contests the content. The contributors to the RFC all (except 1) agreed that of course these sources should be allowed, but again the will of two editors have blocked their usage per "it's not majority rules; policy doesn't allow it". What do you all think? _Disarray^General 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true, you have in the past used the self-published website to point to specific interpretations of primary source material, which no other published source uses. Secondly, the use of the primary source material you stated above works within the policy because it was published by the subject of the article himself, and that's why it has not caused a problem; that use fits within policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how the Jeff and Mike display a distinct onus of ownership over this page. After challenging these sources, the RFC said allow them. They said their interpretation of the policy doesn't allow it. A discussion on the policy page has shown their interpretations to be out of bound, overstated, and technically inaccurate to be polite about. They claim not to care about any of these results. It appears that nothing will satisfy their opposition to these sources, even when face with everything stacked against them. Now Mike is back to talking about policies no one challenges, yet don't apply here. The example of my opposition to Cunado is also irrelevent, as Cunado was attempting to exclude reliably sourced information, much like Mike is here. The assumption of bad faith in Mike's comments is staggering, and at the same time none of it answers to the direct challenge that has been presented repeatedly to his reasoning. The RFC spoke directly to the challenge, and they didn't like the answer so their edit warring ensued. The discussion on the policy page directly challenged and shot down their interpretations of SPS, and they didn't like it so the edit warring has ensued. Now come the personal attacks. Nothing they've presented has overridden anything, but in fact it's all been shown to be paper tigers. They're posturing with the policy flag still wrapped about them, when their arguments have been demonstrated to be wrong, and they're no longer presenting anything worth considering. It's really time to give up the charade, or pursue dispute resolution. Edit warring will likely get them both banned from editing this page. _Disarray^General 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While not dealing with Verifiability or SPS, General Disarray's comment "the larger group we all broke off from ex-communicated him (and us) early on" is a clear signal of WP:COI issues. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, there are issues and that's why reliable third-party sources are required and non self-published sources. All of the current sources are third-party published from reliable publishing presses not affiliated to either group, and GeneralDisarray has not shown the sources he is trying to use as notable. The single secondary source that refers to one of his sources states it "borders on adoration". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That book review also states in it's conclusion: "It is an interesting window into one side of a controversy in a very large new religious movement". If anything that book review acknowledges both the book's weaknesses and values. I contend that the review establishes the value of the biography as a source about Remey. To put it into context, the content being extracted from it is primarily the details of his funeral. Are there any impartial opinions about these specific questions? _Disarray^General 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "Unreferenced" Tag

Once we include references to an article with an "Unreferenced" tag, are we allowed to remove the tag upon including the references, or are there only a few groups that are authorized to remove these tags? Micasta (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can remove it. But it's a part of the article like anything else, so you should still avoid edit warring over it, if someone disagrees with the removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Conforming RS to V

SV recently reverted a change with the comment that WP:RS needs to conform to this policy and not the other way around. I agree. However, the fact that this issue has come up means that RS may have (once again) shifted away from what is stated here. I encourage those of us who regularly work on this page to visit WP:RS and check it for conformity. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about corrections of material, editing, Conflict of Interest

I work for a company that has an entry on Wikipedia. My company did not create it. There are a lot of factual errors and inaccuracies about the company as well as a lot of loaded language and unsourced or unverified statements.

I respect Wikipedia's rules and I support its standards. I also value fairness and accuracy.

So I am looking for guidance about what to do regarding content that is just plain incorrect and, additionally, inflammatory accusations/allegations that are unverified or not footnoted. I'll list my questions so if anybody can provide advice, they can do so in reference to the numbers.

1) If I add information about the company I work for, from 3rd party sources, like credible newspaper articles (i.e. AP or Reuters), am I violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia because I am an employee of the company?

2) If I flag unverified information added by others, am I in violation the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia, as an employee of the company?

3) If my addition of verified information or flagging of unverified information is a Conflict of Interest, what do I do? Just post my concerns or content on the talk page and wait for someone to intervene?

4) What happens if no one intervenes?

5) If no one intervenes, does the Conflict of Interest still stand so long as the information involved is incorrect or unsubstantiated?

6) In general, conflict of interest notwithstanding, how much time should pass before material is deleted on the basis that it has been flagged and no third party has intervened?

7) Are company reports, like an Annual Report, audited by external auditors and filed with the SEC (therefore carrying significant penalties for filing false information) acceptable Wikipedia as sources?

8) Am I right or wrong in this interpretation: the Conflict of Interest guidelines preclude a company authorizing changes to its entry or an employee of that company from making changes to the entry about the company, but anybody else is free to edit the entry. If the company find fault supported by Wikipedia policy with regard to content, its only recourse, short of violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines, is to post objections, corrections, alternative sources, etc. in the Discussion/Talk section of the entry and then wait/hope an interested party at some point will act on the information.

I know in the past there have been controversies about companies paying people to write 'nice' things about them or adding material that is more about marketing than about verifiable encyclopedia content. Personally, I have no desire to do that. I do have a real desire, within the guidelines of Wikipedia, to correct the incorrect and eliminate the unsubstantiated and the biased. I just don't quite know how to do it right. I would never want to get into one of those situations where accusations of 'corporate fixing' are leveled at my company. I am confused by the Conflict of Interest statement, as I interpret it, ruling out 'editing your own entry.' Who is more likely to care about inaccurate content? Why, if it can be verified through 3rd party sources, is it considered inappropriate for action to be taken?

I accept Wikipedia doesn't want to be hosed by corporate types with bad judgment and support it. Wikipedia is meant to be an online resource of verifiable material, not a press release. On the flip side, I do not think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives, nor is it fair to the employees, their families, stockholders, and anyone to form in whole or in part an opinion, to allow inaccurate information to remain in a Wikipedia entry.

Any guidance or advice you can give me would be much appreciated. I could have just set about editing my company's entry but I really do respect that Wikipedia is trying to build a credible and so invested a fair amount of time reading the rules over the last few nights on my own time at home. But, I am left with some questions remaining and an entry that is very flawed.

Thanks very much. Sorry for going so long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.41.158 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Over-referencing at WP:CITE

Statements discouraging over-referencing have recently been added to WP:CITE. I think we can all agree that a string of a dozen refs is silly, but I'm not sure that WP:CITE, which is primarily about how to format the references, is the proper page for such advice. If you have any opinion, please join the discussion here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Old sources

Where is the warning in a policy/guideline that old sources may not be as useful/accurate as new sources. --PBS (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS#Scholarship mentions it. WP:MEDRS talks about it. WP:RSE discusses it in a few specific contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources in foreign languages

Following on from this debate: I think that in the section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources (and Wikipedia:CITE#Sources_in_different_languages) it should be stated that, when using a foreign language reference/footnote, the original article title should be used (followed by an English translation if necessary/possible). Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that really goes without saying. Translating the title of a reference without giving the original version would be extremely eccentric and would make it unnecessarily hard to track it down. That a title should be translated if necessary also goes without saying, the question would be, when is it necessary? I don't think this should be added unless there is an epidemy of references being mutilated in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To flip this round, perhaps it should say that a self-translated title should never be used in place of the original. — Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Given how frequently we get questions like this, we should explan the standard, "goes without saying" practice on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember ever being asked about whether the title needs to be translated or not. In citations we need to be as exact and complete as we can. My call would be to give the original language title (to aid people who are searching for the source) with a translation of the title added in parethesis as a courtesy. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We would naturally give the original language title when it is available. It may not always be, for we often are working with a translation--and of course should say so. Fortunately, unicode makes it easy to include original titles even in unfamiliar scripts. 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was thinking a bit too narrowly. Languages that use a different script are typically referred to with a transcribed title even in the most reliable sources, so a real problem arises when we have to rely on someone else's citation rather than the source itself. But I think it would be very unusual for a source to translate the title of a citation; it's much more likely that a source relies on a translation. I think in that case we should also cite the translation, not the original, unless we have access to the original. Otherwise there is a danger of misrepresenting the original, since translations sometimes contain additional material. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT you should cite what you, personlally, saw. If you got the information from reading a translated source, you should cite that translated source. If you got the information from reading the original foreign language source, you should cite that. The only question is whether, if you got the information from the original foreign language source (and thus cited the original), should you also include a translation of the title? I would say that doing so is a nice courtesy, but not a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

third party opinion re: verifiability

I'm currently suffering an edit war at the edits of edokter (talk · contribs) over article 33 (Battlestar Galactica), where I've been told that requiring explicit reliable sourcing for a "trivial factoid" (a three-digit production code) isn't necessary. User:edokter originally claimed a sourcing that specified the code in a URL's title ([11]), which says:

Page 1 | Episode 101 | Season 1 | Episodes | Battlestar Galactica | SCIFI.COM

After I argued that there needs to be something, somewhere that explicitly says that's the production code, and that without an explicit reliable source saying that either "XYZ means the production code" or "this episode's production code is XYZ", it's just interpretation and assumption, User:edokter replied saying: "requiring a cite for such a trivial factoid is quite honestly bordering on the obsessive, and I am beginning to see your actions as vandalism"

As is my understanding of Verifiability, all information in an article is required to be attributed to a reliable, published source; not just most of it. Removing plainly uncited information shouldn't be seen as either unnecessary, obsessive, or vandalism. But as I've never argued with somebody over the inclusion of unreferenced information, I wanted to bring this here and get the input of other editors who're involved with maintaining and interpreting the Verifiability policy. I appreciate anyone's time and attention to my minor issue. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All information should be attributable, but not necessarily actually attributed. That is, there must exist a source for it somewhere, but we needn't cite sources for every single thing in the article. That would be too cumbersome — most material in most articles is never challenged. I'd be inclined to agree with edoktor on this one, unless you feel something hangs on the issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The rub being that none of the sources available explicitly detail a "production code"; it hasn't appeared anywhere in any of the article's current sources, and as such is unsourced. I understand what you mean, but there's no evidence the information is attributable, much less attributed. I personally prefer for both, but the former isn't even met at this point. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really worth edit warring about on either side? Does any one really care what the production code is? I don't see any problem with leaving it blank, or with using the number in the URL. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth edit warring over requiring "[attribution] to a reliable, published source" as this policy stipulates? I don't have a measuring stick with which to make that determination. However, what then is the course of action to make sure an article is in compliance with this policy when editors repeatedly continue to add unverified material?

Does anyone care what the production code is? Apparently the edit warring editors do; however, only I seem inclined to care about both the content and the referencing thereof. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry to not take your concern seriously. The argument that edoktor makes is that the production code of "101" can be verified... by looking at the URL of the episode's page on the offical Scifi Channel webpage. In other words, his contention is that the information is verifiable. Given the trivial nature of the information, I think this is probably good enough. I certaily don't think it is worth edit warring about. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My counter-argument is that there is no production code in either the URL or the page's title. Nothing denoting "prod code", "prod", or anything similarly interpretable is in either the URL or title. Wherefrom then is the sourcing for a production code? I argued this point with edokter on the article's talk page, saying that there's nothing saying that an "episode number" is the same thing as a "producton code"; I recently learned from other editors that some productions' codes aren't released or easily found, and that some (The Simpsons') use very esoteric production coding.

Triviality isn't a concern or criteria for verifiability or reliable sourcing; 100% of all information in every article is required to be verifiable to reliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, triviality does play a part in WP:RS ... we don't normally require citations for basic (trivial) information like birth dates, the altitude of mountains, the fact that a city is in a particular state or country, etc. As long as it could be verified, such information does not have to be. But ultimately this comes down to two simple questions: a) Is there any real reason not to accept the episode number as being the same as the production code in this case? and b) Does it harm the article or Wikipedia to do so? My answer to both questions is, no. You seem to disagree... and I doubt either of us will convince the other.

In any case, as a suggested compromise... perhaps you should keep the number, but change the title of the line in the info box to "episode number". Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I write and work on articles challenging everything within and everything I write; ergo, verything verifiable gets cited. As for this information, there's no evidence it can be verified, as I've found no reliable sources one way or another. (a) Why should we assume "episode number" = "production code"? That's original research and assumption on our part. (b) Yes, as it presents the reader with potentially incorrect information which we (the editors and contributors) cannot corroborate. You're probably right, you're not going to convince me that challenged material doesn't need to be verified.

However, duh! {{infobox television episode}} has an field specifically named "Episode no.", eminently citable for the sources we have! How obvious, I'll plan to make that edit soon along with others soon, thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of Template:Unreferenced reverses the burden for removing material

Currently, {{Refimprove}} properly invokes Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence (WP:BURDEN) with the language "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". {{Unreferenced}}, likewise, used to contain similar language. Its April 4, 2007 version read: Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time. A similar formulation appeared on June 5, 2007: Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. On June 26, 2007 the WP:BURDEN language in the template was changed to say: Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed (emphasis mine). From then until now it has persisted with versions of that language, with no one apparently commenting or showing they noticed the change.

This language reverses the burden set forth in the policy. Stating that unverifiable material may be challenged and removed requires anyone removing material to show it is unverifiable first; that is, that it cannot be verified. The policy explicitly stands for the opposite proposition, i.e., that unsourced (unverified) material that is challenged may be removed; the burden is on the person seeking to add challenged material, not on the person removing it. I raised this concern at the template's talk page seeking to change unverifiable to unverified and have received opposition mainly from one user. Another objects mainly to the use of any of the "v" words, and given that long-existing prior versions, and the related template refimprove use unsourced, that is the word I am proposing be restored. I probably should have come here first rather than the template's talk page and subsequnelty the village pump where few commented (and await a charge of forum shopping) but I thought what I was broaching was obvious.

I changed the template earlier tonight, and was quickly reverted. I'm fairly frustrated because this seems so clear cut to me. Well, maybe it's not. I certainly have had many discussions with users convinced they were right but bucking the community. So I am here asking that more than a few of you weigh in. I'm getting nowhere on my own. If consensus is really against me, I'll shut up and move along but not enough people have commented to convince me of that. Note that this is not a trivial issue. Many of our users are informed more about policies by templates appearing in the article space that link to those policies, than from anywhere else. On that note, this template is transcluded in 127,664 articles, and all of those templates say material must be unverifiable before it can be removed. So again, please visit the template's talk page, whether it's to agree with me, shoot me down, or propose a compromise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular references

There's a brief note to avoid references that cite WP as their source, but I'm not sure that's an adequate warning against the problem of circular references. For example, a newspaper article could be written based on an WP article that has unverifiable and perhaps incorrect information in it. Then the newspaper article gets cited as a source for that same WP article. Should there be more warning about that, or is there more warning about that somewhere else that I missed?Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure we can give a stronger warning... We say that, when we know that a source has pulled its information from us, we should avoid that source. Yes, concievably a source could pull its information from Wikipedia, and not actually cite us or say something like "according to Wikipedia"... But, in that situation, how do we determine that the source actually did pull its information from us? I think what we have is the best we can do. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that there's not much we can do about a source that used WP without saying so. My concern with the wording that is there now,

In addition, information that is cited to Wikipedia by other sources should be avoided. However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).

is that it doesn't explicitly mention the hazard of circularity, and that it's under the heading of WP mirror sites, and so does not provide a sufficiently explicit or prominent warning about the circularity hazard.Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Self-Published sources

If a person is part of an organization, and the organization publishes information written by said individual, is the publication consider a self-published source?--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A definitve answer will depend on the organization, and what the exact relationship between the person and the org... but in very general terms, and yes. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some one to review the debates about Aset Ka and 'Asetian Bible' in the Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Michelle_Belanger and Talk:Ankh#Undue_Weight_on_Aset_Ka_and_Asetian_Bible.3F discussions? I assert that inclusion of information pertaining to Aset ka citing the the 'Asetian Bible'is irrelevant because the 'Asetian Bible' is self-published, original research and an unreliable source. I reason this because the author, a member of the organization, has not been established as an expert within the fields relevant to the articles by third party publications. Additionally, there doubts about Aset Ka even being a legitimate organization which have not been addressed.

The counter arguments are attempting to compare this to the Pope releasing a book through the Vatican press or a university professor publishing a book through a university press. But I understand those cases to be reliable sources because of their expertise in their fields having been previously established via third party publications, such as peer review journals. However, perhaps I don't have a full understanding of what is intended by the no self publication policy when it comes to making references about a sub-culture or self-references to an organization.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would indeed call it self-published, and as such it has limited reliability... it is reliable for statements as to the views and opinions of the author and the organization that published it, but not for a general statements of fact. Whether that opinion is note worthy in the context of your article is another issue, and falls under the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. That is a determination that needs to be made at the article level through consensus. I doubt anyone here knows enough about the topic to say whether the information should be included or not. (It is also not within the scope of this Policy).

As to whether it is original research (OR)... Please read WP:NOR again. The ban on OR is not focussed on whether our sources present original research (most sources do that, especially articles presented in accademic journals - which we consider highly reliable), but on what we write here in Wikipedia. In other words, WP:NOR tells us not to add our own original thoughts about the topic, but we can report on the original ideas and research that appear in published sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Third-party sources, again

On February 15, 2009, Equazcion changed the sentence:
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
to
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

I noticed this alteration recently and removed the sentence, saying "WP:N is not a policy." Then Wikidemon reverted me, saying "too bold - WP:N derives from this, not the other way around."

That claim is false. WP:N does not derive from that sentence, nor this policy page. As far as I can tell, WP:N derives from people voting delete in VFDs, saying "non-notable." The WP:GNG in WP:N derives in part from this summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines at the time. The addition of "third-party" to that topic sentence in WP:V came about because of this thread in these talkpage archives, started on April 25, 2006 by a user who was having an editwar on an article (and who wrote that summary in WP:N) and since at the time this policy said "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The addition of "third-party" to the topic sentence led to this thread from December 2006 started by Jguk. The original sentence, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.", originated with this edit by Jguk on January 31, 2006. I don't know why an article content policy is talking about topics, but okay...

I oppose any and all attempts to shoehorn Wikipedia:Notability into this policy. The first sentence says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." Verifiability is different than verifiability by third parties. I oppose the change by Robert A West as well as the change by Equazcion. I started a thread about this sentence over a year ago on January 31, 2008, after my removal of it was reverted, which led to further edits. A source can be reputable without being "third-party." A source can be reliable without being "third-party." Information can be verifiable without "significant coverage of a topic" by third parties. I think the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" needs to be removed from this policy until it has consensus to be in this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The old version "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is better, and this is just instruction creep. Notability - used in AfD's, and Verifiability - used in all articles, are very different concepts and should be kept separate, and the former should remain a guideline without its essential parts put into policy.John Z (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sentence to Wikipedia:OR it is currently duplicated in Wikipedia:OR#Sources because when I moved it the consensus was that it needed to be retained here. Personally I think the sentence is better off in the OR policy, but if it is to remain here then how about replacing "third party" with "reliable" and linking reliable sources to the section of that name? BTW any change here should be reflected in the OR policy page--PBS (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "third party" indication needs to be clearly and specifically called out. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think neither version of the sentence belongs here, or in WP:OR. Restricting the articles we permit to those that are the subject of third-party sources only is a job for WP:N and its subsidiary guidelines, not policy. It is not an issue of verifiability or OR if the sources for a statement are not independent, as long as they are reliable. Therefore, I don't see why this should change simply because we're talking about an entire article. I definitely support removing this sentence in its entirety, or at least removing the reference to third-party sources from it (i.e., we could state that if a subject has no available reliable sources we should not have an article on it). JulesH (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is long-standing policy and we shouldn't change it without a serious consensus to do so. That goes for people who are trying to strengthen it to the point that it resembles WP:N, and for people who want to remove it altogether. It works exactly as it should. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to change it back to the pre-February 15 version if no one minds i.e. to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The recent addition that the source must also "featur[e] significant coverage" of the topic raises the bar somewhat. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the change; we don't need trivial sources, we need solid ones; i.e. significant coverage. Google can dredge up trivial shite in milliseconds. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "third-party" is not defined, and badly used on this page. The worst phrase is "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons..." since this means that police and court web sites cannot be used as proof that a living person was accused, convicted, or aquitted of a crime, since the web site is self-published and not a third party. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "third party" isn't needed in that sentence. But police and court websites are not self-published. Self-published means published by one person usually, or one very small unprofessional group. Court and police websites are primary sources, but not self-published ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I reject SlimVirgin's definition of self-published. A publication by the same legal or natural person as the author (which can also be a legal or natural person) is self-published. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the definition we've always used, and it's the definition the policies rely on. The New York Times would be self-published in certain circumstances according to your definition. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course some of the material in the New York times is self-published. All the stuff encouraging readers to subscribe, the masthead, etc. Also, I reject all definitions that are relied upon in talk page discussions but not included in the policy or guideline (this rejection is equally applicable to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just this one). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly used to include that definition.

According to you, if the New York Times were engaged in litigation against a living person, we could not use it as a source of information about that litigation, because it would be a self-published source. That is obviously not correct. It would be a primary source, not a self-published one. A self-published source is when you pay someone to print your novel for you, or when I create a blog. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

The discussion above seems to clearly indicate that there is no consensus for the change which added "significant coverage" to the verifiability policy. This is an attempt to elevate the notability guideline to policy status, something which clearly has no consensus. It would also potentially result in thousands of articles for which there is consensus that they should remain (for example, small villages or small-market licensed radio stations), suddenly violating policy. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think that the point there is to exclude "my self-help group is listed in the 'meetings' section of the local newspaper" kinds of claims to fame. It's not enough for the source to mention the person, place or thing in passing: it needs to say something significant about it. You can't write much of an article if your sources really only say, "AA meeting daily, Smallville Church Hall, 6:00 p.m." Smallville itself, however, even if it is quite tiny, can probably produce sources that do more than assert its existence.

And, well -- if the best we can produce is truly just "____ exists", then we honestly don't need to have an article about it right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

depending on what it is, it may be a very good idea to produce the article, so people can add to it--if its one of the things which are overwhelmingly likely to be notable. The use of sources has to be judged by reasonable people--there is no completely reliable or unreliable source, 1st person or not. DGG (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True... but I think the point behind saying that the sources should have significant coverage of the topic is to guide that decision.

It's not a question of the source's reliability: it's a question of how much of an article you can source with what you've got. A newspaper announcement about a daily AA meeting is likely to be highly accurate. It is an independent, third-party, fact-checked publication. However, that wholly reliable source is not sufficient for you to write even a three-sentence stub about the meeting. The mere fact that a tiny source exists, even if it is truly reliable source and is reporting uncontested facts, does not mean that we should have, or even that we can have, a full article on that subject. This is why the source needs to do more than assert the existence of an thing; it must say enough about the subject to let us write an article. If no sources do more than assert its existence, then Wikipedia simply does not need an article on that subject (yet: if new sources appear, then we re-evaluate the situation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify: DHowell's preferred version says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

So I've got one "reliable, third-party source" about the Smallville AA meeting. According to this, there is no barrier to me creating an article on Smallville AA meeting: the sole requirement is the existence of any reliable, third-party source. The entire sourced contents of the article, by the way, will be: "There is an AA meeting daily at the Smallville Church Hall at 6:00 p.m."

The previous version of this policy said that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Under this approach, I've got a source, but it doesn't really count as "significant coverage", so I would conclude Wikipedia probably doesn't want an article on my local AA meeting.

IMO, the question at hand is whether we really want articles based on meeting announcements and other trivial mentions of products, organizations, and people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The barrier in this case is notability, a guideline, not verifiability. But, there is even already a policy barrier in this case: Wikipedia is not a directory for the schedules of local group meetings. This is verifiable information that wouldn't be appropriate in Smallville, Alcoholics Anonymous, or even a Smallville Church article, let alone having its own article. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And the harm you perceive from saying here that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on subjects for which no significant coverage in reliable sources is... what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

People will wikilawyer over the meaning of "significant coverage," especially if they want to keep the article out because of POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some articles that should be kept despite no source having significant coverage of them. Consider, for instance, Cnebba. A minor historical article on a figure of no particular importance, except that he was a King of Mercia, a topic for which there is consensus we should have articles on all known members of. Yet all any available sources give about him is a simple mention in the genealogy of more important Kings. So here is an article for which there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and according to the phrasing you're arguing for must be deleted. All right, that phrasing can be used at WP:N because that's a guideline and we understand there are clear exceptions in some cases, but it absolutely should not be used here, because this is a policy and should be as close to absolute as possible. JulesH (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's not good enough to have that single-sentence stub (entire contents: "Cnebba was the grandfather of Creoda of Mercia and the son of Icel. Cnebba's son was Cynewald.") redirect to Kings of Mercia family tree, which includes all of that information, plus the dates of his reign? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article on Cnebba needs a citation... At this point it does not even cite a geneology. How do I know the article isn't a hoax? (I am not arguing that it is... I am simply saying that, without a source, I have know way to know if it is or isn't). Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about Summary Style

I have a question regarding summary style and this policy. In one case on the "Sabbath" page, I tagged the page with {{unreferenced}} since it doesn't have a single reference, but another user reverted and stated that summary style articles don't need references since the sub-articles have the references. This is not how I read WP:V or WP:SS. First of all WP:SS a guideline and not a policy and thus cannot overrule the WP:V policy; secondly the summary style guideline states that it's a good way to organize references, further reading and external link sections, not to get rid of them. It also states that not all references for the subtopic are needed in the main article, but that doesn't mean that none are needed. It then points back to the WP:V policy. I wanted to get some clarification if WP:SS articles need references or don't need them. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow... that is the first time I have ever seen an article that is made up entirely of summary style paragraphs linking to other articles. Technically, the editor who removed the tag is correct... the information is cited elsewhere. However, that is what you get when you look at the letter of the policy instead of its intent. The intent is that every article should have at least a few references. So, I agree with you that the main "Sabbath" article should have at least a few citations.

For one thing, can we be sure that every statement made at the main "Sabbath" is referenced at the linked sub-articles. If not, those unreferenced statements would need citation.

Perhaps the better way to deal with this is through a few well chosen {{cn}} tags (with an edit summary that note that, a) the information isn't cited at the sub article either or b) you think it is worth referencing again in the main article) rather than with a {{unreferenced}} tag. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup... I checked and it is as I thought... a lot of the linked sub-articles are under-referenced, and don't actually give references for the material that is summarized at the "Sabbath" overview article. This is a not uncommon flaw with the argument that summary style exempts you from the need to give sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'll go ahead and add {{cn}} tags. However, I think that if policy allows for an exemption of SS article from being referenced, there are a couple major problems: (1) The daughter articles may change over time, while the main article does not and cause inconsistencies; if the main article needed to be referenced then these inconsistencies could be tracked and tagged better. (2) we don't allow other Wikipedia articles to serve as references for other pages; allowing summary style articles do so can be seen as hypocritical. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the {{unreferenced}} tag on the article... there are enough statements that need citations and are not cited elsewhere that the article needs to be tripple checked and properly sourced. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the (an) article maintainer, I had intended to get around to the synchronization issues with the subarticles after I was comfortable that the main article was sufficiently ready. And yes, I was scraping for this article to become something of a model of good summary style, at some point in the future .... But suffice that (eventually) all summary statements will be synched to subarticles, and all challenged statements will be referenced. (I'm not highly prioritizing the referencing of unchallenged statements that have appeared elsewhere in WP for sufficient time, as they have the default of silent consensus until they are challenged.) Thank you for your attention. JJB 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't an exception for summary-style articles. Each page has to be referenced in its own right. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On sources that are acceptable

It says that forums are not accepted, but in some cases they should be, for example official announcements by Game Masters--Legeres (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a common complaint. But no. If an official announcement is worth noting it will be repeated elsewhere (in sources that are reliable). Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

this is where i'm confused, how is an official announcement not reliable?--Legeres (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious problem with most forums is that they are annonamous. There is no way to verify that something is an official announcement. How do we know that the person posting the announcement is who they say they are... how do we know if he/she is actually the Game Master? 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums are acceptable sources in the unusual circumstance that we can be sure that the poster is an expert in the subject of the post, per the general rules at WP:SPS. I would say that if the forum is hosted on a domain under the control of such a person and the poster claims to be that person, this is the case. I think this may include Legeres's situation. Also, if such a person identifies the account they post using in a non-psuedonymous location (e.g. on a personal weblog where their identity is well established), we can also track them back and be confident of the validity of the identification. But there must be a reason to believe that the poster is somebody who can speak with authority, and that they claim to be such a person is not enough. JulesH (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

well let's use DragonRealms as an example, the names of the GMs of this specific forum are in red, normal users are either blue or black. Therefore all the official announcements would have a name in red, identifying the source as a GM.--Legeres (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To go into further detail, about the example, people aren't allowed to choose names similar to the GM names, if they manage to come close they are usually forced to changed their name. Even if not forced into a name change, the name itself will still be black color, as forum users have no options to change name color.--Legeres (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we may need to examine "editorial controle"... ie who determines whether a user is a GM (and thus posts in red)? and how do they determine this? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand what your asking, if you want external links to the forum i can give them(DragonRealms forum policy DragonRealms forums), if you want to know how people become gms they have to apply for the position. If you want to post something for yourselves (dragonrealms forums won't work because you have to get past the 30day trial and the first payment before you can post) you might try Hero's Journey forums same type, same company, but anyone that signs up can post(unless you just want to browse, anyone can browse).--Legeres (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so if you want to become a GM, you have to apply. My question is, who approves/rejects the application? Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on that one, you'd might have to contact them to find out. I did manage to dig through their site to find the DragonRealms Staff & Employment section. --Legeres (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I got the answer now, I asked in the forums, they said Product Managers approve or deny applications and Solomon has to sign off on them as well, he said you could ask him to verify it if you want, here's his e-mail address SIMU-SOLOMON@play.net and these are the posts with the responses if you want to see those [12] [13] --Legeres (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... that is good. It means that postings from GMs are verifiable as being from a GM... and that they have some degree of "offical" authority from the website. Two more questions: What exactly do GMs do? and What sort of "official" information do they put in their postings? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It varies depending what the GMs duty is, in DragonRealms they are split between various systems, races and guilds, among other things. Here's a wiki link: elanthipedia, that tells some types and the description of said types, although if necessary, since I know some don't consider wiki's dependable, I'll go into more detail if requested, provided you don't want to use the link.--Legeres (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Google translate reliable source, esp for libelous statement in BLP??

If not, this should be made clear in the text here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. First time I brought this issue up no one replied in WP:BLP noticeboard. Maybe it needs clarification here?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking whether Google computerized translations should be used as sources? No, I would say not, and if there's something you believe is truly libelous in an article, it should probably be removed, unless the source is extremely reliable and mainstream; and even with such a source, please exercise caution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The source is a local paper. Since a Yahoo translation was added and a German speaker looked at it, other editors want to keep it. That's why I think the language needs to be a bit clearer here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop throwing the phrase "third-party" about carelessly

Editors of this policy seem to like to stick the phrase "third-party" into nearly every sentence. This is wrong. Reliable organizations can and do produce reliable publications about matters they are involved in. For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation is a reliable source concerning hunting regulations, even though they are a first party. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable organizations, experts, and people intimately associated with a topic that publish their own material are exceptions to the rule and not part of the rule (excepting of course that part that describes the exceptions). The entire rest of the policy does not need to be watered down because of it. I should also note that edit warring over your changes to a policy is pretty bad form. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Third party" is a distinct concept from "self-pubished". The most relevant definition at Merriam-Webster Online is "a person other than the principals <a third party to a divorce proceeding><insurance against injury to third parties>". In the context of this policy, a better term would be disinterested party, that is, a party who has no stake in the outcome of a discussion, project, mission, campaign, etc. "Self-published" means published by the author; it's easy in the case of a natural person, but tricky in the case of a corporate author. For example, are IEEE standards self-published? In any case, it is perfectly possible for a self-publisher to be a third-party. If I were to express my opinion on my website about what my favorite Hubble Space Telescope image is, the opinion would be self-published and third-party. Hubble Space Telescope images published by NASA are first-party and possibly self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that a source can be reliable without being a third-party. "Verifiable" does not mean "published by a third-party." --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think instead of 'disinterested', we usually choose 'independent'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unduly selfserving

Clarification requested for WP:SELFPUB: what exactly does the first exclusion criterion for self-published sources mean in relation to BLPs? The policy says such sources can be used as long as "the material is not unduly self-serving". Does this exclude citing a subject's political views from (a) articles published by them on third-party websites (b) on their own website? or even (c) from published interviews? I always thought it meant excluding spammy advertorial, particularly where there are WP:COI issues by editors; if it means a whole lot more than that then it really could do with amending for clarity. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "unduly self-serving" is fairly self-explanatory. Can you give an example of where it might exclude citing someone's political views? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you tell me! From your question I deduce a certain puzzlement, which I share. I'm not sure I can do any better than point you to the debate that prompted my question here: Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Gilad Atzmon. Both jayg and THF (most clearly THF) have advanced positions that made me want clarification of the policy. NB the controversy of that article, and the other related issues (accusations of OR/WP:SYNTH) makes me hesitant to link to it, but I don't see an alternative. The problem is that dispute about the degree and nature of quotation from the subject has shaded into dispute about whether it is valid to quote the subject at all. I just want to clarify the basic point here - the question I asked - and not get tangled up in the specifics of that content dispute. So to restate: ignoring degree and nature of quotation (a separate issue) is it at all permissible to quote a subject's self-published sources for their political views, or is that generically excluded as "unduly self-serving"? NB if you're tempted to comment on the other issues please do so elsewhere, eg Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Rd232 ^talk 05:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's fine to cite the subject directly for the subject's own views on a political issue -- assuming that the subject's political views are relevant to the article. You wouldn't cite a self-published random blogger for a major issue, like tax reform (because we just don't care what some random blogger says about tax reform). But if you're writing a bio, and the person is known for some sort of political activity (such as celebrities involved in AIDS awareness), then you can certainly quote the person's own self-published statements instead of, say, a newspaper's summary of those statements.

I think that what we really want to avoid is promoting someone's self-published views in a context where their self-published views are truly unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes

People are making a lot of changes, and some of them are unnecessarily wordy, so I've reverted. Can we discuss them here first, and decide what the benefit of adding them is? Diff here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a problem about a conflicting edit--Lawrencekhoo and I both edited moved a section of text at the same time (00:26, 25 March 2009), so that is part of the problem. Anyway, I want to argue strongly for some sort clarification that audio and video sources count as "published". See the discussion above for more detailFixer1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss what counts as "published", you might consider computer programs as well. For example, if I claim that the northern hemisphere spring equinox for the year 1800 occured on March 20 at 20:12 UT, based on the Multi-Year Computer Almanac published by the United States Naval Observatory, is that acceptable? After all, the program does not contain any static text that says that is so; you have to request that it calculate the equinox, and it will then do the calculation on-the-fly. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a tradition of trying to keep this policy tightly worded so that people actually read it. With that in mind, I can't see the benefit of:

"Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats. While the term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, reliable sources are not limited to text materials. Audio, video, and multimedia sources that have been broadcast, distributed, or archived may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered a reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable organization and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet."

Lots of unnecessary words (e.g. RS can be A only, or B only, or both). Also, what is the "archived" issue -- first we say "or," then we say they must have been archived. So it would have to be rewritten, but I wonder why we need it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixer, yes, audio and video do count as published/broadcast, yes of course. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if I've caused trouble. I agree that it should be obvious that audio and video can be reliable sources, but if you refer to the "Definition of Published" section above you'll see that the changes were motivated by an actual misunderstanding. For that matter, if you refer to the Wikipedia page on publishing, you'll see that audio and video aren't included in the common definition of the term. This policy ought to be rewritten in some way to account for that. The archived issue arises because I've sloppily used archived in two senses. In the first, I'm referring to source (e.g. a lecture) that was recorded but not broadcast by a reputable organization (e.g. a university). If this were archived at the university library, we would probably consider it reliable even though it had never been broadcast. In the second incidence of "archived", I was attempting to address concerns WhatamIdoing expressed above. See that conversation for more detail. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We deliberately don't have a definition of published in this policy, because it gets too tangled. The university lecture would have to have been broadcast (published) before it could be used as a source: recording and archiving wouldn't be enough. That would be like writing something and filing it. We can add to the policy that material that has been broadcast is published too, but one or two words would be enough, and really not needed because it's self-evident. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For my own knowledge, does this mean that doctoral dissertations are not "published" according to Wikipedia policy? Dissertations (to my knowledge) often end up in only one library. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're available to the public, they count as published for our purposes, but it's a stretch, and for the most part we wouldn't want to use a PhD thesis as a source, simply because better sources are usually available. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although the literature review in a thesis is reviewed by the committee, the data itself may not be of publishable quality and preliminary findings can be reported. I would never cite my own thesis, so I wouldn't recommend anybody else to do so! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy on integration of policies

A discussion here deals with the question of whether the editing policy should recommend that editors remove material that "clearly fails" our content policies. Input from editors with more experience of policy than I have would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources that cite Wikipedia

The revert clobbered an edit to "Wikipedia and sources that mirror (or cite) Wikipedia" which I think is independent of the controversy about the multimedia stuff, so I'm going to restore that. It was discussed on talk previously (archive 32), at least on concept, though the specific wording was not. If there are specific issues with the concept or the wording please explain (perhaps start a new topic here).Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that your addition is really needed... The section already warns people not to use sources that pull information from Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning. First, the title of the section: WP and sites that mirror WP. That does not include sites that cite WP. So that issue could be missed in a scan of headings that might be relevant to a particular situation. So I'd like to at least keep that heading.

Second, the statement in there now about avoiding using articles that cite WP might refer to articles that cite other WP articles. The statement "However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used" sounds like that to me. Furthermore, there is no explicit warning about the problem of circularity, either here or in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

There has been public criticism of WP for this issue (for example see [14]), so I think it's important that it be addressed somewhere. If this page is not the right place, is there a better place? Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have pondered this problem (and mentioned it on Village Pump see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 50#Plagiarism of a wiki article (July 2008)) particularly when the site does not credit Wikipedia but just copies some facts. I think what we need is a template to add to the top of the talk page warning other editors that this has been done with a history version of the Wikipedia article which was copied. If the template were to include a category then there would also be a central repository. It is no use putting it into a citation as usually it that citation will be deleted. --PBS (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 11#Plagiarism/GFDL violation?Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive_7#where do I go to report sites that plagerize wikipedia? February 2008
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 41#what's wiki policy to someone plagiarisng wiki articles and printing them as their own? February 2008

--PBS (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And {{Notable citation}} won't do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tweeked the text... to:

• Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources. This includes information that is copied from or is cited to Wikipedia by other sources (as citing these sources sets up a circular reference). In cases where a Wikipedia article is cited, that Wikipedia article may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).

Does this address your concerns, Ccrrccrr? Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a substantial step towards addressing this. I'm not entirely happy with this (or the improved version from SlimVirgin). "This includes" isn't right, because articles that cite WP are very different from sites that mirror WP. Also, the heading has "mirror or copy" doesn't seem right because "copy" sounds to me like a synonym for mirror. I guess you opted not to use "mirror cr cite" as I originally said because you want to include cases in which WP material was used but not cited?

Here's the text as I had edited it before, with the heading Wikipedia and sources that mirror or cite Wikipedia. Now that the discussion is going, I'd like to encourage people to articulate objections to this text.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources. In addition, information that is cited to Wikipedia by other sources should not be used. However, the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). It is particularly important to avoid adding apparent support for information already in Wikipedia by citing a source that obtained the information from the same Wikipedia article, as this can set up a system of circular references that seem to support false information.

The way the policy reads now, it makes it sound as if a source that cites a few isolated statements in Wikipedia but is written by an expert, published by a reliable publisher, and supported with a multitude of citations to reliable sources may not be used at all because of the citations to Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite correct... but certainly any information that came from (or cite) Wikipedia can not be used.

Let's be honest here, it is highly unlikely that a website written by an expert, published by a reliable publisher, and supported with a multitude of citations to reliable sources would cite Wikipedia in the first place (you have to admit that we don't have the best reputation out there). Oh, an expert might look at Wikipedia for bibliographic information, but that would be about it. Any expert worth his salt would check the sources Wikipedia uses and cite them. We want our editors to do the same when they come across information that is drawn from a wikipedia article. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles do cite WP and are considered reliable sources.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Newpapers may be reliable sources... but I would not call them "expert" sources (which was the premise of Jc3s5h's concern). And any information a Newspaper might take from Wikipedia should not be used IN Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a big problem in BLP where as soon as someone noteworthy criticize Israel, pro-Israel partisans rush in and quote everything negative sounding they've said and any accusations of antisemitism etc (which quickly arise on partisan blogs which they are quoted in news stories.) Two days later media end up on the page and they end up quoting all this bad stuff. I have spent endless hours on this sort of thing the last two weeks in the Gilad Atzmon and Charles W. Freeman, Jr,. articles where both individuals have had a surge of worldwide attention in last 3 months. The answer of course is strict enforcement of WP:RS, NPOV and WP:Coatrack but it can be an incredible fight. That's why the only place I support Flagged revisions is BLP, where editors who allow these things to happen will be quickly canned from editing rights. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I am not sure if what you are talking about relates to what we are discussing here (which is the problem of circular referencing, where Wikipedia cites a source that took its information from Wikipedia)... but (assuming it does relate in some way) does the current wording address your issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read it because was thinking back to some past economics talk page discussion where it looked like two reliable sources that did NOT cite wikipedia had gotten a couple of very abstruse economic sources from it. But that's not very provable, so the language above helpful! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. When I edited the article, my edits got promptly reverted. But nobody has provided any specific criticism of the text I put in (in italics, midway through this topic). Meanwhile, other people's edits to the same section have stood for several days, despite my specific criticism of them that nobody has rebutted (just above the italics). Can I take the lack of criticism of my text, and the lack of rebuttal to my criticism as assent and go ahead an put back my text? Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I initially reverted your addition because I found the wording clunky, but I agree with the concept behind what you were trying to add. My subsequent edits to the section are an attempt to say the same thing in what I hope is better language... so, I think that your concerns have been addressed by my edits ... but if not, add your language back and we will work on it. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit changed the meaning of the policy. The way it read, I understood it as, ideally Wikipedia articles should not be used for citation within Wikipedia, however in case it happens to be used, it is OK if the cited article contains reliable sources. I have modified it to the original intended meaning. Jay (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar and Jay. I edited again, trying to make minimal changed needed to the text that was there to make it make sense and address my concerns. It ended up a little longer but not as long as my first attempt. Specific issues I tried to address:

• "This includes" wasn't accurate. That began a sentence on a different type of problem.
• "In such cases" did not clearly refer to any particular type of case, so I spelled that out. (I think it might have when it was first written, but it didn't anymore")

Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The current version works for me. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Section says (Wikipedia) articles may not be used as sources, but does not explain why. The reasons could be buried deep in archived discussions, but we would need to know what they were. Jay (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is explained in a previous section of the policy... in WP:SPS... which tells us that open Wikis (which would include Wikipedia) are largely not acceptable. The only reason we caveat this statement with "largely" is to account for articles about a particular Wiki... and even there, sourcing to the wiki is quite limited. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do list-type articles need to be sourced?

I am currently having a disagreement with User: Gavia immer over the List of suicides article. The article, which lists hundreds of real-life people who committed suicide, is mostly unreferenced, with the exception of three citations. Gavia immer insists that "it is explicitly allowed to source it by adding a source in the linked article", and that most of those articles are indeed so sourced. This does not seem like a correct adherence to WP:V to me, since I would think that each article has to include sources for the information it contains. An implication of Gavia's position would be that any unsourced information about a person can be added to an article as long as the article is not about that particular person. And while I don't know if "most" of the linked articles are referenced, the first one I clicked on at random, that of Diane Arbus, was not sourced regarding her suicide, so I removed that bit of info. What do you think? Don't all article have to be sourced for the info they contain? Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes, list articles are not exempt from WP:V. Longer answer: It really depends on the nature of the list and how controvercial the list's theme is. A List of townships in Essex County, New York probably does not need citation for each entry. A List of people accused of Racism definitely would. I would say that the List of suicides article lies between these two extremes, but is closer to the "needs citations" end of the spectrum.

My advice... first see how serious the problem really is... go through the list and the associated articles... place a {{citation needed}} tag on any entries in the list where the associated article does not contain a citation for the fact of the subject being a suicide. It may be that only a few entries need citation on the list... and if a lot of the entires are tagged, it will demonstrate clearly that there is indeed a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... I took my own advice and started to go through the article... of the first 10 entries, over half of them did not have a citation for the person's suicide in the associated article (in fact, several of the articles were completely unsourced). I have posted on the list's talk page to highlight the problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Published

I think it would be helpful if we clarified what we mean by "published source". Specifically, I think we need to explicitly state that materials that are broadcast or that are in an audio or video format count as published sources. Some editors appear to be confused about this. This discussion is an example. One editor want to use an audio interview from the NPR program piano Jazz as a source. Another editor suggested this was a problem because the program wasn't "published". What do other people think about this?Fixer1234 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a brief note on this to the "reliable sources" section. I hope this is a step in the right direction.Fixer1234 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a useful clarification. It might be worth pointing out that we need an 'archive' copy of broadcast works, because it's not good enough to say "I heard it on the radio yesterday". Someone needs to be able to verify at a later date that the radio show really did say whatever is claimed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Proper citation will of course be needed. We'll probably need to either edit existing pages on citation or create a page on citing media. This link contains some helpful information about doing so. Other thoughts?Fixer1234 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the citation that's needed: "yesterday's" broadcast has to exist somewhere "tomorrow". So if the show is up on the radio station's website, then you're set. If the radio station keeps its own archives, then you're okay. But if it's an unrecorded/unarchived announcement, then you can't use it, even if you write down a full citation, because there will be absolutely no way for another editor to verify, at a later date, what was actually broadcast.

Additionally, I'm a bit concerned about misunderstandings from the existing text. A roundtable discussion in a classroom somewhere is not properly published, even if you record it. I'm not sure how to fix the text, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• To WhatamIdoing's concerns above. Sorry this is a bit lengthy. Put briefly, my concern is that we don't put a higher level of scrutiny on A\V sources than we do on text sources. (1) You're correct that we need a way to verify sources. Like text sources, A\V sources need to come from a reliable third-party. This doesn't mean that they will be easily accessible. An editor, for instance, might sight a rare print text source (let's say an issue from a 17th century newspaper) that is only available at a single private research library. If the source is properly sighted and from a "reliable" source in the first place, we probably wouldn't question the source. Likewise it possible that an editor would find a rare broadcast recording. Materials from the early years of broadcast we not always officially archived by the broadcaster and recordings can be quite rare. My only point is we need to be careful that we do not create the impression that one needs to link to a copy of the media in order to use it. (2) I'll take a look at the "roundtable" sentence. I was primarily thinking about news programs that us a roundtable or panel format. (Many local news radio stations have panel programs. National examples would include Washington Week and some segments of Meet the Press.) However, I was also thinking about recorded panel sessions at universities. You are correct that a student's private recording would not pass Wikipedia's reliability standards. However, if a university were to record and archive a lecture or panel discussion, that would (being from a "respected third party") be considered "reliable", even though one might have to contact the university directly to obtain a copy. Fixer1234 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I think we have the same overall goal. I would be just as unhappy about requiring a radio show's archive to be online as I would be unhappy about requiring a newspaper's archive to be online. But a panel discussion at a university may not actually be 'published' in any meaningful sense. Some will be, some (perhaps many) won't be.

To give you another way to think about this: a majority of US churches tape-record their services. The doors are open to the public (unlike many university discussions), and copies are often available for free to anyone that expresses an interest. But I wouldn't call the service properly published (not even "self-published"). Fundamentally, if you decide that four university employees talking about the importance of community service in front of a couple of dozen students is 'published' simply because they recorded it, then four church members talking about the the same subject in front of a couple hundred parishioners must also be considered 'published' when tape recorded.

For right now, I think we may want to concentrate on the obvious cases: a BBC radio show has always been considered 'published' for Wikipedia's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps, the notion of "published" used here goes back to Wikipedia being a tertiary source. From that point of view, I can understand excluding undistributed materials--even if they are produced by reliable organizations and persons. That said, I would still like to see some small changes made to reflect the fact that distributed\broad A\V sources can be RS. As it stands, the language of the article does not reflect this. "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats." Clearly refers to text. I will try some very minor changes, and see what people think.Fixer1234 (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading text-only into the policy where it doesn't exist: An mp3 is electronic-only. A DVD is electronic-only. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The text has been changed, so this is a moot point. But anyway...The old language was problematic because it compared "print" and "electronic" resources. The term "print" implies physical printed text. So when we pair "print" and "electronic", we end up with a comparison of "print text resources" and "electronic text resources". (Is the text available as physical or on-line resource?) The current version of the article avoids this problem because it refers only to "electronic media", that is media that "utilizes electronics or electromechanical energy". So, basically SlimVirgin fixed the problem by removing the word "print". (Which is, admittedly, a much more elegant solution than mine.) Fixer1234 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also a precedent buried in RS/N somewhere (ill find it shortly) where it is made clear that material from 'freedom of information act' constitutes published, ie published is understood as made public. There are also some, to me, unanswered questions as to one ability to use 'internal' government reports, which while not generated for public consumption still constitutes, in my mind, a valid source of information. Any one care to weigh in? Here is the long but interesting thread regarding 'published' on RSN. Unomi (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Freedom of Information Act material, whether it is acceptable depends on what happens to it after it leaves government hands. If the government puts it on the web, or describes a way that anyone can easily obtain the exact same document at a reasonable cost, fine. But if some individual puts it in a mayonnaise jar on their shelf and tries to cite it, that won't do. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What? We don't have a "mayonnaise jar" exception to this Policy? This is the 21st century folks... let's get with the tech!. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)