Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

→

The "once an editor has provided any source" note in the WP:BURDEN section

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I reverted Pololei on this because the text Pololei changed is long-standing, Pololei's edit somewhat changed the message, and I remember being in an argument with WhatamIdoing, who contended that the "he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient" aspect is important. WhatamIdoing was focused on the "in good faith" aspect. WhatamIdoing did make this change to the note in 2014, but I don't see where WhatamIdoing added the note. In 2018, I edited the note (followup comment here), stating, "It's not always necessary that all editors then participate. It's common for someone to be reverted with an edit summary explaining the problem and for the other editor to move on without taking the matter to the talk page."

On a related matter, WhatamIdoing did add this note beside the "and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports" text in 2018.

Regarding my revert of Pololei, I thought the wording for this note had been discussed before and/or after it was added. But maybe it wasn't? I started this discussion for thoughts on the note, on which wording is best. I thought to check the recent edit history of this policy after seeing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Burden of proof for disputed. This policy page is on my watchlist, but I'd missed Pololei's change to it until today. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22 Frozen for opening a discussion and for providing background. For clarity, the original version of the footnote and mine are below. (The link in your comment is in fact to your reversion and not my edit. This may not be obvious to users of the navigation popups tool.)

The text to which the footnote is attached opens the "Responsibility for providing citations" section and is as follows. (Footnotes do not exist independently of their body text.)

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

The original footnote is as follows.

Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

The footnote after my edit (and since reverted) is as follows.

An editor who removes sourced material is under a similar obligation to explain the removal. Reasons include: the source being unreliable; the source not supporting the content; the material giving undue weight to a viewpoint; the content being unencyclopedic; etc. Editors are then expected to reach consensus and to fix any sourcing or content problems before material is reinserted.

The footnote was reworded to improve conciseness and clarity. If I get opportunity to, I'll provide details about my changes. Pololei (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

While I concur with Pololei that, in the abstract, their revision is clearer and more concise and is better in that sense, I nonetheless oppose it. While Wikipedia doesn't have rules _{(wink, wink)}, V and 2-3 other core policies are about as close as we get to a constitution here. Hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions have been made dependent upon the specific way in which they are written. Changing the wording just as a grammatical or clarification exercise is fraught with uncertainty as to whether subtle changes in language might make differences in application. While I appreciate the thought and effort, I oppose changes which aren't intended to make a change or specific clarification in or for application unless it is utterly clear that they don't do unintended harm. I don't think that is clear in this case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Not taking a position on the specific changes, but any change here will required a widely-advertised RfC. E Eng 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

EEng, you're pulling my leg, right, because I sometimes start an RfC on a policy or guideline matter during a dispute? Rest assured, I don't think proposing changes to note needs an RfC.

Pololei, yeah, I know that the "on this" link is a link to my reversion of your edit. I didn't see the need to link to your edit when the revert link shows what you added. As for your changes, I prefer the previous text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's what we need to accomplish:

I add something without a source.
Alice reverts it and says I need to add a source.
I add a source.
Alice's not impressed with my source.
Now we work together to fix the article.

Here's what we need to avoid:

I add something without a source.
Alice reverts it and says I need to add a source.
I add a source.
Alice's not impressed with my source, so she reverts it again.
I add a different source.
Alice's not impressed with my source, so she reverts it again.
I add a another source.
Alice's still not impressed with my source, so she reverts it again. (Repeat endlessly; see also the "bring me a rock" story about bad business leaders, and expect me to accuse Alice of POV pushing because no source will ever satisfy her.)

The point of the footnote is that BURDEN is not infinite. Alice cannot demand that I bring her hundreds of sources until she – maybe – deigns to accept one of them. BURDEN demands that I provide one source. After that, we're back to normal editing. (Normal editing includes Alice telling me that my source is unreliable and my content is wrong, but it doesn't include Alice telling me that I'm required to bring her another source. We move, essentially, from BURDEN to ONUS as soon as I've provided that first source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Referencing with a book/magazine

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Usually when I reference with the usage of a website I use the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.auscritic.com/afca-2020-film-awards.html|title=2020 Australian Film Critics Association Awards|last=Australian Film Critics Association Editors|first=|website=[[Australian Film Critics Association]]|date=February 7, 2020|accessdate=February 7, 2020}}</ref>

But I'm curious what format could I use for citing an actual book or a magazine, thus no website link (one which doesn't have any notable barcodes, for that matter), or if I wished too cite the same book but with different pages of references? For the latter, could I still imbed something along the lines of: <ref name="[Word]">, in front of the temple? If that makes any sense? --Bartallen2 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bartallen2, you have a couple of options. I like to use the template Template:Rp to specify a page number when a citation (book) is being referenced over and over again, but where you want to mention the page number each time you cite the book (without duplicating the entire citation).

As an example of this, look at this section Tsavo Man-Eaters#History where I used template RP several times to cite page numbers in the Patterson book. Before I made the edits to this article, the citation was repeated over and over again with the page number in the citation. See this version of the same article [1] and look under the headings "Notes" and "Further reading" for the same book without an online version available, nor an ISBN.

I would probably, nowdays, use Template:Cite book, even without a URL or ISBN, rather than using the footnote method of that older version of the Tsavo article. — Normal Op (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can give you the help page that explains the Harvnb style references. I learned it by copying others and it was used extensively in the Ford Pinto article. Instead of a footnote for each citation, you create a bibliography section that lists sources. Each footnote references both the bibliography as well as additional text such as page numbers, quotes etc. This was needed as a number of the sources in that article were many pages long and verification wasn't practical if each fact would require combing through dozens of pages of legal articles. Sorry that isn't a clean answer. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can point to the correct how to page. Springee (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean this: Template:Harvnb. Normal Op (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing explains that style. Eventually, it will be possible to do this in wikitext, with this syntax:

First sentence.<ref name="Example">Alice (2019) ''The Sun is Very Hot''.</ref>  Second sentence.<ref extends="Example">Page 1.<ref>

But I don't think that the m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing will be deployed for at least a few more months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Very nice solution! I will put that on my Watchlist to be able to use it in the future. Normal Op (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, another half-baked waste of time [2]. Sorry. E Eng 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that looks like a nicer solution vs the Harvnb template. An issue I have with the Harvnb template, at least as I've used it, is that you end up setting up both citations and a bibliography and, as was mentioned above, it's not clear that several of the references point to the same source. But, the perhaps the biggest issue will be can editors figure out how to make it work. Sadly I see many editors, in particular some experienced editors trying to put the latest information into current events politics pages, using unformatted citations. I wouldn't have known about the Harvnb template had it not be for another editor using it in an article I was involved with. Could the new template be part of the templates pull down in the editor window? Springee (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you follow the link I supplied you'll see that I agree it's better than harvnb/sfn, but of course being better than harvnb/sfn isn't hard. More importantly, it's little better, or no better, or worse than the existing {{r}} using the |p= parameter. E Eng 01:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular project exists because it won a straight-up vote by editors. You were complaining about it back in 2018, and I guess your view hasn't changed, but, so far, I find other editors' views more persuasive. I think it'll be especially useful for the many wikis that haven't imported (and don't have the local resources to maintain) the variety of templates that we have here, and I'd rather deal with wikitext than templates myself. Wikitext works everywhere, and what Template:R does varies by wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a huge zoo of confusing and half-thought-through, and generally incompatible, systems of referencing machinery has has been a major source of contention, confusion, and wasted time (on enwp, anyway, but I'd bet elsewhere as well). Adding to this confusion and contention, (and investing limited developer time to do it!) should not have been taken so lightly, and should have been widely advertised before adoption; straight-up voting among a tiny group isn't a good way to proceed. {r} can be trivially imported into every other wiki, with a different name if needed; it's very simple and there's nothing to maintain. E Eng 21:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: WP:ONUS

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments16 people in discussion

Should the words "of new information" be added into WP:ONUS?

This would change it from: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

...to While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of new information is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

This is an attempt to move closer to our common practice, per the community discussions in the archives most recently at #/Archive 68#WP:ONUS vs. WP:QUO, without being overly precise.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. If material is unsourced, then the onus is always on those seeking to include it. But once a plausible source has been provided, then the onus is on those seeking to change the status quo, i.e. those wishing to add content must prove that it improves the article and is supported by the source, while those wishing to remove content must prove it does not improve the article or is not supported by the source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I like simple, is King of Hearts right or wrong? (it makes sense to me but the other comments seem to be about something else).Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  The answers are to the RFC question, not to King of Heart's post. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  
  @Selfstudier: I’ve taken the liberty of refactoring this thread as a response to that post. Please feel free to revert if that isn’t how you intended it. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  That's fine, Zero has anyway made the point I was driving at better than I could.Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose too gameable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose In reality, instead of trying to wade into the gigantic topic of inclusion/exclusion of verified material, wp:ver it should simply say "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" to stop the common mis-use of wp:ver in that respect. The existing wording only partially / weakly accomplishes that, and IMO restricting the weak existing wording to be applicable to only new material would make the weakness worse.North8000 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Your bolded text is really good. There are probably several policies and guidelines in which it should appear e.g. WP:UNDUE. E Eng 15:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose ONUS most certainly applies to new material but if we say "new" what counts as existing? If I reorder content (say place a minor aspect above a major one) does ONUS apply? I'm effectively suggesting a new weight for the two topics. What if I pull something new to the Wikipedia article from an existing source? Ultimately I feel like this might confuse and doesn't seem to solve anything. BTW, I like North8000's version. Clear and to the point. Springee (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Afaics, ONUS and Quo contradict each other. Am I stupid? Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:QUO is an essay, not policy. It doesn't matter what it contradicts. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Per the hatnote: Some essays represent widespread norms. If that essay doesn’t, maybe it should be brought into line. Also, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
Anyway, by my interpretation, WP:QUO addresses what to do if your addition is reverted, which is in line with ONUS. But mainly it focuses on helping newish editors avoid conflict. If you’re inexperienced enough to just be learning what reverting even is, it’s probably not the best idea for you to be undoing other people’s additions and demanding consensus for them quite yet. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I see ONUS as part of V, and applying to verifiability problems in both new and old materials. QUO does not need to be brought into line with ONUS because they are about different things? The two will only both be relevant in some cases, and then I think normally we'd see V as most important. (Unverifiable old material might be get treated a bit more gently, but once tagged, the verifiability still needs to be resolved. I am also a bit concerned about how any such wording complication could be used to play games to protect old material in silly situations.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
ONUS applies to all information - both old and new. Essentially, if something is challenged, it is the responsibility of those who want that material to remain in the article to support it. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Question: When someone deletes content, is the onus for consensus typically on those who want to retain it? If so, this change is contradictory. But iff that’s absolutely not the case, this is a good change. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, when someone deletes content, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is still on the editors who seek to retain the disputed content. However, if consensus already exists (e.g. on the talk page or on a noticeboard) to include the content, then the editors who wish to remove the content need to establish new consensus for removal before doing so. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that question needs more specifics. First, are we talking about long standing material or new material? Second, are we talking about material removed because it failed verification? If the material is new to the article then the person wishing to add it needs to show consensus for inclusion per WP:CON as well as showing the material is WP:V. As for the second, material needs to pass two hurdles to be in the article, WP:V and WP:DUE. WP:V doesn't say long standing material gets a pass but WP:CON does assume long standing material has an assumed consensus for inclusion and thus would require a new consensus to be removed (per WP:NOCON). Thus we have to be clear why it was removed. If the material is removed for failing WP:V, but no mention of DUE/WEIGHT then it should be assumed that the material has consensus (is part of the stable text) and should be restored if the WP:V problem can be addressed. If an UNDUE/WEIGHT objection is also used when the material is removed (ie remove for failed V and UNDUE) then the default position should be the material is retained unless we establish a new consensus for removal (per WP:CON). Thus text removed as UNDUE and fails WP:V should be restored if V can be addressed and if there is either consensus for inclusion or no-consensus regarding include/exclude. It should only be excluded if there is a new consensus against inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The current wording keeps the verifiability policy consistent with other policies and guidelines. If content that violates other policies and guidelines escapes notice for a long period of time, the current wording unambiguously allows us to remove it. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment. It is probably impossible to find simple wording that can't be gamed, but that is true of the current wording too. A serious problem in conflict-ravaged parts of the project is that a disruptive editor can delete something just because they don't like it, no matter how relevant and well sourced it is, then invoke ONUS to demand that a new consensus must be proved before it is put back (which they will never agree has happened). There has to be a more stringent requirement for ONUS to be invoked over deleted material. I like North8000's suggestion. Zero^talk 05:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Wp:ver sets a requirement (verifiability) for inclusion. Once it meets that requirement, then the inclusion/ exclusion question becomes a complex one with dozens of considerations. NPOV, relevance, article quality,precedent, consensus, past discussions / consensuses, hundreds of other policies and guidelines, etc. etc. How silly it is that the vefifiability policy goes outside of it's purview and attempts to, in two sentences dictate that entire complex process. Why? The only real reason is to fix the problem of people mis-using wp:ver to say that meeting wp:ver is a way for them to force inclusion of material. My proposal is to fix all of those problems with one fell swoop. Replace that entire 3 sentence paragraph with "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think such suggestion will not improve Wikipedia.The onus should always on those who want to retain the material.I also want to remind all that WP:QUO is only essay --Shrike (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose this change, and oppose trying to make any changes to this section until Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine is closed (hopefully next week). (Why? Because it involves someone adding disputed and occasionally erroneous content to several hundred articles five years ago, and there's a chance that ArbCom will decide that in this case, the onus is actually on editors who want to remove errors and undue content, rather on people who want to include the [hopefully corrected] content.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WhatamIdoing and I also really like what North8000 wrote in bold. There are other obstacles to including, not least WP:WEIGHT, and text doesn't magically become policy compliant through longevity. -- Colin°^Talk 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Applicability to pages in project space

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

In Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, SashiRolls argues that the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources information page needs to cite reliable sources because the page Deprecated sources redirects to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. However, this policy states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable", and does not require project space pages to be verifiable regardless of redirects in article space.

Is the verifiability policy limited to article space, or does it also apply to other namespaces if there are redirects from article space to those namespaces? — Newslinger talk 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The real question: why do you want to delete articles on the banning of the Daily Mail from the article Deprecated sources? Two of the three articles have been on the page for over a year and a half. Is there any reason not to include references when they exist? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I am indifferent about the citations, but I do not see basis in policy for requiring them on a project page. This discussion focuses on whether WP:V has such a requirement. — Newslinger talk 02:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
No. WP:V only applies to articles in main space... not talk pages, not policy or guideline pages, not information pages... just articles. This does not mean that we should delete citations from non-article space if they have been provided, merely that citations are not required. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I have RFDd this redirect. --Izno (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The premise is incorrect per the policy itself (save the usual exception about WP:BLP), aside from taking care of the issue in a different way. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar summarized it well. The policy defines where verifiability/sourcing is required. There's nothing that says that sources should be deleted from spaces where it isn't required. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME vs Credited Legal Name

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Sometimes sources can refer to a company by either their legal or common name. However, on Wikipedia, we usually use WP:COMMONNAME for companies both on the article title and for wikilinks. Is it a violation of WP:VERIFIABILITY to mention the COMMONNAME when the source mentions the legal name?

For example, on Disney blu-ray and DVDs, it usually says "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc." which is the legal name for Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. We usually use "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" on Disney movie articles since that's the common name. However an argument came over at Talk:Call of the Wild (2020 film)#RfC notice/Distributor where an editor doesn't want us to call it "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" even though we use that common name whenever the legal name (Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.) is used.

So, what should we use when mentioning company names where the source uses the legal name? WP:COMMONNAME or legal name? Should we mention the hardly recognizable legal name just because it's in the source for verifiability, or should we use the WP:COMMONNAME to help readers better understand what company we're referring to? — Starforce¹³ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Go with the credits. So far WP:V says go with what can be verified which is what the references directly state. If a company chooses to use their legal name as the company credit, we should honor their choice. If they do that for all credit that is the common name they use for credits. This is the same for all credits, we use credited names when reporting credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Use Common Names - Wikipedia articles should be written in a way that's meaningful for the reader to understand, using commonly recognizable names as opposed to wp:wikilawyering it up and resulting in obscure legal names that a reader doesn't understand. For example, we would be doing a disservice to the reader if we confuse them by saying "William Clinton" instead of Bill Clinton or "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta" instead of Lady Gaga, just because that's what the cited legal document happens to say. I think we should follow common sense and use the name that people actually know. — Starforce¹³ 04:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at "You and I" and check the songwriter credit in the infobox - went with the credit, as they should as that is who is the credited songwriter, not the common name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The lead prose says "written by... Lady Gaga" because the primary goal is providing useful, meaningful information to the reader. Telling them it's a song written by Stefani and performed by Lady Gaga would be just purely distracting. FYI: the cited infobox source and its archive aren't even verifiable because they're all mysteriously dead links.— Starforce¹³ 05:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The archive link isn't dead and supports the information. I just checked. May need to scroll a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13, why are you trying to "vote" on the answer to the question you're asking? Was the question you posted not actually a genuine request for information that you didn't have? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, it's a genuine question because even though we use common names for companies/people, someone challenged it and I needed to know if it's a WP:V violation, and what it means for all existing articles that use the established common name as opposed to the version of the name in the source. I just thought I should state what I believe and why to better explain the issue. — Starforce¹³ 18:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It looked to me like you didn't like the answer you got, and tried to turn it into a vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that's just the same editor from the discussion that led me into asking this. So, it wasn't a neutral unbiased response from an uninvolved editor. I need this to be made clear from other uninvolved users and probably included in WP:V documentation, so that it's clear for example if a source says "NYC", we can't use "New York City" and vice versa etc... or if that's acceptable. — Starforce¹³ 19:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviving this... hoping to get input from more editors. Does using the recognizable, non-controversial WP:COMMONNAME violate WP:V if the source had used the official/legal name or another version of the company/person's name? — Starforce¹³ 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As your question can be reduced to a specific use of a single source in one article, and involves no policy changes, it might be more appropriate for you to ask your question at WP:NORN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

While it originated from a specific article, the editor's basis of objections applies to any other article. Without a proper clarification about that in this policy, it means someone could start rejecting edits as OR simply because the editor wrote "Donald Trump" if the source only said "Trump." So, that's why I think the discussion belongs here to make it clear whether it's ok or not to use the more recognizable or precise version of the name even if it doesn't match the source word-for-word. — Starforce¹³ 19:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the question you're asking is the subject of WP:NOR, not WP:V. And the place to ask questions about NOR is at WP:NORN, not at WT:V. (Yes, I know that the dividing line between NOR and WP:V is difficult for most people to grasp. That's why we tried to merge the two many years ago. But you can safely trust me on this point: Your question is really about NOR.) If you don't want to solve your immediate problem, then you could ask WT:NOR to add a section that explains what "directly supports" means (WP:V defines that phrase in a footnote as basically 'it doesn't violate NOR'), and to please include an example in that section about a company whose name changed. But I still really believe that you are going to get the best results by going to NORN, because changes to policies usually take a couple of years to have much practical effect, NORN comes with the occasional admin who's willing to insist that NORN's decision be implemented. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I would give BOTH names - at least the first time it is mentioned. To do so, I would give the COMMONNAME first, with the legal name second. Perhaps: “The film was released in 2020 by Disney Home Entertainment (officially, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.)” - or something similar. After that you could just say “Disney”. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to reference or cite both? As in: citing a quote used by an author that was originally said (and properly attributed) by someone else? Or a way of conveying: this is the information provided (after being thoroughly researched), but should any discrepancies arise they will be gladly looked in to.

flutterbird 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flutterdegen (talk • contribs)

I would say we should use the name attested by reliable sources and provide a redirect from common name to that, even if it is not commonly referred that way. Erkin Alp Güney 14:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Do preprints qualify as self-published sources we allow?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

I'm told that I violated " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." by reverting an edit that was a pre-print. See Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Gourdine et al and my edit summary.[3] The editors are indeed experts, but I always thought we waited for the peer reviewed publication, at the very least. Doug Weller talk 04:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that having been posted to a preprint server qualifies as having been "published" in the WP:RS sense. The paper can be revised, withdrawn, or rejected after a peer review. I would not use such sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:K.e.coffman, the definition of "published" is in WP:V: Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". If WP:RS says something different, it should be corrected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think its question of WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Preprints should not be used directly as sources. However, if it is eventually published, most of the content will be the same, so if a preprint is the only freely (as in gratis) accessible version, then a trick to verify the content is to google a sentence you want to cite, and if it matches a snippet from the published version then you can cite it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but a preprint is usually a published draft document. Erkin Alp Güney 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mostly depends for what. "Smith proved that..." sourced to a preprint, nope. "CERN proposed a new expansion to LHCb in 2016" sourced to a 2016 preprint from CERN staff, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Facebook at RSN

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC at RSN about Facebook that may have repercussions for this policy. It asks: "Should Facebook be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old to discourage misuse?" Interested editors should participate. ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Research Showcase on verifiability next week

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, all,

Next week's mw:Research Showcase is on the theme of "Credibility and Verifiability". It will be available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS9Jc3IFhVQ It will start on Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 16:30 UTC (12:30 p.m. EDT), but it's recorded, so you can watch it later if you want to.

The first presentation is on a project called NewsQ, and I think will mostly about news and something like the circular sourcing problem. We are also promised some comments on what the Showcase's notes called the "US Perennial Sources list". It will be related to this paper.

The second presentation is called "Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia", aka "Does anyone actually look at the inline citations?" This paper suggests that the answer is "mostly no", especially when the article is already well-developed.

Please share this with other editors who might be interested. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not easily accessible sources - published sources that are not easily accessible as they once were

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I propose this addendum: "This also means references to sources that had once been accessible, yet are not anymore, cannot be removed solely based on that reason. You have to prove the reference have been unpublished by its original author due to falsity or privacy issues, or is unreliable; in order to remove that reference."
The reason for this proposal is that websites and book copies go exhausted, websites go stale; there have been examples of Wikipedians trying to delete information because of removal, rewriting the history in effect. If we allow published sources that are not easily accessible, we also have to accept the situation of references going dead during the lifetime of this encyclopedia. This never happens with paper encyclopedias because they are fixed on paper and circulated; Wikipedia, however, constantly changes and its main form of consumption is electronic, via interwebs. Erkin Alp Güney 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "prove" is too strong a word. The level of standard for accepting an offline source is WP:AGF: we generally accept these sources without proof unless 1) they are used to support an extraordinary claim; or 2) the person who added them is a habitual liar. Reasonable doubt (i.e. challenging the source not solely because it is inaccessible, but for more substantial reasons) is sufficient to get an offline source removed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is fundamentally structurally flawed. Wp:ver does not make any requirement that restricts the presence of a reference. It makes reference requirement for the presence of text. There is nothing in wp:ver mandating removal of references. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is wrong. Sources must be both Published and Accessible. It is no longer possible to verify that the cited source said ____ when every single copy of that source has been lost. The purpose of our verifiability rules is to make sure that someone can check the source; if no copy of source exists, then the purpose is not met.

It sounds like you may find the information at WP:DEADREF to be relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Current rules allow sources that are legally publicly available but hard to access for some people (e.g. physically kept in a limited area, but accessible on demand). My proposal furthers this, and enables referencing "a last remaining copy" (after all, an encyclopedia is a historical artifact) or "a dynamic website gone down with no archives". Erkin Alp Güney 06:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Erkin Alp Güney, I thought that I understood your proposal, and now I think I don't. Imagine that I have cited a paragraph to "a dynamic website gone down with no archives". I'm not quite sure exactly what the "dynamic" part means, but I assume that nobody has a copy of the webpage that I was citing. I went to that website, copied some numbers out of it ("As of April 2020, 4 people in this city had tested positive for COVID-19"). Now the website is gone. Nobody has a copy. Another editor thinks that number is suspiciously low, and thinks I meant to type "40" instead of "4". How will you verify whether I typed the correct information in the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dynamic website means server-side content generation, depending on user profile and navigation state. How deep you verify accessibility depends on what grounds you get into doubt. If it is inconsistency of added content with what cited source actually claims, for a reference that was accessible at the time when added but not anymore, you have to do that in a reasonable time after it has been first added; after that, it is basically history. If you think that source has never existed, or a falsification for aforementioned sources, you also have to verify the fact for removing it, just like you did for insertion. Erkin Alp Güney 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035, this may be a timely question. I'm looking at some websites that report the prices of some drugs. These websites do a quick search of several independent databases (e.g., looking up the price on various sellers' websites). This means that when I add the source on Monday, it will say that the usual price is (e.g.,) $23. When I go back on Friday, to make sure that I got it right, it may say that the price is $22.

Should people be using that kind of website at all? There is, effectively, no way for anyone to check that the price was actually what I said that it was, at the time that I added it. The most you could do is check what today's price is (which is probably going to be similar, but will probably not be the same). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the reemedy is not removal of the reference. It is determination that the reference does not fulfill the verifiability requirement for the text, and eventually removal of the text. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing a chapter

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

WP:BURDEN currently advises this:

Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

I suggest that it say this:

Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, chapter, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

Chapters can be particularly convenient in unpaginated ebooks, and not all chapters are further divided into sections. Citing chapters as an alternative to individual pages has long been accepted at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books.

Naturally, it isn't always the best alternative. Just like it's sometimes appropriate to cite entire books ("Alice Expert says the Sun is really big" with a citation to her book, The Sun is Really Big), it is sometimes appropriate to cite a whole chapter, and it is sometimes appropriate to cite individual pages. The choice should depend upon whether you're summarizing a larger point, or just pulling an individual fact out of one sentence in the book. But I think that it is generally better to encourage people to consider citing a specific chapter than otherwise. Also, science-related books and reference works often have individually authored chapters, so editors should very frequently be naming the chapter and its authors regardless of whether a specific page number is also cited.

What do you think? Would this be an improvement, or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. E Eng 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be a huge step backwards. Ebooks have alternative ways of identifying text, and it's often possible to find a page number for the text via Google Books or Amazon; if not WP:RX can usually help. And it's never appropriate to cite a whole book. Where does the idea come from that that would be enough? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

He's only suggesting adding the word chapter. What does your comment have to do with that? And while it's a narrow use case, citing a whole book isn't inconceivable (The first Random House edition ran to 1203 pages might be cited to the whole book. Like I said, it's a narrow use case.) E Eng 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to write "Cite the source clearly and precisely", then suggest that a book chapter might be sufficient. Also, WAID, this is just odd. You wrote: "science-related books and reference works often have individually authored chapters, so editors should very frequently be naming the chapter and its authors regardless of whether a specific page number is also cited." Yes, of course, and we do and not only in science. Edited volumes are common. We cite author, chapter title, editors, book title, page range of the chapter, and the specific page reference. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC); 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Chapters are already OK if appropriate: they're included in the phrase "or such divisions as may be appropriate". Sometimes they are appropriate. For example, a Wikipedia article cites an equation, and when you go to the source, you find that the equation itself, the definitions of the variables, and caveats about when it is valid are spread throughout a chapter; if you cited each page that was relevant, you'd cite the majority of pages in the chapter.

I prefer not to specifically mention chapters, because cases where just a chapter is appropriate are unusual, but we certainly shouldn't rule them out. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Another example: article says X has been the subject of many popular songs, literary works, films, and dramas, you might naturally cite a book on X, and specifically the chapter in that book on X in popcult, but no particular page. I see what you mean about the possibility that mentioning chapters in the guideline might tempt people to cite them where a pg# would be more appropriate, but by not mentioning it you risk that, where a pg# isn't available/appropriate, an editor may fail to realize that a chapter# is at least helpful. E Eng 21:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You can cite a page range for the examples you give. What book would have no page numbers? It won't only tempt people to cite chapters; they'll do it. The requirement for page numbers for books has been in the policy for over 12 years (added here), but there was a requirement for page numbers on request before that. It would just be odd to remove it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would I ponderously cite pp. 434–513 when I can just cite ch. 7? E Eng 14:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to cite pages; other ways of specifying the portion of a work that supports a claim are clearly permissible. Since the requirement does not exist, adding "chapter" will not remove it. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It says "specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate". It goes without saying that pages refer to books and other media that have them. If you're looking at a page, and you extract information from it to add to WP, why would you only cite the chapter? Sometimes Google hides the numbers but there are usually ways round that; Amazon usually offers a limited number; or someone at RX will help. "Clearly and precisely" does not mean chapters only. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What if I'm not looking at "a page", but rather, the material to support the passage in the Wikipedia article is spread throughout a chapter? Suppose I want to summarize in a table various ways of writing angles in the field of land surveying, and I cite chapter 8, "Angles, bearings, and azimuths", of Wolf & Brinker's Elementary Surveying (n.p.: Harper Collins, 1989). The information about how to represent angles is spread all through the chapter. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Support this, it's a good addition and an increase in specificity when page numbers don't cut it, or in addition to those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Sort of support, but what we really want is for citations to be as narrow as practical. If it appears on one page or a few pages, give the page number(s). If it is spread through a chapter, give the chapter, and so on. The qualifier passim is a standard way to indicate that the information is distributed throughout the division indicated. Zero^talk 13:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I think this suggestion is useful. I appreciate that a chapter is already a "section" or "division" but it is a common one and the chapter title can often be extremely useful. I'm thinking of those huge professional medical books with a couple of editors and chapters written by selected experts: each chapter is similar to a comprehensive review paper with their own topic and authors. So the chapter is an important feature and worth explicitly encouraging. Although this doesn't discourage editors from being even more specific, sometimes the sentence or clause really is sourced to information dispersed throughout a chapter, and one can be too specific. The chapter can also be useful for when page numbers are unhelpful, such as when you have access to a different edition of the book. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How about if we said

Cite the source clearly ~~and precisely~~, ideally giving page number(s) – though sometimes specifying a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead.

E Eng 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say "clearly and precisely" then "but sometimes not clearly and precisely; sometimes (we won't say when) citing a chapter would be okay". Even when an entire chapter covers something, you can still give a page range, or p. 60ff, or chapter 3, p. 60ff. But if the sourcing policy says editors may cite books but not give page numbers, that's what they will do, and when someone requests a page number, they will point to this policy and say page numbers aren't required. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right! I've struck the ~~precisely~~, leaving the ideally giving page number(s) to make it clear to the reader what the, well, ideal is. As to sometimes (we won't say when) citing a chapter would be okay you're being silly. We leave a lot of things to editor judgment. Under my proposal we make it clear that we really want a page number if possible, but where that isn't possible or doesn't make sense a chapter or section would be good too. E Eng 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Just in case the discussion comes back to this side proposal, I've added the work instead for clarity. E Eng 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I begin to wonder how long the chapters are in your typical book.

I think there is no practical difference between saying "Chapter 7" and "pages 234–241", when chapter 7 happens to begin on page 234 and end on page 241.

I do think that specifying an ending point is often preferable to saying page 234ff (which means "and the following", which could include any page(s) after that 234 in the entire book). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A practical difference between citing a chapter and a page range that matches the chapter is that reference books often have many editions, and editions that are near to each other in order of publication often have the same, or nearly the same, chapters but different pagination. Especially if the title of the chapter is given, a reader who can't find the cited edition may be able to verify the claim in a similar edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there is general support for including the word "chapter" in this sentence. Would someone like to add that to the policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll be happy to do it, but since feeling has run high on this let's wait to see if everyone's in agreement, if not with the proposal itself at least with the fact that consensus has been reached. E Eng 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait. Are we talking about the original proposal, or mine a bit above here? But now that I look at mine I don't like it so much, so I guess it's the original we want? E Eng 03:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to remove that page numbers are expected, that will need an RfC. This is a core content policy. That has been in the policy for over 12 years, and in other forms before that. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The current guideline doesn't say page numbers are expected but rather specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate so I don't know what you're talking about. E Eng 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To summarize... The old text was

(old) Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

The original proposal was to change this to

P1. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, chapter, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

However, I humbly submit that my alternative ...

P2. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s) – though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead.

... might be preferable because it emphasizes that page numbers are "ideal". Pinging Headbomb, Jc3s5h, WhatamIdoing, SlimVirgin, Zero0000, Colin. E Eng 15:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with either of the proposals. I do not see either of them as removing an expectation for page numbers (when page numbers exist and are a suitable way of identifying the content, of course). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we're past the red-herring idea that a anything we're discussing devalues page numbers. E Eng 16:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@EEng, maybe you should just make a change (anything that seems reasonable to you) as a starting point. The first edit doesn't have to be the ideal one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
[4] E Eng 17:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We should ban citing some social media: specifically TikTok but probably other garbage as well

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I have been very concerned about citing social media like Facebook for 1.) the self-published nature of it, 2.) the frequently wildly inaccurate mis- and disinformation that it spreads, and 3.) tacitly encouraging our users to go to walled garden surveillance networks. I have recently seen citations for TikTok and I think this is too far: in addition to the problems that I have already outlined, this is malware from a totalitarian government. Under no circumstances should we encourage or even allow outgoing links to this. I think we should explicitly state that in the verifiability guidelines and have entries on individual apps and sites that are particularly egregious about this and should never be linked (I would definitely argue that Facebook belongs as well: it is totally inappropriate to encourage any outward links to their tracking ad network). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: This is specifically about TikTok and its unique problems but I situated it in terms of other social media as well. Please don't allow me to distract from TikTok in particular. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Would agree but it won't happen. Long ago recommendation to me was.. avoid pop culture junk and focus on academic topics that educate readers. Don't see Facebook used in ancient history or scientific articles.--Moxy 🍁 02:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As to TikTok I would never ever see a case we'd ever need to link to it - can a TikTok post contain *anything* encyclopedicly useful? The new privacy concerns raised would make it worthwhile to eliminate it via blacklisting. Facebook's a different beast as there are informational posts made through there though they will nearly always be primary sourcing. Excluding Facebook would be too wide a net as an immediate issue, and if we start issuing concerns about linking to tracking ad network, that would make almost any offsite linking including to most reliable sources a problem. So this is really not an option. --Masem (t) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I have seen it cited on Nikki Blonsky. Very inappropriate and is basically posting a link to malware. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe this diff is what you're talking about which is extremely iffy. We do want self-sourced statements about "coming out" for sexual identity, but I would absolutely say its OR to presume that someoen using the song "Coming Out" via TikTok to do that isn't appropriate. And the weight of the problems of TikTok's security issues would not make it worthwhile to let that link through a blacklist through for this purpose. --Masem (t) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd support banning all social media links and making TikTok a BADSITE on account that they're Chicoms. The problem is that Wikipedia only exists for fans to read about their fandom, and for most of them that means using primary sources, especially social media. If this were a concerted effort for knowledge we'd ban all primary sources and force the use of secondary sources but we're not about knowledge, we're about high-minded fandom so SanFran gets donations. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the subject's social media is acceptable for a limited number of cases, mainly for personal information:

Gender identity, sexual orientation, and pronouns, especially for marginally notable people where secondary sources may not regurgitate their self-declarations; and
Birth dates, ditto, unless there is evidence they may be lying.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, Including social media profiles that are spyware/malware? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted to make this about TikTok, then you should have led with that and not conflated it with general comments about the unreliability of social media. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is just about TikTok, WP:RSN is thataway. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:UNSOURCED" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:UNSOURCED. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Wikipedia:UNSOURCED until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

AfterEllen as a reliable source

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AfterEllen. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews as a reliable source

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PinkNews. It's a reassessment matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting clarification of PAYWALL

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few weeks ago, I noticed that the "Access to sources" section weren't very clear in its message, it kinda beats around the bush of explaining that paid and rare sources are acceptable. I performed this edit to rectify, but that was reverted as controversial. I saw it as unchanging to meaning, but I guess I'll seek consensus. Anyone opposed to the linked edit or have other suggestions? Gaioa (T C L) 22:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I noted this edit as odd and just didn't hit the revert button myself.

I don't think the AGF reference is appropriate here. It is reasonable to ask after the details of these sources. (We have had some hoaxes and generally false articles propped up by fake offline sources, as well as misunderstood offline sources.)

I also think the present section fairly straightforwardly says that these sources should not be rejected. We might consider using positive words there instead of negative i.e. "These sources are acceptable for use on Wikipedia." rather than "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.", but that is not what your edit did (instead somewhat convoluting the section with the one regarding offline sources; maybe there's a separate improvement there). --Izno (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SOURCE?" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:SOURCE?. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Wikipedia:SOURCE? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – The Grid (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. The RfC partly relates to the WP:About self section on the WP:Verifiability policy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Does Footnote 9 still have consensus?

Latest comment: 4 years ago50 comments33 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There have been no additional comments for 12 days. There is a consensus to remove this footnote. The footnote does not fully reflect the community's current views, and it is unclear how editors should apply this advice. Anyone who would like to improve the way that conflicts of interest and biased sources are addressed in this policy is welcome to suggest improvements on this talk page. For clarity, such changes will not necessarily require another RFC, but advance discussion, rather than bold edits to policy pages, would be more appropriate for this subject in the near term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 9 currently reads, in part (emphasis added):

Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources. Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promotes the holding company of the media group or discredits its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation; and promotional material released through media in the form of paid news reports.

Recently, there was a discussion at RSN, "Is CNN usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News?", which closed with "The consensus is that CNN is a usable source for unflattering information about Fox News. Editors largely do not accept the financial COI argument to disqualify CNN." (permalink)

Should Footnote 9 be modified, e.g. to remove the part about "discredits its competitors", or in some other way? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to opener and closer of that discussion, Aquillion and starship.paint. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: - thanks for the heads up. I would suggest “discredits its competitors” be removed, purely based on the WP:RSN discussion. Anyone wishing to re-add the phrase should perhaps create an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), with alerts to editors who participated in the WP:RSN policy and also any editors involved in the original discussion to add in “discredit its competitors”, if such a discussion existed. starship .paint (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I would remove the "discredits its competitors" language as well. I do not think it is consistent to allow a source when it covers its competitors positively, while disallowing that same source when it covers its competitors negatively. We currently have WP:UBO, which allows us to consider usage by other reliable sources as a positive indicator of a source's reputation. If we are allowed to consider a reliable source's endorsement of another source, we should also be able to consider the source's rebuke of another source. The "promotes the holding company of the media group" language is valid, in my opinion, and should stay if the footnote is kept. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Edited 19:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Since this question is likely to be of broad interest, I have upgraded this discussion to an RfC. — Newslinger talk 06:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support the emerging consensus to remove the entire footnote. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that "discrete its competitors" should be removed. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
If a media source deserves to be discredited, where else are we going to read about it other than competitive media sources? Out of necessity, we have to accept such sources. But in this case, I would not rely on a single competitor; I would want to see multiple sources which are independent of the disreputable source and each other carry similar negative stories. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Alternatives to competitive media sources (e.g., CNN/Fox) include academic journals, books, and noncompetitive media sources (e.g., CNN/BBC). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: How about New York Times versus Washington Post? Associated Press versus Reuters? Are they competitive? starship .paint (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: AP/Reuters, yes. That means if there was, say, a scandal at AP, we shouldn't use a Reuters article as the only source for content about the scandal (and perhaps not use it at all, but at least not as the only source), because Reuters has a COI when it comes to its main competitor, AP. NYT/WaPo is a bit more grey-area for me. NYT/WSJ are in the same city and thus would be "conflicted" in my view. NYT and WaPo are not in the same city, so they don't compete for the same local market, but they do compete for the same national market, in the same way as AP and Reuters. So if there were a scandal at NYT, I would avoid using WSJ as a source at all, and I'd probably avoid using WaPo as the only source, although if it had a particularly in-depth article (as it probably would), I might use that along with other, less-conflicted, sources.

I don't want to bludgeon this discussion so I'm going to make another related comment now and then shut up: one thing that the earlier RSN thread made me realize is that my own view of CNN and Fox News is likely outdated. I remember when Fox News launched as a direct competitor to CNN, and it became the main alternative for 24hr cable news. For example, as I remember it, people watched the Monica Lewinsky scandal unfold either on Fox or on CNN, depending on their political leaning. Some twenty-five years later, they're really not head-to-head competitors in that way anymore. I was persuaded by the argument that several RSN !voters made that the audience for Fox News, if Fox News disappeared, would not go to CNN, they'd go somewhere else. So perhaps when judging which media groups are competitors, and in which markets they compete, it should be more about more than geography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply, Levivich! starship .paint (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to generalize from a discussion about a specific CNN claim/article (in the RSN discussion) to a claim about media sources in general. Rather than simply removing “discredits its competitors” from footnote 9, I think it would make more sense to keep it but soften the statement a bit, saying something like "Further examples of sources ~~with~~ that may have conflicts of interest ..." and then add something to note that the details of a possible conflict of interest case should be assessed to determine whether it's an actual conflict of interest or is instead professional reporting on a negative fact about a competitor. Or if people think that the rest shouldn't be softened (e.g., that "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors ..." should still be prefaced by "with" rather than "may have"), then reword it as two sentences, separating out and softening the claim about "articles by any media group that promotes the holding company of the media group or discredits its competitors," but not softening the rest. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Using an examples CNN and Fox, I honestly wouldn't want a claim from CNN to be used to "discredit" Fox. A book or three on bias in the media from an expert on such things using Fox as a prime example probably already exist and should clearly be preferred by our policies. I think the full close from the other discussion goes this way as well. You can use CNN, but it's probably not a good idea, and if you do, attribute. I tend toward leaving the phrase in the note. --Izno (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Izno's post at 14:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC) allows for the speed at which corporate takeovers can change the nature of a source; waiting for a book may not be reasonable. Also, since such discussions are apt to be contentious, relying on books, which are less likely to be widely available for free, may present a problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
We are not here to right great wrongs. --Izno (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
A source writing about it's competitors is as egregious of a degredation-due-to-COI as any other type of COI referred to here. I see no reason to remove it based on some discussion about CNN. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Independent sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The footnote doesn't make sense. What does "articles by any media group" mean? Press releases? Or does it mean articles by authors/journalists in publications (ultimately) part of a media group - which would be casting the net super wide and would seem to think that all media organizations exert total top-down editorial control, which is a crass over-simplification: the BBC (say) and RTV are different in this respect. I think the text in question is unhelpful; if a reliable source comments on an the unreliability of an unreliable source that is good for us; vice-versa not so. Trying to re-frame this as some kind of relativist play-off of COIs is unintelligent. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Added by Wifione, who was indef banned for POV problems and sockpuppetry. If Wikipedia ever gets to the point where that level of detail on the quality of sources matters, we'll have come a long way indeed. But we're so far from being there that this footnote seems detrimental. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. That's an argument for removing the entire #9. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove the footnote. This application is clearly incorrect, as we can't even agree on which sources are competitors. Furthermore, it seems questionable to apply this only to media sorces. By the same standard, we should also discount authors who have written similar books and might be competing for sales, academics who may be competing for the same position, etc. I think that COI should be defined more narrowly to affiliation rather than worrying about competition. (t · c) buidhe 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote - I would not only remove the bolded part, but the entire footnote, for the reasons stated above. It is badly worded (indeed, unintelligible in part), confusing, makes little logical sense. Neutrality^talk 22:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove (or substantially rewrite) I'm building on the excellent point made by @Buidhe:. Conflicts of interest and definitely far broader than media sources. it is always the case that one should give due consideration to the possibility that there is a conflict of interest. it is quite easy to imagine a conflict of interest if one media outlet is criticizing another media outlet, but importantly a is not necessarily a conflict of interest and b there are many many other examples. The first point means we should not be making the absolute statement that there is a conflict of interest
are considered to be conflicted sources
in the second point means that we should not privilege media sources as so much more likely to be conflicted then others that they deserve special mention and everything other than media are swept up in almost an aside
include but are not limited to
. The first point is more important. the footnote as written basically states that there is a conflict of interest simply by being a media source. This gives far too much power to editors who might be interested in excluding criticism of media sources. As written, any criticism of one media source by another media source can be simply removed on conflict of interest grounds without needing to assess whether it might be well grounded.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Listed at WP:CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove the discredits its competitors clause. The New York Times discredits the Korean Central News Agency.[5] The Times is still a reliable source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove the discredits its competitors clause per Newslinger and Billhpike. One important thing to remember is that this is a list of examples — removing the phrase doesn't mean every possible instance of a media source covering another source negatively is acceptable, but rather just that the issue is sufficiently nuanced that it's not appropriate to use it as a clear-cut example of something not okay. I generally trust editors to be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a media outlet is operating with a sufficient editorial firewall when covering another source for it to be considered reliable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Oops, seems like we don't have an article for editorial firewall. Someone should probably write that... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It's covered (briefly) at Chinese wall. Calidum 07:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've created a redirect from Editorial firewall to Chinese wall § Journalism. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove discredits its competitors for the reasons others have highlighted as well as the related or in their competitors in the following sentence. I also believe the litigation part should be rewritten, because, based on my reading, if a person sues a newspaper for libel we could no longer use that newspaper as a source for that person, even if the case is thrown out. (My concerns about that section go beyond that, but that is just one example.) I'm ambivalent about the rest of the paragraph, except the paid news report part. Calidum 07:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- On second thought, remove the whole thing. Any parts that might be relevant would presumably be covered by other rules. Calidum 23:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove. This is premised on on two myths that are, unfortunately, broadly considered gospel. Namely that (a) human (and journalists', specifically) behaviour is largely driven by financial considerations, and (b) that any single journalist would compromise their work for the infinitesimal difference some story critical of a competitor may have on their future salaries. A CNN journalist will not criticise FOX News because management told them to, or because they own put options. They'll do it because they hate FOX and everything it stands for. 193.27.14.72 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 193.27.14.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources." Wouldn't "I hate the other news agency" be as much a non-professional consideration as a financial interest is? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove "discredits its competitors" only (and the closer will have to be careful to see which comments to "remove" are only about that quote, not the broader footnote—which is not actually quoted in full in the RfC text). This is a complicated one, to be sure. Under capitalism, both a media organisation and its journalists have no choice but to pursue the profit motive at least somewhat (unless it's a state propaganda tool, which is worse). Unfortunately, we can't mitigate all the effects of this—which include (but are not limited to) political agendas which support the organisation, overt conflicts of interest, sensationalist reporting, reporting selectively on facts which fit the public discourse, short-termism and pandering to a demographic. We can mitigate a couple. But I like Hipal's If Wikipedia ever gets to the point where that level of detail on the quality of sources matters, we'll have come a long way indeed. I don't think precluding CNN from being used to comment on Fox or AP for Reuters is helpful at this time. Without convincing reason to include text in a policy, it should be removed, to mitigate wikilawyering, overcomplication and a higher barrier to entry for new editors. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote as unnecessary, confusing and requiring OR to make any determination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove as overly-broad; in the modern media market you could reasonably portray anyone as a competitor to anyone else. (Fox itself considers what it does to be "news and entertainment"; is it therefore in competition with all entertainment on TV?) I'm not at all understanding the argument made above that CNN is a competitor to Fox but the NYT isn't; paper and cable news are, in the abstract, absolutely in competition, and in theory if the NYT could publish a magic story that utterly discredited cable news - which, of course, discrediting a major cable news network would be a step towards - they would, in theory, profit from it. Obviously that is absurd, but it seems to me that the idea that CNN is compromised by similar thinking is equally absurd, and illustrates the general problem with drawing "markets" so broadly. I think that an extremely specific and overwhelming overlap might qualify, but in that respect Fox (which, unlike CNN, is a "partisan-branded" network targeting an ideologically specific audience) isn't really a competitor to CNN - it is competing more directly with newer upstarts like eg. Breitbart. --Aquillion (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote. The "discredits its competitors" part is bad for reasons that multiple editors have explained above, but the rest isn't much better. It reads like an attempt at legalese written by a committee of non-lawyers, aspiring to rigor and implementing a kind of cargo cult version of it. Clarity is noticeably absent. As best as I can tell, the footnote is trying to jam multiple issues together (attacking one's supposed competitors, litigation, ...), and it succeeds at explaining none of them. XOR'easter (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote I commented above but did not "vote". Overly prescriptive and an overgeneralization. The "discredits its competitors" part is probably one of the best parts of it; a case where the sources is almost certainly so biased to be worthless, so I certainly wouldn't remove just that. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote. Given the oligopolization of America, you can make a case for a journalist being involved with respect to practically any company they report on. Common sense is far superior to an overgeneralization like this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove per WP:CREEP. Most sources have some implicit conflict of interest. Aacademic papers are trying to push or support a thesis; journalists are trying to attract readers and sell advertising; authors are trying to sell their book; and they all usually have a political angle or bias. Being professional doesn't change this; it just means that they being paid and so have pay-masters to keep happy. The best work may well be amateur, being done for love rather than money – that's what we seem to rely on here at Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote footnote is poorly written in pseudo-legalese. Guidance on COI sources should belong in guidelines like WP:RS or WP:COI anyways, since WP:V is a high-level policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Status quo ante The discussion at RSN was wrongly decided. No change should be made here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Status quo ante - I agree with Chris t, but will add that it is not just a matter of us demoting a RS based on their competitors' financial conflicts of interest, or the fact they took a back seat in the ratings game, or have a polar opposite political POV; rather, this issue reaches much deeper into our core content policies - NPOV, V and OR - and we should not allow arguments that cite biased/COI sources to determine the final outcome of anything - WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Our own arguments tend to have a partisan flavor to them, and while one side may outnumber the other at any given RfC for whatever reason, we must keep in mind that WP is not a democracy, and quite frankly, neither is the USA (it is a Republic with an electoral college), and therein lies part of the problem with the current rating method of entire networks, channels and online publications that have numerous sections with differing political views. It is not and will never be a simple yes or no answer - there are too many nuanced arguments including the ones that led to the creation of Footnote 9, along with REDFLAG, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, LABEL, NEWSORG, SYNTH etc. To rid the project of that footnote would open the door to making any biased/COI source a reliable enough source to state the biased material in WikiVoice with a simple citation rather than using intext attribution, and that will open a whole new can of worms. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep - At this point I do not see issue with requiring better sources for someone complaining about their competitors. Creep does not seem to come into play since this was around in 2012. I am not very sympathetic to the New York Times reporting on Korean Central News Agency either, I generally do not see them as direct competitors. Levivich summed that up well near the top. The fact that it was written by a indef banned user, at this point, is not relevant since again it was written in 2012 and you could make a WP:STATUSQUO argument. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Remove entire footnote for the reasons described by Buidhe and others. The footnote is poorly worded, solves no clear problem, and is vague enough that it's an open invitation to wikilawyering. We already have guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest. This footnote doesn't reflect best practices, nor does it harmonize with other existing guidance—it looks like it was added and then largely ignored until the recent Fox News RfC. More to the point, we can rely on reputable journalistic outlets for reliably-sourced coverage of other media. This footnote limits our ability to write comprehensively and accurately about media organization, and so should be removed. After all, policy is meant to describe best practices, not to try to coerce changes to them. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep per status quo arguments above. I would agree with Starship.paint and Newslinger about the removal of discredits its competitors. Arguments that the footnote invites unhelpful wiki-lawering are belied by the fact that it has been live for 8 years without issue. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Remove per the confusion over what it means --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Remove per the reasons I provided at the RSN discussion that prompted this discussion, as well as the fact that it appears the most problematic language was added to the footnote without discussion (I skimmed through the archived discussions and found a lot from that timeframe about truth vs. verifiability, but I couldn't find anything indicating that there was a consensus about the language for this footnote); I suspect that if the language had been discussed at that time, the consensus eight years ago would not have been for inclusion. Grandpallama (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

What is the purpose of ABOUTSELF?

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Recently, I've had a couple of discussions with folks at WP:RSN about the use of questionable sources as sources about themselves. One was whether a journal that acted as "an official arm of the Catholic church" can be used as a source for Catholic teachings (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_304#Landas). The other was whether Iranian State TV can be used a source for the viewpoint of the Iranian government (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_PressTV).

In both cases, my position was "yes", yet many people argued "if their viewpoint is notable it should already be covered in reliable sources". If that is the case, then why does WP:ABOUTSELF exist? It clearly allows us to use "questionable sources" without the "requirement that they be published experts in the field". Does WP:ABOUTSELF not allow us to include material (subject to some constraints) that is not covered in reliable, secondary sources? VR _talk 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A map showing where the subject was boring - L

I always saw it as something for minor facts that while important might not get much coverage in secondary sources. For BLP articles I would say things like birthday or where the subject was ~~boring~~ born would be fine as long as it is not controversial or contradicted anywhere. For organizations I could see the use of mission statements for example or an about us page. But that should be cleared not to violate WP:PROMO. In the end if the claim has value to the article and not controversial then it should be okay to use. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

where the subject was boring – So that might come up, for example, in bios of college professors and geologists? E Eng 17:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also engineers. Dang it, Freudian slip?

Thanks for the catch! PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Freud's first slip. E Eng 17:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Think we'd definitely need a secondary source that a person was boring. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This; for basically things that would be basic, non-controversial encyclopedic data that we'd would include for any other equivalent entity as long as it was known and sourceable. Birthdate, hometown, what school they went to, their early career for a person, or for a company, their current employee size, year of founding, major division/locations, etc. These should be seen as filling in the gaps where significant coverage from secondary coverage from a standpoint of notability or other policy. --Masem (t) 16:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but what about not so "boring" stuff? Like living person A gets accused of something and the allegation is picked up by secondary sources, but person A's response to those allegations is not?

Anyway, if its only for "boring" stuff, this should really be clarified in the policy.VR _talk 22:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we are all trying to bore each other here can I offer another about self example? There are two cases I think are important ABOUTSELF examples. The first is if DUE, RSs have said something about an article subject (person, organization etc) then the subject should be allowed to reply and, within reason, we should cover that reply. So if company X was accused of, for example, wrongful termination of workers then a company statement refuting such claims should be allowed as a source. That does not mean quote it but we can say the company responded and, if appropriate, include a summary or key highlights. Another example is if the actions of a person or organization make more sense in context of their position on a topic. Here my go to example is gun rights organizations. It generally easy to find sources saying a gun rights organization (often the NRA) is spending huge amounts of money to oppose some "common sense reform" but that doesn't really help an uninformed reader understand why they might oppose such a law. However, if the organization has published a statement saying "why we oppose X" then it seems reasonably to summarize such a statement as it helps readers understand why an organization would put such effort into stopping what many assume is an obvious rule. So my criteria in the second instance is ABOUTSELF should be allowed when an organization has published policy/action/etc statements that directly relate to the organizations actions in the real world. I don't have a great way to phrase that second case but I do think it's important to help understand why a person or organization does something. Springee (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically we don't want to include a company talking about themselves without some external reason to including it, as to avoid self-statement appearing to be promotional or platforming for the entity. --Masem (t) 03:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem and Springee, so let me try phrase that better: WP:WEIGHT can only be conferred by reliable, secondary sources. "Weight" is whether a topic should even be discussed on wikipedia. But once WP:WEIGHT has been conferred, then WP:ABOUTSELF is allowed subject to the constraints already listed at WP:ABOUTSELF (e.g. no promotional or exceptional claims). WP:WEIGHT can't be conferred by WP:ABOUTSELF (except in trivial cases like birthday) so we can't use WP:ABOUTSELF about anything that has not appeared in reliable, secondary sources. Does I understand you correctly? VR _talk 01:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

WEIGHT has nothing to do with how we determine what is included, but how to judge what to include when there are multiple viewpoints to consider. Notability is the guideline to judge when we have sufficient coverage to include a topic on an article. And particularly for organizations, we have a narrow WP:NORG that limits the types of sources for notability to avoid promotional articles on WP. But once notability is met we can include primary sourced material. But this is still whether we don't want to include a company's advocacy unless that itself was the subject of attention from a third-party or in response to a third-party , as discussed. --Masem (t) 03:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

WEIGHT has a lot to do with what gets included. Tiny minority POVs get kicked out of articles precisely because of weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful that "exceptional claims" isn't used to censor the motivations behind the actions of the article subject (organization, BLP etc). That an person holds a particular opinion may not be a controversial claim even if the specific opinion is. If Jim said, "I can fly" before jumping off the bridge we don't treat Jim said he could fly as exceptional even if we think Jim can fly is exceptional. The difference being the first explains Jim's thinking/rational. So long as we know Jim said that (and for argument sake assume it's Jim's view) then it's not controversial that Jim said it (and for argument sake) feels it to be true. Of course it would be exceptional to assume Jim had the physical ability to fly like Superman. There was a previous discussion about this subject here [[6]]. Springee (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee's examples all sound right to me. ABOUTSELF exists so that editors can include things like people/organizations denying controversial accusations, telling their side of the story, etc.

Also, Vice regent, it's not just "reliable secondary sources" that matter for weight. Reliable independent sources matter, too. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. (Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good, either.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of headlines

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Again? Maybe this should be in the FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this article in line with Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

Latest comment: 4 years ago156 comments20 people in discussion

This article is at odds with Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. I edited this article to bring them in line. MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. The policy already tells people to read WP:RS, so repeating what RS says is duplicative bloat.

That said... if there is some sort of conflict between this policy and a guideline, then the better approach would be to amend the guideline to match this policy. WP:V is a core policy after all. It should take precedence. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

... Or to incorporate content from that guideline if we believe it appropriate for the policy, after reaching consensus. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay made a number of undiscussed changes to WP:USESPS before coming here to "bring them in line". Schazjmd (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

First, I did try to discuss here, but I apparently didn't hit Submit after my last Preview, sorry. Yes, I edited Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works also, because it was internally inconsistent with itself and disorganized. If anyone doesn't like those edits, let's discuss them there. As for this article, editors need a concise definition of SPS and concise guidelines for when they're acceptable and when they're not, and that's what's missing here. Also, it's more accurate and appropriate to class SPS as "May or may not be reliable" rather than "Usually not reliable." Indeed, Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works characterized SPS as such in several places (before my edits). MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct: there is a conflict between this article and WP:USINGSPS, including the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Afaic, the definition there is clearly mistaken, and I've opened the discussion WT:USINGSPS#Definition is misleading on its talk page. In my opinion, the discussion here is dependent upon prior resolution there and cannot profitably go forward without it, or the discussions should be merged in an appropriate venue. Michaelbluejay cannot be faulted for attempting to foster consistency among policy pages, so discussion following this recent series of changes will hopefully lead to improvements. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, WP:USINGSPS should be cleaned up before bringing this article in line with it. I'll check the discussion there and see if there's anything I can contribute. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelbluejay, at least for right now, I've reverted your re-ordering, because it made the changes seem more significant than what they really were. Here's a decent diff for anyone who is interested in seeing how few material changes he made to the wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The "bringing in line with" choice of words sort of confused matters. It sort of implies that making a core policy become consistent with a supplementary page is itself a reason to change the core policy.North8000 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The point of “supplementary pages” is to EXPAND on concepts that are presented in the policy or guideline. That means a) the supplement should conform to the policy (not the other way around), and b) the supplement will contain DETAILS that are NOT necessarily included in the policy. That said... I welcome the opportunity to bring the supplement back into line with this policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The actual policy is that you make all the conflicting pages reflect the current community consensus, regardless of which pages say "policy" or "guideline" or "supplement" or anything else at the top. Also, relevantly, that page explains a concept that is found in multiple policies and guidelines, not just this one. We can't bring a page "in line" with just one of them. The definition of a self-published source needs to be the same in WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:NOT, and more. The community will never stand for us claiming that a bio about an employee is self-published if it's at a government agency's website but non-self-published if it's at a university website (even though WP:NPROF would appreciate it), or self-published on a small business's website but non-self-published on a large business's website (even though that was tried on this talk page years ago). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion about changing the definition of self-published in any policy page should take place at WP:VPP, not at Wikipedia Talk:USINGSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, if there were actually a definition of that term in any policy page, I would probably agree with you (WT:V would be another reasonable location). But there isn't, so it logically follows that there can't be any discussion about changing it. There's no definition in any policy page to talk about changing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, my point is that a change to a policy (including adding a definition that isn't there) needs to be a community-wide discussion at WP:VPP. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It is normal for discussions about this policy to happen on this page. (I haven't seen Michael proposing any changes to the definition, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it matters where the discussion is held, but we do want the wider community to be involved... especially if we are contemplating more than minor tweaks )and changing the definition is definitely more than a minor tweak). So... the discussion should probably be at least ADVERTISED at the pump. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To basically summarize, "self-published" should not only includes the situation where the person that wrote the material also controls the "publication medium" which is what WP:V already gives, but as we're finding out to be clearer, should also cover the situation when the the author controls the publication process. That is, this would be an approach that would cover the Forbes Contributor model that we know there's no editorial involvement between the author clicking "submit" and the appearance on Forbes.com - we currently don't call that self-published because, well, Forbes.com owns the site, but if we extend the idea to cover the process and not just the medium, then it covers that and things like open journals w/ no peer-review process, Medium.com and a bunch more questionalbe sites cleanly. --Masem (t) 00:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I call those Forbes Contributor blog posts self-published, and I know that I'm not the only editor with that view. Whenever the same person/organization/entity controls what's written and when/whether/how it sees the light of day, then it's self-published.
- https://www.lexico.com/definition/self-publish specifies "independently and at one's own expense", which is a formulation that may appeal to some editors, because it includes the Forbes Contributors/Medium/HuffPo bloggers, the ebook and invented-my-own-publishing-house publishers, and the business/org websites, but could be construed to exclude government websites and publications (because although the government agencies publish their materials "independently" in some sense, the taxpayers pay the expenses). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note about the Forbes Contributor model... While it may be defined as a form of "self-publishing", it's important to keep in mind that editors do review each post after publishing, make minor tweaks, and occasionally remove them. There is some editor involvement within a certain period of time. Also, there is a threshold associated with a writer becoming a contributor in the first place. They are vetted based on their expertise and reputation. I get that the process of self-publishing is being called out here, but it should be clear that they are not in the same category as some enthusiast who creates their own site or publishes through a social media platform. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

While the Forbes.com contributor model uses a nominal amount of editor involvement, the lack of editorial oversight associated with Forbes.com contributors is well-documented by the Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News, and The Outline. Since Forbes.com contributors rarely have their articles reviewed, these articles receive a similar level of editorial oversight as self-published sources; as a result, Forbes.com contributors are considered equivalent to self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's make some progress on this. Can someone suggest a good workable definition of SPS? Currently, this policy doesn't offer any definition, which is not helpful to editors seeking guidance. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, going off the way I'm thinking, possible language would be Self-published works are those where the author of the content has direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial checks prior to publication. (This is just a staring point). I feel this doesn't disrupt how SPS are currently used nor affect how past RS decision on SPS would affected (eg cases like SPLC , Quackwatch, etc.) --Masem (t) 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is easier to understand/apply than the current definition, though I know the concern over the current definition isn't that it's unclear, it's that it's not accurate. What if we add a qualifier ("SPS are *generally* sources in which the author and publisher are the same"), keep the list of examples of SPS and non-SPS (which is the most helpful bit), and expand that list to deal with concerns about sources not covered by the stricter definition?

Also, I'd like to hear examples of sources which fail the current, strict definition, and why. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the problem isn't "failing" the definition, but people not understanding what it means for the author to be the publisher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is: Is there a way to SUCCINCTLY explain what it means for the author to be the publisher? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but whether there is or not, a few acceptable/unacceptable examples will go a long way towards clarifying. Since we haven't made much progress, I will be bold and edit as follows: (1) Recast SPS as "may or may not be acceptable" (more in line with WP:USINGSPS), and (2) provide a starting definition (not really acceptable to not define SPS at all!), and (3) provide some acceptable/unacceptable examples. -17:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that the average editor probably presumes that when we say "author is same as publisher" that publisher refers to ownership of the place where it is published, and not "the person that does the process of publishing". Perhaps the way to say it "a self-published source is where the author of the material is generally the same person that directly processes the publication of that material." --Masem (t) 05:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a "learner"-stage editor who has been trying to make sense of this, I agree with your comment re: how typical editors likely interpret "publisher," but I might say something like "the person(s) who determine whether the work gets published," as there are situations where the publishing decision involves more than one person. I also think that an analogous situation applies to "author": a typical editor probably presumes that when we say "author is same as publisher" that "author" refers to the person(s) who wrote the text, not the person(s) or organization that controls the creation of the text; the writer may not be the author, as when someone is employed to write sales material for an organization, is given an assignment by a boss to create certain material, and the material is published with the organization's name identified and the writer's name not identified. That is, in that case author=publisher not because the writer determines whether the work is published, but because the organization is both author and publisher. But it's important to be clear that just because someone writes something as an employee, that doesn't always make the employer the author; for example, faculty at research universities are employed by the university and publishing research is part of their job, but the university isn't the author of a professor's research publications.

In trying to sort out when author=publisher, I'd also run into problems when more than one person has significant input into the writing and/or more than one person has control over whether a work gets published, which is why I raised a question at the RS/N about whether online forums with editorial boards are SPS (and now that I'm getting clearer on all of this, my take on my own question is that a given online forum might have a mix of SPS and non-SPS works, depending on the specifics of a given work that's published there). It may be that author=publisher invites misinterpretation, and it should be shifted to something like "person(s) controlling creation"="person(s) controlling publication," recognizing that because there may be more than 1 person on one or both sides, it's possible for there to be inequality even if person A is involved on both sides (e.g., if an editor at an online forum with an editorial board creates an article but may jointly make a decision about whether it can be published there along with 1 or more other editors there, then the article isn't SPS even though the editor who wrote it is also involved in the decision to publish it). And as Mathglot noted here [7], it's important to help WP editors not think of SPS in terms of where a work appears, with the "where" being uniformly SPS or not-SPS. I think that echoes this idea of shifting from "publisher" to "the person(s) controlling the process of publishing" or "the person(s) who determine whether the work gets published." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Something along the lines of Masem's definition would be most universal. If itis necessarily a bit abstract, the more common / prescriptive words can be given as an example. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My attempted improvements were reverted again. That's fine, as long as we're moving towards coming up with a working definition, and giving examples of acceptable/unacceptable use, but we don't seem to be doing that. Either my edits should stand, or others should step up to try fixing the problem. Right now, the guidance to editors on the topic of SPS seems pretty lacking. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Don't make non-trivial edits to this key policy page without consensus. Zero^talk 05:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MichaelBluejay, that's not how it works. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, we're going to have to come to an agreement on whether the definition of SPS needs to be revised. Because of the "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" rule, the definition of SPS has significant implications for which sources can be used as RS for statements that fall under BLP. As a simple example, if government publications are generally SPS, and if the Mueller Report is among them (in that the government is both the author and the publisher), then we cannot use the Mueller Report as a source for a statement about any of the people who were charged in the Special Counsel investigation. That strikes me as a well-intentioned policy (BLPSPS) having unintended and inappropriate side-effects because of the SPS definition. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sympathy for this, but there is also something to be said for the view that "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people", while well-intentioned, always cast too wide of a net. The idea that the self-published views of experts should not be allowed in commentary within the BLPs of others within their fields of expertise, for example, has always struck me as nonsensical. Obviously comment based on professional rivalry or currying favor should be excluded (not to mention otherwise undocumented biographical material), but I am not convinced that these biases are less present in independently published material, anyway. So yes, too wide of a net - a general caution coupled with more precise guidance about situations never to use SPS would strike me as a more fruitful approach. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is more likely a case of "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" casting too wide a net. There isn't much discussion on the WP:BLP talk page. I did link from there to the discussion here and a couple of other relevant discussions (e.g., [8]). Perhaps the best solution is something like "SPS can be used for third-party BLP statements on rare occasions, as long as the author(s) meet WP's definition of an expert source for the statement in question and there's good reason to believe that it has been through some significant internal fact-checking" and maybe adding "and the claim should made in the source's voice." (I don't know what the "right" solution is, just trying to give some examples of how to cast a slightly wider net, as may be appropriate, while not making it so wide to create a lot of new problems). As an aside, as I continue to think about the Mueller Report (because I'm working on the United States v. Flynn page), it may be that I also misjudged that in some ways, as the Special Counsel's Office/DOJ carried out some of the interviews and is a party in the legal cases, so that document may be first-party rather than third-party for some statements. I have to say that as a newish editor, it's not easy to know whether I'm abiding by all of the rules properly; there's a lot to learn / think through. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At least to me, BLPSPS, when it comes to SPS by recognized experts in the field that BLP is involved with, should be limited to when it is discussing the person directly. Or to flip it, a recognized expert in the field talking about a facet that is related to the BLP but wholly distanced from being about the BLP should be okay. A hypothetical case would be the discussion of a fad diet populated by a BLP (but not notable for its own page) with a recognized nutritionist itemizing the faults of that diet but not touching any commentary about the person that created it, though ideally we'd want MEDRS sources to even being doing that (and to that end, we'd only be discussing the fad diet is so far as to explain broad claims and not any "scientifically" sound facts it may present. --Masem (t) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I've been working on the page for the court case US v. Michael Flynn (which arose out of Mueller's investigation), and in the background section, I'd like to be able to mention that in addition to the 1/24/17 interview that led to Flynn's false statements charge, he was interviewed 4 times in Nov. of 2017 before making his plea deal. He was also interviewed over a dozen more times during his cooperation period. There's oodles about the 1/24/17 interview in the media, but not so much about the later ones. I have substantiation for those post-January-2017 interviews from government sources (the Mueller Report for the first 4, and court documents for those and the later ones). These are claims about Flynn and the SCO/DOJ, not distant. I also know of MSM sources reporting things like "Mueller says in a sentencing memo that Flynn ... has provided 'substantial assistance' to the investigation, including meeting 19 times with Mueller’s team and Justice Department lawyers," but I'd like to be able to split out the pre-plea-deal from post-plea-deal interviews because of the way the article is structured, and I find it ridiculous that the SCO itself identifying the interviews in a court doc. may not be OK because it's SPS (unless it's judged to be first-party rather than third-party, since the SCO/DOJ is itself a party to the case), but a secondary MSM source simply repeating what the court docs say is OK. Or to take another example, someone introduced some quotes into the article from the court transcripts, and the BLPSPS rule says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person," so I either need to go hunting for an article that quotes them or remove them. And if MSM are simply quoting from transcripts, why is the primary document unacceptable but the secondary MSM report OK? These rules simply don't make sense to me sometimes. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there's an aspect of BLPSPS that has to do with "factual" coverage like a court case like that situation that BLPSPS can get in the way of a neutral - or in the case of Flynn, a more comprehensive/explanatory - article that may need to rely on SPS ( though I know you're looking at things like SCOTUSblog here which again, shouldn't be SPS). But that does rest on what answer we get at here. --Masem (t) 23:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A related discussion that has come up that I think tells us we are in the right direction is over at WP:RS/N about YouTube (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_YouTube) where some are arguing for a edit filter on it because the videos there are posted as an SPS, but as several oppose comments point out, YouTube is not really the "publisher" (again, back to the confusion). In other words, there's alignment on the thought processes here. --Masem (t) 23:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this article have a definition of "Self-published" or not?

I'm creating a Talk section for each problem with the SPS treatment as I see it, to see if there's consensus that each issue is indeed a problem. If so, then after that let's move on to discussing fixes. If not, then there's no point in discussing fixes to something that editors think isn't broken (though I think an objective review will conclude that WP:SPS is currently pretty deficient in providing guidance to editors).

First issue: Should this article have a definition of 'self-published' or not? Again, here I'm not asking for proposed definitions, just an opinion about whether or not the article should include a definition. If your answer is no, then why do you think the article shouldn't have a definition? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Now that I'm finally clear (I think) on what the definition means (see [9]), I find it very helpful as a learner-stage editor to have a definition. I think we should focus on making the definition clear, not delete it. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Adding my vote so we can move toward crafting a definition. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It would be helpful to explain our jargon, but we would need another discussion to nail down the definition. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

However, if there is no consensus on a suitable definition, it should not be added to the policy. It would be improper to conclude that a definition should be added if none of the proposed definitions have sufficient support. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this article mention that SPS "includes almost all websites"?

One helpful bit on WP:USINGSPS is that it says something like, "SPS includes almost all websites, except those published by traditional publishers." That seems very helpful to me. While it doesn't cover every case, it covers *lots* of them, very efficiently/succinctly.

So, Should this article say something like, "SPS includes almost all websites, except those published by traditional publishers."? Again, here I'm not asking for exact proposed wording, just an opinion about whether the article should include wording similar to this. If your answer is no, then why do you think the wording is unhelpful? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Is Google Books a traditional publisher? Many people would deny it is a publisher at all, rather just a platform that hosts works published by others. What about archive.org? Both these are used extensively and correctly. "Almost all personal websites" would be closer. Zero^talk 15:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Only if it's true. Until we have a clear, agreed-on definition of "SPS" and "traditional publisher," how do we know whether a claim like "SPS includes almost all websites, except those published by traditional publishers" is true? I suggest that we postpone consensus on this question until we all agree on the relevant definitions and determine whether we have RS evidence whether "almost all websites, except those published by traditional publishers, [are SPS]" is true, or can come up with a related claim that is true. Personally, I doubt that there's good evidence re: the percentage of websites that are SPS vs. not, but I could be wrong, and of course if a source is a RS, we can cite its claim, even if the source itself doesn't provide good evidence for the claim (one of the problems with WP's definition for RS). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if the truth of the statement could be established, how would it help editors? It wouldn't provide guidance of the form "start by assuming it's unreliable", since that would require a completely different statement: "almost all websites you will encounter when you are searching for information on a topic are unreliable". Search engines do not provide you with a random website when you search for something. Zero^talk 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether a source is SPS is a different question than whether it's RS. The intersection of the two categories is non-empty and sizeable, but so are the complements (the part of each set that lies outside the intersection). Recognizing that a source is likely to be SPS is useful in two ways: to heighten scrutiny about (1) whether it's a RS for the claim in question (though that assessment should also occur with non-SPS) and (2) whether it's a BLP claim for which thirty-party self-published sources can't be used, even when written by someone who meets WP's "expert" definition for that claim. I think it's helpful to point to the part of the RS discussion that notes that the acceptability of a source is context-specific, and if it's true that most websites and many paper publications are SPS, add the need for heightened scrutiny. But, it's certainly possible to address the latter issues without including a sentence like "SPS includes almost all websites, except those published by traditional publishers," so I'm open to changing my mind, and you've shifted me in that direction. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is true, and (more pointfully), telling editors this helps them choose suitable sources. Look at List of most popular websites or any similar thing, and look at the types of sites.

Blogs? Self-published.
Corporate websites? Self-published (including all similar websites, such as non-profit organizations, fraternal clubs, etc.)
E-commerce? Self-published.
E-mail and mailing lists? Self-published.
Internet forum? Self-published.
Search engine? Irrelevant (because you shouldn't be citing the search results page anyway), but the non-results parts are self-published.
Social media? Self-published.
Software? Self-published (like any other corporate site).
Wikis? Self-published.

The two types of websites that we agree aren't (usually) self-published are:

Media organizations (including everything from the online copy of a daily newspaper to online-only magazines to television shows to film studios; the "corporate" part of the website [such as an "About us" page or an advertising rate sheet] is self-published, but the main contents are not)
Service sites that provide online copies of publications that you should normally cite directly (e.g., Google Books, JSTOR)
- Some of these "service" websites have mixed status (e.g., Amazon, Instagram or YouTube, where you can find both self-published videos of skateboarders recording their friends' tricks side-by-side with non-self-published official publications from media organizations such as Skateboarder (magazine)).

There is the one category that we haven't really settled on, which is whether a government website is "self-published" (because the same agency writes and makes their content available to the public) or not (because they're not publishing at their own expense). The Mueller Report could be classified either way, depending upon the definition you choose. Mostly, in practice, I think that we treat typical government websites (e.g., the sort of page that tells you whether you need a permit to cut down a tree) as if they're self-published, and more formal publications (e.g., annual reports of school statistics, or the decennial US census) as non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and now think it's important not to make claims about "websites," as a website may include a mix of SPS and non-SPS. For example, Yahoo.com is on the list of most popular websites, and a lot of Yahoo pages are self-published, but Yahoo News is a mixture of news aggregation (e.g., from the Associated Press) and original edited news articles that are similar to news published in more traditional sources. If "more formal publications" from the government are considered non-SPS, then government websites (e.g., justice.gov) also have a mix, and some will have a mix anyway (e.g., loc.gov has a mix of material written by Library of Congress staff and material originally published elsewhere, as does nih.gov). Ditto for university websites. Personal blogs are SPS, but some academic blogs have sizeable editorial boards and are probably a mix of SPS (for articles written by their editors) and non-SPS (for articles written by guest authors and submitted for publication, where the article may be rejected or go through significant editing). I think that a claim about "websites" encourages people to overgeneralize, and if we're going to include this kind of statement, it makes more sense to say something like "Almost all websites include some self-published material, and a vast number of websites are exclusively SPS. However, a given website may have a mixture of self-published and non-self-published material, and WP editors should focus on whether the specific material being used as a source for a claim is or isn't self-published." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, over-generalization is common in source discussions. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the claims about "websites" is (a) helpful overall and (b) recognizes that, in practice, when editors are trying to make a case for citing a 'website' as a reliable source, that they're almost never trying to make a case for citing 'this book/newspaper/academic journal I happen to be able to read online'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with WhatamIdoing that the statement is true. Including the statement helps editors understand that the websites cited on Wikipedia are not a representative sample of websites on the Internet. Editors who are aware that the average website is self-published are likely to evaluate websites more carefully before citing them as sources. — Newslinger talk 06:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the article include some examples of acceptable and non-acceptable use?

Examples are very helpful to editors. WP:USINGSPS provides several helpful examples, but that supplement is unofficial and so not authoritative, and I doubt there's any interest in elevating the supplement to be official policy. WP:USINGSSPS is too long to be included in this article, but simply including some good/bad examples of SPS wouldn't take much room and would go a long way towards clarifying how SPS should/should not be used.

So, Should this article include some examples of acceptable and non-acceptable use? Again, I'm not asking for which examples should be included, just whether it's a good idea to provide this kind of guidance to editors. If your answer is no, then why do you think that examples are not helpful? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

~~Yes~~, they're helpful. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC) [Edit: I've reconsidered. I think it's important to have examples, but I don't think it's important to have them here rather than at USINGSPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)]

I don't think so, or, if we include them, the examples should be very brief. USINGSPS is a much better place to put examples and 'worked examples' of how we concluded that these sources were(n't) self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I think policies are more suitable for explaining broader concepts rather than specific examples. Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Self-published sources (online and paper) (WP:RSSELF) is the guideline that elaborates on WP:SPS, and any examples would be more appropriate there. WP:USINGSPS would be even better. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, WP:SPS links to this policy (Verifiability), not Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. So, any definition and examples (if there are to be any) should go here, not there. Also, WP:USINGSPS isn't a good place to have the only examples, because it's not policy. When I refer to WP:USINGSPS, the bad editors I battle will surely dismiss it as unofficial. Either the examples should go here, in Verifiability, or WP:USINGSPS should be elevated to be official policy. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me clarify my sentence, since it was ambiguous: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Self-published sources (online and paper) (WP:RSSELF) is the guideline that elaborates on WP:SPS, and any examples would be more appropriate in WP:RSSELF than in WP:SPS. The reason I consider WP:USINGSPS an even better location is that policies and guidelines are intended to be stable, and naming specific sources (that can vary over time) would be a better fit for a supplement. See WP:RSP and WP:ELP for other examples of supplements. If someone dismisses your argument because you cited a supplement, you can follow up by explaining how that argument is consistent with the corresponding policy or guideline. — Newslinger talk 07:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this article characterize SPS are "usually not reliable" and "largely not acceptable"?

The article currently characterizes SPS and "usually not reliable" and "largely not acceptable". In fact, it seems that's not true; there are a whole host of reasons in which SPS are both reliable and acceptable. WP:USINGSPS lists several.

So, Should this article characterize SPS as 'usually not reliable' and 'largely not acceptable', or should we instead direct editors to exercise caution with SPS, and then provide some guidance on acceptable/non-acceptable use? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as it's uncertain whether the assertions of "usually" and "largely" are true, and phrasing it this way increases the likelihood of editors dismissing SPS as a category, even if a given SPS is reliable and acceptable for the claim for which it's cited. We should encourage editors to make case-by-case determinations for SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's premature to be asking this question. SPS should be dismissed as a category for some types of claims (e.g., anything medical), and embraced for other types of claims (e.g., Joe Film announced his engagement on Twitter). Twitter appears (very often as a ref) in more than 40K articles right now, and Facebook in 60K, so I'm unconvinced that people are rejecting them inappropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think I understand your point that some SPS are good and some are not, but I don't see why you think it's premature to ask whether we should characterize SPS are "largely not acceptable" or not. From your discussion, it seems like you agree that "largely not acceptable/usually not reliable" is too broad, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

As for whether valid SPS are rejected inappropriately, come on an editing walk with me and I can show you examples. That's what prompted my attempts to get SPS defined. I can't edit in my area of expertise in part because I'm battling bad editors who are quick to revert valid SPS. I'm on an editing holiday until that's resolved. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No. I think it's far better to say that SPS should be scrutinized for acceptability, rather than broadly paint them with a "largely not acceptable" brush. So, with two No's and no Yes's, does this count as consensus to change the wording? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This question should be asked in an RfC and advertised on WP:CENT, considering its scope. — Newslinger talk 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it! -MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Let's define self-published sources

Consensus above is that the policy should define SPS (which makes sense; a policy about SPS isn't as useful if no guidance is provided as to what SPS is). Since defining SPS is a significant edit of the policy, it will benefit from having a greater number of editors involved in creating the definition. Please discuss below. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus above (no objections) was that this policy should define SPS (which makes sense, because it's impossible to apply the policy if we don't know what SPS is and what it's not). So let's hear some suggested definitions, please. (I'd offer mine, except that I don't have strong feelings about what the definition should be (just that we should have one), and when I copied the one from WP:USINGSPS (publisher=author), it was rejected.) Please suggest an actual definition, not just a discussion that doesn't include an actual definition. If no actual definitions are proposed, I intend to try again to insert the "author=publisher" definition from WP:USINGSPS. About that, Whatamidoing thinks WP:USINGSPS is a good place for acceptable/non-acceptable examples of SPS, so if WP:USINGSPS is trustworthy, then it ought to be trustworthy for the definition. If it's not trustworthy for the definition, then it's not trustworthy for acceptable/unacceptable examples either, and the acceptable/unacceptable examples should be included in this policy. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My proposal: "Material is self-published if the person(s) who controlled the material’s creation = the person(s) who controlled whether the material was made available to the public."

And then in clarification, note things like the following (or, if it seems more appropriate, leave some or all of these things for the USINGSPS page):

1) “Control” is important, as a person writing promotional materials for a company ultimately isn’t the person(s) who controls the creation; rather the employer controls that, and the writer is employed to create work to specification. As part of assessing this, the existence (or not) of independent editorial staff plays a role, and we’ll need to clarify the meaning of “Independent” (e.g., without a conflict of interest for the material in question, able to reject that material for publication).

2) “Material” means the specific work that’s being used to substantiate the claim (a specific webpage, book, article, piece of music, etc.) rather than an entire website, journal, etc., as it’s possible that a given website, journal, etc., might include a mix of content that’s self-published and content that isn’t self-published. For example:

an article in an edited newspaper isn’t self-published, but the comments posted below the article on the paper's website are self-published; a standard op-ed isn’t self-published, but an editorial by the editorial board is self-published, as are ads
an article on a website with independent editorial decision-making isn’t self-published, but a live-blog on the same website is self-published
an article on a site like Forbes.com might be self-published, while another article originated in Forbes magazine and is not self-published
a government webpage at nih.gov may be self-published (e.g., the overview for grant applications) or not (e.g., the PubMed pages that provide information about journal articles)
a professor’s own page on a university website is likely self-published, but an edited article on the university’s website isn’t

That said, a website, book, etc. may consist entirely of self-published material (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) or may have no self-published material (e.g., books by a traditional publisher). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it! -MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This definition covers many self-published sources, but I think it excludes some types of sources that are commonly considered self-published. Let's use Wikipedia itself as a counterexample. Wikipedia consists primarily of user-generated content, which is a type of self-published material. Wikipedia does have Articles for creation, a process in which content created by editors is reviewed by another editor who was not involved in its creation; this uninvolved editor determines whether the content gets published. However, articles that are published through AfC are still considered self-published and user-generated because the AfC review process is not rigorous enough to ensure that the published content is reliable. I think it would be more helpful for the definition of self-published to focus on the comprehensiveness of the source's editorial oversight, since this is the factor that directly influences the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that is demanded of a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: What's your proposed definition? (Michaelbluejay is asking us for "an actual definition, not just a discussion that doesn't include an actual definition.") -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderated content doesn't change self-published, because its post-process. And we can distinguish this from , say, redactions and errata made by RSes with editorial control as there, we expect those sources to say what was changed and why, where with moderation, that's just done without comment. So this all still works in the framework of sites like Wikipedia, IMDB, Know Your Meme, etc all being self-published with moderators. The key with the self-published part is the lack of editorial review and intervention before the proverbial "PUBLISH" button is hit. --Masem (t) 14:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite (a key, maybe) because even if someone on Wikipedia, has an editorial review and intervention before the post-button is pushed (even if the button is pushed by the editor, not the author), it is still self-published/user generated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, whether an editorial review can be done on WP before it is posted, that's optional, sure, but there is no minimum requirement or limitation in the publishing process chain that brings in another other editorial review before the user that wrote the material hits the publish button. Whereas at a reliable newspaper, the author sends to editorial review, and after any back-and-forth, that's sent to a publishing department or to the website department that prep and then push to print/publish at minimum; those are required steps and thus eliminate the self-publishing factor, if you get what I mean. A self-publishing route that could employ editorial control if desired will still be called self-publishing for our purposes if that control is not a mandated feature. --Masem (t) 15:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, not quite. There was actually a discussion recently raised about the Signpost, which is a "newspaper" (some say) and published on Wikipedia and it asserts some kind of mandated editorial review, and one or two people vaguely tried to argue such was not self-published, although the consensus was clearly that it is. It would not become, not-self-published merely by taking all review off Wikipedia before putting it in the edition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We'd still be looking at the lowest-common denominator - that being the whole of WP, which is self-published. But what key is here is to arrive at a broad definition that works 99% of the time and allows for common sense discussion for outliers, and not to get a mechanical exact definition to account for all possibilities. The current SPS definition is far too narrow to reflect where it should be and makes discussing what is an SPS difficult to argue (eg with things like Forbes contributors and YouTube videos, broadly, because of the impression that "publisher" must be the website owner). Getting use close enough and letting contested cases be determined on talk pages as necessary is fine than the current status. --Masem (t) 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, that probably arises from the tendency of some to take every section of a policy and read it out-of-context. If someone cannot or will not get that what we really want are professionally published books and journals from entities with a good reputation (as in WP:SOURCE), and the farther you get away from that the more problematic and grey it becomes, they just won't get the point, no matter what we write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This will always be the case for any policy or guidelines. What's core is that too many editors, due to how the current statement on SPS here is written, walk away presuming that SPS extend only to case where the author controls the publishing medium, like their blog. That's a common case of an SPS but it omits the broader scope that should be included for purposes of using SPS to evaluate sources, particularly for BLPSPS evaluations. There will still be the BURO applications of that, but at least we are starting from a point that's more appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No. First, you point to an essay, the reason it's an essay is it does not have general consensus. Whatever happens, this should not be done here, it's at best a guideline issue, if you think you can come up with a workable guideline that is always going to have play in the joints (sometimes on Wikipedia, as in life, you do have learn to live with uncertainty). The idea of framing it in concrete policy stone is quixotic at best, and unworkable in detail -- such detail issues among other things are why we have a whole noticeboard to discuss specific pieces of information. In short, try to actually buy into, we are not here to (re)publish or give undue prominence to anyone's or groups' original thoughts whether Wikipedian's or otherwise, nor string them together in articles. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I'm confused about what you're saying "no" to (to defining SPS? to my proposed definition? to something else?). WP:V explicitly refers to SPS [10] without defining them. Most of us think that a definition is helpful, and I attempted to improve the WP:USINGSPS definition based on issues people raised here and on the talk page there. I'm not wedded to my proposal. Do you have a different definition to propose? FWIW, as a newish editor, it wasn't at all clear to me where to get help determining whether a given source is a SPS, as compared with whether it's a RS, and part of the problem that I've encountered is that people tend to overgeneralize and say that an entire publication (website, journal, ...) is SPS or not, rather than focusing on whether a specific article in the publication is SPS, where that specific article is the one that someone would like to use for a citation. (Granted, sometimes we can say that an entire publication is exclusively SPS or exclusively non-SPS, but other times publications have a mix of self-published and non-self-published material.) -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem and Alanscottwalker, I'd be delighted if both of you would propose a working definition of SPS. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (Edit: Masem, I'm sorry, I forgot that you'd offered a definition above, in a different section. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC) )

I see two shots at SPS definitions:

"Self-published works are those where the author of the content has direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial checks prior to publication." (Masem)
"Material is self-published if the person(s) who controlled the material’s creation = the person(s) who controlled whether the material was made available to the public. (FactOrOpinion)

Shall we use one of these as a starting point for revision, and if so, which one? Or are we ready to just pick one? While they're both good, I give the edge to FactOrOpinion's, either as a starting point or as a finished product. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Between these two definitions, I have a strong preference for Masem's definition, which considers the level of editorial control. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no harm in creating a definition, but I do see harm in various proposed new uses above (characterizations, over generalizations). I prefer Masem's. North8000 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of creating a definition but I think it could be hard. I think we all agree that an expert posting something to his personal blog is self published even if they are an acknowledged expert in the field. One person did the composition, fact checking, editing and releasing the article. But what if there is more than one person involved? What if we have a two person blog where one person writes and the other reviews/edits? Probably still SPS. What if a company issues a press release? A researcher at Honda releases an article about vehicle emissions. That article is reviewed by Honda's PR and legal team before release. Thus it is not self published by an individual. How would we categorize that? Self published by Honda? Does it become "the opinion of Honda" vs the opinion of Mr Smith working for Honda? I think this question can be summarized by "what counts as editorial review"? When we say "self published" are we referring to just the person who literally typed up the words or do we consider if the "editor" has a vested interest in the content? Even that last part can get questionable. For example, not long ago the NYT editorial board made their hostility towards more liberal gun laws clear. Does that mean that their editorial control is compromised with respect to gun control articles. I ask simply because I think we need to be able to say why Honda releasing a report on emissions would be different than the NYT releasing a report on the need for tighter gun laws. My personal feeling is the Honda emissions paper would be a SPS while the NYT article wouldn't but other than saying "The NYT is a news paper" I'm having trouble thinking of a concrete way to differentiate the two. Springee (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

For purposes of a definition, we shouldn't worry about all the tiny details, and I would be perfectly fine with a guideline or essay page to explain it out further, if needed. This is also what talk page or RS/N discussion pages would be for, to work out edge cases.

But as to your examples, and these are just my feelings:

One writes, one edits/publishes: Assuming that the writer had to go through the editor, that would not be self-published, though we can beg the question of how reliable that is for a group that small. If the editor step was optional, then that's still an SPS.
Press release after PR editing: Not self-published, but that's a primary source.
The Honda paper : Not self-published, but again primary, also would likely fail the SCIRS check if it was being used that way (lack of peer-review, which is different from editing).

In otherwords to your point, the entity that stands in the way of the writer and publisher does not need to be independent in thought of the writer, but it should be standard and required stage of the publication process, as to avoid that being an SPS. But the resulting work can raise several other flags related to appropriate uses of sources that could make it inappropriate to use. --Masem (t) 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why a "Press release after PR editing" and the Honda report are not self-published. Seems to me that the organization controls both the creation and the publication, even when different people are doing it. The USINGSPS page says "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." Do we need to spend more time looking at specific examples, to help surface what we think the definition should rule in or out for cases that are in the middle (neither clearly SPS, like a personal blog, nor clearly not-SPS, like a peer-reviewed journal)? This is the reason that I worded my proposal as "the person(s) who controlled the material’s creation" rather than "the author of the content." It's OK with me to say the latter, but we need to make it clear that the "author" may not be the person who does the writing and may instead be the organization the writer works for, even if the writer's name appears on the text. If it's helpful to look at other borderline examples, I'd previously asked on the RS/N whether the online law/security forum Just Security is or isn't SPS, and there was no consensus, perhaps because the definition isn't clear enough, perhaps because people automatically assume that blogs are SPS, perhaps for some other reason. There also doesn't seem to be consensus about which judicial rulings are/aren't SPS. Either way, I think it should be made clearer somewhere (for newish editors like me) that people can also go to the RS/N for help determining whether an expert source is SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In much of this lengthy discussion, sometimes editors are conflating self-published with unreliable. e.g., "Oh, we shouldn't call such-and-such source self-published because it's usable." Let's remember that self-published and unacceptable are two totally different things. Here we're looking only for a definition of self-published, not whether the SPS is usable or not. We can list acceptable/non-acceptable uses of SPS in WP:SPS and/or WP:USINGSPS.

Next, I'd like to point out that the debate about what does and does not constitute SPS is precisely why we need a definition. How can the WP community apply this policy if nobody knows what it means?

Finally, getting us back on track: It seems there's greater support for Masem's definition. What tweaks should we make to it, to make it helpful to editors seeking guidance? My personal preference is to not mess with it so much, as expanding it to try to make it cover every possible case could wind up making it unwieldy. We can leave the details to bullet-point examples of what is/is not SPS. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on Masem's proposed definition: "Self-published works are those where the author of the content has direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they [publish] directly through their own web site or social mIedia account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial checks prior to publication."

Isn't there a danger in this definition of SPS? If I understand correctly, the way this is worded could be used as a loophole. All the SPS has to do is include a page from a reliable source and then say the citation meets the criterion of editorial oversight. Meantime, the user is being pointed to the SPS as a whole, and the SPS as a whole may not meet the bar of a reliable source. Once you link to something on an SPS, you are linking to the entire site, not just the specific citation. For example (and something like this actually happened, not in Wikipedia, but as to Google Search), a white supremacist site could be used if it published a reprint of an article about Martin Luther King, Jr. from a reliable source--would it not then meet this SPS definition? Perhaps I'm not understanding the definition of "author" and "publisher." Is the "author" in my example the writer of the reprint or the owner of the SPS; is the "publisher" the reliable source (news journal) or the owner of the SPS? There are problems in trying to nail down an airtight definition of SPS. The WP Policy as stated now has a clarity that might be obfuscated by this, don't you think?Trouver (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, we'd only be talking about what controls there are regarding the original writing /content, and not included/quoted material.

What my definition is trying to be clear is that the "author" is the person or persons that put together the piece, assemble all the facts, and prepare the near-final piece, while the "publisher" is the person/persons that do the editorial review (this is not just spell checking but making sure the work is kosher for the entity it represents, fact-checking elements, etc.) and then do is the equivalent of typesetting and preparing for print or web publication. In this format, we want sources where the "author" and "publisher" are distinct different groups - not necessary different entity (that would be the peer-review model in academic journals), but definitely need to be different assigned permanent roles in the entity. A self-published source is where that distinction is not clear : a single-person entity where "author" is "publisher", a small team that has diffuses jobs so there's no distinction who authors and who editors, the Forbes contributor model where there's post-posting oversight but there's no effective barrier to a contributor from posting (the "editors" are not the "fact-checking" type), and so on. Ad Michaelbluejay makes a very important point here that this definition by no means alludes to anything about reliability of the source; an SPS by this defintion could still be reliable, and a non-SPS could be unreliable based on their history; this is merely an evaluation of their process. --Masem (t) 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's which I'm fine with creating a definition but expanding rules that are based on overgeneralizations. Actual reliability goes by the expertise and objectivity of the author in the context of the particular topic at hand, with the editor layer either enhancing that, or helping confirm it for quick wiki-assessment purposes. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And if we need to have more clarity/definition, a separate guideline page (Or adding to WP:RS for that purpose) would be where to talk more. And again, this should be seen as the starting point for consensus-building discussions if there are any questions. Key is mostly getting past the idea that "SPS means author owns publication site" that is a bit too limited. --Masem (t) 16:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And how should people handle it if we can't tell whether the editing is "just spell checking" vs. "making sure the work is kosher for the entity it represents, fact-checking elements, etc."? For example, I was told by an experienced editor that s/he had never "seen anyone call a published [judicial] opinion in a recognized reporter self-published. To do so would be an overly-strict reading of the definition" ([11]). But how do we know whether the editing that takes place in the process of preparing a court document for publication in a bound volume is spell checking and type-setting vs. fact-checking? My impression is that it's only the former, but if that's the case, then either the judgement that judicial rulings aren't SPS is wrong, or the definition needs tweaking. Or consider the Mueller Report. I doubt that anyone outside the Special Counsel's Office did fact checking, only checking for what needed to be redacted. But I don't know, and I don't see where to look it up. So is that report SPS? These sources themselves may not make it explicit whether there are independent "editorial checks prior to publication" for something other than typos and type-setting. It seems to me that some sources are clearly SPS, some are clearly not SPS, but it's for the group where it isn't clear that we most need a good definition to help us figure out whether it is/isn't SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my view, judicial opinions are 100% SPS. They're not subject to editorial review. Also, they're primary sources for the opinion, and while they're secondary sources for facts and legal analysis, they're self-published secondary sources and thus shouldn't be used for facts (about others) without attribution at least, but can be used to cite the legal analysis of the court making the analysis (about self). Citing a judicial opinion in an article about the case is like citing a book an article about the book. In most instances, there should be other reliable secondary sources that talk about the opinion. (If there aren't, that's a red flag that there may be a notability or DUE problem.) In other words, when writing about a landmark Supreme Court case, true secondary sources (like an analysis in The New York Times about the case) should be used as a source, rather than citing directly to the case itself. Similarly, the Mueller Report (or any organization's report) is also self-published. Thus it's a primary source for the opinions or conclusions of the report, and while it's secondary for the facts relayed, because it's self-published, it shouldn't be used as a source for those facts except with attribution. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We do want to be careful to simply call judgements as SPS because (this goes all the way to the original questions FOO was asking) this would strictly allow the use of court rulings to be used on any case that involved a named person if BLPSPS was applied to that degree, even if we're not talking negative claims about the person involved (eg Trump v. Vance). Judgments and laws/rule-making documents, as well as reports that fall out from the law-making process (which is the Mueller report) should be taken as primary, as SPS, but not in the same manner as JoeBlogger writing on his blog, as they are official records of the gov't and thus carry a special weight there. They still need to be used carefully whne used on articles that are directly about a BLP, but not broadly as BLPSPS should be taken. --Masem (t) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why calling a judgment an SPS would allow the use of court rulings on any case that involved a named person? The document written by a court ("judgment", "opinion", "decision", "ruling", whatever) is SPS by the court, not by either of the parties in the case. In other words, if a court decision says "Joe ran the red light", we can't use that in the article about Joe to say in Wikivoice "Joe ran the red light", because it's an SPS relaying facts about another. Instead, we'd have to say, "According to the court, Joe ran the red light." Right? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem meant "would strictly disallow" (per BLPSPS and/or BLPPRIMARY). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohhhhh yes that makes more sense :-D Well, in that case, yes, it would disallow statements at least without attribution, but I'd say "feature not bug". The conclusions that courts draw are, in some cases, the absolute definitive/authoritative conclusion (e.g., convicted for murder), but at the same time, those conclusions are drawn from less than "full reality"; i.e., only from admissible evidence. Juries and judges make their decisions based on a subset of all available information, according to rules that are designed to protect people's rights even at the expense of finding absolute truth. That's why acquitted doesn't mean innocent. Court decisions shouldn't be used to source statements in wikivoice; they should be attributed, in my opinion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For statements about living people, BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY disallow use even in the source's voice and even on non-biographical pages. I do understand that if secondary sources aren't reporting some fact, including it might be UNDUE, but (a) secondary sources sometimes quote primary sources, and the primary source is a better source for the quote, and (b) we're still left with the question of whether some secondary sources are/aren't SPS (e.g., articles on a site like Just Security or Lawfare, both of which have editors, but where the editors sometimes publish articles, and it's unclear whether other editors check that work prior to publication). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussed definitions, including Masem's which I prefer, are all reasonable regarding the meaning of the SPS term. But, they all expand the de-facto standard, which is sources which slam-dunk are SPS's. Might not such an expansion upset the apple cart in the various policy and guideline places that utiliize the term? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of something that's now included but that wasn't included previously? WP:USINGSPS currently defines SPS as author = publisher, so I don't think either proposal expands the definition. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple definition - a company or nonprofit internet site whose sole purpose is to publish material about itself and the activities it is involved in is a SPS - regardless of who is doing it. That is not the same as a newspaper hiring journalists to cover real world stories they're going to publish - they are not participants in the story itself. If they restricted articles to be stories about themselves and their publication's own work - then it would be self-published. An author who writes a book and pays a publishing company to design and print the material for him makes the book a SPS. A CV is a self-published source. And that is what makes a SPS blindingly obvious. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it's "blindingly obvious" whether something is a SPS, and other times it isn't. And a given website may have a mix of SPS and non-SPS material, as I tried to note in the examples here. There are also examples elsewhere in the section where people have different views about whether a source is/isn't SPS (e.g., published judicial opinions, an edited online forum like Just Security, a Honda researcher's article about vehicle emissions that's been reviewed by Honda's PR and legal team before release). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I think your definition is too narrow. There are lots of SPS works whose content is not about the author or the author's activities. For example, I author and self-publish a popular website about saving electricity. The topic has nothing to do with me, but the site is still self-published. SPS has more to do with whether there's editorial oversight, and less about the subject matter in relation to the author. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, for clarification on the matter of editorial oversight (or lack thereof) being the central thing in defining SPS.Trouver (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any new discussion for a while, are we ready to vote on Masem's definition? If so, I vote Yes. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adopting Masem's definition of SPS? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't object, but suggest that "author" be changed to "author(s)." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I also suggest that the word "publish" be inserted: "This may be when they publish directly ...," as it looks to me like there's a verb missing. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that I'm neutral or a weak support. Being a potential change to a core policy, we should be clear precise on the proposed change. Precisely what it is and where it would go in. Also, should we add any words to avoid being categorical like "typically"? North8000 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: Masem's proposed definition is in quotation marks above, and it would replace the current definition. What additional clarity are you seeking? Also, if you propose inserting "typically" (or some other word), I think it would be more helpful if you give the exact wording you propose instead of just raising it as a question. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help help nail down the details of the proposal, which means making it explicitly clear not requiring research or interpretation to know what the exact proposed change is. That said, the only Masem proposal in quotes was the one early in the process given as a "starting point". If that's it, that's fine. Regarding exactly what is coming out / being replaced, your answer was the "current definition" but I don't see one in the policy. Or are you talking about just modifying the footnotes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem's proposed definition is: "Self-published works are those where the author of the content has direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial checks prior to publication." My understanding is that is would replace "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." on Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. There was also a discussion on the latter talk page, but it got consolidated with the discussion here, in part because this is the policy page and the definition has implications for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Yes, Masem's proposal was initially a "starting point." But I'm the only other person who proposed an actual definition, and people preferred Masem's. Do you have some other actual definition to propose or a tweak of Masem's like the two tweaks I posted earlier (change "author" to "author(s)" in the first sentence and insert "publish" before "directly" in the second sentence)? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no current definition. WP:USINGSPS is a supplement, not official policy. This official policy page doesn't have a definition, which is a glaring problem, which is what we're trying to fix. Masem's definition, including the minor tweaks suggested, is: Self-published works are those ~~where~~ in which the author(s) of the content ~~has~~ have direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they publish directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial checks prior to publication. More tweaks needed? Support as is? Oppose as is? -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What does "no editorial checks" mean? One of the biggest myths in Wikipedia is that publishers check the content of things they publish. It just ain't so. Even academic publishers rely mostly on the reputation of the author plus some quick opinions from reviewers that it isn't complete nonsense. In the other direction, even vanity publishers look for stuff (copyright, libel) they could be sued for, so "without any" doesn't apply to them. I know this comment makes trouble and I don't know how to fix it, but the fact is that "self-published" really is a vague concept of which a precise definition isn't possible. I suggest "without substantial editorial oversight" as better but still imperfect. Zero^talk 04:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, "reliable source" does not mean actual reliability. If it tried for actual reliability, the definition would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it, and secondarily attributes that establish that. In Wikipedia "reliable" source it means having attributes which would tend to make it more reliable, and here we're talking about one of those attributes. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Self-published materials constitutes works for which the author handles all editorial, logistical and expenses of publication. These publications may be written by experts, however have not been scholarly peer reviewed by others who are experts in the same field to facilitate post-publication academic debate "--Moxy 🍁 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Why "expenses"? What difference does it make who paid for it? But mainly I don't like this because it contradicts the sentence "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" which is in the policy. Zero^talk 13:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Motive..is the review process skipped for more profit And does not contradicts...could be best source ever....simply not peer reviewed.--Moxy 🍁 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer Masem's definition, and I strongly object to making who shoulders the expense central to assessing whether a source is SPS. As a simple example, Moxy's definition would imply that tweets are not self-published because the person posting the tweet is not shouldering the expense. I'll point out again that "author" is itself ambiguous: is the author of a company press release the company (as is the current view in WP:USINGSPS) or the writer(s) (as is implied by Masem's definition in combination with his/her view that an edited press release would not be SPS)?

I have to say that as a newish editor, I find this discussion pretty frustrating. Many people post a comment and then disengage. It doesn't feel like we're making much progress. Maybe that's typical for WP policy discussions, and I just have to get used to it. I think Masem's definition is better than the existing definition on WP:USINGSPS and better than having no definition at all on WP:V, so I don't object to it. In hindsight, though, I think it would have been more productive for people to identify borderline cases (neither clearly SPS, such as social media posts, nor clearly non-SPS, such as peer-reviewed journal articles) and discuss whether we think they *should* be considered SPS or not and why (not), as that would help us become clearer on what the definition should address and to resolve differences of opinion (e.g., re: whether an edited press release should/shouldn't be considered SPS). For that matter, if I were approaching this as a researcher, I'd have started by searching the relevant archives for previous discussions of that sort. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As for expenses, if the author shoulders the expenses, then that's generally SPS. But if the author *doesn't* shoulder the expenses, that doesn't mean it's *not* SPS. So, it's a litmus test for only one side of the equation. So rather than trying to cram expenses into the definition, it would be better if we listed expenses in the "Examples of SPS" that should follow the definition.

Also, "scholarly peer-review" isn't a requirement for non-SPS. Articles in credible newspapers and magazines aren't SPS, and their editorial review isn't the same thing as "scholarly peer-review".

Finally, here's a reminder that we're not trying to nail down anything related to reliability; we're trying to simply define SPS. After we have a definition, we can address reliability, or lack thereof, of SPS works. -MichaelBluejay 17:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"As for expenses, if the author shoulders the expenses, then that's generally SPS." Many peer-reviewed journals operate on the model that authors pay the full cost of publication and readers pay nothing. They aren't SPS. Zero^talk 09:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, I stand corrected. This is another reason that expenses shouldn't be part of the definition. It could be in the examples that follow the definition, such as "Works in which the author pays the expenses of publication, except for peer-reviewed journals." -MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the call for objections is still open. In a few days, if there haven't been any objections, I plan to install Masem's definition, with the minor tweaks. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Michaelbluejay: Please state the precise text of what you are proposing. Zero^talk 05:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000: He did, here -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I strongly object. The part "without any editorial checks prior to publication" implies that most academic publications are self-published!! As an editor of academic journals for more than 20 years, I can tell you that journal editors are not responsible for checking the content of what they publish. Peer review does not work that way. What journal editors provide is oversight, not checking. They organize the peer review and make decisions, but they don't check. The editors of major book publishers don't perform any "checks" on what they publish either. As before, what editors provide is oversight, not checks. So as to not end on a negative note, here is a modification that I can live with:

Self-published works are those in which the author(s) of the content have direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they publish directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial oversight.

Zero^talk 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, AIUI the phrase "editorial checks" isn't meant to represent a fact-checking process. What they mean by "editorial checks" here is that someone else – someone with the power to say that this thing will never appear in the pages of J. Imp. – reads the article and decides whether this is the kind of thing that they actually want to publish in their publication. "Editorial oversight" is IMO a reasonable alternative, and it might be less susceptible to misunderstandings later. Thanks for suggesting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, object. First, 'any editorial' is too flimsy as it can just be overseeing punctuation and grammar. Per WP:SOURCE, we seek formalized and distinct author, editor, and publisher (including legal) roles (all with good reputation) to test reliability. Also, no such change should be made to this central policy, without a formal 30 day widely advertised WP:RfC, per WP:PROPOSAL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Alanscottwalker: I looked at WP:SOURCE, but didn't see any mention there of editors. If I missed it, would you quote what you're referring to? Thanks. Also, this isn't a discussion of which sources are "reliable," but of trying to develop an acceptable definition for "self-published." WP:SPS refers to self-published sources without ever defining them, and a definition is needed. Also, it seems to me that there has been a "widely advertised WP:RfC" since 8/3, when Legobot added the rfcid, but I'm not experienced with this. WP:RFCOPEN says "Legobot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the proper RfC lists." Did that not occur? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's common sense reading of SOURCE as it's how professional publishing generally works. Also, the approach to read and write SPS out of context is objectionable and bad policy writing. And per WP:PROPOSAL, the only sensible and correct sequence is to have the proposal written down to be commented upon at the beginning of the final RfC, not stop at just a sprawling, lengthy and largely impenetrable discussion among a few commentators. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Alanscottwalker: I don't understand what you mean by "the approach to read and write SPS out of context." Would you clarify? Thanks. Also, you were invited a few weeks ago to propose a better definition for SPS. If you have one, that would be great. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker that a formal RfC is needed, and I don't agree that this is it. What is required is to propose a change to the policy and have editors write "agree" or "disagree" with explanation. An unstructured spaghetti-like discussion is not enough to judge the will of the community. I'll wager that several people came here and went away again when they saw what a mess it was. Zero^talk 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, I'd be delighted if you spearheaded an effort to get SPS defined the proper way. I began this effort because I saw that SPS wasn't defined and should be. As you noted, my efforts so far haven't been very successful. I'd be happy is someone else tried to shepherd this problem towards resolution. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFC does not require that all editors should have to do is to write "agree" or "disagree" with an explanation. It's called Request for Comments, and not Request for Votes, for a reason. "Unstructured spaghetti-like discussions" are sometimes the most valuable, especially when your goal is to write a sentence. Better ways of writing the sentence often emerge during discussions. Note that WP:RFC does discourage people from trying to vote on an ever-growing list of variations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I know what WP:RFC says, but I was addressing what this issue needs. The discussion has been useful, but it hasn't been enough to establish a consensus. What we need is a structured comparison of opinions so that someone (preferably an uninvolved administrator) can come here and close the RfC with a confident assessment of which opinion has prevailed. Zero^talk 05:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Michaelbluejay asked if you'd spearhead the kind of RfC that you and Alanscottwalker prefer, but you didn't answer. Are you willing to do that? Either way, what would that RfC ask -- for people to choose between the tweaked version of Masem's definition and leaving the section without a definition / leaving the WP:USINGSPS definition as is? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling for time, but ok. The RfC will ask "It has been proposed to add a definition of 'self-published source'. Which of the following options are preferred?" followed by a short list of options that include doing nothing and my version of Masem's proposal. Let me know what other options should be included and I'll open the RfC after a day or two. It's a good idea to omit options that have no serious chance of selection. After the RfC is opened, it should be widely advertised. Zero^talk 12:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is to list two options. "No change" and the best version we can come up with here. With three or more options crazy things can happen with the math. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. For the new RfC, please also make it clear that the current definition at WP:USINGSPS is "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same," and the RfC will either change that or leave that as is too. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I like Zero's proposed definition above. I think it should be put to an RfC.VR _talk 16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zero. I agree with North800: "[L]ist two options. 'No change' and the best version we can come up with here." I think Masem's tweaked definition (in green, above) had the most support. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I added an RfC for this discussion weeks ago. What's wrong with the one I added? How would a proper one differ? It would be great if we could make some progress on this. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Michaelbluejay, my understanding is that people want the RfC to be clear at the top what the proposal and context are, so that someone can respond without having to read through the long exchange in order to understan the issue and know what wording is being proposed. So at the top, directly under the RfC notice, it would say something like:

"There is currently no definition for 'self-published sources' on WP:V, and the definition on the WP:USINGSPS guidance page is Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same. Proposal: add the following definition to WP:V and also replace the definition on WP:USINGSPS with: Self-published works are those in which the author(s) of the content have direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they publish directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial oversight. Please note your agreement or opposition to these changes."

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet another way of thinking of SPS

This doesn't change from my definition I've proposed, but enhances how it fits into our scheme about talking about WP:V and reliable sources. But one can see SPS as being the same concept of measuring a source as why we look for peer-reviewed sources and non-predatory journals in MEDRS and SCIRS. I don't know if "validation" is the best word to describe this, but the idea is that we'd prefer, particularly for controversial material, information that is sourced to a work that that material has been "validated" by others not involved in the writing process. If there is no such validation process involved before that material was published, then we should be very careful of including that material, if at all (depends on context), and if include, use with inline attribution and not in wikivoice. How much validation is a spectrum, ranging from the highly rigorous peer review of works like Nature and Science (our MEDRS/SCIRS-meeting sources), to factcheckers at major book publishers, to editors at major newspapers like the NYTimes, to online news sites with editor teams, and so forth (I don't know if this is exactly how one would order these works but it's just a concept). Way on the bottom would be predatory journals, Forbes contributors, personal blogs, and all that. Aka basically where SPS should end up.

On this concept of "validation" (again, probably not the best word), this is why BLPSPS is the key point where defining SPS right is important, we are not going to include non-validated material about a BLP on their article, and an SPS, even by an expert, is pretty much the definition of non-validated. But this notion can apply to other places as well one the approach of SPS that I have spoke of.

BUT now above the question about laws, final court decisions, etc. and the like came up, and while those can be called "self-published" in this scheme, the idea of "validation" of those is that they are "official" determinations that set the law/practice of the land, and by their nature, are automatically "validated". They are still primary sources and thus should not be used to build out an article per NOR, NPOV and notability concerns. This does not apply to all gov't documents, only these "final" determinations, as material leading to those such as testimony, memos, etc. can easily be of the SPS with non-validated claims.

This is just a thought that I think makes seeing why we want the definition of "self-published" to be "person that pushes the 'publish' button == person that created the work", as that completely skips the "validation" step that we want. --Masem (t) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that your correct analysis is leaning me towards wanting to drop this whole idea. In essence that the definition needs to vary with context of what it is citing as well as which type of Wikipedia situation is involved. And that the proposal sends us further down the false Wikipedia road that "reliability" is something inherent in the source, independent of context and that it can be defined by trappings of the sources. I'd rather work towards the big fix. On the topic at hand, maybe we should cut back to more squishy-worded "guidance" based on your proposed definition. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: When you say "drop this whole idea," what idea are you referring to: the idea of improving the definition of SPS on WP:USINGSPS and adding a definition to WP:SPS? something else? If WP:BLPSPS is going to be policy, we need a means of determining whether a source is/isn't SPS. Re: "the false Wikipedia road that 'reliability' is something inherent in the source," WP:RSCONTEXT is already policy, so is the issue more that editors need to highlight that more often? I'm not sure how that intersects the discussion here of defining SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Those are all good points. The current defacto operative definition of SPS is "something that is clearly and unarguably a SPS" and I'm leaning towards avoiding definition which would inevitably broaden and solidify what is included as a SPS. On the other topic, the relative obscurity, placement and lack of operative wording in WP:RSCONTEXT basically makes it unused. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: As a newish editor, it certainly isn't my impression that "The current defacto operative definition of SPS is 'something that is clearly and unarguably a SPS.'" I turned to the "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same" definition at WP:USINGSPS and tried to make sense of it (because that seemed like what I was supposed to use in determining whether a BLPSPS exclusion applied), and then when I was uncertain about specific sources, I asked at the RS/N, and there were differences of opinion among experienced editors about whether a given source is SPS. Presumably that wouldn't happen much if SPS were limited to "clearly and unarguably a SPS" -- the default would be that if there's a difference of opinion, it's not unarguably a SPS, and therefore it's not a SPS. Re: WP:RSCONTEXT, it strikes me as important, so if it's not used, then perhaps we should start a discussion about what changes are needed to promote its use. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works is that if some wording in policy or guideline gives guidance and principles but doesn't have operative wording, it is ignore-able and will get ignored when push comes to shove. Also, see below; I'll go along with a change.

The problem is that the current version of SPS creates too narrow a version (author=owner of site) that is used by editors on WP. We need it widened as to better include things like Forbes Contributors and the bulk of YouTube videos, social media, and other things like that. --Masem (t) 17:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I'm ambivalent about the change. But too much never gets done in Wikipedia and so if a proposed change is clearly defined (=exactly what comes out from exactly where, where and what exactly goes in exactly where) and you support it, I'll support it and argue for it. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the proposed definitions constitute a significant change. Yes, there's always going to be someone here who argues that Coca-Cola, Inc.'s advertising campaigns are "published" by their media outlets, instead of every step in the process being tightly controlled by the company. But those people are wrong, and they routinely lose those arguments. I think the key point is to get a definition (any reasonable definition) into the policy, and then to tweak the definition later, as needed. This is still a wiki. We do not have to have the absolutely most perfect possible definition on the first day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. When we can't find a rock solid consensus, and won't even try to find a broad multi-user RfC consensus based on concrete proposals, we should not have it in policy at all--the approach that should be and should have been taken is to begin with guideline, as I said long ago in this impenetrable discussion. Given the vagaries, it's a matter of 'modalities to consider', not a matter of 'this is the magic one-size-fits-all rule we dreamed up that all English users understand.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RFCs are not, and should not be, limited to simple votes on exact wording. This RFC has produced some useful comments. Whether those comments will result in placing any particular words in the page right away is not how to measure an RFC's success. The Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is not so vast that the location of the initial definition will significantly change how editors behave. This is true firstly because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions – it not infrequently takes two whole years between when I change a policy and when editors start quoting it at me as if I knew nothing about it – and secondly because the gap between "WP:V defines... and "WP:RS defines..." is trivial in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Several (including me) have made the point that context (when using the term in policies and guidelines) varies and is important. I had a look at where the term "self-published" it is mostly used. The main uses are here at wp:RS and wp:BLP. BTW not really at wp:notability. So all of the uses are focused on suitability to fufill the wp:verifiability requirement, and the more stringent form of wp:ver for BLP's. The point from both context and the wording there (e.g. exceptions for expert writers) is that the purpose and goal is reliability ,enhanced by a layer of review, not on independence of the review layer. In the place where independence would matter more (WP:notability) it does not use the SPS term. Instead it develops it's own variant of it which is centered on the purpose for creation of the material (e.g. for self-promotion) North8000 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: mentioning the names of magistrates when writing about convictions

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is nothing to do with discussing improvements to the Verifiability page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know whether it is reasonable to note the name of the magistrate to an article that mentions that someone has been convicted. Specifically, this is a question about WP:ONUS. I personally think it is relevant and important context. I think it is good to know who the magistrate is who convicted someone, and it often makes it easier to locate the court case if you know the name of the judicial officer. What are the specific objections to include this material? I can't see how it would be a violation of WP:BLP, and I certainly don't think that the judge is a trivial part of any court case! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, as long as it is not obligatory, as it might be difficult to find the information in some cases. I would expect the identity of the judge or magistrate to be a matter of public record, so should be verifiable, and where the case is notable, also relevant. As public record, it would not be a privacy concern. Are there arguments that this information should not be included?· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I personally cannot see what the issue is, but people are removing the magistrates name from the Salim Mehajer article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the strenuous resistance here. It seems to me to be pertinent information. Has anyone given a reason for wanting to omit the judge's name? Reyk _YO! 10:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Close This talk page is for "for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page." This section is off-topic and so should be speedily closed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew. However, without review of specific cases, WP:NPF is important. We don't name drop otherwise private persons. Are we considering whether this magistrate is suitably public? --Izno (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Close I agree with Andrew. It is already being discussed on Talk:Salim Mehajer and the RfC should be opened there instead. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, please close this. The actual question at the article is WP:DUE, not ONUS. ONUS just says that you have to stop edit warring to reinsert the material until there is consensus to include it. DUE is the policy that has convinced editors not to include this information at Talk:Salim Mehajer#RFC. Also, please avoid starting two RFCs in the same hour and about the same subject. (What would we do if they reached opposite conclusions?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, so the answer is that we should never mention the magistrates name. At least I have an answer! Thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the answer here is that this is the wrong place for that question. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC on defining violence in the lead of the Violence article

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Discussion partly concerns verifiability. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Wikipedia:Verifiability has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs."

Could "several" be changed to "some"? They mean the same, but often we use "several" to mean a limited number (like if you were saying "Several do, and here's a list"), while "some" is used in a broader fashion. 64.203.187.107 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Done --Bsherr (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Definition of self-published works

Latest comment: 4 years ago120 comments25 people in discussion

This policy (WP:V) mentions self-published works but doesn't define that term. That makes it harder for editors to apply the policy. The definition on WP:USINGSPS (Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same) is not official, since WP:USINGSPS is a supplement. Discussions about whether the policy should be defined, and what that definition should be, are here, here, and here.

Proposal: add the following definition to WP:V and also replace the definition on WP:USINGSPS with: Self-published works are those in which the author(s) of the content have direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they publish directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial oversight. Please note your agreement or opposition to these changes. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Note that this is an RfC only for the definition of SPS, and has nothing to do with whether and when SPS are acceptable. That can be addressed later, separately. Please don't evaluate the definition as though it means we will automatically reject SPS as sources. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The definition might not be perfect, but it's clearly better than no definition, and almost no other definitions have even been proposed. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree. High time for a more precise definition. I understand that some acolytes of goddess Creepa might get a bit rattled but so be it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as written Before this gets too far, the proposal is ambiguous. Should clarify if "of the publication" means direct control of the publication process itself, or if it means direct control of what gets published. Plus the last example really makes a mess out of things....It encompasses published items that are certainly not self-published. A definition that includes all scenarios where the writer can control what gets published would encompass many things that are clearly not considered to be self-published. For example, a prominent op-ed columnist in a prominent publication. Or book author that is so prominent that they are the boss over what gets published in the book.North8000 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is not going to be "one definition fits all" situation and there will be edge cases, it is expected for the new definition to be a better starting point for consensus discussions, and if more clarity is needed, a guideline or essay page somewhere can be used to provide examples. But, for example, an op-ed page still should have editorial oversight so thats not self-published, nor is the prima donna writer who may have full say of what is published but still doesn't have the final authority of when the publishing happens. --Masem (t) 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Probably no. Evaluating sources is a skill that takes time to develop, and is really something most people should be able to do in a participatory democracy, and not just as Wikipedia editors. But it's really not necessary to legislate every jot and tittle. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and that pretty much covers it. Critical thinking is required. GMG ^talk 13:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As a more general note, if someone wishes to propose substantive changes to core policy... you should really like... go write some articles first. I don't mean to be overtly rude, but gee fizz. If you've made six mainspace contributions in the last six years then please go do that instead of doing this. We really are in no particular shortage of people willing to express an opinion. GMG ^talk 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The definition above is one I basically proposed, give or take a few steps. This is not out of the blue from the OP's inexperience. --Masem (t) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's...quite a few give or take a few steps. I don't always engage in discussions here, but it's on my watchlist.

That doesn't really change my opinion that no, we are not in dire need of users who will spend two months opining on policy, with no identified real world problem they're trying to fix, when most of us get along just fine with context and critical thinking. This is a solution that's been looking for a problem since early July and still hasn't found one. GMG ^talk 14:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: As a "learner"-stage editor who has more than once sought opinions about whether a source is/isn't a SPS for the purpose of determining whether it's allowable under WP:BLPSPS, and who has found that different editors have widely varying opinions about whether a specific source I linked to is/isn't SPS, I absolutely disagree that this is "a solution ... looking for a problem." It's a true problem that there is no good definition and that editors have such divergent opinions about what is/isn't a SPS. I and lots of other editors need a better definition than currently exists on WP:USINGSPS. Also, it's not "quite a few" steps from this diff. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

But where is this a problem that requires a change in policy? Where is this a problem where editors have not been able to resolve the issue based on context and consensus and the normal dispute resolution process? I mean, I'm sorry that I don't put terrible weight on the view of those opining on policy where their primary experience is in opining on policy. But...I mean I don't, and I don't think people who spend most of their time on project pages should be trying to make policy. In the vast majority of circumstances, we sort this stuff out just fine without the need for additional guidance. That's pretty much it. I see no crisis where some issue has escalated to ANI and ARBCOM and back down again because people who speak the English language can't figure out what the English words "self published" mean. GMG ^talk 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of where is this a problem. There was no consensus (e.g., about whether Just Security is a self-published source), and the reason I asked is because I've been trying to work on the article for United States v. Flynn, where the text involves multiple living people, so I have to figure out when the WP:BLPSPS policy applies. I'm not sure who you're referring to by "those opining on policy where their primary experience is in opining on policy," but the only reason that I, personally, am opining on this policy is because I ran into problems in using the policy when editing an article AND I ran into problems getting consensus about specific sources when I sought it at the RS/N. This is a challenge for me as a newish editor. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@GMG: I started editing here maybe 15 years ago but I gave up because of a combination of time constraints, hostility, and the futility of battling cult members who twist policy to serve their agenda, with little help from objective editors or admins. Poorly-defined policy (like this one which lacks even a definition of SPS) plays into the cult members' hands. Recently I tried to make an edit and it was immediately smacked down by a cult member with the edit note, "SPS not allowed". It's not really true that SPS "isn't allowed" (it's acceptable in certain circumstances), but in any event, before I try to start editing in my area of expertise again, it'll help if policy is defined, clear, and consistent. For example, WP:USINGSPS was inconsistent with itself until recently. So, my recent efforts have been to get policy clarified so I can focus on actual editing and not battles about whether something violates policy or not. It's ridiculous that I'm getting attacked for making a good-faith effort to lead a community-involved effort to improve policy. That kind of hostility reminds me of why I stopped editing in the first place, and doesn't make me eager to return. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelbluejay: I'm sorry that that's been your experience, and as a newish editor struggling to implement this policy correctly, I appreciate your efforts here. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelbluejay: If you need some place to contribute where people are nice and helpful, a few of use have been working on a biography of a lady who's been dead for some 200 years, and it's been a few months, and we're almost done. We've actually been collaborating with an archivist from Mt. Vernon in doing so, and she's apparently said she wants to dedicate her forthcoming book to us. You're welcome to join in.

Thank you very much FactOrOpinion. I appreciate the invite, but it seems like you have it covered, and I'm gonna spend my limited time trying to help policy get clarified, and then edit in my area(s) of expertise. BTW, I appreciate your being involved in the effort to clarify SPS from the beginning. It hasn't gone unnoticed! -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to help you in any way I can. But if you want to opine on the state of the encyclopedia generally. Then...I'm sorry...but I don't terribly highly value your opinion. But if you want, I have about 200 pages of sources you can help us read so we can improve an article. That's what most of us are busy doing at the moment.

I again don't mean to be rude, but when you come up to a bunch of people who have poured hundreds of hours into reading sources and writing articles, and say "I haven't nearly done any of that in years but lemme tell you how you are all wrong..." I mean...what do you expect? GMG ^talk 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, maybe acknowledging that there's room for improvement, which jibes with WP's values about crowd-editing being the secret sauce that makes articles better. Indeed, most other editors commenting here seem to have acknowledged that clarification of this policy would be helpful. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

crowd-editing being the secret sauce that makes articles better Yeah...so...like...go edit an article. Specifically, go edit something besides Aesthetic Realism, and don't spend two months trying to change policy to win a content dispute. Otherwise, if you need something to spend your time on during quarantine, go spend it on your little website. And for the love of God stop trying to put a half page of commentary in a reference. This nonsense is a copyright violation and a half. GMG ^talk 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop attacking me. First, I've stated repeatedly that I'm not trying to change policy, I'm trying to clarify it, and the broad support here for it shows that other editors agree. Can you acknowledge that I'm trying to clarify policy rather than change it? Are you going to attack the other editors here who also agree that SPS should be defined? Further, the edit you linked is not even close to a copyright violation. And as I've already explained ad nauseam, with my limited time, it makes most sense for me to edit in my area of expertise. You don't get to decide how I should spend my brief time on this planet. I'm not dictating how you should spend your own time. Finally, this is uncalled for: "go spend it [your time] on your little website". I'm an award-winning web publisher and my work has been referenced in the New York Times, TIME, Newsweek, BusinessWeek, NPR, WIRED, and scores of other reliable sources. So, you might have a low opinion of my work, but (1) you're not in good company, and (2) there's no need to insult me here. Or is *that* what you think Wikipedia should be about? If so, I'll pass. -23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is, my first attempt at wording a definition of an SPS was at my comment on this page at "17:15, 10 July 2020" (still visible right now). What you pointed to what a alternate way of viewing why we need a good SPS definition, but not changing from what I'm proposing. --Masem (t) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

But the core issue still seems to be that newer users don't seem to know how to thoroughly evaluate sources, which is frankly expected. That's not really a problem we can legislate away. Those users need to go, edit articles, get in content disputes, get all up in their feelings, hash things out in detail, and learn to evaluate sources. I still don't see what hand-holding is required here other than leading someone to mainspace. At some level, we can't replicate that with policy. GMG ^talk 23:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@GMG: Speaking as a newish editor, how do you expect me to "learn to evaluate sources" with respect to whether they are/aren't SPS if experienced editors don't agree on this? If this is as straightforward as you think, how do you account for the differences of opinion in the RS/N discussion that I linked to in my earlier response to you? Some sources are clearly self-published (e.g., tweets, individual Wordpress blogs), and some are clearly not self-published (e.g., traditional book publishers and newspapers), but some are in a middle ground (e.g., expert blogs with editorial oversight), and without a functioning definition or agreement among experienced WP editors, it's difficult for a new editor to learn how to assess those correctly. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, at some level, if you want to learn how to drive you have to get behind the wheel. The manual ain't gonna tell you everything you need to know, and once you start driving you fairly quickly realize that you don't need it to. I mean...I wrote like half of the prose at WP:RSPS and it's times like these that I wonder if I regret it. You can't dummy-proof the world and you can't make it into an algorithm. You're gonna find ambiguous circumstances, though probably only once every few months at worst, and you will need to talk to others and decide what to do based on the situation. There is no level of specificity in "the manual" we can achieve that's going to eliminate that. GMG ^talk 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, when you meet ambiguity just WP:BEBOLD. Use your best judgement. Comparatively few things are standardized here, less things are certain, and no one (if they're not a jerk) is going to fault you for being bold in making changes to an article in good faith. We're all a bunch of amateurs working with a bunch of other amateurs in our spare time to try to create a thing we can give away for free. There's a bar here somewhere, but it's set pretty low at being willing to help out with the work, acting in good faith...and I dunno... being able to take a joke every now and again. If you can manage that then you'll get along just fine. GMG ^talk 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong agree. This definition is a big step in the right direction, it would help to clarify many cases (like this one).VR _talk 13:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Clarification is good, but a fixed definition risks being used as a bludgeon over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'm worried that it risks sidelining good judgement. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment - This risks divergence with the definition of SPS. At the moment, self-published content from highly reputable subject-matter experts are treated as a special case in the SPS guidelines: this definition does not cover that. Wouldn't a carefully worded but informal summary here that explicitly defers to the definition at WP:USINGSPS be better? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC) --- Postscript - Ah, I misssed that the proposal is to change the definition there as well. I'm uncertain. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no proposal to remove the exception for self-published work of recognised subject experts. Zero^talk 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chalst, the proposal has nothing to do with whether particular SPS are acceptable, it's just to define what SPS is. Later, and separately, we can deal with the issue of what SPS is acceptable and what's not. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The definition isn't perfect, but I agree with MichaelBluejay that "it's clearly better than no definition, and almost no other definitions have even been proposed." For those disagreeing, I'd appreciate your being clear about whether you want no definition (including removing the definition currently on WP:USINGSPS), or if you want a definition but disagree with this one, and if it's the latter, I'd further appreciate your proposing a better definition. Rejecting this definition without proposing something better doesn't really improve the situation. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support: I don't see any downside to adopting this and there is a clear upside, clarifying policy and reducing (not eliminating) ambiguity. The argument that "it's unnecessary" may have been true earlier in Wikipedia's life, but being a crucial part of the world's information and knowledge base comes a responsibility to clearly maintain and describe our policies. Capricious editors should not be the arbiters of policy on a whim based on their interpretation of a SPS; the consensus of the community should always prevail and clear(er) descriptions only help newcomers and administrators alike to edit. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CREEP. According to the proposed definition, Wikipedia would not be a self-published source because it has "editorial oversight" – AfC, NPP, and other patrollers and reviewers. But Wikipedia is not considered reliable because the content isn't stable and the oversight is flaky. Reliability cannot be determined by such simple-minded mechanical rules. Newspapers have editorial oversight but they are still quite unreliable because they publish in haste and are often biased and sensationalist. Academic journals are quite unreliable too, even if they are peer-reviwed, because they tend to be sensation-seeking too and so overreach or distort the data. Books are all over the place and even academic textbooks can be quite flawed – just read Feynman on the subject. What makes a source reliable is the care, diligence and expertise of the author, not the manner of publication. Don't judge a book by its cover. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, this RFC is not about determining the reliability of SPS, but simply what they are (their definition). Of course, some are reliable, and some published ones aren't, but that is beyond the scope of this RFC. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I read the proposal and understand it just fine. My primary reason for opposing is that the idea is to add yet more legalistic verbiage. This is contrary to several policies including WP:BURO, WP:CREEP, WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW, WP:PETTIFOG, &c. My supplementary point is that such legalisms are futile because they do not address what actually makes a source correct and reliable. Consider another reductio ad absurdum – President Trump's tweets. There is some editorial oversight there because Twitter takes down tweets if they fail some criteria, such as COVID misinformation. So the tweets which survive are not SPS? Pull the other one. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about whether a source is "correct and reliable," only about whether it's self-published (a source might be both reliable and self-published, reliable but not self-published, self-published but not reliable, or neither reliable nor self-published; the two are independent characteristics, even if content isn't evenly distributed among those four categories). Why do we need a definition? Because -- among other things -- the WP:BLPSPS policy precludes using self-published sources for claims about living people, even if the source is a reliable one. As Masem notes, what occurs on WP is post-publishing oversight. Even draft pages are published per WP's interpretation "published" (e.g., "made available to the public in some form"). Same thing with Twitter taking some tweets down after they're published; that's post-publication moderation. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-publishing oversight - aka moderation - would not make that editorial control prior to publication. So this is not making things like, say Wikipedia, or Reddit, or other places that moderate suddenly non-SPS, because the publishing control is still not there before publication happens. --Masem (t) 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also SPS is not strictly saying a source is non-reliable or not. An SPS written by an expert can be a possible reliable source under some conditions, but not for BLP or MEDRS, for example. --Masem (t) 22:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose WP:NOTBURO We don't have to give a definition of "self published". We're editors of a formal encyclopedia, we know what self-published means. Plus I think leaving the guideline ambiguous is useful: context is important, and we can't possibly think of every single instance of a self published source. That we disallow self published sources allows our editors on the ground to argue about what is and isn't, and that is a Good Thing. Also, I have to agree with GMG, the proposer seems very out of touch with whats happening on the ground of Wikipedia, they seem to be on a crusade to change backend policy without having worked in the front end for six years! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to point out that MichaelBluejay didn't introduce this out of the blue. There's been a weeks-long discussion here, and there was also a discussion on WT:USINGSPS about the definition being misleading. (@Michaelbluejay:, I suggest that you add a link to that WT:USINGSPS discussion at the top, where you say "Discussions about whether the policy should be defined, and what that definition should be, are here, here, and here.") CaptainEek, you say that "we know what self-published means," but if you read the discussions, you'll see that individual editors each have their own sense of what it means and often disagree with one another about all but the clearest cases. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, do "we" really know that? Let me give you a few quotations from the archives of this page. Every single one of these comes from admins and editors who have made tens of thousands of edits:

"Coca-Cola's corporate website is written and published by the same people (namely, the employees of Coca-Cola), and therefore it is self-published."
"Citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees is not prohibited under WP:BLPSPS because it isn't a self-pubished source."
"But Coca-Cola's materials about Coca-Cola are, to the most part, self-published: no organisation with final control over the content stands between Coca-Cola and publication."
"The definition of "self-published" has always been that no editorial structure stands between you and publication. Coca-Cola has a professional editing process and a legal team that oversees it" [so it isn't self-published]
"No editorial process stands between the Coca-Cola company as author and the Coca-Cola company as publisher." [so it is self-published]
"Self publishing" in the Wikipedia sense does not refer to an organization publishing its own material" [such as Coca-Cola, Inc. publishing information on its corporate website]
"I'm using "self-published source" in the same sense that it's used throughout Wikipedia WP:RS and WP:V discussions - as shorthand for "self-published secondary source". Your comments that you believe that www.coca-cola.com is a "self-published source" indicate that you don't understand the local terminology used by the policies."
"Whether a source is self-published is determined not by the ostensible facts of publication, but the editorial control.Coca-cola's website is under the control for the company and says such things as the company wishes it to say."
"My personal experience is being told by [admin] at WP:Notability that Coca-Cola, Inc.'s website is not written and published by the company."

Every one of these quotations used that same corporate website as an example. These discussions happened over the space of multiple years. The opinions asserted are contradictory and mutually exclusive. I conclude that while each of us might be confident that our own interpretation is the One True™ Definition of Self-published, "we" don't know what it means, and some of our confidently asserted opinions must be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Perhaps I didn't clarify very well, but I think trying to legislate a precise definition will only make it harder for us to enforce. Wikipedia operates frequently on the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. The examples you show above are people going about our regular process, which inherently brings some disagreement and incorrectness. I don't think we can possibly create a definition of SPS that catches every possibility and every edge case, and by creating a concrete definition we inherently create edge cases. For example, what if A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, writes an op-ed in his paper? By the above definition, that would be self published, even though I think on the ground we would not describe that as self published. Sure we would probably not use it because its an opinion piece, but is that really self published? I think this is a solution in search of a problem, I don't see an epidemic of people not knowing what a self published source is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, thanks for the ping. It's my opinion that having no definition already makes it "harder for us to enforce" anything, because it has resulted in people declaring contradictory opinions as The Truth. For example, in your example involving a traditional publisher, according to one of the above-quoted Wikipedia editors, Sulzberger's editorial (note that the publisher of a newspaper is not capable of writing an op-ed in the paper he publishes) would be a WP:PRIMARY source and therefore SPS wouldn't enter into it at all, because WP:V only cares about self-published secondary sources. Do you agree with that? Do you want that editor "enforcing" his guess at what self-published means on what you write?

Your unwillingness to have Sulzberger's occasional editorial considered self-published could be solved by using one of the standard dictionary definitions, which usually say something like "work published by the authors, at their expense (if any), except for traditional publishing houses" [such as newspapers]. Providing a definition could, in fact, be as simple as linking to a dictionary definition, or adding a footnote that says "Yeah, we just mean what your dictionary says. Don't go making up stuff about how many lawyers they have and whether the is source secondary here". Thinking that the definition ought to be X instead of Y does not mean that we should leave editors to make up their own definitions of what the words mean.

But let me take it further, since your concern seems to be about usability rather than the narrow question of whether it's self-published: Let's imagine that editors have an enormous RFC, that (for once) most of the respondents even know what they're talking about, and that they somehow conclude that all of all of the Sulzbergers' editorials are self-published. So what? Given that RSEDITORIAL puts strong limits on what and how Wikipedia editors can use opinion pieces anyway, what actual practical difference would that make in any article you write? I challenge you to name any article where your ability to cite an editorial by Sulzberger for a statement of fact (i.e., not merely for the fact that he expressed an opinion) depends significantly on whether we call publisher-written editorials "self-published" or "non-self-published". I'll help you out: the current publisher has published three editorials so far: [12] [13] [14]. The first is currently cited in the BLP about him, the second was added to support a direct quotation Declan Walsh (journalist) by yet another editor who doesn't know what an op-ed is, and the third is not currently linked in any article. Do you have any reason to believe that these three opinion pieces would be unusable even if, in defiance of common sense, we deliberately adopted a definition that explicitly says "anything published in The New York Times with a byline to A.G. Sulzberger should be considered exactly as self-published as a poorly supervised teenager's social media posts"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, great idea on linking to the discussion at WP:USINGSPS in the RfC snippet. I just added it, thank you. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: "the proposer seems very out of touch with whats happening on the ground of Wikipedia, they seem to be on a crusade to change backend policy...." First, I think I'm trying to clarify policy, not change it, big difference! You might note from my discussion above that I've said, multiple times I think, that I'm not particularly married to any particular definition, as long as we have one. Also, most editors here seem to agree that clarification would be helpful. (2) I can keep repeating myself about my lack of edits. I left because of a combination of time constraints, hostility, and the cult members I was battling twisting policy to further their agenda. As soon as I returned, they instantly reverted me with the edit comment "SPS not allowed" (which, as we know is not true, some SPS are acceptable and some are not). So, I took a look at the policy pages and saw that they screamed out for clarification. I decided to work on getting policy clarified before I edit in my area(s) of expertise again, so I can focus the arguments on article content and not on interpretations of policy. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Awesome post about the disagreement about whether Coca-Cola is SPS! That's exactly why clarification would be helpful. After we get SPS defined, I'm hoping we can also agree on bullet-point examples of what is and what is not SPS, though we might have to put most or all of them in WP:USINGSPS because there might be too much opposition to adding much to this article. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

While I support having this definition on USINGSPS, I oppose having it here on WP:V. I'd like to see how the definition fares in the context of a guideline before we make a risky amendment to core policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Fully fair to stick this on a guideline, probably adding to WP:RS/SPS. --Masem (t) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Support - I've come across numerous disputes about our definition of self-published source, for example, this rather painful Quackwatch RfC. Both WP:V and WP:USINGSPS will benefit from clearer, updated language. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I remember that discussion, which is typical of the things editors say because we have no definition (and because we think self-published means unreliable). That heavily-contested RFC ultimately concluded that the website is at least partly self-published, but look at the rationales of the people saying that it's not: It can't be self-published because it's "a reliable and quality source". Because it has "multiple authors". Because there is "informal review". Because "It's a huge database." Because it is "an international network of people". Because an editor believes it "should not be called “partisan”." Because "It has a terrific reputation". Because it "is peer reviewed", albeit "not "peer reviewed" in the academic sense, but instead Barrett sometimes (and not always) has articles checked by an anonymous expert before he publishes them." Because it "has been used on many BLP articles for well over a decade". Because it is "not a website written in someone's bedroom" (this was before the pandemic resulted in offices closing all over the world). We need a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Even if this definition is accepted, we'd not expect similar disucssions to vanish, simply that we'd start with a better framework for that type of discussion. Again, not meant to be a firm black-white definition, but a better line that the vague non-line that we have. --Masem (t) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yup. There will be uncertainties, but IMO just having a better framework would be very useful. I'd love to have these conversations without someone claiming that huge databases aren't self-published. Also, I think there would be fewer of them (after people have had the usual two years to discover that the definition exists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, that again probably depends on the database. Wikidata would be self-published, but something like the NIST Chemistry Webbook would not be (on a first pass thought) Its why at least establishing a definition that removes the "ownership of the published work" from the equation - which is not explicitly said but which too many editors think is the definition - would help. The framework here is to basically get people to identify the author of the piece, and once identified, if there are any steps, independent of the author, that review the piece beyond basic spell-checking/grammar editing before it is publicly published - something akin to fact and/or tone checking. It's why I compare self-published as the polar opposite of a peer-reviewed work, as it is fully-lacking in that peer-review. --Masem (t) 20:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Whether the source happens to be "a huge database" is simply irrelevant to the question of who made it and how it became available to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatAmIDoing: Indeed, some people have the mindset that "self-published" means "automatically unreliable". I'd like to address that issue, but it's impossible to do before we even have a definition of SPS, hence the RFC.

@Masem: Agree wholeheartedly, very well put. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. This seems like a well-constructed definition of self-published sources that aligns with how they're generally understood. I don't find WP:CREEP a compelling argument against this—if editors are truly concerned about the length of policies, they are welcome to help those of us at WP:Help Project in our efforts to make beginner versions better. But in 2020, the main versions need to be comprehensive in order to be appropriately authoritative. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Mixed I'm concerned that this might narrow the scope of SPS too much. I see the value in better defining SPS however, I'm not sure I like it being so narrow. I would prefer this be "are generally". My concern is things like a white paper by say a battery company on battery technology trends or an advocacy group publishing a report. Another example would be something like the Honda Ridgeline article that draws heavily on Honda published material. Consider things like a sales brochure or a white paper on the benefits of Honda's modeling and testing of the Ridgeline's chassis. I'll also add what if Honda published a paper on effectiveness of various seat belt and airbag designs. The sales brochures are generally promotional but how would I classify a white paper on seatbelts written by Honda staff? If these aren't SPS where would they be classified? Springee (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is meant to wider what is an SPS. Also, what you're looking with reports generated by larger companies or entities that likely have had internal checks I would say those become primary sources. Do you think Honda is going to let a white paper out without detailed internal review of it? Probably not, so it fails the SPS check (in this definition), but it remains an primary source, and if one is talking about a place where SCIRS is called for, it would fail there as peer-review was not there as well. So it still a "problem" source in many places, just not as an SPS. This would also apply to advocacy groups, including things like the SPLC or ADL. --Masem (t) 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  Masem, self-published sources can't "become" primary sources. It's a completely separate axis. There are three independent factors to consider:
  - Is it independent or not? (See Wikipedia:Independent sources)
  - Is it self-published or not? (See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works)
  - Is it primary, secondary, or tertiary? (See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources)
  These words aren't interchangeable. The hypothetical Honda source is:
  - non-independent (written by Honda about Honda), and
  - self-published (both written and published by Honda – but remember that Honda's an SPS-exempted expert on itself), and
  - could be either primary or secondary (mostly depending upon whether it summarizes and analyzes previous publications, or if it's all new content).
  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  - Self-published isn't meant to replace those, as I tried to indicate, its yet part of a separate axis that I would say is related to the degree of reliable or how many eyes have reviewed the source before it was published. As I mention, it is the opposite of peer-review in this sense. Now, I've not put my head down to it to figure out of cases where an SPS is not a primary source but I do want to say that a SPS must equate to a primary source, I agree it should be considered a separate axes of evaluation. --Masem (t) 04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    All three of those (and other factors) independently contribute to the degree of acceptability ("reliability").
    
    In the end, we treat serious failures of any of these factors (and more) in the same two ways. Either:
    You can't use the source for that statement, or
    
    You have to write the statement very narrowly, with WP:INTEXT attribution ("Alice Expert wrote that the Sun is very big").
    
    "Treat it like it's primary" is the same thing as "treat it like it's self-published" (except for BLPSPS) and "treat it like it's biased" and "treat it like it's self-published". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
If you think it would be helpful for people who are confused about primary vs self-published, we could add a section similar to Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent#Combinatorics to WP:USESPS:

Examples
	Self-published	Non-self-published
Primary source	Alice writes an original report about her experiment and posts it on her blog.	Alice writes an original report about her experiment, and it's published in an academic journal.
Secondary source	Alice combines data from a dozen previously published experiments into a meta-analysis and posts it on her blog.	Alice combines data from a dozen previously published experiments into a meta-analysis, and it's published in an academic journal.

Feel free to copy that table over if you think it would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously when you say "academic journal" that should "peer-reviewed academic journal. There are academic journals you can publish too with no checks and that would be self-publishing as well.
- And its not so much the issue of people being confused of the difference of primary vs self-publishing. Its where self-publishing applies basically as to when BLPSPS (though obviously understanding that this is a separate concept from primary is necessary). To stress again: right now, the average editor on WP seems to take SPS to read "the author must 'own' the publication" (eg own the blog, own the newspaper). Which covers some self-publishing cases, but not all of them that should be considered in a BLPSPS light, like Forbes Contributors, YouTube videos (not all of them but many), open-access non-peer review journals, etc. It's also asserting that there are limited cases where just because the author owns the publication does not make it self-published, this being like commercial marketing publications, certain types of government documents like final court decisions and passed legislation, and so on (though there are very different cautions to be raised with these here). That's the whole point of introducing this definition is to refine the current clunky implied definition of SPS that doesn't fit all situations well anymore. How to make sure this is distinct and different from primary/secondary or other means to evaluate sources, that's important too. --Masem (t) 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  Can you name a couple of examples of academic journals that claim not to do peer-review (for suitable content)? My impression of the pay-to-publish predatory journals is that they claim to engage in peer review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Not as phrased I am uncertain whether we should be defining, but if we do, we need to pick better and clearer examples.
- a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) As a publisher myself who uses KDP, I can tell you that KDP is not a publisher. They are a printer and a distributor, but for the books that are released through them, the entity providing the content is the publisher. This gets confused at times because KDP or some similar brand is sometimes listed as the "Publisher" on some book listings; that arises because the publisher is taking advantage of KDP's free ISBNs, and what is listed as "publisher" there is actually the ISBN registrant. However, providing an ISBN is not the act that defines a publisher (indeed, publishing existed before there were ISBNs!)
- or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) This one is going to be confusing for those who have not been playing the Wikipedia game for a while. Those of us used to dealing with sourcing issues may know that Forbes.com labels certain content providers as "contributors", and that that is a sign that Forbes is not placing editorial oversight on them. However, in common parlance, a "contributor" would be anyone who is providing content to Forbes.com, including journalists on the front of the site. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  - We can be more exacting in the language to be clear (again, I wrote some of the basics here off the cuff). The KDP, basically the idea is basically, you can prep everything for getting a book to physical publishing through KDP without a single editorial check. That's self-publishing even though you aren't doing the "act" of publishing. More here is the point where the information exists as something not available to the public as something available to the public, not "print publishing" in the traditional sense but more like how publishing works in the world of intellectual property. And with the Forbes.com stuff, this is "Contributors" with a capital "C" that can be seen in their byline and which we can point to WP:RS discussions that show they can produce work and hit "publish" to go to the world without an editor to check it, in contrast with Forbes "Staff" that have editors that check their work. But that's fine tuning the language. --Masem (t) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    - As the person who started this "Let's Define" effort, let me say that I'm not opposed to starting the RFC all over again with another definition. But before we do that, editors should propose new definitions and we should make sure there seems to be some consensus in favor of whichever one we decide to put forth to RFC. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No - speaking as a magazine publisher and tv producer, a self-published source does not necessarily mean that its content fails V - it means editors should take the time to corroborate it. Remember, WP is not about truth - it's about accuracy, particularly in our sourcing, and the avoidance of stating something in WikiVoice that just isn't so - especially when it's based on opinion. Not every article is based on scientific fact. I am also of the mind that we should not put too much trust in the fact a publication has an editorial board or editorial control, except where science & medicine are concerned but then Beall's List taught us something there, too. As so many editors have long since learned with the birth of clickbait media: corroborate which is not the same thing as WP:OR. At this point, I see no need to change policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: The proposal is only to define what a self-published source is. Your comments seem to refer only to how self-published sources should be treated, which is an entirely different question that the proposal does not mention. Also, the aim is not to change policy but to clarify existing policy. Zero^talk 15:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Zero0000; however, self-published doesn't necessarily mean there was no editorial oversight. We are currently seeing editorial oversight on Twitter and Facebook. If I were to self-publish, I would seek (and have to pay for) professional editorial review and fact-checking, but I would not have to share the proceeds with a publisher. The internet has provided a means for experts to by-pass the middleman (publishers), and publishers will eventually become less important as digital publishing grows firmer roots - again, the exception being science & medicine. I don't deny that SPS needs updating, but the proposed update doesn't quite fit the bill. I saw the paradigm shift coming back in 1997 when I penned the craft improvement article "A Tapeless Future" for Outdoors Unlimited, and we are now looking back at the early stages of that paradigm shift. In my view, the problematic words in the proposed change include they control, or when they publish through and without any editorial oversight. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: AFAIK, neither Twitter nor Facebook have pre-publication editorial review. Am I mistaken? Post-publication moderation (e.g., removing content that violates the terms of service, adding notices) is distinct, and it does not impact whether something is self-published, just as WP is still self-published despite post-publication moderation of new articles. This has come up more than once in the discussion, and I think we should add something in the text to clarify this (not necessarily adding it to the definition, but making sure that it's addressed, perhaps in examples on the USINGSPS page). Re: "the proposed update doesn't quite fit the bill," do you have a proposal that you think would be an improvement? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The type of editorial step implied by the definition is a required one in said process to pull the source away from being self-published. That you, prior to a facebook post, can get someone to edit-review it, is fine, but it is not requiried. This would still make it self-published, even though a specific post may not be self-published because of this. Further, I should stress that an editorial review is more than a simple spell check and grammar review. We're talking tone, fact-checking, and general practices to make sure the piece is not introduce clear false statements, nor blatant libel/slander, etc. The type of stuff we'd expect the editorial staff of major newspapers, magazines, and peer-review publications do to. Some of this may be an in-house thing (like marketing materials for a company) which is fine. But most self-published stuff does not have that. --Masem (t) 16:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion See CBS report, and there are others if you research it. Masem, I agree that the editorial step you describe looks great in theory but we know full well that doesn't happen with breaking news in the biggest most respected online publications. I've argued against using self-published advocacy websites for inclusion of material in WikiVoice, and there were strong arguments in opposition to me regarding editorial oversight but facts are facts, and they can be corroborated whether it is in a self-pubished source or in the WSJ. We've also noted on RSN that quite a few publications/news channels that publish/report information about science/medicine may require better sources. But who exactly is doing the editorial oversight of what experts are communicating, and what qualifies such editorial oversight? Are you seeing my point? As I've said - the exception is science & medicine because in those fields, all players are experts/professionals. I may have missed a point or two, but that is the general gist of my argument. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
No, even for more RS that cover breaking news, there is still an editor sitting between the writer and the publish button. They be sitting next to each other to make the process faster, but a good RS is not going to let a writer post even breaking news without a check. --Masem (t) 17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: I didn't see anything in that CBS report about pre-publication editing, only about post-publication moderation. What did you read there that you're interpreting as pre-publication editing? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion, I would enjoy discussing this with you further but I can't right now because I have other pressing matters, plus I'm on a short leash. Facepalm Quick reply to Masem re:"an editor sitting between the writer and the publish button" - reckon it's the same editor who corrects the errors, does the retractions or makes whole articles disappear after publication? 😊 I agree with you as far as print because there is more time to do what you think is happening with the news Ezines, but that's as far as I'll go. I'm not talking about books, journals, monthly or bi-monthly online articles - I'm talking about online dailies. Our policies already address author credibility well enough. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a very simple way of cutting through all this... if you are not sure whether a source is self-published (or not), TREAT it as if it is (with all the limitations that implies). Focus on who the author is, and whether the “expert exception” applies. Use in-text attribution. Etc. etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
How come you get away unscathed after saying some of the same things I've said, and I get wrung through a ringer? 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Support including a definition. This one is a good starting point. I oppose enshrining it as the One True™ Definition that Must Never Be Changed Again, but it's a good starting point and better than what we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons stated by Atsme, GreenMeansGo, and North8000. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no simple or straightforward definition that will apply to all cases. Even the examples given at Coca-Cola will not be clarified by the definition. Some instances will be obvious, but others not. When the Metropolitan Museum publishes a book about its own history, written by its own curators, is it self-published? Or the NY Times similarly? Or the Library of Congress. It depends on the professionalism of those involved--all 3 are responsible publishers and stand behind this material as they do any other of their many publications. In the other direction, what if X company writes a book about itself, and pays money to some less than scrupulous commercial publisher to publish it--I'd consider it self-published in effect though not in appearance . Commenting on the below, I do not suggest that anyone try a simple definition. Most of our basic terms have no exact meaning: consider reliable. I think this makes 8-7-1. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- But, the problem here is that this logic is keeping with the old "definition" that "author = the person/entity that owns the publication", which is too limiting. The key for all the cases you mention is if there is some internal process before they print to the own presses that reviews the material beyond a simple spell check, something akin to a peer review, but which can be internal as to make sure the entity's own work isn't incorrect. It's the process of what happens before publication that is what matters and why we need a better definition than the implied "author = owner of the publication". The definition proposed covers the situations that you discuss exactly, but again, it's also not meant to be 100% perfect and meant to also help lead discussions when a fuzzy result is found. --Masem (t) 04:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Suggested closure. I count the voting so far as 8-6-1, so it doesn't appear that we're going to reach consensus. I will close the RFC in a couple days unless there's an objection. If anyone would like to pick up the ball here and try to edit the proposed definition to appease the Opposers and try to get consensus with a new RFC, that would be delightful. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Michaelbluejay, please don't. Firstly, the discussion is still active, so it's inappropriate to be talking about cutting it off. Secondly, consensus isn't determined by counting votes. It's determined by the strength of the argument. For example, bare votes are usually counted less than strong arguments, and sometimes the bolded word isn't exactly where the editor ends up after discussion. In this specific discussion, I'm not sure what a closer would make of @Atsme's comment, which votes against defining the term, apparently on the grounds that whatever any editor wants to call a self-published source could still be a reliable one. That's about as logical as saying that drivers didn't need to know what a Traffic light is, because you don't have to stop when the light's green. (I love her realism about how little fact-checking happens for breaking news, and that once you've decided to put a live video out to viewers with no delay, you're trusting that your staff won't say something completely inappropriate, though.) You need to leave editors to finish the conversation, and then let an experienced closer spend time understanding the arguments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

good analogy! 🚦 A blog is self-published, a company website is self-published because corporations are considered a person, but why isn't an Op-ed published in an eZine or online news source considered self-published since they aren't fact-checked, oversighted, and the publication has a disclaimer? WP:RS states: Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Yet, we are willing to accept material in an Op-ed (if we like what they say), or that is self-published by advocacy groups, like SPLC or ADL, despite what WP:RS says about using SPS? I say keep it case by case - material, author, where it originated, verifiability, corroboration. For a project that has an IAR policy, why do we need an explicit definition of SPS? I like having options - options open doors, broaden horizons and provide more opportunities to acquire the sum of all human knowledge. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What makes you believe that there is no editorial oversight in an e-zine? Editorial oversight might be strict or loose, but I'm pretty sure that even in an e-zine, someone else is looking at the piece and deciding whether they want to run what that author has written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You believe that?

NYTimes Terms of Service: 2.4 Certain Content is furnished by the Associated Press and Reuters, which will not be liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom.
And about opinions: 5.2 NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk.

Being a publisher teaches you things...and so does being self-published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fully concur with User:Atsme on this one. Unless you actually write for a living and have done so for several years, it's difficult to comprehend the rapid evolution of business models in journalism and publishing. (There have been several times in my legal career when I thought about going back for graduate degrees in journalism or history, but each time the poor economic prospects caused me to stick it out in law.) The profit margins are way too lean today to sustain the complex editorial review structures historically used at most high-quality newspapers and magazines, because of how Facebook and Google have carried off the bulk of advertising dollars. That's why more and more publications are switching to something like the Forbes Contributor model, which are actually self-published blogs hosted on the parent website in which stories can go live without editorial review, subject only to contractual clawback provisions under which the parent site can pull down stories after the fact if they turn out to be controversial or inappropriate. Which is why WP consensus is that stories published under that model do not qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I find those quotations uncompelling. A wire service declines to be liable if the Times mangles their article? The Times declines to be held liable if any user "uploads" medical advice in the comments? That's hardly surprising.

Coolcaesar, I'm not looking for "complex editorial review structures". I'm looking for basic editorial oversight, like "Oh, hey, I don't think we want our publication associated with that anti-vaxxer garbage, so I'll pick one of the other 600 things that landed in my inbox overnight". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There were folks who weighed in who were not flat out against the idea but against it as proposed. And the variables aren't just the definition itself, but the strength given to the definition in it's wording and positionioning. E.G. mere suggestion / guidance vs. something that claims or would be claimed to be authoritative, and whether or not it has language that limits it's scope of impact (e.g. "for the purposes of....") vs. categorical wording that would send it elsewhere as well. I think that the RFC as is is not going to gain a consensus, but the idea is not dead. IMO if folks would like to pursue it further. I would suggest developing the one clear idea (both the definition itself but also the trappings and positioning regarding the other issues) that is most likely to pass, and then have an RFC to propose that one idea. Sounds slow but "slow" is faster than "never" which is where substantive good ideas typically end up. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Support with tweaks. I think that this is a very good starting place and shouldn't be abandoned, but I share Springee's concern that despite the intent, it could ultimately be used to narrow rather than widen the definition of a self-published source (eg. by citing the technical existence of editorial oversight in places where it is plainly woefully inadequate or is not, functionally, performing any meaningful fact-checking.) The most glaring example of a self-published source that does not strictly fit this definition is a forum post - I could post my random ideas in a forum, then say "well, the forum is moderated and the server controlled by someone else, so I don't directly control publication there", which is patiently absurd. Another example would be if I run a personal website, then occasionally have a guest poster - do the guest posts no longer count as self-published because they have to go through me? (This one seems like it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.) I would change "Self-published works are..." to "Self-published works include..."; I agree that anything that fits this definition is self-published, but I feel there are also cases outside it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Any tweaking should be clear that if the only "checking" is in moderation post-"publication for the public", that's within self-publication. And it should be clear a third-party publishing on someone else's blog but without any checking is still self-published.
- But this leads me to thinking that maybe all this is around the fact that "self-published" is the wrong term then here. If this is mean to be the opposite side of the spectrum from "peer review", then maybe these as a whole are better described as "self-checked" or "self-reviewed" works. That stresses better the relationship we want this term to be used for (namely, in BLP situations where someone may write-off-the-cuff and post unchecked facts about a person). The same proposed definition with tweaks applies, but is a better way to think about why we need this term over "self-published" because as read literally, as per DGG above say, there are valid sources of material published by the same group that wrote it that likely has been checked internally by the group - maybe not the rigor of a peer review but sufficient for our purposes, and thus the problem with the "self-published" wording to start. --Masem (t) 04:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
How would we define a site like SeekingAlpha [[15]]. The site publishes contributed articles after they are reviewed by the staff. I guess this makes them a bit like Quillette but in a totally different area (stocks and finance vs culture). To a large extent every article is Op-Ed like in that each contributor is offering their analysis rather than just reporting facts/results (SA does have a section for that as well). However, it isn't a forum where anyone can publish. All submissions are reviewed first. Now, like Quillette, I wouldn't claim this is a RS vs this is a source offering the opinions/analysis of the contributors. However, it is reviewed prior to publication. Questions of WEIGHT aside, how would we classify it on our continuum between peer reviewed and self published? Beyond that, I agree with Aquillion that even if we don't have a consensus at this time, the discussion is productive. Would it be helpful to simply create/offer a series of examples that could be a supplement to the SPS section? Springee (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I would question whether we NEED to classify it. SeekingAlpha is opinion journalism, whether it is self-published or not... and opinion journalism ALWAYS has limitations, such as requiring in-text attribution (and Due Weight based on the author’s reputation). I don’t think it MATTERS whether it is self-published or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point which I had temporarily forgotten. "Self-published" is the one of many attributes which determines actual relaibiltity of a source. And we have a few cases where we make special rules bases on whether it is a SPS source of not. Maybe trying to make a set of rules about that one particular attribute is just furthering a cutrtent structural error. Maybe what we probably really need is a "grand unification theory" wholistic plan. (maybe Wikipedia can beat the physiscts to that :-) ) Where we have a set of metrics and attributes to determine the strength (actual reliabiltiy) of sources with respect to/ in to the context of the item which cited them. Coupled with a requirement that certain items (e.g. BLP, controversial or extrordinary claims) requires stronger sourcing and vice versa. Real metrics would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. Given that those aren't always determined, all of the current wp:RS criteria would also be metrics and attributes. Primary/Secondary would still be seperate because that is a matter of avoidig wiki-editor interpretation rather than reliability of the source. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee, SeekingAlpha is non-self-published. It has pre-publication editorial oversight. As noted, whether/how you could actually use it is constrained by its other qualities, especially the WP:RSOPINION rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's time to close this discussion. There are simply too many variables involved when choosing sources - context matters. Our 3 core content policies matter beginning with V - is the material verifiable and not OR - does it comply with NPOV - if it is about a BLP, is it opinion or fact-based material? Science & medicine require the highest standards in sourcing, no argument there - it requires expert peer review/expert editorial boards, whereas most everything else is either fact-based or opinion. We already have WP:MEDRS, do we have something similar for science? If it's a BLP, use WP:INTEXT. As for academic - it depends on the topic...is it math, science, medicine, etc., or is it political? If it's political, is it opinion, a peer-reviewed paper or published book by a historian? Peer reviewed opinions about a politician or politics are not any more reliable than a self-published book by a person who spent 30 years in the top tiers of government - it is still opinion-based, which may be what needs a better definition.

WP:RSSELF states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The first sentence basically helps us ~~identify~~ differentiate an expert from any John or Jane Q. Public with an opinion. I'm not quite sure why "never use" applies to BLPs considering we use journalistic opinion in news sources all the time, including allegations, gossip, and scandals which, unfortunately, have become the norm in AP2. Regardless of publication type, opinions about living people should require in-text attribution, and strictly adhere to BLP, REDFLAG, NOT, etc. - so why not use the opinion in a self-published RS? We use the opinions of SPLC and ADL about living people all the time, despite NOTADVOCACY. It has become a matter of whose opinion we trust, and what exactly influences that decision? See WP:POV creep. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

An issue I think that came up in this, is to understand that understanding whether a source is an SPS or not is one part of looking at various facets of a source to determine how it can be be used - as I said way in the other thread, it is a separate "axis" of reliability, comparable to the axes that independent/dependent , first/third-party, primary/secondary/tertiary, etc. Simply being an SPS (old or new definition) doesn't invalidate the source, except for one specific case, that being for use in BLPs; otherwise, people are supposed to consider the SPS nature (old or new) along with these other factors and what we have said in other P&G to determine if it is still usable. A SPS by an expert in the field of science may be a usable source on a topic.

The only issue is that the current version of the implied definition of SPS (which isn't even written down) is outdated, and the new version, which can be tweaked to address issues, is to establish that it is the fact that in an SPS, a writer can publish to the public without any checks or balances - and considering that the only place that SPS is a problem is at BLP, this makes sense, we don't want off the cuff , unchecked statements about BLP even from experts used on BLP pages. But there's more as well, eg considering the Forbes Contributor model, we can get bad research in some cases, etc. A key thing is that source evaluation is always meant to be a consensus-based thing. Our guidelines at WP:RS support the policies, but they are meant as a framework to discuss sources in context to determine when a source can be used. RS/N helps to get wider input. --Masem (t) 13:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Since WP:RSSELF does say "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," I simply don't understand that so many people are essentially shrugging and saying "but we don't need to define what a self-published source is in any WP policy, just leave it to people to make their best guess about this." I was also struck by Masem's comment that this leads me to thinking that maybe all this is around the fact that "self-published" is the wrong term then here. If this is mean to be the opposite side of the spectrum from "peer review", then maybe these as a whole are better described as "self-checked" or "self-reviewed" works. Among other things, we don't have a good term for "non-self-published." That is, it's strange for "self-published" to be the referent, and "non-self-published" framed as the opposite, instead of, say, "edited" being the referent and "non-edited" as the opposite. "Peer reviewed" is a subset of non-self-published work, so that doesn't work as the primary referent. If the real issue is whether the source for a claim has a history of reviewing/checking/editing material prior to publication and printing corrections when they discover an error after publication, should we frame it that way instead of framing it as SPS? Should RSSELF instead say "When making claims about living people, only use sources that have a history of editorial fact-checking prior to publication" and eliminate the reference to "self-published"? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:V policy, per multiple comments above about too many variables and and my previous comments before this RfC, and while I could see supporting improved guideline (guideline, is as I said early on the proper way to deal with variables) this needs work-shopping especially as to examples. Anything like this which suggests a wiki or similar online platform, which has an editorial policy and a group calling themselves editors who go over others work pre-publication (as sometimes happens on Wikipedia) still should be classified as self-published. The key to understanding the place of self-published on Wikipedia is first to look to the RS we really want, and then how far the questioned source in issue has moved away from that model of reputation-based, expert publication (see, WP:SOURCE) (and by expert, I am referring to all through the publication process (publisher, editor, author). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are lots of current RSes - not top tier ones for highly contentious claims but otherwise used in a lot of more mundane content - that of the type of WP:NEWSBLOG, they have a editorial staff that appear to elevate it past an SPS (old or new def), but that we're sure isn't doing the type of fact-check a NYTimes editor or a peer-review at Nature would be doing, yet we have zero problem with these sources. That's a fairly different problem and I would argue that, if you consider "peer-review academic publications" on one side, and "personal blog space" (eg SPS) on the other, these would fall closer to personal blog space on this axis. Yes, we prefer more sourcing on the far end , towards peer-review, but we do not discount sourcing from the SPS end but the types of material that SPS and closely related sources that it can be used for have to be carefully chosen. But to that end, these NEWSBLOG-style sources are still not self-published in that way, but they simply do reflect they likely aren't the type of rigorous review we'd like to see.
- But I do think this goes back to maybe affirming that as part of considering facets of RS, understanding the rigor of how much of a review a piece of source material has had in terms of its reliability is a critical factor, and that is where SPS comes in and why redefining it is important towards that. An SPS is where there has been, effectively, no such review. --Masem (t) 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure you were quite responsive to my points as I did not say peer-review, which is only one model, nonetheless my position that this should not be here at V stands. I was about to add to my opp comment the following, which you edit conflicted with, perhaps it helps: (Eg., If someone is a professional biographer, who gets a professional editor to go over his work and publish it on Wikipedia, they are self-published. If someone is a professional biographer, who goes through the publication process at Random House, they are not self-published.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, it is not possible for Wikipedians to engage in pre-publication review of edits, unless maybe someone's sending you things in e-mail. Userspace is public. Draftspace is public. Publication == making things available to the public. That's why that big blue button says "Publish" in every namespace, and not something like "Save private copy of draft, secure in the knowledge that if it currently contains libel or copyvios, then I can't be sued for publishing it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Of course it's possible, Wikipedians are free to share their work on and off Wikipedia. But you seem to be totally missing the point, change out Wikipedia for a number of other ways to publish (do you see the eg, that means example). We should and regularly do judge work in self-publishing, by the reputations and methods of all involved. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A point I tried to make is that in evaluating a site's nature as an SPS if if editorial control is required or a necessary process at that site. That a WPian can opt to get other to check their work before making public is by far not a requirement and thus would fail this requirement, whereas it would be near impossible to bypass this at the NYTimes news desk or the Nature peer review submission process. --Masem (t) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if a Self-Publisher Company requires the author to go through their editorial process before publication, they are still self-publishing. Even were Wikipedia to require pre-publication editorial review, it would still be self-publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Now here is the crux of what is happening and what the important of "self-publishing" or what we imply from it. If that "Self-Publishing Book Company" is actually sending off a fact-checking to check the work, doing a reasonable peer-review job, that's a good thing for us in terms of that book being reliable. It may not be the same thing as a more traditional book publisher, but its something. This may be were we need to throw our view of the purpose of calling works "self-published" out the door , and not get too heads-up in how SPS is presently set. (and maybe why a fresh RFC from a different angle after some review is needed). We want works that have had some type of separate check different from the principle authors. Ideally, people fully independent of the authors with no financial interest in the work (eg academic peer review) but any separation is good. The full absence of this (which includes what we are now calling SPS) is a problem, though other factors still come into play. As I've tried to stress, knowing if this type of review happens and to what degree is helpful in source review discussions. And for the one key policy of BLP, knowing where unchecked sources - what this new defining basically proposes - come in is critical, as they absolutely should not be used on BLP. But again, maybe restrting the RFC with a reframing in this manner is needed, as just saying "oh, replace SPS with this" is far too subtle as this discussion has shown. --Masem (t) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we may be back where these policy sections often founder in discussion and drafting: despite every core policy warning against it and insisting Wikipedians not do it, too often a policy section is decontextulized from not only the other sections of the policy it is in but the other core policies -- if one truly works to grasp the essential purpose of not just V, but NOR, NPOV, (and BLP, if relevant to the article), you have to understand this small (SELFPUB) section, is for the purpose and needs to inform and be informed by all core policy. In short, the 'self-published' section of policy, also has a critical part to play in understanding and applying various issues for NPOV, NOR and BLP, in addition to V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That might be reliable, but it's still self-published. The point behind self-publishing is that the authors (including groups/corporate authors) are the ones who decide whether the content is made available to the public. That some authors freely choose (!) a printer that "requires" certain services does not change the fact that the authors are the ones in control. Once the authors can say "If you don't do it my way, then I'll take it elsewhere, but one way or the other, this will be made available to the public", then it's self-publishing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please consider the following: Book Publishing, Not Fact-Checking: Readers might think nonfiction books are the most reliable media sources there are. But accuracy scandals haven't reformed an industry that faces no big repercussions for errors. It’s a Fact: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry - "In the past year alone, errors in books by several high-profile authors — including Naomi Wolf, the former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, the historian Jared Diamond, the behavioral scientist and “happiness expert” Paul Dolan and the journalist Michael Wolff — have ignited a debate over whether publishers should take more responsibility for the accuracy of their books." Masem, there are many more just like it. I cannot over-emphasize the seriousness of this issue, and the point I've been trying to make. It isn't new to the publishing industry, but things have gotten much worse over the past decade. As editors, we must exercise good editorial judgment, corroborate the material, and be cautious regardless of the publisher. When factual material is challenged, we analyze the cited source(s) and corroborate it. It is probably best to bring it to RSN and discuss and invite experts, if needed. If it's an opinion, we follow our core content policies and use RS to help guide us. The RS guideline is simple - it's WP:V that may prove more difficult. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)^{Adding more sources: CJR, The Guardian, Vox, NPR - one common sense approach to consider: the publisher is in it for the money, the author is in it to get their story out and the money is their bonus. 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)}

Errors can appear in fact-checked works. That happened, and I'm sure there's even cases of peer-reviewed papers that have found to have errors after the fact. Fact-checkers are human too. It's just the absence of fact-checkers or similar type of review is a worse case. What should be the goal is to be able to assess how much of a SPS-type character a work has if there is a question of its reliability and discuss if that makes it usable or not, and a proper definition (better than "author = person that owns the publishing work") would help a lot there. That also might consider how "reliable" the publisher is too, some publishers are known to be more financially driven than knowledge driven and their fact-checking is less than ideal. All this is about helping to frame RS discussions. --Masem (t) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem - I couldn't resist this "hard truth". It's a behind-the-scenes add to this discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fact-checking isn't the only, or even the primary, service that's being provided by editorial oversight and traditional publication processes. Traditional publishing, even when we know for certain that no fact-checking was done, helps us understand WP:Due weight (e.g., does anyone other than the authors care about this point?), and provides a basic check on the likelihood of the content being correct (because, e.g., reputable science magazines don't run stories from crackpots claiming that the Sun will permanently disappear next week). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the last comment. Is it time to submit a request for closure and have an experienced closer spend time assessing the arguments? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, do you think editors have come to a consensus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think that there's consensus, but I'm also not that experienced an editor and don't see how to achieve consensus at this point ("When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal" – WP:CONACHIEVE). It seems to me that having an uninvolved and skilled closer read through the comments and summarize is our best next step for eventually achieving consensus, but I could be wrong about that. Another possibility would be for Masem to read through people's concerns and try to refine his proposed definition in response and then have another RfC, perhaps one that also includes the alternative that I'd initially proposed ("Material is self-published if the person(s) who controlled the material’s creation = the person(s) who controlled whether the material was made available to the public"), which is a smaller change from the current definition in WP:USINGSPS and might be more acceptable to those who opposed. Another possibility is to put the definition aside temporarily and invite people to identify borderline cases – neither clearly SPS, such as social media posts, nor clearly non-SPS, such as peer-reviewed journal articles – and discuss whether we think they should be considered SPS or not and why (not), as that could help us become clearer on what the definition should address and to resolve differences of opinion (e.g., re: whether an edited press release should/shouldn't be considered SPS). We could also search relevant archives for previous discussions of that sort. Then after that discussion, we could see whether anyone has a new definition to propose. Do you have a suggestion for how to make headway from here? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, I like your analysis of options.

I think we've learned a few things. For example, some editors think the definition itself is okay, but they're nervous about the practical effects. I'd classify all of the "put it in a guideline, not policy, first" comments that way. For this group, one path forward is to make a proposal at WP:RS. I think they are hoping that if it works, it will be followed, and if it doesn't, then it can be disclaimed and disregarded as "only" a guideline. The one downside to this cautious approach is that established editors very rarely read the policies and guidelines, so it's likely to be several years before we could consider "upgrading" the definition to policy status.

There's another (small) group that seems to think that self-publishing is the wrong label entirely. See, e.g., a comment referring to an old ArbCom case. That group might accept the proposed definition as reasonably sound for the real-world, reasonably objective concept of Self-publishing, but thinks that when Wikipedia decries the use of self-published materials, we're actually trying to avoid the use of sources defined by their apparent unreliability rather than by their publication process. (Compare "notable" meaning 'able to be noted' and WP:Notable, meaning 'qualifies for a separate article at the English Wikipedia because someone already noted it'.) You might think of this as the "responsible adult" notion: in this story, Wikipedia doesn't actually care whether the people who write sources also control whether the public gets to see their sources; these Wikipedians only care whether a responsible adult (e.g., a lawyer or an experienced newspaper editor) was around to advise against publishing anything bad (e.g., to avoid libel lawsuits or because it doesn't meet journalistic standards). In this story, everything on the website of a multinational corporation is non-self-published (because Wikipedians believe that their employees are responsible adults), and everything in a predatory journal is self-published (because Wikipedians believe that their employees are not responsible adults). One path forward for that group is probably to reduce the use of the self-publishing label significantly in the policies, and perhaps to use a label like independent editorial oversight more.

There are also some people who are opposed to having a definition. We have muddled along without one, so why upset the apple cart now? Your excellent idea of collecting more examples might reassure those who can be reassured. Others simply may not be convinced that there is a problem with not defining terms. Still others may be opposed to adding any more text to our already-long policies and guidelines.

And, of course, there are always the editors who oppose defining it, because they are unhappy that anything that gets (and deserves) this label is considered a lesser source for most purposes. I think that a definition could reduce the practical problems (by making it easier for non-self-published sources to be confidently labeled that way), but perhaps they worry that it would go the other direction, and even more sources would get (and deserve) that label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, per GreenMeansGo evaluating sources is a skill. Editorial oversight can take a number of forms including simple proof reading and spell checking, the content is still effectively self-published and platforms exist to facilitate their publication. I've seen a number of clearly SPS/UGC articles presented as sources where an editor is listed for a webpage (in one instance with her listed co-editor, a pet beagle). Cavalryman (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
@Cavalryman, would you prefer a different definition of self-publishing, or do you prefer letting each editor make up his own definition (e.g., "That's on Twitter, so it's self-published" vs "No, it's not, because the Twitter user claims to have consulted a lawyer first")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider any alternate definitions but none spring to mind, I have not given it a great deal of thought. I agree a definition might be handy for some less experienced (Wikipedia) editors, and I still see experienced editors throwing up glangers, the above mentioned example was included by an editor with almost 12 years experience and over 130,000 edits! Cavalryman (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

ONUS

Latest comment: 4 years ago96 comments18 people in discussion

WP:ONUS is often used as a reason for objecting to content, when really it should be a response to editors who insist that any verifiable content can be included in an article. To put it another way, WP:ONUS is sometimes used as an argument for editors who simple don't like a particular piece of content. Almost as frequently, more experienced editors cite WP:PRESERVE—the part of the editing policy that says appropriate material should be preserved or fixed if possible.

To that end, I made this WP:BOLD edit which lasted for 30 minutes before it was reverted.

I am proposing the addition of a few additional words that I think will be very helpful to less experienced editors. The proposed wording is highlighted in yellow below. I'm open to better wording if anyone has any ideas.

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Editors should strive to preserve or fix content when possible, instead of using WP:ONUS as the only reason for removing or opposing it.

Thank you for your consideration. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, first, I think it would have been more prudent to discuss before unilaterally declaring that a section of the editing policy outweighs a section of the verifiability policy. Second, I've seen "experienced editors" citing WP:ONUS, this is not a case of (argument only newbies make) vs. (argument those who've been here forever know is the Right Way). Third, although I'm not certain I properly understand your objection to ONUS, I noted your wording the only reason; would instructions like this help? The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Editors who object to inclusion of the content should clearly state reasons other than ONUS for disputing the content. (Although I'm not certain I agree with that either, have to think through the implications...) Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for your comments Schazjmd. Responding point by point:

I didn't think it would be very controversial so I followed WP:BOLD. I am definitely not declaring that portions of a policy outweigh a section of any other policy. I'm only trying to show how they work interdependently.
That's very true, and ONUS is an important policy point. The proposal is intended to make clear that it does not negate other policies, but works in concert with them.
I definitely don't have an objection to ONUS. I did struggle a bit with how to convey the concept with as few words as possible. Yes, your proposed wording a big step in the direction I'm trying to go. - MrX 🖋 16:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not sure I've ever seen an editor remove material solely on the basis of WP:ONUS, and I'd be curious to see some examples of that. Is it not possible they're using that as shorthand for "I'm not sure this should be in this article, and we should discuss the matter before including it?" Kind of similar to what we're doing now, really... DonIago (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have seen it constantly, unfortunately. I won't cite examples because it would be calling people out. But in my experience it is very common in political hot-button areas where an editor might have an objection to material that they are unwilling to voice (the Liar, Liar objection). I feel it's also common when an editor wants to stonewall or foot-drag on something - they don't want a discussion to be resolved because they recognize they lack a strong argument and are hoping that by just making circular demands for consensus without seriously participating in a discussion that could reach a resolution, they can get the other person to go away. It's led to some of the most unproductive and frustrating discussions I've had on Wikipedia. Obviously one small tweak to a policy can't fix everything, but I think it is both common-sense and existing policy that if you revert, you must provide some rationale as a starting point for discussions - doesn't have to be a good or strong one, doesn't have to be hard policy, can be as simple as "I don't think it's an improvement", but you have to say why you object to that specific material so the other person can discuss it properly. If you refuse to say why you object, what are you even asking for consensus on? --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

But...if a single editor is blocking an addition to an article solely on the basis of ONUS, then why aren't options for dispute resolution coming into play? DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the pushback that I already frequently observe when material is removed, I am extremely wary of giving inclusionists more text that they can point to in order to argue that the removal was "inappropriate". I would be more amenable to gentler phrasing that encourages options other than removal, but the phrasing proposed above is, to my mind, too strong, and will result in even stronger pushback of "Did you try fixing it yourself before you removed it?" My view is that removal of material is a perfectly valid form of challenge, whether or not it's "best practice", and while other editors may argue that it is not "best practice", we should not give them the additional argument of "And you were supposed to do these things before you removed it." DonIago (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Doniago, those are valid points, and I do think there is some gentler phrasing that we could come up with to tie the two policies together. Maybe something similar to what Schazjmd suggested. - MrX 🖋 16:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional thought - I do sometimes remove edits I find problematic with an edit summary of "Please discuss at Talk" because there's not necessarily a clear policy-based reason for opposing them, but for one reason or another I'm not sure that they improve the article. For the purposes of this thread, is that equivalent to me just saying ONUS when I revert? DonIago (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't view that as an ONUS argument. There are many valid reasons for removing material or reverting an edit that are not explicitly enshrined in policy. - MrX 🖋 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Not an improvement" is an entirely valid reason to revert something! You don't need a 'hard' policy-based reason; "I just don't think this makes the article better" is fine. What you can't do is just say "get consensus", because all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus and if your only position is "it lacks consensus" then your objection is therefore nonsensical. (Obviously the implication is that you are disputing their edit, but to do so you have to give at least some rationale, and "it lacks consensus" isn't one on its own unless the lack of consensus is already clear.) The point is that you have to state something - you have to give the other editor some indication of why you're removing their work, otherwise you're in violation of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS yourself. If you say "please discuss at Talk" I would say it's also incumbent on you to actually start the discussion, but in theory putting it in your edit summary can be fine if you think it's very simple. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond semantics, I'm not sure how "please discuss at Talk page" is especially different from "get consensus". Both of those should lead to a discussion if the editor who wishes to add the material wishes to pursue it. Of course, if an editor thought an addition was an improvement, they wouldn't have reverted it to begin with. DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, "all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus" unless and until any editor reverts it or says that s/he disagrees with the edit, at which point the edit is no longer presumed to represent consensus. Once someone (e.g., Doniago) reverts that edit, then we tend to presume that there isn't consensus. (Unfortunately, editors do sometimes revert changes that they believe are improvements. I once proposed that we create a "rule" to not deliberately make edits [yourself] that you personally believe harm the project, but we couldn't get consensus. There were editors who thought that making edits that they opposed showed that they were collegial, and I guess they didn't feel like they could trust the editors who supported a given change to make the edits themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but when you revert an edit, you're supposed to provide an explanation as to why. And citing WP:ONUS is not an explanation, because of the presumption of consensus provided by WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS; this means that when someone reverts an otherwise uncontroversial edit and cites ONUS but nothing else, they're misunderstanding and misapplying policy and ought to have that gently explained to them. You could cite ONUS as the sole reason for a revert the second time you remove something from the article, but not the first, because there's no reason to doubt it enjoys consensus at that point. And if someone is constantly reverting while citing only ONUS, that is a serious conduct issue and they need to be (and, historically, will be) sanctioned somehow. None of this is necessarily clear at first glance from looking at ONUS, which many editors are interpreting, incorrectly, as "you don't have to provide any explanation when removing stuff because all the burden is on the person making the edits" - there are definitely editors who read it and think that they can remove edits they disagree with without giving any explanation beyond WP:ONUS, which is completely unacceptable behavior. If you're saying that you think a non-explanation revert (which one that cites only WP:ONUS essentially is) is ever an acceptable way to indicate your initial disagreement with an edit, I strenuously disagree. Doing that is never acceptable and all relevant policy should harshly discourage it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

> when you revert an edit, you're supposed to provide an explanation

See also Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition#Edit summaries. Sometimes reverts should get the most boring, unexplanatory, or automatic edit summary possible.

I'm going to assume that you meant "when you revert an obviously good-faith addition [because ONUS only cares about the addition of information, not its removal or re-writing] of potentially appropriate information". In that case, yes, there should be an explanation, but (a) that explanation doesn't have to be in the edit summary, (b) that explanation doesn't have to be provided to you until you ask for it, and (c) that explanation does not have to WP:SATISFY you. Some people can identify problematic material but have a hard time explaining it in our weird way of talking through shortcuts. If you look a little higher on this page, you'll see a dispute in which someone thought that ONUS was being claimed instead of a proper explanation, but it turns out that ONUS wasn't the actual problem at all. (It was a simple DUE dispute.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My view is that removal of material is a perfectly valid form of challenge. Absolutely not. Edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until a specific objection has been raised; it is completely unacceptable for someone to repeatedly remove something from an article without saying why they are doing so (and WP:ONUS alone can never be used because, again, it enjoys consensus until they state an objection.) I don't think "state why you object" is a high bar - the rationale doesn't need to be strong, but it absolutely must be present. Part of the problem is that otherwise someone can remove material that they have no valid objection to, citing WP:ONUS, then refuse to engage or say anything beyond repeating "seek consensus" repeatedly (leaving discussions with no way to proceed, at least on lower-trafficked pages, without going to the bother of an RFC.) Requiring that they give at least some rationale for reverting specific to the material they want to remove is common sense. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS doesn't require explanations for reverts. "All edits should (emphasis mine) be explained..." As anyone who's been here for any appreciable amount of time knows, edits are reverted without explanation all the time. Of course, editors who regularly delete material without explanation may ultimately be found to be editing disruptively, but I imagine that only tends to happen in fairly egregious cases. DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but WP:ONUS is currently being interpreted, in many cases, as supporting / encouraging the idea that someone who objects to an edit doesn't need to provide a reason (ie. it's read as "the onus is on you to explain why you want to add this, not on me to explain why I don't want it added, so I'm just gonna remove it, cite WP:ONUS, and refuse to engage further.") That is obviously not the intent and I think everyone here agrees on that much, but it should at least clarify that somehow - even if you read "should" as making it optional (I do not; most conduct issues require long-term problems before actual sanctions come into play, but the fact that it's clearly sanctionable if it keeps happening shows that explaining your reverts is required), that "should" language ought to be reflected on WP:ONUS to make it clear that you should not cite ONUS alone as the reason for a revert unless the lack of consensus is already obvious. And WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS should be at least mentioned somewhere, since it is vital to interpreting WP:ONUS. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read it is that you absolutely are not required to provide a reason. If that was the intent, why use "should" instead of "must"? However, if you don't provide a reason and the editor who wants their material included begins a discussion and you don't participate, then you're forfeiting your right to continue to revert the addition. Or, if you prefer, I'm fine with the notion that anyone can revert an edit for any reason they'd like, but if they aren't willing to defend the revert by engaging with the other editor then they should have no reasonable expectation that their revert won't in turn be reverted. Of course, per WP:BRD, ideally when the edit was reverted any editor invested in the addition should have initiated a discussion, not simply reinstated the text in question. DonIago (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

IMPLICITCONSENSUS says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." I see nothing in that sentence that says anything like "until a specific objection has been raised". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely true that WP:ONUS can be misused to stonewall appropriate content, by creating an impossibly high bar for inclusion and by giving veto power to a small number of editors determined to exclude appropriate material. Arguably, that's happening now in the case that I believe prompted this proposed revision. That said, I'm wary of amending the policy, as the proposed change may inadvertently make it easier to abuse WP:ONUS to force inclusion of inappropriate material. I think we're trying to legislate away what is in reality a user-conduct issue, which is unlikely to be successful and may result in more problems down the road. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That said, I'm wary of amending the policy, as the proposed change may inadvertently make it easier to abuse WP:ONUS to force inclusion of inappropriate material. I don't think that that's a problem as long as we word it properly. What it needs to say is something along the lines of "if you remove material that is not already the subject of a dispute, you need to present at least some rationale for doing so, other than WP:ONUS itself." That's an absolutely minimal bar and if someone can't do that then I am fine with saying they are 100% in the wrong and should not revert; I don't see how it could be used to force anything into an article unless the person trying to remove it cannot think of any justification at all to remove it that would not immediately get them laughed out of the room... and in that case it belongs in the article, surely. It's not like it's hard to say "rv, WP:UNDUE" or the like - if they literally cannot think of anything to say except "get consensus", then they have no actual objection and the material does, in fact, enjoy consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There are potential unintended consequences, but that's why I included the words "when possible" (which is also part of the editing policy). I have seen both ONUS and PRESERVE weaponized, but ONUS seems to have a much higher potential for abuse. My goal with this proposal is not to create an unmanageable rule, but to increase awareness that it's a two sided coin. - MrX 🖋 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Some more words might help. @MrX, what do you think about adding words like "strive to preserve or fix appropriate, well-sourced, encyclopedic content"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Sure, that would make it even clearer and address at least some of the concerns raised here. - MrX 🖋 22:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the important thing is that per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus unless someone has raised a specific objection, and that you must specifically state what you object to about an edit in order to deny it that consensus (unless they are unambiguously controversial because there's eg. a relevant discussion in progress, or they violate an existing consensus or policy.) This means that nobody can or should ever cite WP:ONUS alone as the reason to revert something unless it's already clearly the locus of an existing dispute - when reverting, you need to raise an objection that can, in theory, be discussed or addressed. Just saying "rv, get consensus" is not only against policy, it needs to be discouraged because it doesn't lead to meaningful discussion (how is someone supposed to obtain consensus when they don't know what aspect of their edit is objectionable?) So I agree that WP:ONUS should specifically state something to this effect - something along the lines of Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, edits are presumed to enjoy consensus unless a specific objection has been raised to them; therefore, ONUS alone should never be used as the reason to revert an edit unless the lack of consensus is already clear. Anyone reverting or removing material from an article has an obligation to state a specific reason they are doing so, and WP:ONUS alone cannot be used as such a reason unless another objection has already been raised or the lack of consensus is otherwise clear. I think that at the very least WP:ONUS must mention WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which is vital to understanding it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I put some stuff there.

I disagree and you don't have consensus for it.

Then you need to fix it.

No...you...you don't have consensus for it. So you need to go get consensus.

Nope. It's you're problem now. I put it in the article and now it's your problem to fix it, in any way possible other than removing it.

That's pretty much how I see this going. GMG ^talk 18:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is how it already goes due to the problem this suggestion is trying to fix. In your example, I feel the point where discussion became non-productive was with the blue editor's first comment; the person in blue absolutely must state why they disagree in their first statement if they want to raise an objection. It doesn't have to be a good or strong objection (even something as simple as "not an improvement" is fine), but they have to state something in order to start discussions, they can't just revert with no rationale. The reason your example discussion derailed into empty back-and-forth is entirely because the person in blue, due to the current WP:ONUS, thought they didn't have to give a rationale for their removal; that's a mistake we need to fix. I have seen breakdowns like the one you describe constantly. I would say the person in green is 100% in the right (they made a good-faith edit and it was reverted with no explanation, which is against policy.) The person in blue is 100% in the wrong - seriously, user-conduct-level in the wrong, if they're doing this frequently - and ought to be sanctioned for disruptive stonewalling if they keep that nonsense up. When you revert you have to provide at least some reason unless the reason is already clear, that's just basic policy. "I disagree and you don't have consensus for it" is not a reason - "I disagree" isn't a reason, obviously, and "you don't have consensus for it" isn't valid alone per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with IMPLICITCONSENSUS is that a removal is a challenge to any previous implicit consensus. Since consensus can change, a NEW consensus is needed to resolve the challenge. That means going to the talk page and discussing. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's face it—our patchwork of policies and guideline is ripe for abuse by anyone who is clever enough to use them that way. My interest is with the editors of good faith who are not as familiar will all of our content policies. - MrX 🖋 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the time factor. X boldly adds content that Y finds to be a problem and removes some time later. If that it within a day or so, then at this point, ONUS would seem to be on X to get consensus. If that is months later (which no other changes otherwise to X's content), now the ONUS has shifted to Y to get consensus to remove. A question is how long that time frame is before the onus shifts from X to Y, which to me is on the order of a month (the same time we usually give RFCs). Obviously, this excludes content that would fall under 3RRNO like obvious BLP vios. Further, Y's reason to remove should be justified; if Y simply just undid without comment (within the day), X should be able to revert though obviously we want to avoid the engagement in an edit war. But if Y gives a fair reason, like "Possible BLP violation" then that's where discussion should start on the talk page to discuss ONUS. --Masem (t) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that true. I'm not sure I have even seen someone try to restore content while claiming that ONUS is required to remove it, but technically it does seem to fall under the spirit of this part of the policy. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, as this leads, ONUS and PRESERVE work hand-in-hand, and that should mean it applies to new additions that are challenges, as well as removals of "long-standing" material (where I'm saying long-standing is material that hasn't been challenged since addition for at least a month, and that includes any talk page discussions). It's a give-and-take aspect here because if you don't include removal alongside addition, you given one direction too much "power" here in debates. --Masem (t) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem's describing BRD, which is not how ONUS operates. ONUS is specific to whether information is included at all, which is not precisely the same as whether a given edit is good, or whether some "status quo version" or "stable version" should be prioritized over others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

For all purposes, ONUS and BRD all extend from the same principle that we want editors to minimize disruption and work collaboratively, avoiding edit wars. ONUS is more tailored to verifyability, but its same arguments apply all across the board, even though its written towards inclusion of verified material. It's best to think of this issue holistically, not limited to this one situation. --Masem (t) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an improvement, this is already covered by the text related to Note 3. And it's a bad idea to make clear consensus less effective. The practice of inclusion is exceedingly small in burden, almost non-existent (A single editor without others writes: 'Supported arguably relevant statement.CITE'), and ONUS is basically the only way to check. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Note 3 is kind of useless, similar to printing the Lord's Prayer on a grain of rice. It's in a completely different part of the page, and really doesn't address the issue at hand anyway. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. - MrX 🖋 19:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not reassuring in the least to have a proposal based on not knowing what is in Core policy. And it's in the first section of the core policy and to claim not to know the first section of core policy is bad policy writing. In Wikipedia, adding is easy, what is hard is broad research, summarizing, and actual editing, and because these are really hard, they need strong encouragement in policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree that we should emphasize the difficulty of editing, since that would seem to be at odds with our charter. Explaining a core policy in relationship to other policies would seem to be one of the objectives of a well written policy page. - MrX 🖋 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is chartered as a curated encyclopedia, its charter is explicitly not to take whatever anyone wants to add. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting is also easy, though. What we want to encourage is not blind "rv, get consensus per WP:ONUS" reverts, but back-and-forth that addresses the actual underlying objections and possible ways to resolve them - this means that WP:ONUS needs to make it clear that reverting requires discussion and engagement. As written, WP:ONUS is sometimes counterproductive in that regard. Another way of looking at it is this - productive discussions happen when both sides have a reason to come to the table. If WP:ONUS is interpreted as too one-sided (ie. making for a default situation where people who object to the material have no obligation to do anything at all, even participate in discussions beyond saying "get consensus"), then it derails discussions and makes it harder to improve articles. We want to make it clear that contributions require consensus and that objections have to be addressed, yes. But reverting should require an actual specific objection - the purpose of our policy on consensus should be to encourage people to work together and reach consensus, and currently WP:ONUS is sometimes undermining that due to a perception that it places absolutely all the responsibility on one party, freeing people who object to additions from any obligation to explain their position beyond pointing at WP:ONUS itself. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Unconvincing, as it is plainly the case that Wikipedia has no difficulty adding and adding and adding without end. The difficulty is and always has been in actually researching, writing, editing, and producing good encyclopedia articles on which there is editorial consensus. For goodness sake, this proposal sprung from whether a single sentence or part of a sentence should or should not be placed in a single section of a full article, when there is surely no shortage, whatsoever, of content there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that ONUS is used to exclude content editors don't like, and it shouldn't be. Benjamin (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- At the same time, I have seen some people when they remove content under valid BLP concerns, be told they are removing content because of a "you don't like that" argument and thus wasn't a valid removal. We need some level of good faith assumption here but we also want those that repeatedly "cry wolf" not to be able to abuse the process. There's a needed balance here that can go out of whack either way. --Masem (t) 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

When all of the editors at the article are just trying to make it a good article, once material passes test of not being clearly excluded by policies or core quidelines, a weighted decision is made base on degree of compliance with those, plus other considerations such as how controversial the assertion is, degree of wp:relevance, weight based on simply good editing, usefulness of the material, strength of sourcing, and others. When the objective becomes to POV an article, then that process goes out the window and wikilawyering takes over, looking for individual policies and guidelines to force inclusion or exclusion. I think that when someone is doing that, the "besides just citing the policy, please state your concern" concept proposed above should become the widespread norm. Such is just a good faith filter; the person would not be required make or win the case for their concern/objection. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking aloud here, but I'm wondering if a flow chart to demonstrate how onus may apply or what steps one does in challenging material would help ultimately in presenting the practice of ONUS. We need to come to an agreement on how it works obviously, and its something we can't hold anyone's feet to the fire to, but clearly we should have something that could be easily followed if there are questions "okay, where are we with respect to ONUS on this edit war..." --Masem (t) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's really that complicated. All edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until someone raises a specific objection to them. Once someone has done so, those in favor of the edit must reach or demonstrate consensus to continue (caveat: longstanding text is generally presumed to enjoy consensus unless there's a reason otherwise.) WP:ONUS comes into play once an objection (any objection) has been raised, but the presumption of consensus means that ONUS itself can never be the sole reason to revert an edit - someone must first state some specific objection to break the presumption of consensus. I don't think it's particularly onerous or unusual to require that people who are reverting an edit must provide some objection, no matter how brief or simple, to use as a starting point for discussions, and I think that on the whole current policy does require it already. Part of the reason WP:ONUS is a particular recurring problem (and part of the reason it constantly comes up in terms of leading to intractable or unproductive disputes) is because it is somewhat out of step with the rest of our policy in this regard, putting far more burden on one side and far less on the other; it has historically had far less discussion than most of our dispute-resolution policies. This also shows itself in the way that ONUS conflicts with the way RFCs work, in that as written someone at the start of a (non-WP:BLP) dispute can say "this material has been here for a while but I object to it and you must meet ONUS to keep it", then it goes to an RFC, reaches no consensus, and the result is "the material stays because no-consensus defaults to status quo ante bellum, not removal." The fact that ONUS conflicts with our current practice and most other policies leads to unproductive clashes and even edit-wars where both sides in a dispute think that policy and practice backs them up. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thinking a lot larger here. Something that would start with "you are about to add something to an article. do you think it is contentious?" if yes "consider getting consensus on the talk page before adding", - that type of level, where ONUS is part of the bigger picture. But I could be overthinking this too. --Masem (t) 22:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Several editors have tried to add flow charts to Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm doubtful that anyone has made a complete flow chart, or that it would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

An example of a hot-button topic where the interpretation of ONUS is currently holding things up is at Aziz Ansari. (I've asked for administrator assistance but I have yet to receive a response.[16]) I restored the stable version[17] with the edit summary: Restore stable version before edit war. Please collaborate on assault allegation text to avoid continuing conflicts. I absentmindedly assumed that my objections to the changes would be understood based on the talk page discussion, but later in the discussion I clarified that I disagreed with the interpretation of the sources. This explanation was not considered sufficient apparently (or the argument may be that ONUS does not apply to non-controversial edits.)[18] I have no idea if the ONUS policy needs to be changed or clarified to address this, and I have no idea how to proceed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut That discussion (in which I'm a very minor participant) is going nowhere. It's time to use another type of WP:DR to break the deadlock. Possibly mediation or an RfC. Now, do you have to comment on the proposal above? - MrX 🖋 22:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to RfC; it's an entire paragraph where many changes against consensus are being made. Absent any direction or admin assistance the next step is for me to repeat my reversion and if it is reverted I don't know what else to do other than go to the edit-warring noticeboard. That discussion is going nowhere? I haven't yet begun the discussion other than to ask that ONUS be respected so we can begin collaborating on what to change. Unless you mean start an RfC on whether ONUS applies? That's the only deadlock. Examples in this proposal discussion describe a situation which currently exists, so, does this situation at Aziz Ansari illustrate the problem? If so, how can edits to the ONUS policy clarify how to proceed in such a situation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, the "thing to RFC" is whether any of those changes have consensus. If you look at the RFC at the end of Wikipedia talk:External links, you'll see some formatting that would let people vote for version A or version B, if you think that nuance might be unhelpful at the moment. Alternatively, sometimes the better result is a compromise between two disputed versions (i.e., not using any of the existing wording, and starting over from scratch). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure if I'm explaining the situation clearly. There are no two versions to !vote for. There was a stable version for months, and then four days ago many changes have been made to the section, virtually all of them against consensus.[19] (Although there is now consensus on the lead.) The changes have not even been discussed. Editors have repeatedly stated that ONUS should be respected. It only makes sense for the stable version to be restored so that me may discuss the proposed changes. We cannot have an RfC if there has been no discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying, Kolya Butternut. There is no requirement to discuss changes in advance. ONUS is not meant to require people to obtain written permission in advance of editing an article. It is not meant to give special rights to some previous "stable" version. The fact that a given phrasing or approach to an article is "longstanding" does not give it special value.

When there are a lot of small changes, rather than two, then editors may be able to simplify the discussion by taking each severable change separately. For example, you can start a quick discussion about whether it's better to say "an article on the now-defunct Millennial/Gen-Z women's website Babe.net by Katie Way" or "an article on Babe.net by Katie Way". And so forth, through all the smaller changes that can be discussed separately. There's already a large discussion in the talk page about the overall balance, and discussions about small points may be quicker and simpler than either overall balance or suggesting that we start over from a particular old version.

My main encouragement to you is to remember that you never have to wait for the other editor to start the discussion. If you think edits need to be discussed, you can immediately start that discussion yourself. Reverting first is not a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I still feel we're talking past each other. An editor made edits which I felt were against policy, I reverted them, he reinstated them, and I felt that he demanded that I discuss my objection to each edit before each should be undone, essentially reversing the onus. No one is suggesting there is a requirement that changes must be discussed in advance. I disagree that a longstanding, stable version does not have special value; it has the value of consensus, which new challenged edits do not. The elephant in the room is the disruptiveness that has occurred there. You said that reverting first is not a requirement, but respecting the reversions of challenged text until a consensus can be achieved is a requirement, otherwise it is an edit war. At the moment, however, my reversion remains. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The longstanding, stable version does not have a value of consensus, as of the moment when the other editor wants to change it. The fact that someone changes it is a piece of evidence that the longstanding, stable version might not be the true "consensus version".

Respecting the reversion of challenged text is not a firm requirement. It's a good idea in most cases, but it's not a firm requirement. In particular, ONUS says that if the challenged edit is to remove content, then the content stays out until there is a consensus to include it. Looking at your reversion here, the person violating ONUS is you. User:SPECIFICO removed this sentence with an edit summary of "No consensus for this in lead of BLP". The next day, you added the disputed content back in. ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Note the word I underlined: it's "inclusion", not "making changes" or "removing disputed content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the lead is not what I have been discussing here. As I tried to explain to you above, there is consensus that there is no consensus on the lead. As for your interpretation of WP:ONUS, it is my understanding that Masem, at least, does not share your interpretation. I cannot discuss with you how to handle a situation where ONUS was not being respected if we do not agree on the interpretation of ONUS (and if you are unfamiliar with which edits I am actually discussing.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to know his opinion about whether ONUS you to achieve consensus for including that disputed content, rather than making the person who wants to exclude it demonstrate a consensus for removing it, then we can just ask him:

@Masem, ONUS says that the person who wants to include disputed content has to achieve consensus for that. Kolya says that there is no consensus including this material in the lead. Per ONUS, do you think Kolya should be sticking the disputed content back into the lead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya's talking about a body paragraph that's in dispute, not the lead in Ansari article. It was changed in March 2020 (IIRC) and then has been under a slow edit/reversion war since, more heated recently. This is where ONUS would be IMO for any changes from the pre-March version. --Masem (t) 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, the disputed content that Kolya added before achieving consensus to do so was first added in April 2020. Does that mean that you think Kolya's action to re-add the disputed matter complies with ONUS?

(Yes, I know that Kolya would like us to focus on other edits, but the rules are the same for both sides, and if you come here to complain that the other guy has edited with achieving consensus first, then IMO you ought to not do exactly the same thing in exactly the same article a few days later.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is disagreeing with you that when I reinserted the text in the lead I did so improperly; it was an oversight. Please discontinue this thread. I am finding it disruptive to rehash settled disputes while ignoring the issue at hand (but which has actually cooled off at the moment). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So, which time was it "an oversight", KB? Was the oversight the first time you reinserted it? or was the oversight the second time you reinserted it? That BLP violation had been removed by multiple editors previous to your first reinsertion. It was an edit-war in progress. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The oversight was thinking it was longstanding text. But that mistake of mine has no bearing on the present discussion, which is fruitless, so please do not respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. Because once it was identified by multiple editors and removed as a BLP violation, "longstanding" had nothing to do with it. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It has everything to do with my understanding of why I felt it was proper to remove the text. I had been unaware of the BLP exception to ONUS, and there appeared to be no BLP violation. Please stop making statements which I feel require me to defend myself. I have no interest in this thread. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no "BLP exception to ONUS". BLP is our core policy. Anyway, ONUS is about keeping verified but UNDUE content out of articles, not blocking article improvement by claiming the status quo trumps valid uncontroversial improvements. I believe @MrX: explained that to you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Ansari&diff=975033815&oldid=974896328 early in your second "ONUS" edit war. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually WP:ONUS redirects to Verifiability which is a core content policy, and it supports the removal of material that shouldn't be included: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The purpose of ONUS is what this discussion is asking to eliminate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, right, we know that. That's why we're here on the Verifiability talk page!❤ As you point out, however, ONUS is about omitting verified information, and not about keeping stale information after it's been improved by ordinary edits. Now of course some ordinary edits are not improvements. But the current situation that KB reverted en masse a set of ordinary edits while repeatedly declining to disclose or discuss what perceived problems warranted that revert. And then she started citing WP:ONUS instead of telling anyone why the reverts. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a false narrative. If you want to argue, ping me to your talk page. And the focus on me for reinstating well-sourced factual text into the lead, which three other editors had also done[20],[21],[22], is only distracting from the controversial WP:NPOV and WP:V-violating edits you made which you had reinstated against consensus.[23] The ONUS is on you to discuss your edits; you have only demanded that I justify my reversions and shown no interest in explaining your edits.[24] (But you did question whether the word "polarised" was found in sources. It is: the Ansari case is "one of the most polarised cases of the 'Me Too' moment".[25] Please continue this discussion elsewhere; correcting all of your false statements is taking up too much space here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where WhatamIdoing is looking: [26] is the first key edit that Kolya did in April 2020 which was to RESTORE the preview removal of body text from the article, this after a bit of mess in the lede. Before that, there was no issue with the inclusion of the allegations since they first arose in Jan 2019 that I could see. That's long-standing that Kolya was properly restoring as best as I can tell. Everything since that April 2020 has been slow edit war fighting over that. --Masem (t) 01:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

How it really works (when it works) is that many factors are taken into consideration when making a decision to have the material there / not there. And "onus" and "preserve" sort of say the status quo gets a bit of influence as one of those factors. Or to say that using the borderline case as an example. "IF all other factors are equal, the status quo prevails". Despite the "many factors are taken into consideration" being how wikipedia actually works, the structure of policies and guidelines relevant to that process never structurally acknowledges that and instead each one strives to define what should overall happen relative to just itself which creates a logical mess but then the squishy wikipedia systems finds a way to make it mostly work despite that. MrX's proposal is sort of two proposals:

One is a sort of "what should happen overall" statement: "Editors should strive to preserve or fix content when possible" which IMO tries replace the entire described process with one sentence, which IMO would be problematic
The other in essence says "do not use WP:ONUS as the only reason for removing or opposing it the presence of material." which I think is an excellent proposal. It's not a "change", it's a statement of how wikipedia works (when it does) that needs saying. Some other ideas proposed above would also be good procedural corollary add-ons to this. In essence saying "don't just invoke wp:onus, add some statement about your concern or concerns with the material when doing so."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the others above that ONUS has been misused in some instances. Simply throwing up your hands and pointing to ONUS and saying "there is no consensus" isn't a valid reason for keeping content out of an article. There needs to be a reason, grounded in policy, to exclude the content. -- Calidum 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The policy does not make it clear; what is the difference between ONUS and BRD? It almost seems like ONUS makes BRD mandatory. (At least in situations where changes are too contentious to be PRESERVED.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I just found MASEM's 13:39, 28 August 2020 comment above explaining this. Do folks agree with that interpretation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this as a needed change. What it promotes is a good idea in practice but shouldn't come across as a requirement of ONUS. I don't recall any cases of ONUS being used as a sole justification though I'm sure it happens. Looking back at the edit summaries of the recent article that raised the ONUS question at AN, ONUS was never used as a sole reason for reversion. In general terms, I agree that reverting newly added content and citing ONUS alone is not going to go far. Consider if MrGreen adds new content. MrBlue removes it with the sole comment "ONUS". MrBlue might as well have said NO CONSENSUS. Both indicate that the edit was rejected but offer little actionable feedback. Absent a meaningful objection is should be easy for MrGreen to follow BRD and make a case for inclusion. When the opposing reason is an implied "I don't like it", it should be reasonably easy to persuade other editors to MrGreen's POV. Yes, it may be frustrating for MrGreen to have to better articulate why the text should be included but is that really a bad thing? If MrBlue actually has good arguments in mind but failed to make them the talk page discussion should bring them out. While I can't cite a specific case, I suspect most cases of "ONUS" occur when a discussion has occurred, no consensus has been reached but an editor decides to restore the contested material anyway. So if MrGreen restores his disputed edit, MrBlue or another opposing editor could reasonably say "ONUS" as the reason for a follow on reversion as it indicates the discussion has not resulted in a consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would say that if editors are going to be challenging additions or removals on ONUS, the lack of a reason is going to hurt them, and as a counterpoint to that, they will strongly boost their case is that after such a reversion, they are at the talk page in a new section explaining their revert and while they think it is a problem. Doesn't mean that it is necessarily a "good" reason, but it shows that the user is questioning the addition. But again, this is not a process to be gamed; if this is the twentieth time the user has brought up a compliant on roughly the same material despite previous consensus , that's an issue too, but that's single editor behavior problems. But in general, we want editors to speak out why they think ONUS needs to apply, and the earlier and more verbose they are, the better to which other, uninvolved editors can judge the situation. --Masem (t) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No change necessary - when material is challenged, ONUS is an important safeguard in our core content policies and an integral part of the consensus building process. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, looking at the above claims about "status quo" and "long-standing" text, I wonder whether we do need a change, specifically to say that ONUS applies regardless of whether an editor believes that the disputed content is "status quo" or "long-standing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Excellent point, WAID. I agree that just because something is long standing, it neither automatically belongs nor should it automatically stay - The longest running hoax comes to mind. We also have situations of old news that requires updating/replacement. I would certainly consider changing my position with a little tweaking of the proposed changes - maybe add a footnote - and also include clarification of long standing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but I feel that the key to long-standing text is that it has an implicit consensus from the number of eyes that have seen it and accepted it. Every time someone edits a section and leaves something in, that represents a (slight, but still meaningful) endorsement of the text they retained, and over an extended period of time this builds up to a consensus that requires that an editor demonstrate that that implicit consensus has been overturned if they want to remove that bit. The implication of this is that it isn't really time but edits (or perhaps "editors that have viewed this text without removing it") that really matters. Any longstanding text on Donald Trump unequivocally enjoys consensus and (if anyone objected to its removal) would require a demonstrated consensus otherwise to remove. Longstanding text on a less-trafficked article, on the other hand, might have a weaker consensus or even none at all (if there's reason to think few people actually saw it.) A corollary to this is that more visible text builds implicit consensus faster - if something is longstanding in the lead of a high-traffic article, it definitely enjoys implicit consensus; an obscure detail in a footnote 3/4ths of the way down the article might not enjoy the same support. Another advantage to this interpretation is that it encourages stability in highly-visible areas, where it is more important - that need for stability is part of the reason status quo ante bellum has always been part of our policy regarding disputes with no clear consensus, and is part of the reason the interpretation of WP:ONUS that allows for the removal of longstanding text without a consensus has clearly never been supported practice, but on an article or area that few people see, it is less pressing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
That is an important point, but it does not address OP's issue. ONUS is about due weight, not QUO. There is also related discussion at Bradv's talk page RE 1rr. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If ONUS is primarily about WP:DUE, then maybe it should be in that policy instead of this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:ONUS doesn't say anything about WP:DUE. WP:ONUS just means that claiming WP:V is not enough to make disputed changes without achieving consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Per OP, it is not about "disputed changes". It is about what is included. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
By that logic an editor can blank large sections of consensus text from an article and cite ONUS to argue that the text must remain out pending discussion. According to Bradv [27] and El C,[28] WP:ONUS is about disputed changes. (Sorry about the pings, but this disagreement will just not end.) Unless there is an obvious BLP violation, the ONUS is on the editor(s) who want make disputed changes which would add, remove, or alter text in the consensus version. Perhaps ONUS should be added to the WP:CONSENSUS policy as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
During a dispute, especially during a complex dispute of the sort that prompted this discussion, nobody actually knows which version is "the consensus version". Therefore I conclude that the actual effect of privileging "the consensus version" would be exactly the same as saying "the WP:QUO version" in the same place.

For example, when you reverted to what you call "the stable version", so that "Ansari briefly receded from the public eye following the incident, then began in May of 2018 to return to the stage" turned back into "Ansari receded from the public eye following the incident, and beginning in May of 2018 he began slowly returning to the stage", you'd have said that was "the consensus version", wouldn't you have? (What surprises me is only that you thought that it was worth reverting.)

But: the whole point of a content dispute is that an editor disagrees that the "status quo version" actually has consensus! That editor might be right or wrong, but once there's an obvious dispute underway, you have to reach consensus before you can declare any version to be "the conensus version". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Per MrX, ONUS is required to remove text "under the spirit of this part of the policy",[29] and per Masem ONUS "applies to new additions that are challenges, as well as removals of "long-standing" material".[30] I'll spare the pings; I think there is consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I've been pinged to this conversation, I'll try to offer some thoughts about ONUS. Fundamental to this discussion is the fact that ONUS is part of the Verifiability policy, and a corollary to it. In essence it says that just because information is verifiable does not mean it automatically goes in the article. There may be other reasons to exclude it, and it is still subject to consensus. It does not mean that information can be excluded just because consensus hasn't been formed yet, nor does it mean that the current version is always endorsed and any additions have to go through an RfC. It certainly does not mean that any editor can remove whatever they want without explaining themselves or appealing to other policies, guidelines, or precedents.
By way of example, consider the process of creating a new article. If you write a brand new article, I can't just delete it "per ONUS". I would have to present a valid reason for its deletion, such as it not being notable, not being verifiable, or not being encyclopedic. And then we take that argument to the community in the form of an AfD, wherein other editors can weigh in as to whether we need an article on the subject you just wrote about. While that conversation happens, the article stays.
Of course there are a few important differences between adding content to an existing article and creating a new article. The former has a history, it has precedents, it has vested contributors, it has readers. A new article has less of those things. But without being able to create new content and write new things, we would not have an encyclopedia. This is important for those advocating a liberal application of ONUS to remember. Yes, the burden to get consensus for additions lies with the author of the content, but all other collaborators need to be willing to express their arguments for why the content does not belong, and those arguments need to be based on prior consensus (policies, guidelines, precedents). In short, I DON'T LIKE IT is not a valid reason for removing other people's hard work. Remember, it's easier to destroy than to create. Vandals destroy, Wikipedians create. – bradv🍁 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, thank you, but I'm not sure if that addresses the point of contention. If Editor A adds Verifiable text to a consensus version and Editor B removes the text citing Policy 1, the ONUS will be on Editor A to achieve consensus before restoring the text. Now, if Editor C removes Verifiable text from a consensus version citing Policy 2, and Editor D restores the text disagreeing with Policy 2 or citing Policy 3, will the ONUS be on Editor C to achieve consensus before removing the text? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

See below Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Bradv's comments above, I think ONUS is really just centralizing an idea that exists already but is spread over other policies. I don't think anyone disagrees that all that is verifiable is not always DUE for inclusion (perhaps I should use BALASP instead of DUE?). I may be able to verify the tire pressure for a Boeing 747-200 but such information is probably not significant enough to make it into the Wikipedia article. How would we decide if such a fact should be included? Well if consensus via discussion says it should be included. If consensus doesn't support inclusion then I'm in the wrong if I add it anyway. Thus ONUS is just codifying that I need my newly added material to pass VERIFY, and CONSENSUS before it is included. Presumably to pass CONSENSUS it will have to have shown it was DUE for inclusion.
So what about ONUS and removal? Well let's assume I did add that tire pressure to the 747 article and two years later someone noticed and wanted to remove it. We'll again ONUS will apply. I can say it should remain and now we have a debate about WEIGHT/DUE and CONSENSUS will decide if it remains. The fact that it's been in the article for a while means it has a small SILENT consensus. In my view that means if you have an exact 50/50 split with equal policy arguments (often a case where editorial judgement is the real decider) then I give a slight lean towards the status quo version of the article. Call it a 51% for status quo. That is still a no-consensus resulting in status quo. In my opinion this matters in the specific case of 2 vs 1 editor disputes. I feel that over 2/3rds is generally a consensus result. If the 2 editors favor a status quo result I would call that consensus. If the 2 editors favor a chance I would say they don't have consensus because of the slight edge given to status quo. Still, that's my opinion. Anyway, in a case like my beloved tire pressure I think it would be hard to defend it's inclusion absent some additional facts. If my only source was a service manual then it would be easy to say RS's don't talk about this fact thus weight isn't clear thus CONSENSUS to remove. Thus the ONUS on showing that the tire pressure is DUE is still on me as the editor who wants it in. That is true even though it was part of the article for some time. So even though it was RS'ed to say a service manual, it had poor sourcing in terms of our hierachy of RS and thus poor WEIGHT. CONSENSUS was against on grounds of WEIGHT and the long standing text is removed. ONUS wasn't so much the reason to remove as the mechanism by which it was removed. If I tried to put it back in other editors could say the ONUS to show it should be included is on me, not those who want to remove it. Springee (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That's helpful to have detailed examples, but to start with the simple question, would you say the answer to my question above is yes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But actually I don't think your example works...you're saying there would be consensus to remove because your sources are bad. That's not how consensus works. If you think your bad sources are good, and two editors think your bad sources are bad, because the ONUS is on them to remove the text the text will remain until another sensible editor comes along to tell you your sources are bad. Unless there is an obvious BLP violatioin, editors cannot override your !vote just because you're wrong. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to be careful with calling the source "bad". The Boeing factory service manuals need to be legally right else lives are at risk. I would argue they are about the most authoritative source when it comes to that particular number. As such I think the number passes V with flying colors. The issue is if such information is little more than trivia in the Wikipedia article. Presumably if I had access to the service manuals I could fill the wiki article with things that are factually correct but of trivial WEIGHT. ONUS is saying that just because my source passes V doesn't mean it has WEIGHT for inclusion. A CONSENSUS discussion will decide if it has WEIGHT. If yes then it stays. ONUS is saying that question of due WEIGHT can happen even if the content is long standing. If someone says this material has no weight then it's up to those who want to include it to establish that weight via the consensus process. Springee (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Service manuals are "reliable". They aren't "independent", and they aren't "secondary", which are qualities that matter a lot more for determining DUE/BALASP questions than for merely determining whether the source can be relied upon to verify the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential RfC: Does ONUS apply to removing text?

Latest comment: 4 years ago106 comments12 people in discussion

This topic was split off from #ONUS, above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This basic question needs a direct answer, perhaps an RfC is due? I propose the following text:

Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?

For example: according to WP:ONUS, if Editor A adds Verifiable text to a consensus version and Editor B disputes the addition by citing Policy 1, the ONUS will be on Editor A to achieve consensus to add the text.

The question is: if Editor C removes Verifiable text from a consensus version citing Policy 2, and Editor D disputes the removal by disagreeing with Policy 2 or citing Policy 3, will the ONUS be on Editor C to achieve consensus to remove the text?

Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I am confused... in your scenario, Editor C has ALREADY met any potential ONUS, as they have stated a reason for removing the text (C thinks it violates Policy 2). The ONUS is now on those who wish to keep the disputed text to achieve consensus that it does NOT, in fact, violate policy 2. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor C cited policy 2 to remove consensus text, and Editor D disagreed with the policy 2 violation or cited policy 3 to retain the text. The ONUS is with Editor C. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No... it is still up to Editor D to convince Editor C (as well as Editors E, F, G, H, etc) that policy 2 is being misunderstood, or that Policy 3 somehow negates Policy 2. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

So would the RfC question I posed answer whether your interpretation or mine is the correct interpretation of policy (or what the policy should be)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it would not. The ONUS is still on those who wish to add or keep the disputed material. In this case, They need to demonstrate that their interpretation of policy has consensus. If they can successfully do that, then they can apply that interpretation to the content dispute. But if their interpretation of policy is flawed, then they have not met the ONUS on the content dispute. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, I've been wondering for a few weeks whether ONUS is about "disputed text" vs "disputed fact". There are many ways to present a given bit of information, which means that it's possible to dispute Presentation #1 of Fact A, without disputing whether the article should say something about Fact A.

To use the tire-pressure example above, I could support inclusion of a fact about tire pressure, supported by the cited source, but still object to having the exact pressure readings for the different types of tires under different conditions spelled out in a long paragraph or table. If I'm willing to include a fact ("Tire pressure is about six times the typical pressure for a car tire") and someone else wants to spell out that this means between 200 and 205 psi as measured on cold tires while the ambient temperature is 15±10 °C, but 220 psi when the weather's hot, and 190 when it's cold and there's a formula for guessing the pressure when the wheels are hot (but you really shouldn't use it), then I'm not sure that ONUS applies at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

My first thought was this question is easy to answer, ONUS makes no exclusion/limitation for new text only. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. However, in thinking about my reply I can see a potential conflict with how we often operate so I think the question is fair but not articulated well.
Consider a case where [Factoid] is long standing. Editors Q and R present reasonable arguments that the content is not DUE and remove it. Editors S and T present reasonable arguments that the content is due and restore it. We now have no-consensus on inclusion of the [Factoid]. If ONUS applies to all content, new and established then, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", suggests that Editors S and T have failed to get consensus for continued inclusion thus the [Factoid] is removed. However, NOCON says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". So NOCON says the article should be restored to it's prior state. Thus in the specific case of no-consensus regarding the removal of verifiable content it appears ONUS says no-consensus means remove while NOCONSENSUS says restore. Since ONUS and NOCON are both part of policy this appears to be a direct policy conflict.
Note: This question would not apply if the new edit wasn't a question of removal of content, for example a change in text order or edit to the lead that doesn't remove content from the body of the article. Springee (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee, although it does make sense to find where we disagree, the purpose of this new section is to discuss whether to have an RfC and what text to use. The long complicated examples in the previous discussion above distracted from a simple question. Would you change your Editor identification letters? It's confusing to use the same names for different scenarios from the RfC proposed text.

The question I pose does apply to any disputed changes, including text order and edits to the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is you need to clearly articulate where you think there is a disconnect. I don't think your current question does that. I think my scenario makes it clear that in that case we have a conflict between ONUS and NOCON assuming ONUS will apply to existing content as well as new. If it only applies to new then ONUS and NOCON don't conflict. Springee (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What RfC text would you propose to address the disconnect which you perceive? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee, about "We now have no-consensus on inclusion of the [Factoid]", I will add that we now equally have no-consensus on the exclusion of the [Factoid]. ONUS puts its thumb on the scale and says that [Factoid] should be excluded.

I think NOCON (which I wrote; it is a summary of rules and practices that are defined elsewhere) is wrong. I think it should be updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that in a case like my hypothetical, [Factoid] should be removed correct? I personally don't have a preference but I can see a situation like this coming up as a RfC. If a closing editor agrees that the discussion is a clear no-consensus, should the closing editor then say "material goes per ONUS" or "changes are rolled back (material stays)" per NOCON? Is this specific conflict something that should be discussed and resolved via a RfC? I don't have a feeling as to which way is better. Has this been discussed in the past? Springee (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you created the WP:NOCON policy, but you didn't add the relevant text which states that no consensus to remove content results in the content being kept. The first editor (who is currently active) who edited the relevant policy text is Born2cycle. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The process for ONUS looks more like this:

If:

The article contained [Factoid], where [Factoid] is a verifiable piece of information.
1. How long the article has contained [Factoid] is irrelevant to ONUS.
2. Who added [Factoid] is irrelevant to ONUS.
Carol removed [Factoid].
1. Carol's edit happens under circumstances that a reasonable editor would believe that there is some good-faith, potentially good reason for removing it (e.g., it is not obvious vandalism, it is not a ridiculous edit, etc.). A simple example is that Carol's edit summary said something like "Rm trivia per WP:DUE".
2. Carol's apparent goal is that [Factoid] not be mentioned in the article. (Simple example: Carol's edit summary is not something like "Rm bad grammar".)
Dan wants the article to include [Factoid].

then:

Dan may not insist that the article contain [Factoid], either now or in the (near) future, unless and until Dan can demonstrate that there is a consensus for doing so.

This means:

Dan may revert Carol (what if it was a mistake?) if Wikipedia:Reverting seems like a reasonable response, but probably only once.
- No response suggests a silent consensus.
- Re-reverting or complaints on the talk page indicate that Dan needs to show evidence of a consensus to include [Factoid].
Dan may make a bold edit that attempts to find consensus through compromise, e.g., by including [Factoid] in a different section, with more sources, using different phrasing, etc.
Dan may start a discussion (an RFC might be overkill). The result of the discussion could be:
- Consensus to include: Dan can add [Factoid] to the article.
- Consensus to exclude: Dan cannot add [Factoid] to this article.
- (True) No consensus: Dan cannot add [Factoid] to this article at this time. Dan is welcome to keep trying to form a consensus for its inclusion at a later date.
- The result of the discussion, however, should never be summarized as "per ONUS" or "per NOCON". Those are procedures, not content policies. The result ideally would be summarized as something like "Editors agree that [Factoid] should be included because it is neutral and verifiable" or "Editors do not agree to include [Factoid] because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

As for the procedure, since I installed that part of NOCON without an RFC in the first place, I don't think we need an RFC to improve it. The key point is figuring out whether the community actually wants more BRD/QUO (better for article expanders) or ONUS (better for people trying to keep garbage out of the mainspace). We shouldn't continue with the current system of having two contradictory rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

... I should add that it's possible to have both rules, without a contradiction, if you apply ONUS to inclusion/exclusion questions, and the BRD/QUO to everything else (e.g., phrasing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Note the artfully stated hypothetical that begs the central question: Did the removal constitute a change to a "consensus"? There are millions of infrequently-edited low quality and sparsely watched articles on Wikipedia that we are all working to improve over time. The proposition that an editor can call any old content "consenus" merely because it's stood for X weeks or months is contrary to every principle of editing here. Note that KB is engaged in a campaign to restore an old deprocated version of a certain article now repeatedly, incorrectly, and at exhaustive length citing "ONUS" despite a clear consensus among recent editors that the current version is an improvement. So it might appear that any improvement of policies and guidelines is secondary here. Please folks, let's not encourage an RfC based on a miscast hypothetical scenario with 7-8 undefined variables. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It takes too many words to explain how you have conflated a small piece of truth with a large amount of falsity, and I don't want to get too distracted, but I will point out my relevant comment in the talk page section which refutes your narrative: [31]. My comment is referring to this rewrite which is entirely separate text from the "direct apology" text which has the shaky consensus you reference.

SPECIFICO, you are reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors. I will apologize for exhaustively citing ONUS during our disagreement over its interpretation; had I thought of it I should have begun this discussion earlier. Hopefully this will clear things up.

The question is not whether there is consensus; the question stipulates that in the hypothetical there is consensus, so your concern is unfounded. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) added diff Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) added diff Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No that is begging the question. To wit: Can one assert "consensus" merely because text was in the article X weeks or months ago, even in a Class C thinly edited article that relates to a WP:NOTNEWS inserted 2 years ago? And I provided the link to the article talk page just to point out that, in this case, there is clearly consensus for the newest version rather than the fossil you insist must be restored, based on an erroneous understanding of ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you propose RfC text which would address the question of whether my "erroneous understanding of ONUS" is actually correct, or whether your understanding of ONUS is correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this likely relates to an ongoing dispute concerning Aziz Ansari that the OP and several others (including myself) are involved in. -- Calidum 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Calidum, it very obviously does relate to that article. There are several links to specific diffs in the discussion above. However, we have much bigger fish to fry here: There are many editors who believe that the "status quo version" has some special standing in policy. They are hard-pressed to find any policy that says this, but you know how it is: someone reverts you when you're a newbie, and tells you that some WP:CRYPTIC shortcut says that they win, and you believe them, and repeat the story to the next bold editor you encounter. One long telephone game later, and we have people who believe that as long as their favorite fact isn't about a BLP and stays on the page long enough, that it should be permitted to squat there forever, or until an RFC forces a change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a content dispute includes a disagreement over policy interpretation...there's nothing nefarious about it. At this talk page I have seen that many other editors also disagree on its interpretation. Firstly, my proposed text doesn't say "status quo version"; it says "consensus version", so your concern is another cat to whip. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Usually a content dispute is a disagreement over the content and policies and guidelines are the mechanisms and methods of of the clash.North8000 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant that a particular content dispute happens to include a disagreement over policy interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Most of the diffs were added after my comment. I just think it's helpful for users to know the locus of the question. -- Calidum 17:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The existing onus section is a logical mess. I think that the only reason it's even in wp:ver is to tone down the widespread urban legend (that meeting wp:verifiability is a force for inclusion) because the key statement "Meeting wp:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" is missing. (So the reason it's here is probably just avoid mis-use of wp:ver. And anything that is not in for that purpose does not belong in wp:ver.) In doing so it wades into a mess. A prescriptive "what should happen at an article" based on only one factor (previous/current state) whereas inclusion/exclusion is always a multi-variable decision. But it only wades into that mess for addition of new material. I think that it would be a bad idea to double that mess and depart from this original intent by applying it to removal of existing material, and such would also make wp:ver clearly not the place to do it.

But somewhere we need to say "when making inclusion/exclusion decisions, give the status quo a little extra sway, and when doing so, also consider strength or weakness of it's position as the status quo" North8000 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not quite... the fact that some bit of text or some factoid is “status quo” can be given extra “consideration” when initially deciding whether to challenge, but I don’t think it rises to the level of “sway”. If the reasons for removing outweigh the rational for keeping, we remove. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I made a poor choice of word, but I meant to it a little bit of weight in the decision. To give an example, if all else is equal, go with the status quo.North8000 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the intent and implications of ONUS implies both ways when coupled with other policies like BRD:
- If you are trying to add new material that has not be in the article before, and are reverted, the onus is on you to seek consensus to make that addition
- If you are trying to remove material that has enjoyed "long-standing consensus" to be in the article, and are reverted, the onus is on you to seek consensus to make that removal, unless that removal clearly meets one of the WP:3RRNO allowances. (eg obvious BLP/NFC/copyright violations, etc.).
It logically follows and simplifies several situations if it was read to be like that. The only qualification is what is "long-standing consensus" would be, and I've suggested that's something that is at least a month with at least 10 different editors having touched the article (with earnest editors, no random IP edit nonsense) to be taken as implicit acceptance that the content was fine. If you talking only one edit in a month, maybe not so much. There's a judgement call here but ONUS has to tie to BRD: if you are reverted, take it to the talk page, don't edit war. --Masem (t) 17:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I have two concerns with this formulation. The first is that WP:V clearly relates to "not all verified content automatically belongs in the article" per [{WP:DUE]]. I think that's why we see ONUS on this page. The question as to what processes best promote consensus is addressed on our policy WP:CONSENSUS. Further elaborations, in my opinion, are more fitting there. My second concern is that, as a matter of real-world editing experience, implied consensus depends on the subject matter and sourcing and how widely edited the article has been. Good Articles, or articles widely discussed in top-flight academic sources, may be presumed to have implicit consensus when content has been stable over some arbitrary period of time -- think Battle of Hastings. But millions of our articles are weakly sources, thinly edited (often by "enthusiasts") and often based on news reports or special interest publications. That category of millions of articles tends to have persistent shortcomings that are often improved when an editor comes along to fix them or apply a broader or longer-time perspective. For articles like those, there can't be any presumption of consensus let alone valid content and sourcing. I recall an article I worked on over a period of years. At first it was rather sensationally called Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and was one big BLP violation about a harmless young man who was emotionally disturbed. It took YEARS to remove the BLP nonsense and rename the article 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident. There was never consensus for the standing version. But if I understand your formulation, the very fact that an article is neglected and relatively insignificant, lightly edited, and marginally sourced, would confer consensus on the very articles that most need improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Masem, BRD isn't a policy. The first sentence still contains the word optional. If you think it would help, then we can go underline that word to make it pop out at people who might otherwise be misled into thinking that it was the One True™ Way of editing.

Your interpretation of ONUS is merely QUO. You could shorten your two bullet points to a single sentence with no material loss of content: "If you change QUO and are reverted, the onus is on you to get consensus".

ONUS is not meant to enshrine QUO. I think it conflicts with QUO when the QUO version contains potentially bad content. If someone gets garbage into an article – there was a made-up name for a chemical in one of the high-traffic diabetes articles for years before someone attempted to double-check it – then ONUS says that the suspected garbage goes out until there's a consensus to include it. Under your QUO-oriented story, any idiot editor could have pounded on the table and insisted that the hoax name be kept in the article unless and until there was a documented consensus to remove it. That's not how Wikipedia's supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to remove unverifiable garbage without having to first get written permission to do so.

Also, your QUO-oriented approach is the opposite of WP:CHALLENGE. Under your approach, editors would only be able to removed unsourced information until that doubtful or inappropriate content could be declared the "quo" version, and after that, they'd have to seek consensus to get permission to remove bad information. This is a bad idea. That's why ONUS and CHALLENGE don't support QUO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Without endorsing every word of your exposition, I think it's very helpful and a constructive way to clarify the matters discussed here. I think that we should refer to WP:CONSENUS -- which is a policy -- to handle the BRD-related discussion and ideas. I personally doubt we'll come up with anything that isn't already in ONUS or CONSENSUS, but by all means we should see whether they can be clarified or improved. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If garbage goes into the article that doesn't clearly meet one of the WP:3RRNO, and that garbage has consensus, then the garbage stays until we get consensus to remove. The decision about what constitutes garbage is made by consensus.

This proposed RfC is about the removal of consensus text, so the concerns about when longstanding text qualifies as consensus text is a separate, but related subject.

We could write that once a change to consensus is clearly contentious, the status quo ante version should remain in place pending discussion. This may function as a sort of a trigger for WP:Consensus required. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Trigger? What you propose is the exact opposite of what's written at WP:Consensus required. Please review that page. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please review my comment. My suggestion was about something new, so whether that is the opposite of Consensus required is irrelevant. But discussing changing policy at this point is just muddling things when we haven't agreed on what the existing policy is, which is the purpose of this proposed RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You're still operating under the assumption that there exists such a thing as "consensus text", which is doubtful in general but which almost certainly does not exist in the middle of a significant dispute about whether that text should be changed. Seriously: If you persist in calling disputed text that's been around for a while "the consensus text", then we could end up with an RFC summary statement that says "There is a consensus against keeping the consensus text in the article". That's silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"Still"? "Persist"? I'm not sure what comments of mine you're reading. My question is in the context of an edit to the "most recent consensus", it doesn't involve evaluating whether longstanding text is consensus or not; I am repeatedly saying that for this question it is stipulated that there was consensus before the edit was made. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
But you did not have consensus. 8 editors said you were arguing against consensus. So why do you still persist? SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're even talking about; if you're talking about a content dispute, please stop bringing that into a policy discussion. Just because a question arises during a content dispute doesn't mean the question is about the disputed text. I'm only "persist"ing at trying to unconfuse the conversation from comments like that. And you're pushing the envelope on your logged warning against personal comments on talk pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind: There is a HUGE difference between text that has previously been discussed (where we can point to the discussion and say “as of this discussion there was a consensus to say X”) and text that simply has never been challenged before. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and "achieved a consensus when it was discussed" is different than just "was discussed". North8000 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

See my text in bold above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@North8000 - True. There are three levels of consensus to consider: 1) discussed with a clear consensus achieved in the discussion. 2) discussed briefly, without overt consensus, but the resulting text left standing for a long time. 3) text left standing for a long time, but no discussion (what people call “silent consensus”). The the first carries a lot of weight when it comes to ONUS... the last hardly any weight at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If we agree that changes sought to a previous consensus will not be implemented when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, then I am not sure what WP:ONUS means besides "V is not enough for inclusion". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you're correct: ONUS doesn't mean anything besides 'V is not enough for inclusion', and that it doesn't mean something like 'long-standing text is preferred when discussion does not result in a clear consensus'. The only thing that ONUS adds to 'not enough' is designating the editor (i.e., the one who wants to add [Factoid] to the article) who has to prove the existence of consensus under a specific situation (i.e., that someone wants to add [Factoid], and its addition is disputed by others). ONUS is irrelevant when people aren't trying to add facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the concept of "long-standing text" keeps making its way back into this discussion when it is unrelated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Because the disputed text that you keep calling "the consensus text" is what other editors call "the long-standing text". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop confusing the discussion by bringing content disputes into this. I have stipulated that the hypothetical text in this policy question is "consensus text". Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Kolya, your hypothetical question is a content dispute. Editors C and D don't agree on the best version to have in the article, right? That's a content dispute. It is hopefully an amicable and easily resolved content dispute, but it is still a content dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You literally just brought the Aziz Ansari article content dispute into this discussion at 16:19, 30 September 2020. Your comment is found in this diff, scrolling past the paragraph from another editor which you deleted a space from: [32] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The content dispute at the Ansari BLP is why you came to this page, so it's a handy example, but your hypothetical about Editors A, B, C, and D is also a content dispute. You cannot discuss what ONUS says that editors should do during a content dispute without, well, talking about content disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

!votes

Oppose RfC We should not consider amending policy to pursue an article talk page agenda at a random WP article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose RfC. If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. It has served us well. The circumstances that started this discussion are not too encouraging of a change either. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose this RfC However, I think it would be good if we could come to some sort of consensus (RfC or otherwise) regarding the example WhatamIdoing articulated here [[33]] and I asked about here [[34]]. Springee (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It would be a good idea to note that the status quo should be given a tiny bit of influence in (multi-consideration) include/exclude decisions, but prescriptive wording, and doing it here would only make the existing structural problem worse.North8000 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This RfC proposal is not about amending policy; it is not about fixing policy; it is not about adding wording; it is about interpreting policy. The proposed question was:

Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?

Any potential change to policy doesn't make much sense if we can't agree on what the policy is. Lastly, the circumstance that started this discussion was a disagreement over the policy interpretation, and the outcome of this proposed RfC wouldn't effect that dispute at this point where an editor has added disputed text against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wp:consensus is the closest thing to a real guide in this whole area. In my view wp:onus should be deleted. It's only there as a band-aid because we've failed to put the badly-needed sentence "WP:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" into wp:ver. IMO the onus topic doesn't belong in wp:ver and what is there doesn't cover the topic. The relevant example here is that it doesn't cover existing material, and an RFC can't decide that it says something that it doesn't. IMO the only reason wp:onus is heavily used instead of wp:consensus which covers it better is because it's in a more prominent policy, and because it is short and because it has a convenient handle "Onus" unofficially attached. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Redundant comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We could just remove the "WP:ONUS" shortcut, leave "WP:VNOTSUFF", perhaps add "WP:VNOTGUARANTEE" or "WP:VNOTENOUGH". The concept of ONUS seems to be essential, so I think we should move the handle "WP:ONUS" to WP:CONSENSUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to: an RFC can't decide that it says something that it doesn't, I would remind that the purpose of the RfC is to figure out what it does say, so if the RfC finds that it does not say something then it has done its job. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:ONUS applies to the insertion of text, not the deletion. WP:CONSENSUS is adequate to address removal of text for which there was previously a consensus. -- Calidum 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And it's clear from that page that there needs to be some evidence of consensus -- a talk page thread at least, RfC, poll, or broad discussion and lots of active editing that left the content in place. I happened to check the Aziz Ansari talk page and I note that the talk page consensus was actually against even having a separate section regarding the bad date. So claims of any consensus to elevate the mishap are not supported. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This thread is continued at #Related discussion, below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Calidum outlined exactly my thoughts above. ONUS is clear on the insertion of new edits. If there's any sort of status quo, WP:CONSENSUS covers that, and WP:SILENCE covers the more gray area where the strength of the particular edit needs to be weighed on a case-by-case basis whether it's for removal or keeping it. That isn't something we can particularly prescribe in specific hard coded policy due to those dynamics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion

This thread is in response to the comment at 16:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC), above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by comments like this which blur the focus of the question and add false narratives about content disputes which may scare editors away from discussing good faith policy questions. Again, the question here is in the context of changes to text which does have consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not clear what you mean by calling WP:CONSENSUS "false narratives about content disputes". It is not any kind of narrative. It is our core policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You don't need ONUS to deal with situations when consensus exists. ONUS exists to deal with situations when consensus doesn't exist, and both sides are declaring that it's the other side's job to prove that their version is the right one. ONUS says that V is not sufficient, so it's the "inclusion" side that has to prove consensus for inclusion, and not the "blanking" side that has to prove consensus for removal. This is because the community decided in the early days that no information is better than bad information.

The answer to your bold/green question is: No. ONUS does not apply equally to additions and removals. ONUS applies "unfairly" to additions. However, Wikipedia:Consensus applies equally to additions, removals, and changes. This means: if you want to tell editors that they're wrong for changing your preferred text, then you need to say "per CONSENSUS" when you revert them, and not "per ONUS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has answered both the specific question and also reflected on the broader question. On the specific question, since wp:onus does not discuss removals, then it does not cover them. It's as simple as that/ Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am trying, but I am no less confused. WhatamIdoing said that NOCON is wrong, so I don't think this is simple.

So in your interpretation of policy, if I'm hearing you right, when an editor adds text to a previous consensus that editor has the ONUS to achieve a new consensus, but when an editor removes text from a previous consensus the removing editor does not have the ONUS to achieve a new consensus? What does it mean to cite CONSENSUS when you disagree with the removal of text if not that the removing editor has the (lowercase) onus to achieve a new consensus? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel nervous about introducing a suggestion in the context of a discussion about policy interpretation, but based on my understanding of policy at this point, I think it would make sense to remove the shortcut WP:ONUS from WP:V, and change the text of the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" section to :The ~~onus~~WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and add the WP:ONUS shortcut to WP:CONSENSUS. It sounds like the only reason ONUS usually applies to adding text but not removing text is because there obviously was no consensus for text that never existed, but for existing text that does have consensus, the onus is on those who wish to remove it. If that's at all an idea worth considering we can start a new discussion. "WP:VNOTSTUFF" isn't a great shortcut, so I'd propose "WP:VNOGUARANTEE" ("WP:VNOG"). S Marshall has been heavily involved in WP:ONUS discussions; I'm curious what they think about the WP:ONUS interpretation and our suggestions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This section is for !votes and relates only to whether to RfC changing ONUS. Please place any "suggestions" in a different section or a new section. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You know that's not what this RfC proposal is about, as I've repeatedly clarified. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what RfC you might have wished to mount, this section is only for !votes as to whether to mount the RfC. So please move new suggestions or other thoughts to an appropriate section. They do not belong here. As a further thought, since there is SNOW opposition to any RfC, I suggest you withdraw and close the larger section about whether to have an RfC and start over with your latest suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, the entire reason I started this RfC proposal was to unconfuse the previous discussion by posing a precise question, but you initiated the !voting by misrepresenting my question, so it's not clear what any of this means now. I haven't been arguing in support of my RfC proposal, but certainly there isn't opposition to any RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Having been pinged on this topic, S Marshall thinks that yes, ONUS does apply to the removal of text, and yes, it should. There's a creative tension between ONUS and PRESERVE. Wikipedia articles need to be a summary of what the reliable sources say about a subject, so we need mechanisms for removing information that isn't reliably sourced, and also mechanisms for restoring information which is. ONUS is the former and PRESERVE is the latter. On another matter mentioned above, S Marshall does think there should be a presumption to include reliably sourced information. What else are we for? The answer to disputes involving reliably sourced information is often to move it rather than cut it.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
S Marshall, the text in question says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It does not say anything about the removal of text. Regardless of whether WP:V should treat all changes equally, can we agree that, since ONUS limits itself to "inclusion", it currently (as written) doesn't apply to removals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
My position is that if a good faith user removes information, then that information is "challenged or likely to be challenged" within the meaning of the first sentence of WP:V, and it therefore can't be put back without an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm saying that this applies irrespective of whether this is longstanding text or a brand new insertion.
I ought to clarify that the question upon which I was pinged read: Potential RfC: Does ONUS apply to removing text? and I answered using the language of the question. In fact, my view is that WP:V doesn't relate to "text" at all. It relates to information, irrespective of the exact phrasing used to express that information, so the word "text" in my answer above should not be taken out of context.
The "good faith user" bit is important, because sometimes the appropriate response is RBI. WP:ONUS and WP:CHALLENGE are, potentially, very useful to griefers and bad faith editors of various kinds, because these rules empower users to remove information very quickly and demand lots of painstaking source-finding work from editors wanting to reinsert that information; this creates a power-imbalance and an effort-imbalance in favour of the remover, and WP:PRESERVE is needful to leaven the loaf. ONUS and PRESERVE need to be read together and I've often wished they weren't written in different policies.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In a way they are... WP:PRESERVE is followed by WP:DON’T PRESERVE. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, CHALLENGE only applies to unsourced information. Once it's got one potentially reliable source after it, you can't CHALLENGE it. CHALLENGE lets you remove unsourced information; ONUS lets you remove sourced information.

The question at the top of this section says "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?" In other words, we agree that if I remove something and a dispute arises, ONUS says the other editor has to prove that consensus is in favor of inclusion, and the OP wants to know whether, if I add something and a dispute arises, can I also declare that ONUS says the other editor has to prove that consensus is in favor of removing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm asking at all. But you think NOCON is wrong, so you should probably discuss how you think that should be changed to conform to your interpretation of ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Please could you give me an illustrative example of what you are asking?—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about changes to a preexisting consensus. I have now formed the opinion that for verifiable text, the burden is equally on those who wish to add, remove, or change text from a previous consensus, because NOCON usually results in no change. The question was: "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text [from a consensus version] as it is does to add text [to a consensus version], and by extension, to make any disputed changes?" It's confusing because WP:VNOTSUFF includes WP:ONUS which is also about consensus building. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Me: The question at the top of this section says "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?"

Kolya: No, that's not what I'm asking at all....The question was: "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text [from a consensus version] as it is does to add text [to a consensus version], and by extension, to make any disputed changes?"

I almost laughed out loud when I read that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You left out the part in between where you misrepresented what I was asking. My participation in this discussion mainly consists of having to correct misrepresentations, so I don't see what value there is in continuing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that you think that the part of WP:NOCON (which you didn't write) which states that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, is wrong, and you want to change it to bring it in line with your interpretation of WP:ONUS. While my thought is that NOCON and WP:ONUS are correct, but that ONUS needs clarification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus is on anyone who wishes to change consensus, per CONSENSUS. The repetition of only part of the concept of CONSENSUS in WP:ONUS does not invalidate the other half which is not articulated. The only thing that is causing confusion is the handle "WP:ONUS". That's why I suggested that we do not change the meanings of the policies, but just change the text to "The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", where WP:ONUS links to WP:NOCON. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Help me out here, Kolya Butternut, because I've wracked my brains and I'm not able to understand your position in any way that doesn't completely overrule WP:V. In your reading of our rules, if I dispute some information in an article, and I remove it, can you can simply put it back without sourcing it, citing CONSENSUS? How then am I able to exercise WP:CHALLENGE?—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Once information is sourced, then the adding editor has the onus to achieve a new consensus, which I think is the same onus one has whether the change to consensus is to add or remove. I think we're talking about different things? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it's me who's confused. :)—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you agree that this concept of (lowercase) onus applies to any change against consensus? I feel like where everyone's getting hung up is over longstanding text versus consensus text. Like I said previously, I think the only reason that adding new text involves a special onus is because obviously there was no consensus for text that never existed. But in a hypothetical where we stipulate that some text which is removed did have consensus, then the same onus would be on the moving editor to achieve consensus for removal, because no consensus results in the status quo consensus. (But everyone has the onus to argue their opinion, so perhaps "burden" is the better word.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the recent history of electronic cigarette, you'll see a bunch of removals of sourced text, by me. This is longstanding text which is eminently verifiable and which, I presume, enjoys consensus; and I've simply removed it, where I think it's uninformative, incoherent, borderline unintelligible, or all three. I would like to be able to continue to do this. As long as our rules allow that kind of behaviour then I'm fine with tweaking WP:ONUS.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, bold edits are fine where there isn't an established dispute. If an editor was defending the consensus text then I think you would have the burden to change it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Each edit is to comply with the Content policies (all of them), so there are several ways for an addition to be 'wrong'. It is trivially easy to add to the pedia, and under Note 3 of WP:V it is trivially easy to add ostensibly sourced information. ONUS is the method to test compliance with all other policies (BURDEN is specific to V), thus ONUS only applies to additions and proposed additions (as BURDEN does, also) -- while PRESERVE works when either all policies have already been met, or in the editor(s)' view(s) they are substantially met. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is why WP:PRESERVE is balanced by WP:DON’T PRESERVE. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a pretty typical problem: Someone makes a bad edit. Another editor reverts it, and cites a policy or guideline as the excuse. Upon investigation, the cited policy or guideline is irrelevant, or doesn't say what's claimed. But that often just means that the reverter is bad at keeping the policies straight; it doesn't mean that the edit was good and the revert was bad.

I very frequently see this in medicine-related articles. Someone will revert a bad edit "per MEDRS", when technically the main problem is WP:UNDUE weight on some unimportant detail, or spam. If you're trying to add a sentence about the best flavor of cough drops to Measles, then finding a better source won't solve the problem, because the problem is that information about cough drop flavors does not belong in that article at all, even if you turn up a truly magnificent source for it.

In the instant case, it's clear that ONUS has self-limited the requirement to disputed inclusions. But ONUS isn't the only thing that our collection of policies and guidelines have to say about disputed changes; if you want to remove something, you still need to get consensus for it – just "per WP:CONSENSUS" (which requires every edit to have consensus, regardless of whether the edit includes, excludes, or modifies something), and not "per ONUS" (which sets a special role for the person who wants to include a fact that others don't want included).

It is a little bit like a court case: you're expected to charge people with the correct thing. If the person was obstructing traffic by jaywalking, you don't charge them with obstructing traffic by driving too slowly on the highway, and when they object that they weren't driving and it wasn't a highway, you definitely don't say that's close enough for government work and besides, walking is practically the same as driving and little streets are similar to highways in some respects. Experienced editors should be able to get these things right. In the case that brought Kolya to this page, the correct charge isn't an alleged violation of ONUS (at least for most of the changes). The correct charge was an alleged violation of Wikipedia:Consensus. What ONUS says is unimportant, because the Consensus policy is sufficient to cover it all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The only "special role" for the person who wants to add text which is different from the persons who want to change or remove text is that adding text requires a justification besides WP:V. The onus to achieve any new consensus is on those who wish to change it, because no consensus results in the previous consensus version.

Again, bringing content disputes into this policy question only muddles things. The lack of consensus was repeatedly cited in the content dispute you reference. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Bringing content disputes into a policy question about content disputes clarifies things, because it lets us wonder things like "Hmm, you keep saying 'consensus text', but you also say 'lack of consensus' a lot, and those are opposites. I wonder whether the version you're calling 'the consensus text' actually had any demonstrable consensus at all? For example, someone removed a description of Babe.net from that BLP article – was there an RFC anywhere, or at least a substantial discussion, that concluded that description of that website should/shouldn't be present in the article? Because if there wasn't, then we have no good reason to believe that either of those versions is 'the consensus text'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Just above when I asked you to stop confusing this policy discussion by bringing a content dispute into it (obviously referring to Aziz Ansari) you claimed that the "content dispute" was actually about the hypothetical.[35] Now you're explicitly bringing the Aziz Ansari content dispute into this and confusing things. As I have repeated endless times, in the context of this policy discussion it is irrelevant whether we had consensus to include the fact that Ansari was criticized for not directly apologizing during his Netflix special to the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct.^[1] You clearly have strong opinions about the Aziz Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct text, so I would ask that you discuss that at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Aziz Ansari. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This page has nearly 3000 followers. Just from a statistical point of view: If any of them had agreed with, or even understood, what you are saying, that would have become evident by now. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The evidence says otherwise. Permutations of this discussion have been going on for years on the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Kolya, the only thing I could tell the editors at Ansari is what you all already know: it's a BLP, which means the default is to remove contentious matter unless and until there is a clear consensus that including it is both verifiable and neutral. That won't help you with things like whether Babe.net should be described (because a website is not covered by BLP), but presumably that's not the center of the dispute.

What I can tell you here, in the context of the one (1) sentence in this one (1) policy that you keep asking about, is that the word "inclusion" does not mean any and all additions, removals, or changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel I have no choice but to be a broken record: please stop bringing unrelated content disputes into a discussion about policy where the question involves what to do in the context of changes to preexisting consensus. My previous comment was referring to years of talk page discussions about the interpretation of ONUS on this talk page, not Aziz Ansari. It's odd that you seem so invested in the content dispute at Aziz Ansari when you admittedly do not know what the dispute is about.

You're still not representing my question accurately, but I already know we don't agree, so there is no need to respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not just anything, consensus is agreement based in policy which is exactly what ONUS requires, and if consensus over text is brought into dispute than the consensus needs positive demonstration according to policy (including in CONSENSUS, ONUS, and NOTE3, they all work the same way), otherwise it is without consensus, and according to policy (including in CONSENSUS, ONUS, and NOTE3) sometimes it's easy to demonstrate consensus and sometimes it's more involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page

SPECIFICO, with this edit,[36] you reverted my refactoring[37] which had corrected your refactoring[38] which had moved an editor's comment and taken my comment[39] out of the context of "the preceding message to which it referred and without which position its meaning is obscured". You characterized my edits as TPG violations when what you described was actually what your edits had done. Please restore the original version which keeps my comments in context. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Dickson, EJ (July 24, 2019). "Is There Really Such a Thing as a #MeToo Comeback?". Rolling Stone. Retrieved September 24, 2019.

Blog interview

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can an interview with an actor that is published in a blog, be used as a reliable source? e.g This link - X201 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@X201: Technically, yes – citing interviews is what Template:Cite interview was created for – but you're going to be limited here. A garden-variety interview is a primary source, and a garden-variety blog is self-published. This blog might be one step up from a typical blog, but it's still self-published. No article can be WP:Based upon this type of source. You will need to use WP:INTEXT attribution, and you will need to be cautious about what you use. You won't be able to use it for anything controversial or about BLPs except maybe the person being interviewed. (Technically, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says you can't use it even for that, but I don't think that the rule was meant to encompass this situation, so for perhaps the first time ever, I'm going to recommend that you Wikipedia:Ignore all rules there – or perhaps that you pay more attention to WP:NOTLAW than to the exact text of BLP.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments appreciated regarding proposed citation-related maintained template

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Citation_cleanup#New_maintenance_template_idea:_Source_title_missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

[1] Dickson, EJ (July 24, 2019). "Is There Really Such a Thing as a #MeToo Comeback?". Rolling Stone. Retrieved September 24, 2019.

[1]