Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

"scholarship" section

My attention was just called to this section and I was bold and edited it.. First bullet point made a meaningful distinction between secondary and primary sources, and from there the distinction went out the window, which made this self-contradictory. WP prefers secondary sources always, to avoid OR and giving UNDUE weight. So I added the primary/secondary distinction in the bullets that followed. I hope this makes sense to everybody. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What basis is there to claim that all dissertations are themselves primary sources? That cannot be true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't really claim to be supportive of this. What's a "research paper"? Also, I suspect that the reason that the primary/secondary/tertiary stuff "went out the window" after the first bullet point is because it was assumed to have been dealt with adequately there, and the rest proceeded to discuss other factors that need to be considered. "Secondary" is not a synonym for reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to clarify that dissertations are primary sources specifically on the research being reported. (They may be secondary where they merely report the results of previous research, e.g. in the background section. But of course, whether it would meet RS is another matter.)

I can think of a few ways to define "research paper," but off the top of my head I would say "description of new knowledge published in an academic journal." The term was already used by the policy, under the first bullet point. Sunrise (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that the edit is somewhat problematic, as there are too many gray zones, and we shouldn't be giving the impression that research papers are to be dismissed as "primary sources". Review practices vary from field to field, but such papers are often peer-reviewed, especially if they are published in journals, and even PhD theses are "peer-reviewed" to some extent. There are probably too many gradations between primary and secondary when it comes to "research papers" to make the distinction itself very useful. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I agree with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't: Ubikwit seems to be confusing peer review with review articles. A non-peer-reviewed review article is a secondary source. A peer-reviewed report of new experimental results is a primary source. There really aren't any "gradations" between "reporting this new information from my own lab" and "analyzing what multiple labs have already reported". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My academic training is in the humanities and social sciences, primarily. Reporting on experimental results in applied sciences is different from reporting on survey results in social sciences. The differences inhere in both the framing of the evaluative lens through with the data is examined, and the nature of the data itself.

I'm not arguing that where there is meta-analysis on a given topic it should not be prioritized over the studies it analyzes; however, even meta-analysis should not be used as a reason not to cite more recent research--with attribution, as appropriate--because meta-analysis are few and far between. Peer-reviewed review articles, while meta-analysis, are not books, so there is another gradation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubukwit. I think the preference for secondary sources is just as crucial (maybe more so) in the social sciences and these survey reports (primary sources for us). On outcomes of children of gay parents.. do we cite the publication of survey results by Mark Regnerus or the June 2014 Crouch study or both? How much weight do we give them? This is what reviews is the expert literature are for. Those reviews are where the field "maps" where it stands. The popular (and partisan) press is unreliable for providing those maps - for helping us contextualize primary sources, which we are not allowed to do. (I haven't looked but i am scared to see how this stuff has been handled in WP). Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@jytdog: The problematic point is the "always". While it is true that WP in general prefers secondary sources, it is not true (in particular in the context of scholarly publications) that the secondary source is always better, instead peer review status, reputation of author and publisher and date matter as well. For instance clearly outdated secondary meta-analysis is not to be preferred over a recent highly reputable primary source. A similar argument could possibly be made for non peer reviewed meta analysis of rather low reputation. In other words when assessing such scholarly sources one cannot only consider primary versus secondary (as an absolute) but the other factors need to be considered as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WAID, I just dealt with a new-ish, non-scientifically-educated editor who was flummoxed by the inconsistency in this section, where yes the essential distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is discarded after the first paragraph. Everybody (especially the scientists among you) please try to put aside what you already know and try to read this section with fresh eyes. It is really confusing, especially with the switching of terminology. I am reinstating but removing the "always" that provoked kmhkmh to revert... thanks for considering this!! Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[1] The change is strange. PhD dissertations can be primary or secondary sources. If we want to write about the philosophy of David Chalmers, Chalmers' 1993 dissertation [2] is a primary source. If we want to write about the philosophy of Saul Kripke, Chalmers' 1993 dissertation is a secondary source.

Mutatis mutandis for "Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The section is seriously broken, both before and after the changes. The attempt to shoehorn the primary/secondary divide into the rules at every opportunity is fundamentally flawed. What counts as a primary source in, say, history (eg. an ancient manuscript or an internal memo in a government archive) is not at all similar to what counts as a primary source in, say, physics (an original research article in a journal). Trying to make the rules fit both is a waste of time at best. A recent physics article in Nature is definitely not inferior to a 10-year old survey article. The key to the problem is not classification as primary or secondary, but classification as to the eminence and currency of the source together with the degree of interpretation required in order to present it in Wikipedia. We have to avoid original research, not avoid the research of experts. The depiction of "research papers" as to be avoided is particularly shocking to a scientist — actually many scientific parts of Wikipedia are great mainly because editors there do not follow the principles suggested here. Also, the difference between dissertations and other research is that they are written by less experienced scholars and may have been subject to less expert scrutiny; nothing to do with being primary or secondary (agree with Atethnekos on this). Zero^talk 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree (see my posting above). The problem is that exactly those unexperienced, confused ediots jytdog seems to refer to are likely to misread a seemingly "consistent and simple" by insisting on the superiority of secondary source or meta analysis no matter the context (such as being clearly outdated or not being peer reviewed) and on applying rule's for their own sake (rather than as tool to assure a good encyclopedic article). While our guideline should be as easy as possible, the should not provide a misleading simplicity.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is important to remember why we have a caution about using primary sources in the first place... it isn't that we consider primary sources unreliable (some are, others are not. That has to be determined on a case by case basis, and context matters a lot). The reason why we favor secondary sources and caution the use of primary sources is that primary sources can easily be misused in support of Original research. If you do use them appropriately and carefully, we actually allow primary sources.
I often see comments saying that a primary source is not allowed because it contains research that is original. That is a misunderstanding of the NOR policy... it is OK for a source to contain research that is original (and in the case of dissertations, they are often supposed to contain original research). Remember that it's not a violation of NOR to cite someone else's published original research... the caution is to prevent our editors from misusing primary sources in support their own original research (ie we don't want our editors to come up with their own conclusions and analysis ... conclusions and analysis that are not contained in the source they are citing). Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly true that some types of primary source, such as original documents that need expert interpretation, can too easily lead editors into the sin of original research. However, I don't know why a dissertation that is a primary source would have this effect any more than a dissertation that is a secondary source. Zero^talk 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. The issue is not whether primary sources are reliable, but whether presenting them complies with neutrality. "Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If a new study returns results that differ from previous studies, it could be used to challenge scientific consensus. But until and if the scientific community responds to the study, or at least it gets press coverage, there is no justification for including it. Typical areas where this becomes a problem are in racial studies, aspartame, water fluoridation, global warming and alternative medicine.

Most people are aware of the qualification in opinion polls: "accurate within x percentage points, 19 out of 20 times." Studies using samples will in some cases return results that do not accurately reflect the population.

In social sciences, there are numerous examples of scholars who present new interpretations, few of which gain any acceptance in mainstream scholarship. A recent book for example claimed that fascism was a form of democracy. A few of the most prominent fascism scholars reviewed the book and all dismissed the view. Subsequent studies on fascism ignored it. Only by consulting secondary sources can we determine what weight the theory deserves.

In conclusion, if a new study receives no acceptance or even notice from the academic community, then it does not belong in articles.

TFD (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually while I agree with most of what you've said in general there are nevertheless 2 issues here.

One is stating that it isn't a question of reliability but neutrality. This seems to imply that WP may forgo reliability for neutrality's sake or polemically speaking we would intentionally include scientifically false material just to make an article neutral (or drop material known be scientifically to be true). I'd strongly disagree which any such tendency, reliability trumps neutrality in doubt not the other way around. Also this policy deals with the reliability requirements and not with neutrality, there's a separate policy for that.

Another problem is that this approach to the policy frames it under the consideration of classic fields of conflict in WP. While arguably this is this important application of the policies, they nevertheless apply for the rest of Wikipedia as well where they can pose problem to keep articles comprehensive and up-to-date.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm not finding the "inconsistency". There are multiple, independent factors that must be considered. The historiography axis is only one (usually important) factor among many. You need to consider historiographic classification, but you also and simultaneously consider whether it's been peer-reviewed (or the equivalent), and also and simultaneously consider whether it's an isolated publication, and whether it's been published by a reputable publisher, and so forth. It's not good enough to say, "secondary source, so no more editorial judgment needed!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

exactly--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that 100%, WAID! But in my mind, the first filter should always be "is this a secondary source that provides insight into how the field views idea X?" after that, the other things should definitely kick in. So, so much of the policies and guidelines urge us to reach first for secondary sources, and there is real wisdom in that. WP's mission is to express the sum of human knowledge. We are all editors. Our role is to read and understand the reliable secondary and tertiary sources in which experts have pulled the basic research together into a coherent picture, and summarize and edit together what those sources say, in clear English that a person with a decent education can understand. In my experience, editors who insist on basing content on primary sources and on creating extensive or strong content based on them, are often agenda-driven — there is something in the real world that is very important to them, and they want that idea expressed in WP and given strong WP:WEIGHT. In the very act of doing that — in selecting a given primary source over others that say different or even contradictory things, and giving their chosen source a lot of weight (any weight at all, actually!) — they are performing original research. (Blueboar the OR is on the meta-level, not on the level of the content itself) It is hard to get people to see this. It is hard for people to think like scholars, with discipline, and actually listen to and be taught by reliable secondary sources, instead of acting like barroom philosophers who shoot from the hip, or grabbing the latest headline or press release about a new study - that happens to support some cause they believe in or some other reason - and add content to Wikipedia based on that primary source. The discipline of studying secondary sources and editing content based on them - in putting egos aside and letting the secondary sources speak - is probably the key thing that saves Wikipedia from the prison of its editors' personal, limited perspectives. We are in no hurry and we want to provide reliable, NPOV information. I think it is really important that this guideline help editors (especially new ones!) understand the importance of secondary sources, and gives guidance to editors to help them understand not only how various kinds of sources fit into the primary/secondary/tertiary categories, but also provide other key guidance as well (peer review, citations, etc). I really hope we express all this stuff in this section, as clearly as possible. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry this was very long and kind of preachy. But to me, the issue of secondary sources goes to the heart of what it means to be an editor at Wikipedia - this crazy place where anyone can edit and where your RL identity doesn't matter a hoot. It is not like any other place - nothing like being author of an article or book in RL. ( Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, obviously we should use the most reliable sources where available. But what justification could there be in including a research study that has received no attention in secondary sources? For example, suppose Dr. X found that 8 out of 100 students who drank colas during the month got colds, compared with 10 out of 100 who did not drink colas. Dr. X then concludes that colas may help prevent colds.

Some one reads "Coca-Cola for Common Cold, Flu & Diarrhea" at the Natural Remedies Center website, and decides to search for a "reliable source" for the medicinal values of colas.

A reasonable approach by editors would be to consult secondary sources to see what reception the original study received and whether there were other studies that had different results. But with your approach, that becomes unnecessary. Dr. X's study is a reliable source (he probably did conduct the test as described) and bingo! into all the articles about colds and colas it goes.

TFD (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "my approach" since i didn't really suggest one, other that you cannot always/solely rely on the difference between secondary and primary.

As far as your reasonable approach is concerned, I have no issue with that. I'm merely saying there are other the editor should look at other criteria as well, such as the reputation of the author and publisher and the date of the publication. The former most likely disqualifies your coca-cola study already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you do not appear to understand the difference between a primary study and a secondary source. There is nothing about studying connections between cola consumption and the common cold that reflects on the reputation of the author or the publisher. How else would we learn about the affects of foods if researchers did not conduct studies and academic journals publish their results? It could be that the researcher had believed and still believed there was no connection, but it would be unethical for him or her to suppress the results. OTOH if he or she were to write a textbook (a tertiary source) he or she would probably ignore their own primary study unless it had received attention in secondary sources and its significance and degree of acceptance could be assessed. Which is exactly what we should do. TFD (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Kmhkmh was saying that the website in question was already such a lousy source for health information that it doesn't even matter if the particular page is a primary or secondary source: you shouldn't use it, even if it were a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Even more let's assume that website would have published a "meta-analysis" on that subject, a review article or any other type of secondary source. Should we really prefer that website than over a primary source, which happens to be a peer reviewed article published by a well established author in a rather reputable science magazine? I think not. However this is exactly what we would get if you only look at primary versus secondary and ignore everything else.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An alternative medicine website is not a "meta-analysis." Scientists write meta-analyses and publish them in peer-reviewed journals. They explain the various studies that have been conducted and the degree of acceptence their results have had.

However alternative medicine websites are often resources for finding obscure primary studies of the highest quality that have findings contrary to generally accepted views. For example, an anti-aspartame website has a list of 68 primary studies, most of which are reliable primary studies, that suggest aspartame is harmful.[3] Yet there have been thousands of studies which disagree and review studies show that the adverse findings have not been accepted. Unless you think editors should read all the thousands of studies and form their own conclusions, none of these studies are helpful. How else would we determine what weight to provide these studies?

TFD (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we are talking about a different things. Obviously a "website" is not "meta-analysis". The website can be used for "publishing" a "meta-analysis". However now I'm not sure what you want with the website at all if you meant to refer to publication merely linked or republished on the website. In that case we website is completely irrelevant and we just need to look at the linked publications. Obviously you need primarily secondary sources to determine the weight of various primary studies. But even there in doubt you should not look primary versus secondary only. But look at reputation of the publications and their dates. What do you do in the case of review study that is 10 years old and new highly reputable primary covering aspects that weren't even considered 10 years ago?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

kmhkmh, nobody is saying "ignore everything else"....Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, the first points on my screening process are usually not primary vs secondary, but published vs self-published and independent vs affiliated. Primary vs secondary (WP:Secondary does not mean independent, of course) is usually my third point, assuming that the source hasn't failed already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

that makes sense! Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a primary research study of 32 subjects published in a peer-reviewed journal that concludes "It appears that some people are particularly susceptible to headaches caused by aspartame and may want to limit their consumption." And here is a link to a review study of 20 years of aspartame primary research studies, including the one linked to above. It was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. It concludes, "When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use."

Both are equally reliable sources. Please tell me why we should provide equal weight to the first primary study and the second review study.

TFD (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the second. I don't think there is any dispute regarding this. The issue is that you seem to want to generalize the proper treatment of this particular scenario for all possible scenarios in WP, that's where people disagree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that in order to present the findings of primary studies, and that includes opinions in original papers in social sciences, we need to establish the degree of acceptance they have. And that can only be done by referencing secondary sources that address that issue. Often of course primary studies will provide an overview of the opinions of experts to date, which can be very useful. But in that case we are using them as secondary sources. TFD (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Demur. The true "Degree of acceptance" is not determined by "how many others cite the same source." In fact there have been recent cases where a group of researchers in a small field routinely "peer reviewed" themselves - thus - by that standard - making all of their own papers "more reliable" per Wikipedia policy. Rather, it is likely better to assign greater weight proportionately where criticisms of a source have been made than just to rely on number of usages. This is true of empirical research papers, and, also IMO, for "social sciences" where groups of writers routinely cite one another to increase their "weight." Some might note that this is especially true in economics and political articles, and more rarely in ethnographic studies. Collect (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "The true "Degree of acceptance" is...determined by "how many others cite the same source."" In fact I provided an example of an oft-cited (86 results on Google scholar)[4] study whose conclusions are not accepted. And the fact that the results of a primary study have been accepted or rejected has no bearing of its reliability. No one has ever questioned the validity of the testing conducted. TFD (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The complicated case is when you're deciding between a good primary and a poor secondary. For example, imagine that your choices are a peer-reviewed primary in a prestigious academic journal vs an article in a regular magazine that criticizes it in detail. (I've seen this for psychiatric and sexual research topics that make a splash in the media, but I expect that it's true for any hot-button research, like whether to use nuclear reactors to mitigate climate change.) There's no simple rule of thumb for that situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that hypothetical seems somewhat obvious, with the academic source being more reliable in every case.

I wouldn't consider the academic source to be primary here, either, unless it was reporting on experimental results, for example. And if that were the case in the field of psychology, for example, then you would use both the study and the criticism, and provide in-line attribution of the criticism found in the popular media (magazine) source. Moreover, it's hard to see how a popular media source could be consider a valid "secondary" source when commenting on a research paper--which generally would seem to fall outside the scope of such publications, unless they bring on a guest commentator with expertise in the relevant field.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you consider the academic source to be primary? I directly specified that it was "a peer-reviewed primary" source. I'm going to assume that you weren't reading very carefully.

Guest authors are fairly common, and when the subject is popular material about health, some qualified scientists prefer to address the public directly, and not only their professional colleagues. In other cases, you will get responses from well-informed lay people. Breast cancer activists sometimes take apart cancer studies in a very competent manner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a false dilemma driven by WP:RECENTISM? Why not wait for a review in the biomedical literature... We are in no hurry. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: OK, I acknowledge your distinction of "peer-reviewed primary" source, but I think that the distinction is generally of more relevance to the applied sciences (and some social sciences, such as economics, based on statistical data).

Studies in the social sciences or papers in the humanities, say in the field of Comparative Literature, for example, as primary sources is because they are highly subjective interpretations of data that is subject to other highly subjective determinations through different theoretical lenses, and generally have a longer shelf life, so to speak, than works in the applied sciences. A review of such a work is sometimes more indicative of the mindset of the reviewer than the quality of the work being scrutinized. That applies to books as well as papers, with meta-analysis publications being few and far between. I'm tempted to say that there is a different sociology of knowledge in the humanities/social sciences, and that it can be found in the publications

WP:RECENTISM is a case in point, because in a field, such as breast cancer research, where there is research being published every month, versus a field like historical linguistics, where there may only be a couple of papers published in a given year on a given topic (e.g., in national level journals). Those papers have to be deemed reliable on Wikipedia, and if they are peer-reviewed, I am inclined to consider them secondary instead of primary, depending on the nature of the journal and review process. Is there no significant difference in gradation (between primary and secondary) in relation to paper published in a national (or international level) academic journals and a PhD dissertations reviewed only by faculty at a given university, for example? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have noted this before, but it is worth noting again. It is a bit silly to talk of academic works as being "primary" or "secondary"... because they usually include both primary material and secondary material. For example, a historian writing a paper about a collection of old documents may include an examination the previous analyses that past historians have done, and then reach the novel conclusion that all those prior historians got it wrong. Is his paper primary or secondary? Well, it's actually a bit of both. His discussion of what prior historians have said is secondary... but his paper is the primary source for his conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No.

Really: no.

You don't have to "consider them secondary". You don't need to tell fairy tales about their historiographical classification. You don't have to wave your hands and say the magic word ("secondary") over the source. When you've got good sources, you can just WP:USEPRIMARY sources. Using primary sources is not prohibited. (You do have to be a bit more careful with how you use them, because the average primary is easier to misuse than the average secondary, especially where neutrality issues are concerned.)

WP:Secondary does not mean good. Primary does not mean bad. If you've got a highly relevant, properly published, carefully fact-checked, independent primary source in a reputable journal, then you may use it (appropriately, of course), even though it's a primary source. If you've got a garbage secondary published online with a "review" process consisting of blog comments, then you should not use it, even though it's a secondary source. Primary and secondary are not magic words. Classification into primary and secondary is only one of the factors you should consider when selecting sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, in your hypothetical example, scientists conduct a survey of psychiatric patients and reach a conclusions hitherto unknown to pyschiatry, and publish their findings in a prestigious journal. There is absolutely no response to the paper by any experts and the only mention of it is in a down-market tabloid. You rightly say that the original study is a better source than the unreliable secondary source. But that misses the point. If the academic community ignores the paper, why are we adding it to articles about psychiatry and giving it attention that experts do not? Blueboar, certainly primary sources can sometimes also be used as secondary sources. That happens when they provide a background to the literature before describing their own experiments/surveys. The issue though is what to do with the part of the paper which can only be seen as a primary source. TFD (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For tiny subfields, the review cycle can be very long indeed. For something that gets a lot of attention in the popular press, it is appropriate to have an up-to-date article. In some cases, this means using the latest research (at least to acknowledge that it exists) rather than only reviews.

BTW, in case it's ever useful to you, ODDD is my favorite example of primary/secondary combination sources. There are only about 100 people in the world with that rare disease. The few review articles are also case studies—usually, n=1 (one family, sometimes just one person) case studies. A case study of n=1 is simultaneously as weak a level of evidence as exists, and as strong a level of evidence as you are likely to see for such a rare disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cannot determine what weight to assign the "latest research." There are thousands of aspartame studies, mostly involving small samples (i.e., fewer than 100 people) and studies are published all the time. The law of averages dictates that when thousands of studies are conducted, some of the results will be outliers, particularly when small samples are used. That is why opinion polls say something like "accurate within 5% 19 out of 20 times." While it may take months before it is included in a review study, nothing prevents the media from reporting on it. If they do not, then we can assume that it is unimportant. TFD (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Breaking news

News media who are normally fairly reliable tend to be unreliable when reporting breaking news. Wikipedia has the problem that current events in the news get disproportionate attention, and articles get updated with claims as they are broadcast, whether or not they later turn out to be true. Usually but not always these errors get corrected later, but having them up in the meantime helps spread false information. I'm thinking we should add some advice in this area. Any comments on the below? -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before updating the encyclopedia than to help spread false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On The Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources, distrusting unconfirmed reports and those attributed to other news media, seeking multiple sources, seeking eyewitness reports, being wary of potential hoaxes, and being skeptical of reports of possible additional attackers in mass shootings.

Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay about that issue that many have found useful. Maybe we could point to it somehow (link, further reading, or something like that).__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A typical example is a parliamentary election where news media report seat totals, although they may be subject to change. I think we should put the info into the article, provided it is significant, then correct it later. If a story is in the news that typically many editors are interested.

Another approach is to put new stories into timeline format. (One I worked on was the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal.) As new stories come out, the timeline can be corrected.

The use of breaking news to update an existing article can skew it toward recent events, and that should be corrected by trimming.

Where an article is based primarily on news sources, they should over time be replaced with journal articles. This typically happens when the subject is something that achieved notability after Wikipedia was founded and hence news media were initially the only sources available.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Let the news break rather than Wikipedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, we do not need to be up-to-the-minute. If there is a fast-developing story, editors should wait until more confirmed details come down the pipeline before incorporating into an article. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they "should" wait, but in practice, they don't. I wouldn't mind having a sentence or two that communicates these points:

1. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS
2. Breaking news stories are often incorrect, and such sources should be replaced with better researched ones as soon as possible.

We could also mention "breaking news" directly in WP:PSTS. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Textbooks

In this guideline, textbooks are mentioned as both reliable secondary sources (in WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and tertiary sources (in WP:WPNOTRS). According to Wikipedia:PSTS, "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources", so it's obvious that only introductory texts should be considered tertiary sources. Also, WP:PSTS states: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." This contradicts WP:WPNOTRS as written, it should be rewritten to be friendlier to the use of tertiary sources. LK (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how PSTS contradicts NOTRS... both say that secondary sources are generally preferred (in broad terms), but that tertiary sources are OK and may be best for certain specific statements. It's really a question of comparative reliability. Two sources can both be deemed reliable, but one can be more reliable than the other when it comes to supporting a specific statement in an article. It's often a question of which source is the most appropriate given the situation. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also not obvious that only introductory texts should be considered tertiary sources, or that all introductory texts should be considered tertiary or secondary. The guidance says "many are", not "all are" or "are only". It depend on the context of the claim and how it's being used in the article, of course. I think the guidance is there to remind that textbooks can possibly be RS in various contexts, not that we should put all textbooks in one pigeonhole or another.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, LK, but I cannot understand your point. TFD (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well to put it polemically or exaggerated it a bit: The first line given in WP:WPNOTRS is simply nonsense and I daresay it is hardly consensus with the WP community. However it kinda depends on how read and what you consider s tertiary source. Imho arguing a undergraduate textbook is tertiary and graduate textbook is not seems rather questionable. The whole thing is probably due to having lower quality tertiary sources in mind (high school textbooks, general purpose tertiary source, etc.) and the fact that WP is tertiary source and hence it sources need to be secondary or primary. But be that as it may that line is not to be understood as banning the use of university level textbooks, scholarly tertiary sources or obituaries for normal sourcing. You can and should use (and the community at large does so constantly anyhow). It also good not to get too hung up on the formal difference between primary, secondary or tertiary sources but pay more attention to their quality/reputation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Need mention of advocacy sites' conflicts of interest?

Wikipedia:V#cite_note-COI_SOURCES-8 discusses conflicts of interest in detail, and mentions advocacy groups once. Yet advocacy sites without a journalist or academic in sight are used by advocates to promote all sorts of views. Even when it's non-notable bloggers calling themselves journalists, a bunch of advocates can claim successfully at an article talk page or even WP:RSN that the source is reliable, even in BLP. Can't we stick something in here making it clear which advocacy sites/publications/blogs are and are not reliable? Lack of clarity has brought me to WP:RSN far too many times over the years. I'll think of some specific wording later for a proposal, but throwing it out there for now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think editors are currently confused or unappreciative of the fact that advocacy groups might possibly have a COI or bias. It's already mentioned and covered on this page in WP:BIASED. WP:RSN helps get community insight on specific proposed uses and whether a source is good in the context it's intended to be used for. A specific "banned sources for all uses" list is unlikely to work out the way you might predict. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sources always can be used for their own views. The problem is when they begin to be used for neutral factoids or comments on third parties. Anyway, given this is a long term problem adding just the words "advocacy" and "conflict of interest" to the appropriate spot in that section would be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not all biased sources are questionable. Some sources that show an identifiable bias are still considered the highest of high-quality sources, generally and in certain contexts. The guideline is very clear about that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The footnote is not helpful, it is about NYT journalists' conflict of interest - but the NYT considers this before hiring journalists and publishing their stories. So any news report from them should be considered reliable regardless of the journalist's COI. Generally I would consider industry-funded advocacy groups that challenge mainstream opinion to be unreliable, such as petroleum industry-funded "thinktanks" that challenge accepted climate change science. I do not know how much detail we need to provide to this. TFD (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources are never reliable or unreliable in a vacuum. Context matters. The same source may be reliable in one context and unreliable in another context. An advocacy source is certainly reliable in the context of supporting a statement of "atributed opinion". It usually would not be be reliable in the context of "unatributed fact"

To illustrate, compare the two sentences that follow:

1. According to the Democratic Party, the Republicans are wrong on issue X.
2. The Republicans are wrong on issue X.

In the first sentence, the Democratic Party website (and advocacy source) would be reliable. In the second it would not be reliable. Same source... different context. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Or "According to David Icke, the royals are reptilian shift-changers." But that brings up another policy, weight, which would disallow the statement unless reliable secondary sources could establish its significance to the topic of the article it was added to. TFD (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely... reliability is definitely not the only policy/guideline that factors into whether we should say something in an article. It's only one of many policies and guidelines that have to be examined. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is that in future discussions I not have to link to and even quote three or different policy/guideline pages (WP:V; WP:RS; WP:COI; WP:BLP) to make the point that many "advocacy" groups have a conflict of interest and therefore we can't just use their blogs, press releases, publications, on topics of facts - especially about BLPs. If this was made just a tad clearer here with addition of proper terms and links, it would make it easier for a lot of editors on a lot of articles to explain this policy to editors, especially new and bushy tailed ones out to further their cause. But if editors don't want to do it, I'll just keep the four links on my cheat sheet and pull them out 2 or 3 times a month when I need them. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You can immediately shorten your list by one, because mentioning WP:COI is irrelevant. While it is possible for a source to have a conflict of interest, it is not possible for a source to violate WP:COI. The COI guideline is about the behavior of editors, not the contents of publications. (Similarly, it is impossible for a source to violate NPOV. That policy is binding only on editors, not on sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Actually I was thinking of editors with WP:COIs promoting biased sites as if they were higher quality RS, but that really has to be dealt with as two separate issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Narrowness of expert identification

This edit is meant to clarify that experts can be identified as experts without necessarily being writers. For example, an engineer who worked on the Hoover Dam who is identified as an expert by a third-party (because he was an engineer on the Hoover Dam) can be quoted as an expert even if he never published about engineering. Publication is often an excellent indicator of expertise, but it is by no means the only such indicator.

jps (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Loosening our definition of who we accept as self-published sources is a bit of a recipe for disaster. This seems like it would increase the use of blogs as citations, and make a designation of "expert" much easier to obtain (having a brief mention in an "independent source" is a much lower bar to meet than being published by third-party sources). The definition of what a reliable source is should be a bit narrow, or we have homeopathy "experts" becoming reliable sources without any third-party publication because they are mentioned as such in a "independent source". I don't think we should expand the definition here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make being named an expert easier at all. It's simply acknowledging that some people don't publish and are still experts. Does anyone deny that this is so? The homeopathy example doesn't really work because I don't know of any independent reliable sources which identify a homeopathist as an expert in, say, the chemical concentrations of their preparations. They're obviously experts in the lore of homeopathy and we can accept, for example, the interview with a homeopathist who comments on how homeopathy preparations are made as a reliable source for such. jps (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"How homeopathy preparations are made" is heavily focused on the chemical concentration.

We have this rule because we want people who are recognized as experts for creating information, not because he was the only person who would return the reporter's phone call.

The stakes in this rule are whether it's okay for anyone to cite the purported expert's blog, Twitter feed, or other obviously self-published material, which is a pretty big risk.

I agree that it's not a perfect rule, but I'm currently thinking that it's better than the alternative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a big risk, but it is also being used inappropriately. Surely publication record can form a part of what makes an expert, but it's not the entire thing. The other side of the coin is when certain people have publication records and then go off the deep end. The point is that we should have ways of verifying expertness. Publications can be one way, may even be a primary way, but if we insist, falsely, that it is the only way, we end up with a policy that isn't well aligned to best practices. jps (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well an obvious additional criteria is (university) education, degrees and the holding of scholarly positions (such as professor).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That is really only relevant if the subject is a scholarly one. If it's a question of what's done in a practical field, I'd frequently choose a practitioner over an ivory-tower resident. I expect someone who's run a chewing gum factory to know something about how to make chewing gum. I don't expect to find a professor of chewing gum production. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, right now we don't allow, per our current wording, any practical expertise unless the person has published which seems odd to me. It would be nice to rectify this. jps (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should consider removing this exception to self-published sources. If an expert has something to say then why isn't it published? Some experts develop theories far outside the mainstream, like Nobel laureates who reject relativity or claim that perpetual motion is possible, while other experts ("public intellectuals") write political polemics that should be distinguished from their scholarly writing. An engineer who worked on the Hoover dam is not btw an expert, and anything he or she writes is a primary source. But why would we want to report their comments if no secondary source has decided to? TFD (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason it's often not published is because it's not worth publishing. This is especially true in the case of WP:FRINGE work which is why WP:PARITY exists. What happens is that a person has trouble publishing their novel idea in top-rated peer-reviewed journals and so decides to pursue other avenues (e.g. self-publication, publication by press release, going on some ludicrous Discovery Channel show, or publishing in a dubious journal that claims peer review but has much more lax standards than the better journals). Once the idea starts floating around and is picked up by credulous reporters or whatever, expert begin to comment. They often do not bother getting their critiques published. Why should they? It's not as though top-tier journals are in the habit of publishing critiques of nonsense. So the experts end up commenting on their own websites or in interviews. This is to be expected. The alternative is to say that Wikipedia shouldn't include anything that is not verified in the highest standards of publication. Bye-bye Ufology, Parapsychology, Creationism, etc. jps (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that journals publish new research. A fact that has been well-known among experts in a field for 150 years can't be the topic of a journal article. It might be mentioned in in passing in an article, but since it won't be the main topic, it will be hard to find because it won't be mentioned in any indexing scheme, keyword list, or abstract. But if it's an area of frequent confusion among non-experts, it may be mentioned on an expert's personal web page. Such an expert may or may not have published on closely related topics in reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems a very unlikely scenario. A fact that has been well-known among experts in a field for 150 years and we could only source it to a personal web page of a person who has never been published on any related topic by third-party sources? Even if that kind of thing ever happens, you are already so far deep into IAR that changing a general guideline to allow for it seems unhelpful. That would seem to be textbook WP:UNDUE material anyway.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Since fringe theories only merit their own articles if published secondary sources have mentioned them, there is no need to use unpublished commentary from experts' blogs. In fact experts do write published articles about fringe theories. First there is academic study of irrational belief systems. For example Jovan Byford, a psychologist, wrote the book Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction, which was published by the academic publisher Palgrave Macmillan. Second, when fringe theories achieve notability, experts are often asked to comment on them. For example, the History Channel had Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton, two of the world's leading scholars on fascism, and Chip Berlet, a leading expert on right-wing populism, comment on Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism.[5]

While journals publish new research, they also publish review studies which summarize the existing literature and explain the degree of acceptance various theories have. Also, most articles about new research also summarize the existing literature and explain the degree of acceptance various theories have.

In summary, I can find no reason why an expert's unpublished webpage should be used. If their comments have significance they will be published. And experts are not oracles. Their published papers are trustworthy because they have been accepted by reputable publishers and peer-reviewed. Consider for example Michael Ignatieff who is a prominent political scientist and whose writings are used as sources in many articles. He was also leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Why would we consider his personal webpage comments on the Conservative Party of Canada to be a reliable source, while comments by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada on his personal webpage would not? We are assuming that because he is an expert his comments on the Conservatives are accurate, while because his opponent is not an expert, his comments might not be.

TFD (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Further expanding the use of SPS to any non-published person somehow considered an expert would only exacerbate that issue. As an example, if all politicians (considered to be expert politicians) were then considered reliable sources for how politics worked in general theory (if they were used not as narrow sources for material about their own career and personal experiences, but as sources for article material describing how democracy works in general, sourced to their blogs) then the articles would be bonkers. The current guideline insists on a more narrow use of SPS, because the encyclopedia is better if preference is given to reliably published third-party sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, as currently stated, the wording does not indicate what is actually practiced on Wikipedia (except in Wikilawyering environments). An alternative is including stronger wording about the need to be careful and only use sources from experts, but the inane requirement that the person have published something else is not how anyone does research-based writing. Not here, not elsewhere. Wording that, for example, implied that self-published sources could only be used if no other sources were available and that the writer had to be verified as an expert in the subject at hand would be the best. This would avoid some of the pitfalls fretted over above. To be clear, Elaqueate's example could be problematic even under current guidelines since politicians often have their speeches published by third-party publishers, for example. jps (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The "previously published" requirement has more to do with establishing who is, and who is not an amateur expert (ie experts who are not academics) ... for example, while Stan Fischler's primary job is as a sports reporter, he is also considered an expert on the history of the New York City Subway. We know this because he has published multiple books on the subject. Thus, if he states something about the Subway's history on his personal website, twitter feed, or in his sports column we can deem it to be at least as reliable as an academic historian. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this part is also being quoted as being used against professionals. So I would be inclined to make that distinction which would be an excellent way of forestalling future conflict on this matter. jps (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "professional" has become useless. No one knows what it means anymore. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? jps (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Every dentist with a blog and no other publishing history would seem to qualify; every lawyer (every lawyer!) could then arguably insert SPS-material into law articles. I still don't see why we should streamline acceptance of SPS. Seems like buckets of unintended consequence and no actual forestalling of future conflict.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If a dentist comments on a subject related to dentistry in a blog (say, Oil pulling) describing the problematic aspects of it but the dentist has never published a book or a paper and we have no better sources per WP:PARITY, are you really saying that this is a problem to use such a source? If a lawyer comments on a subject related to the law on which there are no better sources per WP:PARITY (say, the frivolousness of an Orly Taitz lawsuit) are you really going to say that is a problem? This part does not say we have to accept SPS sources, it merely describes the necessary conditions. There are obviously always other considerations and they are outlined exactly on this page. jps (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If we want a legal opinion on the frivolousness of an Orly Taitz lawsuit, then the project is better served by having a better reliable source, with some history with the type of reliable sources we prefer, than if we just pick any lawyer of any qualification we can find who opposes it. Main-staging a completely unpublished and generally unnoted lawyer, only because they happen to agree with a position, doesn't help. It's not choosing them because we think they're a reliable source, it's ignoring their reliability because we want some particular content in. That just opens us up to more possibly stinky sources who happen to be saying the thing you want them to say. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

{And yes, if only a single unpublished dentist could be found that disagreed with a certain procedure, then I would have a problem using that source per WP:UNDUE. If the voiced professional opposition was so infrequent as to be unique, how would we know it was credible or a widely held view? The same goes for if a single unpublished doctor voiced a counter-to-the-scientific-mainstream opinion about vaccinations, I would have a problem using that source per WP:UNDUE. I think your suggestion, less-published experts, would encourage a lot more fringe than it could conceivably counter.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This writes as though you are unfamiliar with the issues surrounding WP:FRINGE sourcing. Fetishizing publishing, which is essentially what IRS is doing right now, is problematic because WP:FRIND sources are the best. That's simply the way Wikipedia works in practice. That's what we need to describe. Your arguments to the contrary is extremely problematic because you are assuming that notable ideas can only be critiqued by sources that are based off of published experts. That's simply not true. The issue is finding independent critiques of certain points. WP:PARITY and WP:MEDRS is what prevents vaccination denialists from becoming WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. The main thrust of WP:PARITY is that criticism doesn't necessarily need to come from a peer-reviewed journal, not that it doesn't have to come from a reliable source at all. Verifiability generally involves some connection to reliable publishing at some point in a source's history. It helps. I'm sure there are some IAR exceptions, but your suggestion would provide for more arguments about who was a "professional" or "expert", not less. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that, in the context of WP:PARITY, there are reliable sources that are self-published that haven't necessarily been published by third parties. And yet WP:IRS claims that this isn't so. jps (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a step backwards. If anything, given the misuse of self-published sources, we should be narrowing this policy, not expanding it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Narrowing the policy would be fine with me too. I'm not a fan of the preferencing of publication being done. jps (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using "expert" blogs because they are generally unreliable primary sources. Given that there may be 10,000 experts in a particular field, the chances of finding someone with a particular perspective on the fringes of the wide "bell curve" of views, is likely, but completely unrepresentative of the field. That editors may take a handful of "expert" views, and then pretends that this is representative, is highly misleading. Wikipedia should not be promoting hearsay, no matter who said it. --Iantresman (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Orly Taitz is a lawyer (as well as a dentist and real estate agent). Surely we are not saying that her personal website can be used as a reliable source for whether or not Obama is the president. As for whether or not her lawsuits are frivolous, we do not need to rely on some lawyer's website. A court ruling was made and reported in the press. Had no ruling been made and no commentary been written on whether her cases were frivolous, we should not add that material to her article. In fact, "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" already excludes using unpublished sources for "claims about third parties." TFD (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's why it's important that the context in which self-published sources are accepted be elucidated. jps (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FRIND wants independent sources (for some things: if you're trying to describe what Group X believes, then Group X's own publications should be accepted). "Independent" and "mainstream" are not the same thing. In particular, some sources might be direct competitors: don't buy that dental quackery, buy my dental treatments! WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

True! I didn't want to bring WP:MAINSTREAM into this, but I think that's ultimately my bugbear here. There are occasions where the mainstream perspective is basically done by blogs or preprint servers (this is especially true in WP:FRINGE land). When Sean Carroll tweets about the theoretical basis for emDrive, that's a reliable source even though he has never published about emDrive (though he has published about the quantum mechanics they seem to be referencing in the technical report). jps (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(If nobody has writes about it, then how can it be notable?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A century or more ago, only three professions were recognized: clergy, lawyers, and medical doctors. Then other groups that had to go through rigorous education and other requirements were added, such as accountants, engineers, and land surveyors. The title "professional" kept getting watered down; the 1992 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary includes "Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football. I've heard it used in everyday speech to describe anyone who is doing a good job, even though the job does not come close to qualifying as a profession. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, and it is a good one. I think that there is no mistaking what a professional expert is, though. jps (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Karma, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. Having witnessed jps's completely opposite logic and judgement realised over some reliable sources and over WP:FRINGE/WP:FRIND for some articles, it is a bit surprising to me to see some different tendencies/inclinations. However, they have a point; regarding Emdrive case, self-published critics of the experts should be safely attributable, because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Emdrive seems as an invention/project dating back to 1999 or even before, and there is only one text edited in a seemingly scholarly article format which tries to refute inventor's claims, but even that one -Powell's article- is self-published. We should be aware that, refuting other people's inventions or theories is not so common unless the specific subject is very common. Which should bring wikipedia to the point that, when there is no alternative, every reliable piece of information/view should be included in order to achieve WP:NPOV, without taking some qualities of the source into consideration (such as self-publishing etc.). Otherwise, excluding normally qualified but self-published expert views in Emdrive article, wikipedia would have been affecting and will be influencing "public"/"laymen" to the advantage of emdrive's inventor. Self-published tag will efficiently warn the audience and future editors, so that in case that self-published source transforms into a published one or a better source emerges in future, then the quality of the article can be enhanced more by replacing with a published/better source. Of course, expert editors' judgement will discern the quality of the self-published source in question. If the opposing party has only the argument of self-publishing for exclusion, it may mean that they also recognize/appreciate the quality of that self-published source. A voting sequence/session can also help editors to determine the quality of the self-published source collectively. Logos (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of unreliable sources?

Is there a list of sources that have been determined by community discussion/consensus to be unreliable?

I ran into a news site today, one that I have fomerly used to write citations for material in Wikipedia, that published an article that takes a lot of material from Wikipedia articles—pretty much verbatim right down to several of the subsection headings—and publishes it as news without any sources and without attribution to Wikipedia and its Creative Commons license. So now I will question that "source" in the future...

But I want to know if there is a repository for this information within the wikicommunity. I'd hate to be using other sources, thought to be news sources, only to find that they are aggregators or click-bait sites, etc. How do we, or how should we, notify others? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a blacklist for various websites/domains, which comprises material where there is consensus that they are normally unusable/undesired in WP (though unreliability is not the only issue, also spamming. illegal context, malware infections, etc.). You will notice automatically if you run across one of those as WP will not allow such links to be saved and produce an error message instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Is there anyway to have a summary list or FAQ type page of past discussions and their current consensus? E.g., HuffPo gets asked a lot. An up-to-date page would be quite helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion on WP:RSN may be relevant here: [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AndyTG! Just read that discussion, and it doesn't look like anything of the sort I'm asking about exists.

So I'll just flag it here. The source I had used before, and now am quite unsure about is NextBigFuture. That is based on this article published in NBF on 9 August 2014, a good bit of which was taken verbatim, even the section headings, from this Wikipedia article. I don't know whether other parts of the NBF article are also plagiarized from other Wikipedia articles on various aspects of that particular technology, but it seems likely. If anyone has a "how Wikipedia is being copied and where it is on the internet" bot, that would probably be the easiest way to detect how text in NBF matches, or doesn't, other WP articles.

From that discussion, it appears that there may not be a consensus of editors on having such a list exist anywhere anywhere on Wikipedia. Too bad. For if there was, it might help other editors be aware of the poor source issue from the past, and be aware of a potential WP:CIRCULAR issue if they use NBF as a source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't what you're looking for but we do keep a List of self-publishing companies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not really possible to create such a list. There's no such thing as "an unreliable source". There is only a source that is unreliable when used in a particular way. It's obvious that Albert Einstein's work is highly reliable for his theories, and that it is an utterly unreliable source for a statement about who won the most recent election in India. Similarly, the most garbage-y self-published blog is unreliable for facts about Albert Einstein, but is perfectly reliable for a statement that says, "The blog posting on X date said..."

We get sloppy and talk about whether or not a source is "reliable", but reliability depends on how you use it, not just on its characteristics. (What we mean, when we say things like "Is this reliable?" is something like, "Is this reliable, assuming that it's being used properly to support appropriately encyclopedic statements?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this ( "Is this reliable, assuming that it's being used properly to support appropriately encyclopedic statements?" ) is what we are talking about here. Should a list be kept, on Wikipedia someplace, that helps editors compile known sites for things like writing "pseudo news" articles that freely republish Wikipedia articles as if they are news, and asif the material is original reporting by that site?

I think it would be helpful to have such a list. As it is now, each editor is left to their own memory/research to figure out that some sources are shaky in their publishing practices. I think that is unfortunate, as we ought to all learn from the experience and previous research of other editors, where consensus might be gained, and help A LOT of us, and in the process, make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I don't believe that this is realistic. You're talking about thousands of hours of work, and that's not counting time to deal with the disputes over whether this or that should be on the list.
2. I don't believe that this is wise, because some sources that are reliable in context will be mindlessly rejected because "it's on the bad source list". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Government Sources

Hi. I have a question about the reliability of government sources. I've noticed several government sources in articles (e.g. NASA in astronomy-related articles; HMIe reports in UK education-related articles; RCAHMS in articles on Scottish monuments; etc.). My question is, are all sources produced by a government considered to be reliable? For example, I consider the information produced by my government to be reliable, but wouldn't place the same trust in the government of North Korea - that's not to say Wikipedia feels the same. Conversely, it's possible Wikipedia doesn't consider any government sources to be reliable. Thank you in advance for your help. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 17:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reposted this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as it seems like the more appropriate place to post this question. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

KenoshaMike (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Craig T. Nelson's film history does not include his role as Sam in Wonder Woman Season 3 Episode 3 entitled The Deadly Sting

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is also the wrong page for this request Cannolis (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should petitions.whitehouse.gov be blacklisted?

There is a discussion at WP:ANI about whether petitions.whitehouse.gov should be blacklisted. The discussion can be found here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)