Currently we try to classify some types of sources as "reliable" and other types of sources as "unreliable". This is problematic because in fact almost all sources are reliable for some things and unreliable for others. So, instead of fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a general principle that each article should be based on the most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC. Then we can give guidelines to help editors make that decision.
For example, we could discount USENET articles if there are articles in respected newspapers. We could discount books by popular writers if there are books by eminent experts. And so on; it would take some effort to get it right of course.
Doing it this way might (one can hope) avoid some of the absurdities of the present policy. It would also allow us to pay attention to the consensus in the relevant community about what sources are best. If every comics fan knows that certain USENET postings are the final word on a topic, it is really silly to exclude them. Similarly, it is really silly to apply the same rules about basic biographical details to movie stars (who are the subjects of many articles by journalists that can be consulted) as to scientists (who are not, with very few exceptions).
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sep 18, 2006, at 6:28 AM, zero 0000 wrote:
So, instead of fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a general principle that each article should be based on the most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC.
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Sep 18, 2006, at 6:28 AM, zero 0000 wrote:
So, instead of fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a general principle that each article should be based on the most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC.
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
[[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve, GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself; [[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article there at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
I suppose you can put them up for deletion, but I strongly doubt they'll fail to pass.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:47:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
[[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve, GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself; [[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article there at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.
But this is orthogonal to the issue of reliable sourcing. Jossi started by arguing against the "general principle that each article should be based on the most reliable sources available for that topic." The notability of the topic _itself_ wasn't originally an issue.
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
[[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve, GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself; [[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article there at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.
If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an article, in particular when the subject is controversial, we should deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.
For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could be made, of course.
-- Jossi
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:14:39 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an article, in particular when the subject is controversial, we should deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.
Obviously if a Harvard professor has a blog we can treat what he says there as fairly reliable in terms of his field of expertise, but it has a much lower inclusion threshold than peer-reviewed journals. Yes is of course the messenger not the medium which is the measure of reliability, but the medium also establishes the bar to publication and thus the amount of external scrutiny the message has received.
I am always wary of articles where there are vanishingly few real sources. The Game is a classic example: the only non-Internet source we've ever been able to find is a single mention in a Flemish newspaper, which may well have got its information from the same blogs as everyone else. We don't have any idea how thorough the research was which underlies that particular space filler. You'd have thought that something which is reportedly a global phenomenon would have attracted more than one mention in real media, wouldn't you?
It comes down, I guess, to how one views Wikipedia: do we aspire to be an accurate and verifiable source of information, or is it a place where in the absence of anything better we can simply repeat what is noised about, regardless of whether we can show it to be accurate or not.
My bias is probably evident in the phrasing here :-)
For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could be made, of course.
Consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors is very dangerous. Look how many involved and knowledgeable editors think that crop circles are of paranormal origin, the "Church" of Scientology is not a cult, Remote Viewing is a science, the World Trade Center was brought down by the Evil Corrupt Gubmint (TM). Here of course we have others involved, but consensus does not scale well; in the case of a minor crank theory it is very possible to find a consensus of 100% of all three involved editors agreeing that it most certainly is valid.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/9/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
And thus, again, the idea that whole classes of sources can be decided to be 'reliable' or 'not reliable' across the whole range of subject matter rears its head again.
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
-Matt
On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
The problem here is that we have two reliabilities in play. The first is "is the source reliable enough to be used in the article," which we're basically sane about. Nobody has gone in and eviscerated [[Spoo]].
The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws. What is particularly dangerous here is that it tends to be done unilaterally, and then supported on DRV, which has, as has been previously noted, been overrun by lunacy.
[[WP:RS]] is merely comically useless in the first case. It is wildly dangerous in the second, and such unilateral moves should be just as unilaterally overturned until such a time as we have a process for reviewing them that is not dominated by an unrepresentative sample of the community.
-Phil
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:23:53 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws. What is particularly dangerous here is that it tends to be done unilaterally, and then supported on DRV, which has, as has been previously noted, been overrun by lunacy.
In other words, someone deleted an article you like on a subject from teh internets.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:23:53 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws. What is particularly dangerous here is that it tends to be done unilaterally, and then supported on DRV, which has, as has been previously noted, been overrun by lunacy.
In other words, someone deleted an article you like on a subject from teh internets.
That's an appeal-to-motive fallacy. Even if this were true (and don't forget to assume good faith) and it's the reason Phil is complaining, it's still entirely possible that the "reliable sources" guideline is still flawed and Phil's arguments sound.
If [[Spoo]] can maintain featured article status while being based largely on things that WP:RS explicitly says "should not be used as primary or secondary sources", something is clearly broken somewhere. I consider the Spoo article to be of very good quality so I'm inclined to believe it's WP:RS that's the problem.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:58:23 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That's an appeal-to-motive fallacy. Even if this were true (and don't forget to assume good faith) and it's the reason Phil is complaining, it's still entirely possible that the "reliable sources" guideline is still flawed and Phil's arguments sound.
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people like them.
Funny, that.
Sometimes I think it would be good to move all pop culture stuff to a sister project where rampant fandom and scatalogical humour will present less of a problem.
For the avoidance of doubt this is absolutely not directed at Phil, who is as far as I can tell a perfectly reasonable bloke.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Sometimes I think it would be good to move all pop culture stuff to a sister project where rampant fandom and scatalogical humour will present less of a problem.
en.culturepedia.org ?
Oops. Someone grabbed that.
Maybe wikiculture.org
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:58:23 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That's an appeal-to-motive fallacy. Even if this were true (and don't forget to assume good faith) and it's the reason Phil is complaining, it's still entirely possible that the "reliable sources" guideline is still flawed and Phil's arguments sound.
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people like them.
But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the argument itself is still sound?
Sometimes I think it would be good to move all pop culture stuff to a sister project where rampant fandom and scatalogical humour will present less of a problem.
A fork of that magnitude would cleft Wikipedia in twain, and I doubt either half would be the better for it. It'd be a toss-up which one gets to be called "Wikipedia" at any rate.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:31:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people like them.
But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the argument itself is still sound?
I don't regard the argument as sound. Anything which is verifiable *only* from sources with absolutely no bar to publication is not, in my view, formally verifiable at all.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:31:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people like them.
But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the argument itself is still sound?
I don't regard the argument as sound. Anything which is verifiable *only* from sources with absolutely no bar to publication is not, in my view, formally verifiable at all.
So please attack the argument, then, instead of bringing up pointless innuendo about people's possible motives for making it.
On Oct 10, 2006, at 1:58 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
If [[Spoo]] can maintain featured article status while being based largely on things that WP:RS explicitly says "should not be used as primary or secondary sources", something is clearly broken somewhere. I consider the Spoo article to be of very good quality so I'm inclined to believe it's WP:RS that's the problem.
What may work for [[Spoo]] may not work for [[New_anti-Semitism]].
The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic, a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount. In the case of Spoo, if we do not have the article 100% verifiable to reliable sources, nobody will be harmed, really.
-- Jossi
On 11/10/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
What may work for [[Spoo]] may not work for [[New_anti-Semitism]]. The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic, a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount. In the case of Spoo, if we do not have the article 100% verifiable to reliable sources, nobody will be harmed, really.
I think we could all agree it varies with subject area. That's one of the problems with WP:RS - it attempts a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't vary per subject area.
- d.
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
Sure...
Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.
-- Jossi
On Oct 10, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
Sure...
Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.
Depends entirely on the author. Did you have one in mind?
-Phil
Phil, I don't want to defend RS, bcause I think it's a silly page, but I do defend V, which is the policy. I'm concerned about your attempts to rewrite RS given that you recently wanted to add material to an article using a post on a talk page, and I wondered if you could explain your position on that more fully.
My understanding is that the long-term professional partner of [[Dave Carter]], an American folk singer posted to the talk page of his article that he had sought a sex-change operation just before he died. This had not been published anywhere, not even on the partner's (Tracy Grammer's) own website.
You verified that it really was the partner who had made the post to the talk page, and proceeded to add it to the article. When you were reverted because you had no reliable published source, you said you had spoken to the Foundation who said you could add it. It turned out that you had spoken to User:Amgine, who subsequently posted that she wasn't in a position to speak on behalf of the Foundation, and was only giving a personal view.
You then said you'd spoken to Jimbo and that his advice was to add the material first to Wikinews, and then to use Wikinews as a source, which you did. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Carter&diff=75998688&... This was also reverted, for the same reason: no reliable published source.
Can you explain why you think we should be able to use posts made on talk pages as sources? Do you think we should be able to use Wikinews as a sole source, given that anyone can edit it? Is it true that Jimbo thinks Wikinews should be used a source for Wikipedia?
I think if you could explain your views on this it would help to illuminate what the differences are between your position and that of the editors who support WP:V.
Sarah
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Sarah wrote:
and that of the editors who support WP:V.
Wikipedia without [[WP:V]] is not an option worth considering. Hope that all respected editors that have seen what it takes to fight POV pushers, trolls, and the likes, would not be inclined to reduce the strength of that policy.
My not so humble opinion.
-- Josi
On Oct 10, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Sarah wrote:
I think if you could explain your views on this it would help to illuminate what the differences are between your position and that of the editors who support WP:V.
I don't think there's a difference between my position and the position of editors supporting WP:V, except insofar as I don't think WP:V should rely on such an obviously broken page as WP:RS (Something you apparently agree about). Once the problems with our definitions of sources are settled, I may be able to more usefully articulate this. But as long as there's such serious doubt over our definition of WP:RS, we have to recognize that WP:V is, while necessary, also not currently in a functional form.
-Phil
On 10/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Sarah wrote:
I think if you could explain your views on this it would help to illuminate what the differences are between your position and that of the editors who support WP:V.
I don't think there's a difference between my position and the position of editors supporting WP:V, except insofar as I don't think WP:V should rely on such an obviously broken page as WP:RS (Something you apparently agree about). Once the problems with our definitions of sources are settled, I may be able to more usefully articulate this. But as long as there's such serious doubt over our definition of WP:RS, we have to recognize that WP:V is, while necessary, also not currently in a functional form.
WP:V doesn't rely on WP:RS, and I don't know why anyone thinks it does. WP:V is the policy. WP:RS is just a set of opinions; it arguably shouldn't even be a guidline, because anything decent in it is just copied from V, and anything else is confusing nonsense.
WP:V, however, is very much in functional form and does a lot to keep the project safe.
Can you say a bit more about your position on the post from the folk singer's partner? That caused a lot of confusion, especially the bit about Jimbo saying Wikipedia should use WikiNews as a source (which just pushes the sourcing problem back a stage, given that anyone can edit WikiNews just as they can Wikipedia). The position you took on that does put you at odds with many, probably most, editors, so it's worth explaining, and you were pretty irritated about it at the time, which I couldn't understand.
Sarah
On 10/10/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
WP:RS is just a set of opinions; it arguably shouldn't even be a guidline, because anything decent in it is just copied from V, and anything else is confusing nonsense.
Sorry, I shouldn't have expressed that so strongly. There's some decent advice in WP:RS about how different subject areas approach the issue of sourcing. It's just that overall I find the tone condescending; obvious things are made more complicated than they need to be; and there's a huge amount of fluff that just confuses people.
Sarah
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Sarah wrote:
WP:V doesn't rely on WP:RS, and I don't know why anyone thinks it does.
I think it's something about how the first link in the policy page, in the second sentence, is a link to WP:RS.
"Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources."
-Phil
On 10/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Sarah wrote:
WP:V doesn't rely on WP:RS, and I don't know why anyone thinks it does.
I think it's something about how the first link in the policy page, in the second sentence, is a link to WP:RS.
"Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources."
By all means unlink it, then. But there being a link to another page doesn't mean the policy relies on that page.
Sarah
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Sarah wrote:
By all means unlink it, then. But there being a link to another page doesn't mean the policy relies on that page.
Entire sections of it amount to "see [[WP:RS]]," Sarah. This isn't a simple matter of delinking. The two have grown entwined. Separating them requires major revision to policy. Fixing RS does not.
-Phil
On 10/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Entire sections of it amount to "see [[WP:RS]]," Sarah. This isn't a simple matter of delinking. The two have grown entwined. Separating them requires major revision to policy. Fixing RS does not.
Phil, you could remove every reference and link to RS from WP:V and it would not change V one iota. You're mistaking overlinking for actually saying something.
Sarah
On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Sarah wrote:
Phil, you could remove every reference and link to RS from WP:V and it would not change V one iota. You're mistaking overlinking for actually saying something.
Agree 100%.
Try delinking it and read the policy with an open mind. You will be surprised how well it works without the fluff at [[WP:RS]]
-- Jossi
On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Phil Sandifer wrote:
"Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources."
That sentence stands alone, Phil.
Unless you think that understanding what is a reliable and a reputable source is difficult thing for our readers to understand....
Most readers will understand what that means *without* any further explanations.
-- Jossi
On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Phil Sandifer wrote:
But as long as there's such serious doubt over our definition of WP:RS, we have to recognize that WP:V is, while necessary, also not currently in a functional form.
I respectfully disagree. [[WP:V]] can stand alone and it is functional with or without the help of [[WP:RS]]
-- Jossi
On 10/10/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
Sure...
Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.
-- Jossi
As various major media plagarism and faked story sources show, you can't assume the accuracy or authorship of a "reliable media" source either.
Though forging Usenet headers and From: addresses was not unknown (I'm responsible for a lot of April 1 Usenet pranks), as a general rule, if a well known Usenet user, from their normal account, and if they didn't show up shortly later in-thread to claim it was a forgery, then you can generally assume it was legit.
The specific details of a post can be subjected to further research if one is in doubt. Even the best forgeries were exceptionally difficult to make completely transparent, after the early 90s once nntp server openness and header tracking info started to tighten up.