Misplaced Pages

talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:23, 12 February 2022 editPilaz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers5,134 edits →Could someone update the Who's Who UK entry with the RfC?: +← Previous edit Revision as of 14:01, 13 February 2022 edit undoTayi Arajakate (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,159 edits →Could someone update the Who's Who UK entry with the RfC?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 162: Line 162:
Hi! Could a patroller or experienced user update the ''Who's Who'' (UK) entry to reflect ]? I got spooked by the reference number for the discussion I was supposed to add. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Hi! Could a patroller or experienced user update the ''Who's Who'' (UK) entry to reflect ]? I got spooked by the reference number for the discussion I was supposed to add. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
: I beat my deepest fears and made it, y'all. I am a Misplaced Pages god. Cheers, ] (]) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC) : I beat my deepest fears and made it, y'all. I am a Misplaced Pages god. Cheers, ] (]) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
::Cheers! <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:01, 13 February 2022

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Help High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
HighThis page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Media Matters for America

WP:RSP currently says that "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed." I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. The last RfC on this matter showed most !votes as "generally reliable" and "additional considerations apply", but I don't see anyone saying its "unreliable". But "no consensus" sounds ambiguous and could mean "some editors think it is reliable, while other editors think its unreliable". VR talk 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Good points. The wording should be changed to:
There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
The last RfC should be linked. -- Valjean (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The last RfC explicitly reaffirmed the "No consensus" status. I don't think we should second-guess the closer here. Alaexis¿question? 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not quite what the closer said (they said "the current reliability status of Media Matters for America is generally reaffirmed"). But its clear even from the closer's statement that the two predominant choices were "reliable" and "uncertain", not "reliable" and "unreliable".VR talk 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The "current reliability status" before the December 2019 RfC was "No consensus." The closer wrote that it was reaffirmed. Alaexis¿question? 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe what they meant by "current reliability status" was the color, and I agree that the color was reaffirmed by the RfC. Your interpretation of the closer's first sentence appears to contradict the closer's second sentence. If the closer truly meant that consensus is split between reliable and unreliable (I don't think they meant that), then that RfC should be re-closed, as I don't see a single !vote that considered MMfA unreliable during the RfC.VR talk 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the closer didn't mean that consensus was split between reliable and unreliable. The closer meant that consensus was split between "reliable" and "uncertain" but "a lot of the arguments in general default to "uncertain."" By "uncertain," I am quite confident that was simply the closer's shorthand for a marginally reliable source, which is defined as a No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. This makes sense since a great deal of editors !voted "additional considerations apply." Even many of the editors who !voted generally reliable stated that the source should be used on a "case-by-case basis" or is "context dependent." These types of qualifiers are more in line with a marginal source than a generally reliable source, and the closer accurately reflected this in their closing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But I feel this is not accurately reflected in the simplistic sentence "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America" and it should be worded differently.VR talk 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay. We can write something to the degree of: There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be be attributed. But I'm open to other suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I think its an improvement over the current wording, so I'd support replacing it.VR talk 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Why are we splitting hairs here what the closer may have meant two years ago when it's possible to hold a new RfC at the RSN. Alaexis¿question? 11:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, minor Misplaced Pages editors have no right to decide what is the right consensus or not. That phrase "no consensus" and "there is a consensus" can and is so biased. There is a consensus for everything okay people? Things change too. Anyway, there should at least be much more sources to other outside decent publishers/sites. Misplaced Pages themselves admitted they aren't a reliable source, especially for citations elsewhere in itself. Good day; case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C968:6050:DDB:EF6F (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with the proposed rewrite but better to strike out and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. We wikilink to marginally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"We wikilink to marginally reliable." - Ever cross your mind to ask yourself "Why?" EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin (magazine)

In the latest RfC about Jacobin, I am not sure that "ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. , and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. The rest of the closure and yellow rating, however, was fine; the current (RSP entry) also appears to be too wordy and could be improved. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hemiauchenia and Tayi Arajakate, since they worked on entries, but anyone's thought would be helpful — is it just me? Davide King (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, I would rather not touch that entry since I had made a comment in the discussion itself but yeah, looking at the discussion, I think you might be correct that the entry does not reflect it. The wording in the entry is directly copied from the close summary though, so a close review at WP:AN and a reclose/amendment would be needed if you want to modify it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged on my talk: the close is meant to convey that there is a strong consensus that it is not better than Option 2 (I.E. the arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation) and that there are particular additional considerations to apply to Jacobin (I.E. in-text attribution and some issues expressed regarding contentious BLP claims). If people would like to challenge a 3-month old RfC close on AN, I technically cannot stop you but also I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no reason to change it. Crossroads 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure that makes sense, going by headcount at least, there were 19 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not better than Option 2" (13 for Option 2 and 6 for Option 3) and 18 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not worse than Option 2" (13 for Option 1 and 5 for Option 1/2). There were policy based arguments on both ends. The close is quite verbose so it's possible no one paid attention to its specifics, at least that's the case with me. There is also only one person among the 37 who said anything about BLPs (i.e, Crossroads). Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. So many words and little makes sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
he arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation, that looks more like your personal opinion or view that an admin may not agree with, if they closed it themselves; as noted by Tayi Arajakate, both sides gave strong arguments (in particular Aquillion, and the fact, as was noted by Tayi Arajakate, that There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. It is as if it is deemed too biased to be reliable, even though no strong evidence has been presented to support this fact, and the mere fact it is more opinion rather than straight news already means we cannot always use it, as noted by The Four Deuces — it does not mean it is not reliable or cannot be reliable, or that it is unreliable on facts) and it is very close, much closer than your own closure implied (I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs, so the closure gave way too much weight to one side than was warranted, and was closer than it is assumed), which is why I asked that an admin review it and re-close it with a better summary and entry here. I think an admin close review is warranted. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
As for challeng a 3-month old RfC close on AN, ... I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. I missed it (or else I would have participated too) and I saw it only those days, and I thought that it was worth a review. I do not think that other users ignoring it means they are fine with it (they are free to comment here or someone other than me may ping them if they disagree), and the mere fact it was closed by a non-admin, and at least two other users have agreed with my concerns and about verbosity, of which I know what I am talking about since I am guilty of this and I try to improve, while two users who disagree are the closure themselves and a user who voted for Option 3 — I see no reason not to look further and get a better summary of consensus, or lack thereof.
Davide King (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs - exactly. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Jlevi, Jr8825, and WMrapids (who gave a better summary entry that takes in consideration both sides) gave very good policy-based, summaries, and well-addressed counter-arguments — again, policy-wise and even numerically, this was much closer than was assumed ... Davide King (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Given that the closer has not responded further to these concerns and the close review at AN was archived with no endorsements, I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the list. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted that removal. If you're going to open up a close challenge on AN, please follow the giant notice on top of the page and actually leave me a talk page message when opening a discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't open the close review and the notice is for discussions on editors not reviews. Unlike reports on conduct, it isn't a requirement to specifically notify closers of a review on their talk page, though they usually are aware. See for instance, the most recent close review at AN or for the matter, most other reviews in the archives where the closers were not specifically notified and it did not cause any issue.
Similarly, you were notified on your talk page about this discussion where the recommendation was a close review, you then went on to comment about the close review and you were active at AN when the close review was open. It seems like you were aware as well. Instead of reaching for technicalities, perhaps you could try responding to the actual concerns being brought up. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a supervote and the lack of response does not help. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, the AN discussion has been running for three weeks and there's a strong consensus for a reclose. Since the Jacobin entry in the RSP list is based solely on that RfC, I've yanked it: if it's premised on a faulty close, then it's a faulty entry. Einsof (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Einsof and Tayi Arajakate, that discussion has been archived. The RfC has not been revised or overturned yet, and in case some admin want to do that or is already working to do it, that is the link. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Deprecated sources vs WP:DEPREC

I raised this issue at the ongoing RFC about deprecated sources here, but I just want to note the definition of deprecated provided on this page is different than the definition given on the information page Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources. Calidum 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

All most like this whole "deprecation" thing has been poorly thought out and interpreted differently by different people. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hear, hear. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

TMZ

After a brief "scare" that TMZ may have falsely reported on Betty White's death (though they were proven true within an hour from other RSes), might I suggest that the wording for TMZ be added to to say that TMZ should not be used as the only source (or primary source when other sources point back to it) related to celebrity's death? We have a statement on controversial BLP claims and I would think death would be covered in that, but it should be clear that TMZ should be avoided very much as the only source in this type of case. --Masem (t) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This may have been a unique situation, where for at least the last 5 years, maybe 10, it has been a twitter meme that when "Betty White" trends, everyone rushed to make sure she was still alive. ValarianB (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think it makes sense to raise the issue following a situation where they were correct. More generally, if there is going to be a specific carve-out for a source (whether positive or negative), I feel we would need secondary sourcing focusing on their coverage of that carve-out directly - ie. if you want to say that a source is particularly unusable for celebrity deaths, you need to back it up with sources that indicate that that's a particular problem there. The only exceptions would be cases like WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP as a whole, where our standards are higher (so it's possible for a source to be reliable in some respects but fail those just on a general assessment.) But when I read a RSP entry saying "specifically be careful about using this source for X" or the like, I would expect that that means there's coverage indicating that the source has a unique problem with X (as is eg. often the case with sources that deny the science on climate change) - the wording you're suggesting would imply that there is secondary sourcing indicating that TMZ is a specifically worse source for celebrity deaths than it is for BLPs in general. --Aquillion (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Metro news description

Needs rewording, updating in the list metro.news was merged into metro.co.uk ages ago. Maybe the (accessible via metro.news domain) should be removed from the description now? Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it and added an updated line instead. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of WSWS assessment

I am, as was rightly noted in Archive 6 discussion, involved in the discussions on the source, but no one cared at the time to provide a summary entry for the website so I did it, simultaneously asking for opinions on that entry formulation. Tayi Arajakate changed the entry, but that is not what I believe to be the consensus arising from all discussions on the source. I therefore ask to assess whether the current version reflects consensus best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write it to be reflective of all the discussions, just the latest one. The latest one had substantial participation and from what I remember, I did take some things into consideration from the more recent ones. Consensus changes over time and the discussions stretch over a period of around 14 years starting from 2008 so the earlier ones are clearly outdated. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Spiked

Is there a consensus on the reliability of this media outlet ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infty1000 0110 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Spiked_(magazine)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, will do that from now on. Thanks for the link on how to use talk pages Infty1000 0110 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

invisibleoranges.com

I am looking to get https://www.invisibleoranges.com/ listed as a Reliable source.

can aynone help? H8eternal (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@H8eternal: Per the box at the top, you should discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Youtube should either be completely unreliable or completely reliable.

Just because an account on youtube is affiliated with a company that[REDACTED] considers reliable does not mean that the youtube account should be. It makes no sense to put a blanket ban on any youtube video unless it happens to be affiliated with some news outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A448:411:1:A8AD:45C:7808:D163 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is attached to the people who created the source, not the site that hosts it. --Jayron32 15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
No source is completely reliable, context matters. YT is like the rest of the internet a platform, not a source. CNN's YT-channel has the RS-ness of CNN. Blogger X's YT-channel has the RS-ness of blogger X. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Could someone update the Who's Who UK entry with the RfC?

Hi! Could a patroller or experienced user update the Who's Who (UK) entry to reflect this ongoing RfC? I got spooked by the reference number for the discussion I was supposed to add. Thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I beat my deepest fears and made it, y'all. I am a Misplaced Pages god. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Cheers! Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions Add topic