Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 4 February 2010

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

RfC on reliable sources at Invisible Pink Unicorn

There is a request for comment related to reliability of sources occurring at Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#RfC:_is_content_in_h2g2_a_reliable_source_for_information_about_the_Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Ph.D. dissertations

I object to the sentence Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. This may be true in some fields but definitely is not true in all. I'd like to change this to Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered citable publications by scholars in some fields. (The "in footnotes" bit is a minor issue. The specific format of citation is an unnecessary detail, and the journals in my field explicitly discourage the use of footnotes.) Comments, questions, complaints? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any source that explains which fields accept PhD dissertations and which do not (or even some sources stating that PhD dissertations are not accepted as scholarly sources in specific fields)? We should keep in mind also that the standards of different publications vary. Journal X might decide PhD dissertations are not suitable as references in refereed articles, but we are not writing refereed articles here. Most journals would accept data gathered personally by the authors of an article, but Misplaced Pages does not accept that. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of an field which accepts some scholarly sources but rejects PhD dissertations. All the standard guide books (like Chicago manual of Style) explain how to cite them as scholarly sources in humanities, social sciences, engineering, medicine, science, arts, business, law, theology, etc. All the job manuals and online sources for academics (like Chronicle of Higher Education) explain the importance of PhD dissertations.Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly would reflect very badly on a department or external examiner if they let through PhD dissertations which can't be cited. I'd like to see some example too. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq. Surely that is what differentiates a PhD dissertation from say a master's dissertation - that it should be up to the standard whereby it can be cited by others. Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Work can be awarded a phd that is rejected for publication. This probably puts Phds in the situation where they can be reliably sourced but they've failed the notability test, so I would say that while phds can be used as further sources for result corroboration etc they shouldn't be used as a source for establishing new theory. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UMI has already published 2 million dissertations, so publication status is rarely an issue. Getting a PhD is a validation of expertise, which is the main criteria Misplaced Pages is looking for in a reliable source.Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is due to the fact that phds in the US and UK can be of a much lower quality that you get in Europe where generally they are awarded based on papers you have published. The peer review is much more rigorous for papers than it is for phd theses. As a rule you won't generally find phds cited in Europe because you can cite the peer reviewed paper instead, so the point stands that not all acadamic communities would consider theses reliable sources, particularly UK and US ones where the work hasn't been subjected to peer review. Good phd work in the UK and US will be published in journals so there should be no problem citing notable work. Some these might provide further experimental work not published in journals so there are cases where it might be useful to cite them, but only in certain contexts. Betty Logan (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what disciplines Bettty Logan is referring to. In the humanities and social sciences European PhD's are not held in as high regard as the U.S.--to get a professorship in Europe a candidate has to do additional work especially the "habilitation". But all this is beside the point: a PhD dissertation is a certificate of expertise that far exceeds the usual standard of Misplaced Pages articles. Rjensen (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"In the humanities and social sciences European PhD's are not held in as high regard as the U.S." Rjensen, do you have a source for this rather extraordinary claim? --Hegvald (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In much of Europe the PhD is not the final degree for an academic, as it is in the U.S., in large part because it is done in much shorter time than in the U.S. So Europeans have to get the "habilitation" as well if they want a professorship.Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood this. A habilitation is a qualification above that of the PhD. This does not mean that the the previous doctorate is somehow inferior to a U.S. degree, and I think you will have a rather difficult time finding an authoritative source claiming this. A habilitation, in German universities, usually implies that the "Dr. habil." has produced two substantial monographs (the first is the doctoral dissertation, the second is the habilitationsschrift) published by reputable academic publishers. Yes, it qualifies for a professorship at a German university, but that is a far more distinguished position than the college "professorship" that a U.S. Ph.D. will get you in the first instance.

BTW, I don't think it is meaningful to speak of a "European PhD", because I don't think such a thing exists, and I can only speak of the parts of (mostly northern) Europe that I am somewhat familiar with. --Hegvald (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you'd take a phd from Harvard over anywhere else wouldn't you? The problem is the lower bound. Maybe it's different in the US, but it has a similar system to the UK and you get some right dross at the lower end in the UK. The best phd candidates tend to go to American Ivy league or Oxbridge so maybe the top tier in Europe isn't in the same league as the top tier in America, but in all likelihood this phd work will be published in journals anyway so there won't be a neccessity to cite the phd thesis itself. The problem is at the lower end where the work wouldn't really satisfy a peer review. If the work is notable, and is of a satisfactory quality why isn't it in a journal where it has been peer reviewed? I simply wouldn't tolerate phds being cited, the only exception being phds from the same institution due to the fact there may be some collaborative work. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes other considerations do get in the way of journal publication. My PhD was accepted by examiners - probably the same people who would've reviewed it, had it been submitted to a journal. But the work had commercial applications, so the thesis was kept off the shelves and we couldn't submit anything for journal publication while we dealt with patenting. By the time we could publish without interfering with patents, I'd moved on to other projects, and getting a journal publication wasn't a priority (also, I was getting pretty heartily sick of that topic - writing patent apps can do that). So in the end, the only publications I had for that work were the patent application and my original PhD. --GenericBob (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky question. In large parts of Europe the universities have mutually similar standards, at least within each country. In the US and UK it's very different, with a small number of universities absorbing all the top students. For the UK I can say that the state is actually pressuring the universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh into becoming diploma mills: To preserve their funding they are forced to accept as many students as possible, which is hard given that they only get applications by those who couldn't get a place in one of the top universities. And then there is strong pressure to let everybody pass. Traditionally students in some countries are also much older when they start work on their PhD, and typical time to completion is much longer.

I guess without going into extreme details about countries and subjects the only thing we can say is that some theses are reliable sources and some are not. And we can give guidance such as:

• If a PhD was awarded by a diploma mill or other dubious university, then the thesis is not a reliable source.
• If a PhD thesis has been cited (but not rubbished) in peer-reviewed publications, it is probably a reliable source.
• If the results of a thesis have been published in a peer-reviewed publication, then it is probably a reliable source, although often it will be preferable to publish the peer-reviewed publication. Hans Adler 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is hard to imagine that accepted PhD dissertations aren't reliable sources. However, I'd say they are often of a lower quality than the primary literature. So, definitely citeable, but if there is a conflict or other issue one should assume the peer reviewed literature is more likely to be correct. Sort of like how we would usually regard a news account of a scientists' opinions as reliable, but would greatly prefer to cite their actual papers whenever possible. Also, is the section Boris quotes referring to external practices or wiki practices. I would have assumed the later, in which case it is correct that we routinely cite such material in footnotes. Boris' comments however seem to be treating it as commentary on external publishing practices, and I don't think that's what was intended. Dragons flight (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

CliffNotes, Sparknotes, MonarchNotes, Ophah, and shmoop reliability

I've been reading in vain for 20 minutes for opinions about whether CliffNotes, SparkNotes, MonarchNotes, and shmoop] are considered reliable references.

Looking at For Esmé – with Love and Squalor, I was concerned that an external link had been added to shmoop. The writing isn't especially good, using informal language. ("life goes on in some places", "untouched by battle", "manage to hide away", "its optimistic message still tweaks the heartstrings after all this time".) The only references provided were for the trivia; of the three one was broken, one to a band's page, and one to a Salinger Wiki example page(!?). shmoop, in particular seems too weak as a reliable reference.

There are other concerns affecting all four. Should Misplaced Pages encourage external linking to a study site? Which? Before I changed it, Anna Karenina had links to Sparknotes, shmoop, and Oprah's book club.. These sites all seem to have in common a lack of authorship, writing date, and inline references.

I gravitate toward removing all links to CliffNotes, Sparknotes, MonarchNotes, Ophah, and shmoop placed in the "External links" sections. In particular, it seems that the links should not be added without explanation, as this editor did on several occasions for shmoop. Thoughts and direction would be welcome. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend keeping them: they are useful and have material that is otherwise hard to find. As for their quality, well, I believe teachers have a higher opinion of them than they do of Misplaced Pages! (All are vetted by professional editors and depend on the reputation for sales in college bookstores). I just checked some Cliffnotes at random. They all list an author--for example, the guides for "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" were written by a professional writer who has been a professor of literature and academic writing at University of Detroit Mercy. bio Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the researched, swift answer. Cliffnotes, yes, those seem to be the cream of the crop. shmoop seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. I guess I would ask the broader question then: how many literary critiques does Wiki need as external links? Should every Cliffnote, Sparknote, MonarchNote, Oprah, shmoop, and any other published professional literary critique be added to the External Links section? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some links to shmoop being added recently, I think there might be a campaign to add them. I thought shmoop looked pretty unreliable. If there's no good reason to refer to it, blacklist it? Fences&Windows 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is clear that there is a real spam problem, I don't think we should blacklist. The recent RFC indicated that lack of reliability should not be a sole basis for blacklisting, but the rough consensus is that it can be considered as a factor. Gigs (talk)

Scholarship section (2.1) - does sources = journals?

Based on my reading of the following para

• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

the 6th word in the first line, "source" refers to sources of papers and not the peer reviewed papers that journals publish. This is under debate over at Talk:Global Warming with a FAQ (F22) proposed to rely on the understanding that source can mean peer reviewed paper. The larger issue under discussion is the treatment of papers, when they can be included and when they should be excluded. My interpretation serves the inclusionist side and the source=papers interpretation serves the exclusionist side. It would be nice to get a wider perspective that does not necessarily even care about the parochial issues but rather the integrity of WP:RS itself.

Help. TMLutas (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to look at the discussion, but there is no explanation of what "FAQ (F22)" is. Please provide a link.

As for your question, I would think that any academic journal that is frequently cited in other recognized journals is reliable in general, and any peer-reviewed paper published in such a journal is, in the absence of other evidence, a reliable source. However, that does not mean it is the best source to use in any particular article. Also, other publications, such as books, videos, and computer databases, could be vetted as reliable sources through frequent citation in recognized journals. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant links and timeline - On 22 December I started a discussion on Talk:Global cooling, proposing that we finally have a section covering advocacy for the theory in the 2000s. That section is here. A persistent problem developed that people would argue against the inclusion of a paper supported by various rules references that on examination did not support what the editor asserted. A number of editors refused to justify their opposition at all tying it to a rule, policy, or guideline. Finally on 17:35, 1 January 2010 I was referred to Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q22. This FAQ, it turned out, was just naked assertion with no reference back to any sort of policy and had been added on 30 December with no preceding discussion in Talk:Global Warming. I attempted to apply various improvements and found that it needed a talk to consensus so I created an appropriate section. It's clear that a local consensus exists among many regulars on the global warming page but, again, nobody can seem to justify the local practices as conforming to general rules. At the top of the section, I am keeping a running list of policies, guidelines, and essays cited as relevant to the question

policy

WP:NOTNEWS

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

WP:WEIGHT

WP:NPOV

content guideline

WP:RS

WP:FRINGE

WP:TOOLONG

essay

WP:DEADLINE

WP:RECENT

This page, specifically the section cited above is the latest attempt to reconcile local practice with actual rules. The local practice is to exclude peer reviewed, published articles for a vague and indeterminate amount of time (I've never gotten a specific time period) until their "impact" can be determined. Studies with "impact" can be cited. Those that do not cannot be cited irrespective of the balance rules as specified in WP:WEIGHT. The nail they are trying to hang their hat on rests on "source" being a paper in 2.1(4) and not a journal. Given the context of section 2.1 I think that it's simply a mistaken interpretation but thought the WP:RS community should have an opportunity to weigh in on what has become a pretty contentious issue. TMLutas (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But we cannot and should not cite very study in an active field like climate change. The problem is that climate change skeptics cherry-pick studies that support their position, and cite studies from dodgy journals like E&E. Reviews should be preferred to primary research studies. Fences&Windows 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This behavior is covered by WP:WEIGHT. Take the global warming article.It's 98k and with the addition of just 3k more it would hit mandatory split territory. Under the source=journal interpretation (barring some other undiscovered policy) you could put in a cherry picked study but you would need to put in enough balancing text to make clear exactly how cherry picked it is so nobody is deceived. To satisfy WP:TOOLONG you would also have to pull out so much text in order to do that balancing that in the vast number of cases of skeptic cherry picking the article would lose more than it would gain and could be excluded on those grounds. But there are related pages where the study might be profitably put to use. Let's say there's a paper asserting global cooling (there's one in press right now as it happens). You could try to get it in the global warming article but it would be rejected for the reasons I outlined above. But global cooling both is much shorter (32k) and has zero coverage of global cooling assertions post 2001 so it isn't like there's no room to add it. And the weighting requirements would be different under WP:WEIGHT for a minority view page like global cooling. The study could go into Misplaced Pages in the global cooling page and a reasonable one or two line reference to global cooling could be in the global warming article. This would resolve the issue of unfair exclusion from Misplaced Pages without any special pleading that climatology articles are somehow different than any other topic out there. Yet the exact same arguments under the source=papers interpretation are used currently in both global warming and global cooling talk pages to keep the study out. This leads to conclusions of conspiracy and a great temptation to sockpuppet against the conspiracy to "get the truth out". Nobody needs that.

It's a straw man to raise the idea of citing every study. For every idea, multiple studies should be winnowed down to the best representation of the idea. But if you misunderstand how big the idea bucket should be, conflict is inevitable. There is no one idea bucket called global warming. There is one for AGW caused by CO2, AGW caused by ozone holes, GW by cosmic rays, GW by end stage funkiness of our current interglacial, etc. If you pick the best 1-5 papers representing each idea, you won't suffer overload and if you weight correctly, nobody's going to get the wrong idea that a minority opinion has greater support than it does. As pages get too large, split out ideas into their own pages and have a small summary on the main page. This is standard Misplaced Pages editing. No need for special pleading.

The question that I have for *this* page is whether it's special pleading. Does source=paper or source=journal? The current formulation seems as troublesome as the US' 2nd amendment. Fortunately for us, fixing the ambiguity is easier. TMLutas (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Source = Paper and Journal, and even Author... when examining a source for reliability, all three need to be examined. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an examination of all factors should enter into the general concept of reliable source. The practice discussed in section 2.1(4) is a bit more specific then examining papers, journals and even authors for reliability. It seems to be an abbreviated restatement of impact factor. Now that's fine as far as it goes but the impact factor article seems to specifically caution against using impact factor to judge anything other than journals. The relevant section is title Misuse:

• The impact factor is often misused to evaluate the importance of an individual publication or evaluate an individual researcher. This does not work well since a small number of publications are cited much more than the majority - for example, about 90% of Nature's 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications, and thus the importance of any one publication will be different from, and in most cases less than, the overall number. The impact factor, however, averages over all articles and thus underestimates the citations of the most cited articles while exaggerating the number of citations of the majority of articles. Consequently, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.

There are scholarly examinations out there also labeling impact factor in individual papers and authors as misuse. Apparently the system can be manipulated and has been once it became clear that promotions and journalistic reputation depended on impact factor ratings.

I'm still left with questions, though things are coming into sharper focus. What is the stance of WP:RS regarding impact factor rating individual papers and authors as a method of deciding whether they shall be included in Misplaced Pages. Is impact factor examination to be limited to journals (source=journal) or have wider application (source=paper)? Is this well settled ground or is it something that the editors concentrating on WP:RS really haven't thought much about? TMLutas (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This section seems to have drifted a bit as I took my wiki break. As I see it, there is enough information to answer the question definitively. Is a paper published in a reliable source journal considered reliable by virtue of its peer review in that publication or does it need to have a certain number of citations itself in the literature before it is considered reliable? TMLutas (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By default I'd accept that as a RS, but that can depend on circumstances - if the accuracy of that paper is later challenged by another suitably credible source, its status as an RS needs to be re-evaluated. --GenericBob (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept that as being good common sense. I don't think that the text of 2.1 explicitly supports that position at present and some editors do disagree (I raised the question specifically because there was a conflict elsewhere). Would the following be acceptable as a restatement of this position that could go into the article? "A scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal that is considered reliable is, by default, considered reliable. This default reliability is weak and may be successfully challenged by subsequent peer reviewed papers." Or should this proposal be broken out and put into its own section so that we're more likely to have a full airing out of the issues and a better overall text? TMLutas (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The default is not weak. A scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal is comparable with, maybe better than, stories in newspapers and magazines, and books in the trade press. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I included the word weak in deference to others who are asserting elsewhere that there should be no finding of reliability until a separate hurdle of "impact" or "impact factor" is passed. I've no objection to dropping it but I'm a bit unclear as to how to reconcile your position with the dominant crowd over on pages like global warming. TMLutas (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I should make it clear that my personal opinion is that they're just wrong and misapplying WP:RS. I just don't know how to go through the process to get them to stop misapplying it. 3-4 people talking things out on WP:RS is not going to cut it. I don't know what would short of significant sanctions. TMLutas (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have a topic, like global warming, that has vast numbers of sources to choose from, it might be best to use concepts like impact factor to choose among the sources. But if we say that any article on any topic must have the same degree of acceptance as the sources we pick for global warming, there would be many topics we just couldn't write about at all, because there just are not as many sources to choose from. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I might not have been clear. What's going on isn't a winnowing of, let's say 100 ice studies all saying similar things to the 1 best representative one using impact factor. Such a use would be, and is, uncontroversial. What impact factor is controversially being used for is to delay and deny publication of minority viewpoints which might have 1-5 papers supporting them. You end up having the russian solar scientists who are going around claiming global cooling is here or coming (including two of whom have a public bet running on the subject) entirely locked out of the global cooling article. There's a new theory linking some novel discovery on ozone depletion in the polar zones to our recent bout of warming and claiming that we're likely to have a few decades of cooling due to more ozone at the poles. There are legitimate weighting issues to address with minority views but that's not the trouble. The cures outlined in WP:WEIGHT are available.

These papers' reliability is being questioned regardless of their publication status in an RS peer reviewed journal based on this impact factor even though it is a viewpoint that's getting knocked, not just a particular paper expressing the viewpoint. It's sort of like knocking out punctuated equilibrium evolution on the grounds that so many more papers were steady progress style darwinian (or vice versa). I'd have little problem with minority papers being relegated to lesser read support articles (like global cooling is for global warming) due to weight issues but to entirely exclude viewpoints in any article is problematic.

It's also a problem in a workflow sense. If you read about a new paper in this "impact factor" style of doing things, you try to get it in, get it knocked down by the impact factor guardians, and have to come back 6-9 months later to fight the whole battle over again. Unless you are *very* committed to the edit, it's just not going to happen. In a non-impact factor world, you get your paper in and if it's debunked, the paper gets removed a couple of months later as it's successfully shown to be bad science. That flows better, you get more edits and your article stays up to date on developments without acrimonious arguments about the judgments of scientists in their citation behavior. Misplaced Pages also gets to stay clear of the whole mess about conspiracies run out of East Anglia to game the impact factor ratings to punish those not pushing the AGW viewpoint. TMLutas (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice this discussion because it pinged my watchlist when Jc3s5h linked to this discussion from Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q22. Thanks.

The specific problem in global warming is that there is an immense pressure to inflate the scientific significance of the very few papers that point in a direction opposite to the mainstream. The FAQ Q22, of which I wrote the original wording, just explains why we don't add every such new paper to the article on global warming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with inclusion of material questioning global warming; it's just that we shouldn't give undue attention to such material. There is a problem of recentism, really. Global warming is such a politically important field that it has been subject to a "refutation of the month" syndrome in the popular press. Allowing a paper to mellow for a few months helps us to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I think the current version is reasonable. It says:

Q22: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?

A22: There are many peer-reviewed papers published every month in scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate and others. We can't include all of them, so we wait to see if papers have significant impact. Misplaced Pages's guideline on reliable sources states The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. Brand-new papers will have accumulated few if any such citations, so we don't ordinarily base our writing on very recent works.

By counting how many academic sources cite a paper after some time we have concrete evidence as to the significance of the paper. Prior to that we really don't know. Adding references randomly on publication would lead to a very messy article. --TS 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on any particular global warming paper. But this Reliable Sources guideline is quoted as if it serves to justify excluding a paper because the individual paper has not been cited often enough. The undisputed consensus in this talk page discussion is that, by default, a paper may be considered reliable if it is printed in a journal, and the journal has been frequently cited by other journals, books, etc.

Now, if the FAQ were to say something like "The process used to judge the reliability of a journal in WP:RS, that is, the frequency with which the journal is sited in other sources, must be made stricter in the case of global warming because..." that would be OK with me. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an academic paper that isn't widely cited may not make the cut. Am I missing some conceivable reading of this guideline that would mandate the inclusion of a paper that was, essentially, ignored by the academic community?

Anybody who claims that a single peer reviewed academic paper is intrinsically "reliable" is making a very controversial statement. If you claim, extraordinarily and to be honest a little shockingly, that there is any "undisputed consensus" to the contrary in academia or on Misplaced Pages or in this discussion I say "thus I refute you." A single scientific paper is not equal to a fact. --TS 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the Reliable sources guideline, "reliable" means good enough to cite in an article. Sources that are not reliable are so bad they shouldn't even be mentioned in articles. Publication in a respected journal makes it acceptable to cite it on Misplaced Pages, but the way the information from the article is presented would depend on all the available information. Also, not all subject matter gets as much attention as global warming. Obscure subject matter will not receive as many citations, and the literature on obscure subjects might not be well-enough indexed to find any cites that do exist.

If one were to compare it to a trial, a reliable source would be analogous to admissible evidence, and other sources would be analogous to inadmissible evidence. Naturally one piece of evidence does not automatically determine the verdict. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight. There's a vast preponderance of scientific opinion that global warming is a real problem, and this opinion is based on the weight of evidence. There are occasional outliers in the academic press, which gain news value, but to be honest mostly blog value because of their exciting, grassy knoll attraction. --TS 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS' lede

Most WP pages be they in the articlespace or WPspace start by briefly defining what is meant by the title of the page, whereas this one starts by saying what it is not: "This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Where there is a conflict between this page and the policy, the policy takes precedence, and this page should be changed to reflect the content of the policy." It seems like another place could be found for that, either further down in the WP:Lede, in an indented italicized WP:hatnote or in a boxed WP:Template message. I'd also recommend that "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" be stated as concisely in the lede as it in in the overview prior to being discussed in more detail and would recommend bolding "fact-checking and accuracy" which seems to my mind to deserve as much emphasis as "Sources should directly support the information" currently gets. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is sometimes a primary source

It seems to me that the article space of[REDACTED] is explicitly tertiary, and talk pages are self-published, but it's self evident that the policies of[REDACTED] are at the very least primary sources for what the wikipedia's policies are/were.

Similarly arbcom decisions and the software database about who is/isn't an administrator and such like, these are primary sources also. There's no sense that arbcom decisions are self-published, they don't pay to be published, they're published by another party (the wikimedia foundation) and they're essentially sort out by that party to do that.- Wolfkeeper 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is a primary source in rare cases. It's usually tertiary though. I think that distinction is probably too subtle and minor to note in the guideline text though. Gigs (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes a review site a reliable source?

Review sites such as Ain't It Cool, are often used as a reliable source. How is this determined though? If your website is mentioned in a newspaper, magazine, or some other source, does that make it notable enough to be used for reviewing movies, games, comics, or whatever? Many reliable sources do not meet the notability standards of Misplaced Pages necessary to have an article for them, but are still used, so being notable is not a requirement to be considered a reliable source.

I'm thinking just as a newspaper that had a hundred thousand subscribers would be considered a reliable source for reviews, while some local newspaper in a small town that had only a few hundred readers would not be, so it should be with websites. Its about the number of readers. If you have a significant number of people going to a review site, that exists specifically to reviews one genre or another, then it should be considered a reliable source and notable enough to be quoted in articles about whatever it is reviewing. http://www.alexa.com/ is the only site I know of that can gauge a website's traffic, but surely there are others. If there is no doubt that a significant number(exact number to be determined by consensus), go to a website for reviews, should it be considered? Obviously you can't trust a website to truthfully tell you their hits, so other sources would have to be found.

Also, can you judge a review site for accuracy, when all reviewers are just giving their own opinions on something? If all you were doing was quoting the review source in an article, then would accuracy be a legitimate argument against it at all? Reliable sources are judged by accuracy, and that an argument that came up in a recent discussion, so I was curious about that. The review is accurately giving someone's opinion of what they are reviewing, not listing anything in doubt. Dream Focus 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexa is a remarkably iffy source for much. The criterion has been that if there is "editorial control" over the reviews (that is, the site is not in any sense an open blog for reviewers) that where the reviewer is otherwise notable as a reviewer, that their opinions in the reveiw could be used. In other words, the strange fellow who came up with great blurbs for every movies known to man would not count <g>. There is, moreover, no such thing as "accuracy" when dealing with reviews. Collect (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga‎#Reliable source Animetric and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blood royale (hentai) for previous discussions on this subject, specifically relating to using reviews from the self-published website Animetric.com as a bases to determine notability. Essentially, Dream Focus is forum shopping this topic since he is not getting the results he is wanting. —Farix (t | c) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I already had a link in my post to the Wikiproject discussion. I am not forum shopping. In that discussion, I was pointed here, and told that is where the decision is made, so I came here. And this has nothing to do with that one article. In many AFDs, horror films only get reviewed on certain review sites, which some argue are not a reliable source. The same argument comes up time and again, so it needs to be dealt with here. Dream Focus 23:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What is far too often ignored is that WP:RS instructs that sorces be considered for what they are in context to what is being sourced... mostly because RS shares (not mandates) a "rule of thumb" that offers "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." But that would be for facts... not opinions. Opinions may be based on facts but they are POV.

This rule of thumb suggests ways to determine reliabilty but does not mandate that all sources must positively meet that "rule of thumb". Further, it stipulates "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." That's "may"... not MUST. The most clarifying portion of that guideline, the very sentence preceding that "rule of thumb" and the portion most often ignored, is "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context". (my emphasis)

This should properly be seen as indicative that sources should be considered on a "sliding scale of reliability" dependent upon context and just what is being sourced. For politics, I might give the Washington Post a 10 and Fangoria a zero. For mainstream films I might give Variety a 10 and New York Times a 9. For horror films, I'd give Fangoria or DVD Talk or Film Threat or Bloody-Disgusting or FEARnet or Rotten Tomatoes or Rue Morgue (magazine) a 10 and Washington Post a -5. This is all as guideline specifically instructs and allows... a source's reliability should be determined in context to what is being sourced... and WP:RS's suggested "rule of thumb" shows how some sources may be more reliable than others for different reasons and for different topics. All indicative that even guideline understands that different sources must be determined in different ways for sourcing different information.

What should perhaps be considered through the "common sense" caveat that heads each guideline is to include here a section that better defines this sliding scale of suitability for various topics. Schmidt, 03:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

just as a generic aside (which I'm sure some will disagree with, but which I still think is useful) 'reliability' is a measure of confidence - a source is reliable when people generally have confidence that what it says is true. That has specific meanings in scientific studies, but in more real-world situations it's looser. number of subscribers is one measure of how confident readers are in pronouncements of a website, but I'm not sure it's the best - number of hits might wrk better. --Ludwigs2 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. For one, hit count has a lot more to do with entertainment value than perceived accuracy. For another, even perceived accuracy is influenced by a lot of things besides the actual reliability of a source. A lot of people trust Michael Moore and (not the same people) Rush Limbaugh, not because either of them make a habit of careful fact-checking, but because they support the things people want to believe. --GenericBob (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem is the circularity of the situation: Many readers want to know popular opinion: to get that opinion they go to popular sites; at that point they tend to adopt the popular opinions themselves, which in turn makes the popular opinion and the site more popular. It's analogous to the TV celebs who are "famous for being famous". But those TV celebs are riding a "bubble" of popularity. Travel back 40 years ... many of those "famous" people are largely unknown, today. I was watching a film from 70 years ago ... there was something peculiar about an actress' performance ... I checked who she was ... a well-known socialite of the day, playing herself! The "Misplaced Pages of 1930" would have a big article on her, with many references explaining how important she was. But would "Misplaced Pages circa 1950" use the same references? Which years would be the "reliable" source? Therein lies the problem: Misplaced Pages is intended to be an unbiased reference based on solid information. Fans and general readers want the latest perceptions. How is this resolved? I'm not sure it can be. Personally, I think Misplaced Pages should get out of the "review business" for anything that's released in the last 10 years. Leave it to Metacritic and the like to document each of the dozens of expressed opinions. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbiased from Wikipedi'a view, naturally... as even established reviewers such as Roger Ebert offer only their own personal POV colored with lots of POV hyperbole. Being personal POV does not make their opinions right or wrong... only opinion... and as such does not matter much, as the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth... IE: what IS required ubner WP:V is "did a person or website being quoted actually state what is being asserted, and can that assertion be verified back to that source?" If popular websites offer opinions and those opinions are sought by the public, what is required here is proper attribution. Misplaced Pages certainly hopes and expects that readers can weigh sources for what they are and what they offer. For films being considered for notability, reviews may offer the coverage suggested by WP:N, and the confirmation mandated by WP:V. As I wrote above, the level of "reliability" has to do with context. And of course, Misplaced Pages can be and offer much more than its paper predecessors, and so should aspire to not just match them... but to exceed them in both scope and utility. Schmidt, 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but ... this just hit me yesterday ... How many reviewers does an article need? Supposing there are 100 reliable reviewers? What's the frigging purpose of quoting reviews? And ... I have an answer: It's a way of avoiding Misplaced Pages's restriction on original research. I.e., we're warding off every Tom, Dick and Jane expressing their personal opinion, but at the expense of pandering to professional critics. Guess I'm gravitating toward removing all reviews as subjective.... Piano non troppo (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DUE for the answer to that question. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

<--I can't help but think that some issues are being conflated here. If, say, a movie review website is deemed a reliable source, then that means that we believe that the critic's opinion, as it is uttered on the site, is indeed the critic's opinion. But in many ways, that's trivial, since we're asking about someone's opinion, not about what the President said in a private conversation with their chief of staff, and I don't think we would doubt that person A said "Witness is the greatest movie ever", unless person A is not the reviewer writing the review. If some site reports that Neil Gaiman said Witness is the greatest movie ever," then we have cause to ask about reliability.

But it seems to me that what's at stake here is notability: if a couple of sites which are deemed reliable write a review on some relatively unknown movie, then those reviews confer notability--isn't that really what this is about? This is what MQS explicated above, if I read him correctly. My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that the criteria for reliability ought to be stringent, and if that means that some sites are out and therefore some reviews cannot confer notability and therefore some articles have to be deleted...well, I may well be that kind of deletionist. And I think that MQS has a good point, in regards to the contextual determination of reliability--but a reliable source, in my opinion, doesn't have to be notable, and can be reliable without conferring notability. If all the fanzines in the world agree that Witness is the greatest movie ever, but none of the "bigger" publications hold such an opinion, then it's not a very valuable or notable opinion.

BTW, this conversation began with a misleading statement about bigger and smaller newspapers: small-town newspapers aren't unreliable (I think most here would agree), but they simply don't confer notability the way the NYT does. If my book is reviewed by the Times, I am pretty much automatically notable. If my book is reviewed by the Tuscaloosa News, I am not. DreamFocus, that's a different kettle of fish: that's conflating reliability and notability. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there consensus to change the page, to state that review sites are reliable sources and can be used, if they have conformable number of hits? Many articles are deleted if there is not a "Reception" section, listing what reviewers thought about it, many not considering it notable without one, and sending it to AFD. So we need to determine which sites are reliable sources by a clear set standard. Alexa shows ranking, but not actual numbers. Quantcast.com shows actual page hits a website gets. http://www.quantcast.com/themanime.org If it has at least 20,000 hits for any month, can we declare it a reliable source for reviews? Any objections towards adding that somewhere on the page? Dream Focus 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no such consensus. Hits are not an indication of reliability at all, they are the most ridiculously easily to inflate numbers in the world with no effort at all, as any web developer can tell you. Further, sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica get a ton of hits, but they certainly is not a reliable source for anything, including opinions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, you've been told several times that the number of people reading self-published reviews do not make the review reliable. It also doesn't make something notable either, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Reliability of self-published sources are based on the criteria outlined at WP:SPS. You have to show that a reviewer is an established expert on the topic whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This is the criteria that WP:ANIME has used to determine which reviewers to use in articles and which to avoid. —Farix (t | c) 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told repeatedly by the two of you, but your opinions are not policy. This issue should be discussed here, with as many people participating in it, and giving their opinions, as possible. Please read SPS in its entirety. "Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found." And this independent evidence for their reliability, is discussed here. A review site is automatically reliable, since a review is by definition someone's opinion. Dream Focus 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The second part is irrelevant as it is impossible to apply. Simply because some random kid blogs his or her opinion about a number of anime or manga doesn't make the kid's blog a "reliable source", nor does that opinion counted as a reliable source to determine if an anime or manga is notable. —Farix (t | c) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DreamFocus, that doesn't help you--since notability is an issue also. Not every reliable sourced statement is relevant, and many reviews are trivial or unimportant. If a reviewer is deemed (in independent sourced) to be reliable then they become relevant, no? That does not apply to the type of site you are referring to, and webhits don't help. If a community exists (say, a fan community) which deems a certain site reliable (and this can be proven) that's a different matter, and that is I think what MQS might subscribe to also. But such decisions would have to be made on a case-by-case basis, on different evidence than webhits. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In consideration of webhits, and I think I see where Dream may be going (I hope he'll correct me if I am incorrect), I'd like to use your own examples in way of comparison. You offer that Times and Tuscaloosa News may both represent reliable sources, but that an opinion (review of a book) by Times is more conducive of notability than a review by Tuscaloosa News (ah... that sliding scale). Would that be because of circulation? If they are both RS because of their editorial staff and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, would this mean that because the Times has a far wider readership and serves a larger demographic that it is more reliable and more able to confer notability? That would seem to show that Misplaced Pages gives greater credence toward opinion from sources that have the bigger readership. If in then comparing hardcopy with electronic, it might be seen that web hits could then be compared to readership and distribution. But this still does not address that in all cases, a review is an opinion... and no matter who makes it or about what subject, it is by its nature POV and not subject to the same criteria as "reliability", nor can such be judged for accuracy or truth... but then, those two considerations are not part of WP:V's threshold for inclusion. Schmidt, 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to go by the reviewer-- has s/he had work published in the field? Is his/her opinion cited by published sources covering the field? Has s/he done a professional DVD commentary/liner notes/ booklet? Is the site cited by reliable sources covering the field? Questions like that. I think doing subscription-counts does a disservice to niche fields, which, as MQS points out, have their own set of reliable sources/reviews, but which may have a far smaller audience than works generally covered by, say, the NY Times reviews. Just my 2-cents. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a request ... could we not use the terms "notable" and "notability" here unless we are discussing WP:NOTABILITY issues. We do not want to confuse people. What I think is beind discussed here is more along the lines of "note-worthiness". This is more a matter of editorial judgement, and consensus... and should be guided by WP:Undue weight more than WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure--if you will tell me what word to substitute for "notability" when discussing notability. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with not referring to "notability" is that the very reason that Dream Focus started this topic was because of WP:NOTE. Specifically, whether Animetric.com is a reliable self-published source which can be used to determine notability of certain a genre of anime because almost all other established anime critics steer clear of the genre. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My view on this is that critique is almost like acadaemia in that its worth is decided by peer review. The notable opinions are those opinions that are held in esteem by other reviewers, journalists and news outlets. If a certain reviewer or review source is often reported or cited in other works then that source becomes a notable source for critique. I'm generally against the inclusion of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores since these are not notable unto themselves. These sites can be good for finding reviews and providing the correct balance of criticism - for instance, the reception section for Avatar should perhaps have 7/8 'good' reviews and a couple of negative ones to correllate with the scores, but the actual score of 84% hasn't had its notability established. There does seem to be a gradual erosion of notability as a criteria for including material on Misplaced Pages and personally I find that sloppy and bad practice. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Side note - metacritic's aggravate scores are considered "reliable" by those industry "peers" you talk about.

As for Animetric, there have been a couple press releases by RightStuf quoting some of their reviews and a listing on animeFridge's Top 25 sites陣内_Jinnai 04:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

are advocacy groups a RS? notice of active discussion

Hi, there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Advocacy groups exclusions & academic requirements regarding the reliability of advocacy groups. One side of the argument is that they publish too much material not to be used. Another side suggests they should meet the scholarly works requirement or can be included similar to op-ed pieces.

I am adding this note here because I am not sure if the discussion was started in the right place. If you feel this is not a good place to note the existence of this discussion, please delete this section. 0 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing the Irony in Sources

There is a lot of material that make bogus statements for the purposes of exaggeration, humor, irony, or ridicule -- but no source to "prove" the statement's intention as such. For example, if a Misplaced Pages editor cites a magazine interview in which Jim Carrey jokes that he broke his leg while contorting his face, that editor has found a "reliable" source for Carrey's anecdote. This opens up the possibility of editors arguing about Carrey's intended meaning, as the intended humor is obvious to one editor and denied by another. That's just a hypothetical example, but consider: Leslie Nielsen's autobiography, full of falsehoods, makes a note on its copyright page that the book only pretends to be autobiography, but is really just a work of fiction; satirical comments by Mark Twain would not be so transparently satirical to many of today's readers. Are there any Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies for such disagreements and misunderstandings? Minaker (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this before. It's especially bad when it's self-deprecating humor. The bottom line is that there has to be common sense when using reliable sources. You can file for a third opinion which will hopefully inject some reason. Gigs (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have experienced this. A certain established Wiki editor added a somewhat off-topic rude critical quote about an award-winning book. The quote was from a famous comedian, and so could be assumed to have a twist. The editor refused to listen to discussion, simply responding that it was a quote from a reliable reference. The problem is much deeper, however. Just because a critic, for example, has a column in a popular teen-centered magazine, doesn't mean they have a notable opinion. Misplaced Pages is too lax defining reliability of sources. It may be convenient to quote something that's available in 30 seconds of Googling, but convenient does not = encyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me out a bit...

I have previously read something which states that an article can be considered acceptable, despite the fact that a website may request payment to view that article. Is that point correct? It may be a slight variation of what i said, I can't find it exactly. -- HereWeGo2010! 12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly WP:V#Access to sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it, thank you. -- HereWeGo2010! 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiny stubs question

The sentence "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles," in the Template:Unreferenced documentation would seem to imply that stubs do not need to have references, or at least the Unreferenced tag should not be added to them. This is not how I interpret the guidelines but I'm currently in discussion with another editor who routinely removes the tag when it appears in a stub. Should the template documentation be updated or does the fact that an article is already marked as a stub mean that reliable sources tags do no apply? I've already posted this question at Template talk:Unreferenced but received no response.--RDBury (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Even a tiny stub needs to be based on reliable sources. Tagging an unreferenced stub is quite appropriate. Looking for sources yourself and expanding the article is even more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the template doc should be rephrased then. As for adding references myself, I do that when I have time and the article appears to be worthwhile. But if it looks like it's the kind of article that only exists because no one wants to go to the effort of doing an AfD then I say tag away. Hopefully the article's creator, who is actually responsible for adding refs, will get the message and do so.--RDBury (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well.... it does not say "Don't add this template to stubs" it mearly says to consider not doing so. But then again the only situation where I would consisider not adding the tag is if I could fix the problem by adding sources myself... and the language already points that out as an alternative approach.

I am going to be bold and cut the line. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right that it doesn't say 'Don't', and that's not I interpreted it, but apparently it can be interpreted that way. I'll take a second look at the doc myself to make sure the t's are crossed.--RDBury (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved back to Template talk:Unreferenced for anyone interested in following up.--RDBury (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This page again

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

For anyone coming from the RfC:

This is a proposal to move Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources to either Misplaced Pages:How to identify reliable sources or Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. This is to emphasize that it is a "how to" guideline, rather than the "whether to" policy, which is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Please say whether you support the proposal, and what your preference is for the title.

Discussion

Guys, I'm sorry to harp on about this, but we need to do something about this page. It's causing confusion all over the project, making some editors think that the need to supply sources is just a guideline, and that they can be flexible about it.

I've suggested many times before merging this, redirecting it, to avoid the confusion with the policy. If we're not willing to do that, can we please at least move it to Misplaced Pages:How to find reliable sources or Misplaced Pages:Identifiying reliable sources. That will signal to people that this guideline is a "how to," not a "whether to." SlimVirgin 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However after re-reading the page I see that its correct title should be Misplaced Pages:Reliability of sources, because it discusses both reliable and questionable sources with about equal emphasis. Or, along the idea of SlimVirgin, Misplaced Pages:Identifying the reliability of sources.

In addition, I would suggest that the shortcuts WP:RS, etc. must redirect to the policy: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable sources, because in many discussions I see arguments, such as "per WP:RS", which often refer to policy, because that underlying argument seems to be "a source must be reliable". And this page must be shortcutted with WP:IRS or WP:IRoS. Mukadderat (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for my short memory: I have already suggested this rename and it was even seconded. Mukadderat (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree... We should definitely seperate the "rules" from the guidance, and a name change would probably help keep them seperate. This guideline (whatever we call it) should focus cleanly on "how to" determine the reliability of sources, and refer any and all "whether to" issues to WP:V (and to the extent that we need to repeat a policy "rule" to help explain some "how to" issue, it should be done as a quote and attributed to the policy). Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The sugestion or repeating and/or quoting the policy has already been sugested by me earlier and rejected as unfeasible. Mukadderat (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I propose Misplaced Pages:How to identify reliable sources, WP:HIRS or WP:IRS. Having the "how to" in the title stresses the function of the page. SlimVirgin 07:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me... Morphh 14:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would still ask you to consider using the word "reliability"' in the title, since the page helps to identify both reliable and unreliable sources. The latter task is just as frequently seen in discussions as the former ones. One needs clear rule of identifying nonreliable sources in order to have reasons to reject some references and even whole articles. Mukadderat (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that might make it too long-winded. The two favourites seem to be Misplaced Pages:How to identify reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. SlimVirgin 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think chaning W:RS to point to policy (W:SOURCES) is the highest priority. I think 'Source reliability' would be a good title.--Elvey (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I support this idea... however... please be sure to advertize the hell out of this idea. WP:RS is a very long standing guideline, and we can expect a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of change in status or renaming. At least an RFC and a post at the VP are called for. Blueboar (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought this was the policy (it's ] after all) and never really thought about it beyond that. It sounds like it is easy to fall into that trap. But at the same time, people in the know have probably been using the right one all along. I'd highly recommend making ] a dab page that links to both. 0 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO there is no reason for dab, since the policy will have a prominent link to WP:IRS. A dab will add only waste of time by hesitation where to go. Besides, starting from a policy is always a useful "refresher course". Mukadderat (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for a dab would be (1) there are many links already to WP:RS that should not be to the policy and (2) people who did not pay attention to the change (almost everyone at first) but knew what they were linking to would probably appreciate the link being to a dab instead NOT what they wanted. 0 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RS should link to WP:SOURCES section (policy), WP:IRS should link to the current WP:RS page (guideline), and the latter's title should become "Identifying reliable sources" to clarify its scope. WP:SOURCES should contain a link to the WP:IRS guideline (as it does now) for detailed guidance in how to identify reliable sources, with the same caveat for policy taking precedence over guideline in case of conflict. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with that.--Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RS can be unreliable

I just read a reliable source, CNN, that is unreliable.

See this CNN link

The former Alaska governor is calling on President Obama to fire his notoriously coarse top aide after a report in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted Emanuel as referring to liberal groups in August who attacked the president's health care plan as "F-ing retarded."

This reliable source is wrong. What actually happened was the Wall Street Journal Europe reported that Emanuel said that after liberal threatened to attack more conservative Democrats in Congress by running ads against them, not against President Obama or his health care plan. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is 1) a "blog" post on CNN, meaning that it is a on-the-spot report as to one that is well researched, and 2) based on a facebook page post that refers to another article that describes the response of someone to a specific report (literally a he-said-she-said-he-said... bit of telephone game mutations of information) implies that we'd have to question the source in the first place. Just because "cnn.com" appears in the URL doesn't not equate to being an RS. Only that we'd likely presume cnn.com is a reliable source to start with and then question the reliability of specific articles, compared with some unknown cite where we'd assume it is not an RS to begin with and then consider if a single article on it may be reliable. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tightening up on blogs

I've made the following change:

Before "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

After "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are eminent in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

I could be a time-served professional plumber but my opinion on an Oscar nomination, even where subject to editorial control, isn't a reliable source for anything except my clearly unqualified personal opinion. The same applies, of course, to other opinion columns, and indeed to "special" journalism carried out by clearly unqualified individuals. --TS 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience with them, being a professional journalist sometimes doesn't mean much more than spending a few hours "learning" a subject to popularize it. (At a research center I was shocked at the NPR "science reporter" writing about our project -- not just her ignorance of a high school science concept -- but a seeming inability to understand it when explained.) Probably the strongest indicator is whether someone is a professional in that field. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Seglen PO (1997). "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research". BMJ. 314 (7079): 498–502. PMC 2126010. PMID 9056804.
2. "Not-so-deep impact". Nature. 435 (7045): 1003–4. 2005. doi:10.1038/4351003a. PMID 15973362.
3. "House of Commons - Science and Technology - Tenth Report". 2004-07-07. Retrieved 2008-07-28.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment