Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (science)

Lecture notes

Thanks for this guidance. I often come across university lecture notes when searching for my own personal study and find them very useful (usually on maths topics). I feel it can be okay to point to them in a Talk page discussion and recently did so. Although I'm extremely grateful that institutions and authors make them publicly available, my instinct is to avoid citing them in a main-space article on Wikipedia, because they may be self-published and the review and revision processes, if any, aren't easy to track down. Am I right in taking this view; or does it sound as if I'm being unnecessarily cautious? My options are fairly limited in finding decent sources (though I'm slowly discovering there's more I can get hold of than I initially realised). NeilOnWiki (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@NeilOnWiki, you are right to be cautious. Also, with a couple hundred more edits, you will qualify for free access to some paywalled sources through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Backing up a "casual" observation with a SCIRS on non-scientific articles?

The specific case is the video game The Callisto Protocol which takes place on the Jupiter moon Callisto. In one of the video game RSes (not science), the developer and/or journalist points out that Callisto is theorized to have a subsurface ocean of water (in describing the game's narrative aspects). This agrees with published scientific reports per our article on the moon, so this isn't a BS claim, but its made "casually" from non-experts and non-SCIRS, and is not a readily known fact (in contrast to, say, the presence of water on Mars). Would it be smart to include a SCIRS-meeting reference onto this statement so that it does not look like Wikivoice is speculating wildly here?

In contrast, if the statement was based on "well, everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese" or some other fact clearly false or not yet shown out by any SCIRS, there'd be other ways of phrasing the statemen to be clear that the wrong idea is a product of the person saying it and not in Wikivoice. It's just not the case here. --Masem (t) 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I suggest asking the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy if they can provide you with a source. If you want to write something about this in the article about the video game, then the ideal is probably a SCIRS-type source plus a source about the video game (to show that this is something the game developer knew/cared about). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's two Science papers right in the lede of Callisto (moon) that assert this, so those can be easily used, and seems to be appropriate to use here if it makes sense to make sure this fact is backed up. --Masem (t) 21:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Picking one of those sounds like a good solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've used both for now, given the start-class nature of the article and that this is a game not due out for a while so more info will be learned. But this makes logical sense. --Masem (t) 22:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

A section at the WP:RS Noticeboard has been created regarding the enduring significance of this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources

Thanks for your attention. Hunan201p (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy permalink: The discussion has been archived here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Upgrading this to a guideline

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Upgrade SCIRS to a guideline to upgrade this page to a guideline. To keep discussion in on place, please leave any comments you have there rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)