Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 360 ← Archive 362 Archive 363 Archive 364 Archive 365 Archive 366 → Archive 370

Does Reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV

Clearly NPOV is for Wikipedia but @WikiCleanerMan is demanding that AfD participants only present sources that follow WP:NPOV. Is he justified in this ask? Venkat TL (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood and have not been listening at that discussion and have been refusing to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's to connote notability, yes - non-RSes can't connote notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Gerard you have said yes. Please point me to the section and line where it says that a reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV. I understand that promotional coverages are discarded for being paid, but why is a criticism a disqualifying feature? Criticism of books, films etc are routinely used as RS to assess notability. Are they following WP:NPOV? How can you criticize and follow NPOV? Venkat TL (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
David Gerard, these are two articles I'm claiming fail being reliable and come off as attack pieces, thus not neutral and fail the NPOV policy, 1, 2. If you take just a quick glance it's clear they can't help the article at the Afd pass notability and GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Which AfD are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Both of those are opinion pieces, and no they are not reliable and no they do not support notability. nableezy - 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
M.Bitton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources having a point of view does not, on its own, make them reliable or unreliable. Wikipedia does not exclude publications for being biased or opinionated, this is very clearly outlined in the reliable sources guideline, which says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
That said, looking at the second article, the newspaper Sunday Guardian itself is involved in the dispute which makes it non-independent. Also, I've had concerns regarding this particular paper's reliability and tried to bring it to the board in the past; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian. Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Tayi Arajakate for the quote. You are the MVP Venkat TL (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, although this is basic policy which I'm honestly surprised that an editor with 20k+ edits and an admin are confused about. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Venkat TL, you've been editing here under this username since 2021-07-19, so I think we can forgive your apparent misunderstanding of NPOV. I misread that. It is apparently WikiCleanerMan who misunderstands NPOV. Tayi Arajakate has quoted the right part. No "source" can "follow WP:NPOV" as NPOV does not require sources to be neutral. That job is for editors. WE are supposed to edit neutrally, IOW to not censor or neuter sources. RS can be very biased and still useful. To understand how we are supposed to deal with biased RS (IOW most of them), please read my essay NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
By using those posts as sources violates the npov because using them does not help with notability, but also using them will most likely not have any amount of content on the article be written from a neutral point of view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is not relevant to whether a source is reliable or not. NPOV is a requirement that WP editors, not sources, have to comply with. A source an be reliable even if it’s an opinion piece per WP:BIASED. However, having said that, it is a requirement of WP:RS that to be reliable a source has to have a “reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
WikiCleanerMan, I don't think you have understood the policy on neutral point of view. It is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources, so if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV" is not a synonym for "neutral". If you read the page WP:NPOV you'll see it's impossible for a source to follow it. That's because WP:NPOV is a page that talks about editing Wikipedia, and sources don't edit Wikipedia, editors do. Thus, editors, not sources, must follow WP:NPOV. Levivich 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I got it and I think the matter can be considered closed. However, as a result of the user who started this discussion, we have continued to see at the Afd, users who have voted keep are not providing reliable sources to prove notability of the article in question, just anything that mentions the article subject and are claiming that's enough to provide notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There's several other things worth mentioning. WP:BIASED allows sources that are, well, biased; however, such sources have to be used according to WP:DUE. Using too many sources that are biased in one particular way can produce a non-neutral article. Additionally, some sources are only WP:RSOPINION, and should only be cited to illustrate the author's opinions, not to introduce or argue facts. Finally, when discussing notability in particular biased sources are often given a bit less weight because they have more incentive to play up the importance of stuff that fits their biases. If the only sources that can be found covering something are from hardcore axe-grinding partisans, cheering fans, rabid haters, or other biased sources, that might indicate that it is WP:UNDUE overall and that covering it (or even just having an article for it) risks violating NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Invariably, every source will have some degree of observer bias present. This is particularly true of any source that would offer an opinion, draw a conclusion or argue a thesis. How well they deal with bias is another issue but even the highest quality, academic, peer-reviewed sources are not without bias. WP:BIASED (at WP:RS) is quite explicit that biased sources that are otherwise reliable sources are not rendered unreliable because of bias. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources would make a similar observation. The primary question is answered. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying the difference between “Deprecated” and “Generally unreliable”

I have been re-reading WP:Deprecated sources, and while it does define the upper limit of Deprecation (stating that deprecation is less than a "ban"), it does not clearly define its lower limits. So... I thought we might have some (preliminary) discussion on that. With this in mind, I want to ask some basic questions: what is the distinction between "Deprecated" and "Generally unreliable"? If there one? If so, Where do we draw the line? I am not looking for specific language (yet)... I am looking to see if we have consensus on concept. Examples of sources on each side of the line might help. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deprecated_and_unreliable_sources keeps going all round this without any real agreement, I would dearly like to know the answer to this question myself, it ought to follow from the definitions but doesn't, not really. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
But I think you have answered Blueboar's suggestion about having "some (preliminary) discussion" on that" -- that's Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deprecated_and_unreliable_sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The main practical effect of these sources is Use of these sources may generate edit filter warnings for registered users and may be automatically reverted for edits from IP addresses. Beyond that, the key point is that It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. That is to say that depreciation isn't really distinct, in terms of source quality, from generally unreliable outside of perhaps establishing that the consensus that it is unreliable is a bit firmer and that cases that would justify usage are so rare as to be nearly nonexistent relative to the large volume of people attempting to use it. But the real line for depreciation isn't "very super-special unreliable" (although being on the far end of unreliable is a prerequisite), the really important point is that it kept coming up and people kept trying to use it despite a very clear consensus that it is generally extremely unreliable. Hence why the two practical implications of depreciation (the edit-filter and the permission to auto-revert additions by IPs) are mostly designed to deal with "very much generally unreliable source that people nonetheless keep trying to add in large numbers." --Aquillion (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly, this sounds like we don't know the difference between how we should treat a deprecated vs unreliable source. I guess that's OK since we can't seem to define how to decide which sources should be treated as unreliable vs deprecated. So we don't know how to tell them apart or how to handle them when they are labeled for us. Something to keep in mind, for all its flaws, we have RSP now. When the DM was deprecated we didn't have RSP so I could understand repeated discussions. Now that we have this list (anointed from the heavens and all), why do we need to distinguish between deprecated and unreliable? In either case we just point to the list and say don't use it (with limited exceptions). Should we instead ask if deprecation has outlived it's usefulness? Springee (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fabricators (and any other thing we decide) get blacklisted, not deprecated. Poof, problems resolved at a stroke, Price and expert opinions generally, subject usual criteria. Any "clearouts" take place at the level of gunrel (per some agreed procedure).Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm running into a related issue right now, I was going to add some more content to the article on Chris Guider about his having married a fellow former Scientologist, but my source for that information is an interview his wife gave to the Daily Mail, which is deprecated. I've read the guidance at WP:DAILYMAIL and frankly it made the matter even more hazy to me. It seems to me that a person talking about themselves in an interview counts as reliable even if the interview is published by an otherwise unreliable source, and I could probably get away with using it in this case. (there are other likely sources but they are paywalled) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Daily Mail is likely a special case because we know they have outright altered interview responses and the like, rather than make fabrications in their original reporting. It is effectively blacklisted on BLPs for that reason. --Masem (t) 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a bit more searching with better keywords and managed to find the same information from a non-paywalled, non-deprecated source. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
To me, generally unreliable means that articles can be used as sources if they meet the standards for use of self-published sources. Deprecated means that they cannot, although they can be used if published in a non-deprecated source.
If, as some editors argue, there is no difference in how the sources are treated then there should not be two categories. Also, it opens Wikipedia to charges of bias, since it is expressing an opinion that has no relevance to editing.
TFD (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Deprecation is purge on sight and replace with something better, or remove the associated content if that can't be done, unless exceptional circumstances apply (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). Generally unreliable means exactly that. It's, in general, unreliable, but exceptions can certainly exist. For example, Twitter is generally unreliable, but tweets from official accounts (@NASA) are as reliable as the associated accounts are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So that I can better understand where the line is drawn, it would be helpful to see some discussion and examples of borderline sources that fall into the “Generally unreliable” category, but DON’T quite fall into the “deprecated” category. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a discussion about CounterPunch below. Whatever the outcome, it will be a borderline decision, based on the voting. I question though whether the distinction has any useful purpose. TFD (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere in one of these deprecation discussion today was the idea that deprecation (where a source shouldn't even be used for RSOPINION) is the case where we know the source has falsified works including statements/writings/interviews from non-staff people, as in the case of the Daily Mail, so that we can't even be sure RSOPINION is applicable. Whereas for an unreliable source, it like fails common use as an RS for anything factual, but its use for RSOPINION is still fine, within the scope of UNDUE for the topic of interest. --Masem (t) 05:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Basically this. Deprecation is not just unreliable, it is anti-reliable. It means the source in question has either deliberately lied, or else that what they publish can be counted on to be false. An unreliable source simply provides no reason to trust it; a deprecated source has given us some concrete reason *not* to trust it. Loki (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
In which case, it might be best to simply blacklist such a source and be done with it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely opposed to that but I do think that there are a handful of situations where citing a deprecated source can be appropriate, chief among them being citing it about itself. I'm not a huge fan of blacklisting sources. Loki (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Kino-teatr and AlloCine

Hello, I would like to find out if the website https://www.kino-teatr.ru/ is considered a reliable source? As well as https://www.allocine.fr/, Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirspensir (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Byline Times

Doubts have been raised at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration about whether this is an RS based upon claims it is "a fringe website outlet that's also come under criticism for indulging in conspiracy theories".

So is it an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Again? [1] Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum This is specifically about using articles written by Nafeez Ahmed as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I raised this question on the GBD talk page above in part because the Byline Times citations are from Nafeez Ahmed as noted above. Some context: Ahmed has a long and detailed history of promoting 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories such as the controlled demolition of the twin towers, conspiracies about the hijackers still being alive, etc. Ahmed appears to have lots of fans online nonetheless who contest that he's a 9/11 Truther, but you can see it directly on his own website here with an article promoting all sorts of 9/11 conspiracy theories: [2]. As further background, Ahmed used to be a columnist for the Guardian before the Byline Times picked him up. He was fired in 2014 after he wrote a glowing profile of conspiracy theorist Robert David Steele that you can still find here: [3]. I don't want to weigh into the personal politics around this guy, but the fact that he has a clear history of conspiracy theorizing & that it led to his job at the Byline Times should be taken into consideration in evaluating the source, because he is also one of the Byline Times's most prominent columnists. FranciscoWS (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Our article on Nafeez Ahmed does not seem to reflect what you are saying? Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is like the worst potted history of someones bio I have read in a long time. Both factually inaccurate and seemingly intending to misrepresent Nafeez's positions.
Even a cursory glance would show Nafeez was fired following a very specific article about Gaza.
I would questions Francisco's POV about Nafeez regardless of Byline Times status. Koncorde (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I am unsure our article about him is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It isn't, but it contains a fair number of citations that seem to contradict what is being said here. Apart from the unsourced assertion about why the firing from the Guardian.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is why I'm raising the issue of him as a RS in the talk page & here, as opposed to proposing direct edits to the articles. The links above show clear-cut examples of Ahmed promoting fringe theories on 9/11, and fringe figures such as Robert David Steele. If these are not reflected in Ahmed's WP bio, that suggests there are related issues of pro-Ahmed bias in his WP article. FranciscoWS (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No it does not read wp:v, a source has to say it you can't infer it by reading a primary source (see wp:or). This is how you are reading his bio, you need RS backing your claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the GBD article the only reason for creating your account? Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a direct quotation from Ahmed's published work on 9/11. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, is this a reliable mainstream viewpoint? Should its author be treated as a reliable source? "So what about 9/11 specifically? Five years on, even core elements of the official narrative taken for granted by the 9/11 Commission Report, remain absurdly unresolved. To this day, for example, the real identities of most of the alleged hijackers are unknown. In this year’s volume of the peer-reviewed journal Research in Political Economy, edited by economics professor Paul Zarembka of New York State University, Jay Kolar reviews credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, confirming that “at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other ‘hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated”. Kolar argues that since many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had ‘doubles’ using their identities as aliases." [https://www.nafeezahmed.net/thecuttingedge//2006/09/interrogating-911.html} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranciscoWS (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This unsigned + 2006 link adds nothing here. Byline Times seems RS on the face of it, not a "fringe website outlet", so absent some smoking gun, I would say reliable. If disputing what is said, then it ought to be possible to cite other sources with a different POV instead of trying to shoot the messenger. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Previous discussion here. I think Byline is a quite good source in general (very professional and experienced editorial team) if a little sensationalist. Care needs to be taken distinguishing news items (filed under "Fact" or "Reportage") and opinion items (filed under "Argument") which are only distinguished by colour-coding, which is a bit confusing. Even more confusingly, Ahmed's articles don't seem to be colour-coded and categorised. I'd say that he has done some useful investigatory reporting in his career, but also that he has produced a lot of highly dubious conspiracist stuff and should be used with attribution and caution. I think his Great Barrington reporting stands up, but best to be very clear about attribution, be explicit about his claimed sources, and where possible correlate with other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
His stuff isn't conspiracist though, it's pointing out the unanswered, or subsequently found to be inaccurate stories. That he questions aspects of an official narrative where he actually demonstrates why the official narrative has gaps is not an equivalence with being a conspiracy theorist (and he has repeatedly criticised such CT's).
Meanwhile Francisco contonues to misread basic English. Specifically the quote provided here, as a basic example, shows Ahmed is quoting Kolars work as part of a body of peer reviewed research. There is nothing dubious or fringe about the points being made: genuinely the commission didn't answer the question of the identities of the hijackers - only the identities of the hijackers on the paperwork that they used. Lack of remains etc has resulted in discrepancies. Koncorde (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Academic ranking sites (AcademicInfluence.com, EduRank.org, OneClass.com)

I've noticed a handful of websites in use in articles on educational institutions as well as BLPs of academics, often used to give a rank, e.g. "named one of the top 10 professors of X university in 2018" or "X college is ranked 5 in [state/province], 85 in [country] and 5859 in the world". This raises questions of WP:PROMO, WP:DUE, and reliable sources. The methodology varies from site to site, but I get the impression none are anywhere near the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking. Should any of these be considered reliable sources?

  • AcademicInfluence.com is currently used in at least 18 articles. It uses an InfluenceRanking™ engine to assign a score, which it describes thusly: The InfluenceRanking engine calculates a numerical influence score for people, institutions, and disciplinary programs. It performs this calculation by drawing from Wikipedia/data, Crossref, and an ever growing of body of data reflecting academic achievement and merit. They describe the methodology in more detail here. According to the founder and president: "How do we know who is an influential person? ...Primarily, we look at Wikidata, the text associated with Wikipedia, and the abstracts, titles, references, keywords in publications found at Crossref.org." The website and some college rankings are described at College and university rankings in the United States#Academic Influence rankings, and its staff and advisory board are described here. Statements currently citing academicinfluence.com include William Lane Craig "the thirteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990-2020) and the world's fifth most influential theologian over the same period."[4][5]. Nearly all coverage I could find was press releases (or articles that strongly resemble them) touting such and such's ranking.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
  • EduRank.org is currently used or mentioned in at least 26 articles. They describe their methodology here, but their staff is not displayed on the website. It seems EduRank gives a variety of ranks and metrics primarily to institutions (e.g. Concordia University, as well as ranked lists of "100 Notable alumni.

As I see it, EduRank and OneClass are unreliable sources: WP:QUESTIONABLE at best, and the latter largely user-generated. AcademicInfluence has more transparency and web 2.0 gimmicks but nearly everywhere I see its use it appears to be WP:PUFFERY or academic boosterism at worse, or WP:UNDUE emphasis of a ranking posted on an arbitrary website launched in 2020 that uses DARPA funding, algorithms, and Wikidata/Wikipedia, that risks a potentially WP:CIRCULAR situation or SEO vortex as more Wiki presence means higher ranking. I would advocate none be used on biographies (living or dead), and Academic Influence be used with caution, if at all, in articles, even with attribution. Other thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't even see the questionable part of the debate, if they use wikipedia they are using "unreliable data" and can not be used.Slywriter (talk)2
I guess it could depend on how much of "and an ever growing of body of data reflecting academic achievement and merit" is also used in their algorithm, but more importantly, do any independent sources recognize or mention AcademicInfluence rankings? I'm admittedly I'm not very knowledgeable with academic metrics or collegiate rankings, other editors may have additional insight. Also, I thought it best to have an open discussion and consensus here before any largescale removals. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why any of these would be worth citing under, well, pretty much any circumstance. Fluff, SEO, departmental self-aggrandization, and more fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There are various fairly official rankings of institutions, but even there we have to be extremely careful to be consistent and not cherry pick. Wikiproject Universities keeps a close eye. This kind of stuff is only a pain in the neck for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any questions about reliability: of course these sites are reliable for what they themselves say and their own rankings of institutions and people. But that doesn't mean that we should include them in our articles. It's incumbent on any editor who believes these should be included to convince us that these rankings are reputable e.g., used by scholars, reported by appropriate media (not press releases by highly ranked subjects). I am extremely skeptical that such arguments could be made (and I'm removed several dubious ranking systems from articles on these grounds). ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Whether a ranking is used as WP:PUFFERY is a question that should be answered on an per-case basis. The mere likelihood that it will be used as such doesn't make it unreliable. On reliability, the information these sites are reporting is just their own rankings, so I concur with ElKevbo that they're reliable for themselves, but that the pertinent question is more whether they are ever WP:DUE. I suspect that the answer is probably "rarely or never", but that's not something we can do something about at this noticeboard.
    Another point: U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking isn't a very good comparison as a more "reliable" ranking source, since their methodology is highly questionable; the difference is just that they're far more popular. And when it comes to our coverage of rankings, popularity is the main factor we should be weighing—giving more weight to some than others because we like them better ("more reliable") would be inappropriate editorializing. There's a little room for emphasizing what the most reliable sources tend to say about rankings (not good things) and for giving a bit of preference to rankings that measure particular more objective things (e.g. highest salary from a government database) rather than combining a bunch of subjective methodology. But we shouldn't go any farther than that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I had this issue with Ontario Tech University (formerly UOIT) recently where likely COI editors kept trying to insert these rankings into the article. [12] It's not always boosterism is what I'm getting at. Sometimes universities will actually hire editors to puff up their articles, believe it or not. They need to get their enrollment numbers up. Personally, I'd prefer we just standardize on one ranking system for a geographical area and mandate that all universities in that area use said ranking system, to avoid for editors trying to game the system by using obscure rankings. So U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking for the US, Maclean's for Canada, so on and so forth. No rankings on weird qualitative measures, no subrankings with respect to specific programs, just one consistent ranking system. Presumably subparts of a university like law or med schools can get broken out rankings as they're separately administered a lot of the time, but I'd like to see a "one rank one article" rule. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
We're getting off topic from the purpose of this noticeboard, but to reply, it's unfortunately not quite as simple as that. For instance, if say, the Mormon Church published a "best colleges for Mormons" ranking, it'd probably be due for Brigham Young University to mention their ranking on it. I think the bigger thing we need to do is retitle rankings sections to "Reputation and rankings" and start including scholarly citations characterizing an institution's overall academic reputation. It's harder to do that than to just list rankings, but it's not impossible and ultimately far more useful to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: That particular hypothetical wouldn't be DUE since the LDS Church sponsors BYU, and I think we want to discourage universities from creating lists to rank themselves highly. You really think the Mormons are going to rank BYU as anything other than number 1? I'd personally find it a fascinating fact if they didn't. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lakbay ng Lakan

Can this be considered as a trusted source for articles on Philippine architecture and public art, like List of city and municipal halls in Metro Manila? Example of an article of Lakbay ng Lakan: https://lakansining.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/marikina-city-hall-a-vision-of-a-revitalized-city-government/. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a blog, and I can't see that the author is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. –Austronesier (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over unreliable sources

Currently, there is a dispute on article Battle of Peshawar (1758) where the user keeps adding unreliable sources. So I would like to have a Yes or No vote from all editors whether the source is reliable or not according to your opinion. These sources are: Book: Chhatrapati Shivaji The Maratha Warrior and His Campaign By Jeneet Sorokhaibam · 2013
and
Book: Third Battle of Panipat by Abhas Verma ISBN 9788180903397 Bharatiya Kala Prakashan

Article [13], under section "Others" shows that author Jeneet Sorokhaibam is not reliable. This is what it says:

Chhatrapati Shivaji: The Maratha Warrior and His Campaign by Jeneet Sorokhaibam (Vij Books, 2013)For example, see page 139: "Afzal Khan felt that the ensuing battle..." Copied from the 2012 version of the Wikipedia article on Afzal Khan (general).

Also author Abhas Verma is not reliable as he has no professional expertise in the historical academic area and is actually an IT professional working for a company in Bangalore, India. He stated that he is writer by choice. Also the writer is a regular user on quora as well and a blogger. Here is his profile, [14]. Also this user's/author's account was banned on quora [15] but rejoined with a new account [16].

Please provide your opinion(s) with Yes or No on the reliability, so that the dispute about the above references can be resolved? MehmoodS (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • No Opinion (Summoned by bot) - Unfortunately, this RFC doesn't give me any information to enable me to make an informed decision about reliability of the source. What I can see is that the poster doesn't like the source. Is there a dispute about what the article should say, or is this a case of two editors who disagree about everything? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon - The information is provided about both authors and how they are unreliable. One of the author, Jeneet's, unreliability is also mentioned in Wikipedia article [17]. There is no dispute over the content. Just dispute over the above two sources. I consider them unreliable whereas the other editor who is using these references, consider them reliable. That is why I just needed opinions from the information I provided above. MehmoodS (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we please not make everything in to an RFC here? This is about a specific source for a specific sentence in a specific article. You do not need an RFC for that. nableezy - 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
nableezy - I added to RFC because of the lack of response or comments. This is about two sources only which I mentioned above and their unreliability. So just needed opinion or comments. Please do take a look at the information provided above and provide your opinion. MehmoodS (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources are clearly not reliable, but RFCs are for more general things than this one book in this one article. Can you remove the RFC tag? nableezy - 18:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, right away. And thank you for the feedback. MehmoodS (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
These writers don't seem to be reliable historians. Use academic historians publishing in academic sources if you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Itsmejudith - Thank you for the feedback. MehmoodS (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On the topic, the publisher's about us page just says "About us", there is no indication of any expertise by the author, and yes it appears to have plagiarized from Wikipedia. So yes, unreliable. nableezy - 18:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I would agree that any source that plagiarizes from Wikipedia is unreliable. Firstly for the plagiarism, and secondly for the choice of WP as it’s source material. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just one phrase matching with wikipedia in the whole book cant be called as plagarism, it is likely by coincidence. Crashed greek (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
your vote is not valid as you are part of the dispute. Its for 3rd opinions to vote. MehmoodS (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • MehmoodS… First, this isn’t a vote. It is a discussion. Second, if participants in a dispute can not comment then that would make your initial complaint invalid as well (as you are also a participant). No, we definitely want to hear (briefly) from both sides in any dispute here, as there may be factors and nuances that we are unaware of.
IF, as Crashed Greek says, the overlap between the source and Wikipedia is just one sentence… that does put the accusation of “plagiarism” into question. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It is more than one sentence, compare https://books.google.com/books?id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139 (apparently in the blacklist already so cant link) with our article in 2012. Most of the section War against the Marathas is lifted from our article, word for word. nableezy - 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, if this has already been included on the spam blacklist (and it is, search for ngCqCQAAQBAJ in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, discussed here), getting around that restriction by linking to the Google Books India url seems somewhere on the spectrum between clueless and intentionally disruptive. nableezy - 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, even more than that, go back a page to https://books.google.com/books?id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA138 and youll see the rest of the section there. It is a direct copy. nableezy - 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah… I would say that is “more than one sentence”. Good to know. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Point noted Blueboar as I thought this noticeboard worked same as vote for noticeboard whether to keep or delete an article. MehmoodS (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, we are OK with participants commenting (briefly) in deletion discussions/votes too. But no harm. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is well researched Nableezy. Makes it very crisp and clear on the unreliability of these sources. MehmoodS (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tectum Verlag

Can I trust books from this open-access publisher? I would like to draw from a chapter by Carsten Kullmann called "Of Muggles and Men: Identifying Racism in the Harry Potter Series" in hdl:20.500.12657/26013 for some work on J. K. Rowling, which is undergoing a featured article review. I think de:Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag is the same publisher and that article cites some sources that appear decent such as this one, but I don't read German so I don't know. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Times of India is not that pro-government as mentioned ?

There are many articles printed and created by TOI which are not pro-government., as:

Manipur woman's Ujjwala gas connection 'taken away' for joining Congress rally

Why BJP’s choice of Karnataka CM is being questioned

Is India staring at stagflation?

Hindutva will push Covid failures to background in UP polls

BJP arm-twisted Sirsa to join party, feared arrest: Sukhbir Singh Badal

Hypernationalists hyperventing over comedy riffs on India do great disservice to the country

Why campaign against 'halal' meat reeks of bigotry

The arrest of two HW News journalists for ‘instigating communal tensions’ is among a series of steps the police has taken, along with slapping UAPA, to crack down on people who wrote about the unrest

How to win foes and get reforms through? Learn from past PMs

The lawyer-activist spent three years in jail without trial

The way India’s ‘pro-poor’ democracy works empowers middle strata of society at the expense of those who are at the bottom of the heap.

Ex-armyman Mohammad Latif — who was given a bravery award in 2005 for killing a militant with his bare hands — wants justice for his son, Amir Magray, who was killed in an encounter in Hyderpora last week

A morality tale starring MSP and you

They have dedicated cartoon series printed on their newspapers which mocks all parties, politicians, celebrities, situations.

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1465871969614581761

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1464425829425815555

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1463698407772491785

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1461524450352922626

I have read the past discussions linked at WP:TOI.

Times Of India tries to cover almost every state, and not all of their work is done by their best journalists. There are some articles, news which appear only in TOI, so it might seem they publish non-notable news. But when they give coverage to some crime in a small unknown village, some interview by some local MLA, new upcoming actor, regional film producer, they are trying to cover maximum areas.

Those who have some experience reading TOI, they know which are reliable and which are not that important articles.

The articles where the name of the journalist is present and mentioned TNN are always created properly with verification.

Some of their sub-sections are not that reliable. Like regional non-Bollywood entertainment sections of Assamese, Odiya, Bengali, Punjabi, regional TV gossips, city sections like Agra, Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, and many other small cities. Even in these cases, all can't be termed as non-RS, as if the article is detailed along with the name of the journalist or interviewer being mentioned.

However, if it's related to serious crime, then they don't copy-paste from vernacular media but do their own investigation. TOI is not responsible for police', the witness' and victim's family statements, if they are found wrong due to fake complaints, wrong arrests by police. Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Knight Skywalker, if you want to change the entry at WP:TOI you will have to start a new RfC. Though, I am fairly I that it's not going to end up much different and could possibly get it downgraded further. I'll point out some things about the examples though, as they are not representative of TOI's usual coverage; most of these are from TOI Plus which tends to have relatively better editorial quality, a significant number of them are just op-eds from guest author, some of these aren't even "not pro-government" and one of them is from the Mumbai Mirror which is not covered by the entry. It doesn't appear too pro-government compared to some of the more blatant news outlet which have gone off the far end, but you'll still find it occasionally reproducing what the government says, without attribution and accepting it as fact, even when they might include verifiable falsehoods. Personally, I think more than its pro-government tilt, its propensity towards sensationalism and undisclosed paid news is much more problematic. The most recent discussion on it highlighted a case where they copied from Wikipedia without fact checking, which is a citogenesis concern. That said, at present it can still be used, though largely for uncontentious information, I would not recommend it for things like serious crimes. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A couple of months ago I found a story in TOI that seemed to exaggerate the number of attendees at an anti-Pakistan protest in Toronto. TOI claim "over a thousand", whereas local Canadian media reported "dozens". See diffs and more explanation here.VR talk 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    All are human end of the day: Here is an example, might help to draw parallel and give some food for good thought if wished. The Edit dif @ the article Forced marriage#United States it is attributed to one news reporter Nancie L Katz of New York Daily News.
    The earlier sentence in the article said "..Estimates are that hundreds of Pakistani girls in New York have been flown out of the New York City area to Pakistan to undergo forced marriages;.."
    In the above mentioned edit dif it has been updated by User:Vice regent (VR)"..According to Nancie L Katz, thousands of Pakistani girls have been flown out of the New York City area to Pakistan to undergo forced marriages;..", with edit summary "...source says "thousands" not "hundreds"..".
    The same reporter has used word "thousands of" like a phrase in earlier paragraph. Where crowds can not be counted any reporter gets opportunity to be subjective and guesstimate. Even on best of publications editorial boards too would have limitations. I have one academic study which accuses many prominent news publications of US and UK of bias to whom Wikipedians routinely consider reliable.
    In case of forced marriages of Pakistani girls in U.S. some one had applied own mind and rationalised figure from thousands to hundreds. Do we have a problem of labeling in black and white like, Biblical inerrancy read inerrancy of so and so and errancy of so and so. Try to establish errancy on some sources for ever, and absolve some sources for ever. Because we (Wikipedians) believe in 'application of mind by Wikipedians' as 'encyclopedist' to the least. Such Wikipedia rules itself have got status of Biblical inerrancy.
    Just simple good faith and application of mind without religious and political agendas can address the issues but some how..less said the better.
    Anyways IDK, how much this discussion platform has been succeeding in developing wise tools catering to core encyclopedic objectives and how much succeeding in indirect blanket censorships.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    False statements about crowd sizes aren't falsehoods, they're alternative facts. I was going to say something about how we have systemic bias because I believe we do have a lot of it against India but just blatantly lying about crowd sizes like that is pretty bad. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone start a new RFC, only on TOI Plus, not TOI? TOI Plus articles should be considered reliable. I want to start RFC, but don't know the process. Knight Skywalker (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC Only on TOI Plus. This RFC is not on TOI. TOI + only

I have seen that TOI Plus has better language, work, editing than regular WP:TOI articles. Since their websites are the same, a separate RFC should be done only for TOI + articles. Knight Skywalker (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose redeeming TOI. I will allow TOIPlus however; checked a few of their articles from Google Cache and they appear to be better than their usual rubbish. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

sputnikmusic

I'm having a hard time understanding the reviewer stratification of sputnikmusic. Is this site reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a dubious site as the "staff" may or may not be professional writers; they are not paid by Sputnik but are simply given that status by other staff members who feel their music reviews on sputnik are "up to par". In previous discussions on Wikipedia people seem to feel that as sites such as MetaCritic accept the Staff reviews, then we should also. We are generally not short of sources for album reviews with sites like Rolling Stone, NME, The Guardian, AllMusic, Pitchfork, etc so a possible solution is to use another review source if uncertain of the status of a sputnik review. SilkTork (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
If this is true, then sputnikmusic isn't reliable. Anyone can write a review. Sikonmina (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
And to elaborate further, I see how users judge sputnikmusic to be reliable because metacritic accepts the (staff) reviews but this would be considered circular reporting if we cite metacritic or use it as a reliable source. Sikonmina (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is metalstorm.net reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Both Sputnik Music and Metalstorm have been assessed as reliable sources by WikiProject Albums as shown in this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
My benchmark is if advertising exists on the website then the website is reliable. Metalstorm.net currently does not sell advertising so I am not sure if within the forums they sell it. It would be reliable for me. Does anyone know? Sikonmina (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand your thinking, and that would make our job easier! However, how we assess if a source is reliable is we look for some form of vetting process - so if there is evidence of an editorial staff who are assessing the work, that helps, and is also the reason why we would reject most self-published sites and blogs, even with lots of advertising, because of that lack of vetting process.
We also consider if the site is used by reliable sources, which might be why some people feel that Sputnik is reliable, as it is used by Metacritic. However, as you point out, Metacritic is itself a dubious site, and is used on Wikipedia with caution. We tend to use it for providing an aggregate score, and we do say that the score has been provided by Metacritic, so we are not using it to confirm something said in "Wikipedia voice".
However, all the wheels and subtleties of our processes for deciding if a source is reliable can lead folks to making imprecise decisions. Essentially we decide by consensus if a source is reliable; and though we have pages such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, such pages can only provide guidance as each case is slightly different. Also, we are very good at making exceptions to guidelines or rules or even policies: WP:IAR. WikiProjects can be useful places to get guidance and information, though it's worth bearing in mind that decisions made by WikiProjects carry no weight in themselves as that is regarded as Local consensus.
Unfortunately there is sometimes no easy answer to a reliable sources question. With regards to Sputnik (I don't know Metalstorm), as I said earlier, there are enough reliable sources for you to use that you shouldn't need to use Sputnik, and if that site is the only one that is reviewing an album or artist, then that might reflect on the lack of notability of the album/artist. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There's an issue of WP:REFSPAM here. Citing Metacritic violates that policy. Sikonmina (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
A local concensus at the Wikipedia Project concerned overrules the views of one editor. If there is a problem with non-staff reviews then it needs investigation rather than throwing out the entire source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sputnik Music has been considered reliable (albeit with caveats) for many years at WP:RSMUSIC. I'm not saying that can't change, but I'm saying we're going to want to discuss much further if we're going to overturn years of consensus and usage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
How confusing. You were just in an argument about jazzdisco.org being unreliable and now that sputnikmusic has been proven to be WP:UGC, you turn around and say that it is reliable? Is this some sort of game I haven't heard about? Sikonmina (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You need to read more closely. All I did was point out that there was already a (long standing) consensus at RSMUSIC that it's reliable. This much is objectively true. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
With regards to metacritic, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Aggregates proves it isn't reliable. Sikonmina (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You'll have to be more specific with what you mean here. What you're linking to says that it's okay to link to MC aggregate scores, but that you shouldn't link to the specific reviews listed, but rather, the review itself. As in, let's say you went to an album's Metacritic page, and saw there was a Rolling Stone review listed. If you wanted to use that review as a source, you wouldn't link to the Metacritic page, you would click on the link to the Rolling Stone review and cite Rolling Stone directly. So, with that in mind, I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this clarified things. Sikonmina (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Frontiers again

https://retractionwatch.com/2022/01/11/frontiers-retracts-a-dozen-papers-many-more-expected Suspect publisher is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Help us, Jeffrey Beall! If you can identify retracted articles that are cited in Wikipedia articles, please correct them. The number of retractions alone without context, be it a publisher or journal, can easily mislead. Look at all the recent retractions from that shoddy journal Nature. 13 in the past 2 years! Is it known if higher numbers of retractions (in this case, or any other) is due to abnormally lax editorial standards or abnormally strict ones? Similarly, universities reporting higher levels of sexual harassment might not be unusually seedy institutions of vice but rather better at investigating cases, or where victims are more comfortable filing complaints. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Jeffrey Beall does have an active Wikipedia account, Jeffrey Beall, but they are focused on editing Colorado related articles, and it probably isn't worth bothering them. Frontiers is a low-tier Open Access publisher considered to have lax editorial standards in order to publisher the maximum amount possible for maximum profit, closer to something like MDPI than to OUP, Wiley, T&F, or Elsevier. I'd avoid citing them for biomed stuff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Since they're historically often found on WP supporting dubious material, I mostly agree with this assessment, —PaleoNeonate – 00:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Are handful of sources reliable?

Can /Film (link), Next Best Picture, and The Numbers (link) be considered as trusted sources? This reliability issue is raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive3#Source review. However, Generally reliable The Conversation (RSP entry) is "generally reliable".

  • /Film is used to cite many film and television articles.
  • Next Best Picture is used to cite film and television articles related to accolades.
  • The Numbers is used to cite film articles with box office information, like Box Office Mojo.

Chompy Ace 21:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As discussed above for expert written articles in Britannica, pieces written in The Coversation by academics reflect the particular POV of the academic who wrote them, and not necessarily the scholarly consensus. For example this 2018 article by Eran Elhaik asserts in no uncertain terms that the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is true, despite it being a borderline fringe theory in mainstream scholarship. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of under-discussed websites: do they fit RS standards?

Hello, all. I started a DYK nomination for a page I created, the page being that of Emily Goss. Both the DYK and the article itself have developed admirably since their inceptions, but the biggest roadblock now are questions about the sourcing of the article. Therefore, I come to this noticeboard to inquire about several sources, and whether or not they are reliable. The list is:

Since none of these are on the perennial sources list, nor on the more specific lists of Film resources or horror sources, I would like additional opinions on this so as to accommodate the passage of the DYK better. I think it's almost there, but there are these RS questions I need to get through first. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You have to be very careful on a biography of a living person. None of these sources look dreadful, but none are fantastic either. What you really need to do, unfortunately, is to traipse through them one by one. Is the information in any way controversial? (Find another source or leave the information out completely.) Is it an interview? (Probably all right, if it is the kind of blog/mag where an actress might do an interview.) Is it a review? (Probably all right if that is the kind of source you would expect such a review.) Is the information really notable and needed in the encyclopedia? (If it's important, why isn't it in a major arts magazine or newspaper?) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itsmejudith: Most of the relevant citations on the article are interviews of Goss. I believe the first six are, while the last three document plays that Goss has participated in in the Los Angeles area. I know that Film Ink has over 1,300 hits on Wikipedia, and Dan's Papers has, as of now, exactly 100. I have gone over, and will continue to study, WP:INTERVIEW, because I am under the impression that interviews are more verifiable for what someone said, as opposed to the factuality of such. I also just got access, without intention, to the Wikipedia Library, something that I will already start using in regard to the Emily Goss article. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Britannica: a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

Encyclopaedia Britannica's RSP entry currently includes the statement that it has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. My question is, is this actually true? In the 2005 Nature study comparing Britannica to Wikipedia, it was noted that the exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, with an average of three errors in each scientific article[18]. In my own experience, I have encountered many errors or out of date information in Britannica.

When I tried to remove this sentence from the RSP entry, @Headbomb: reverted me, stating that it was supported by the reputation section of the Encyclopædia Britannica Wikipedia article. Which is sourced to "Purchasing an Encyclopedia: 12 Points to Consider" by the American Library Association from 1996, "Kister's best encyclopedias : a comparative guide to general and specialized encyclopedias" by Kenneth Kister in 1992, and "Encyclopedias, Atlases & Dictionaries", by Amy Lewis and Marion Sader in 1995. None of these references include any page numbers, and I am unable to verify any of the claims.

The fact that Britannica contains numerous errors and is often out of date has long been known, going back decades. While some of the online entries are written by subject matter experts, most are anonymous, credited to "The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannia", which means that it is unclear if the article was written by subject matter experts. Some of the named entires are not by subject matter experts at all. Including sentences like "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" implies that it is a good, citeable source, when ideally Wikipedia should not be citing General Encyclopedias like Britannica at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Nature article is sufficient to call Britannica's reputation into question (it's really discussing it in a different context.) More generally I think that sources have to be, to an extent, evaluated in comparison to other sources of the same type and format - the whole point of that article, by my reading, is that it is using Britannica as a "gold standard" to measure Wikipedia against, so it's effectively saying that that errors are normal in encyclopedias due to their size and broad scope. This is something that has to be taken into account when citing broad reference works. I feel that rather than focusing on Britannica specifically, it might be worth tweaking WP:TERTIARY to advise a bit more caution and to make it clear that such sources are, as a category, generally a step below more focused high-quality sources. In my experience when someone starts citing an encyclopedia or a dictionary on something controversial it's almost always a sign of underlying problems, especially if the tertiary work contradicts more dedicated sources of comparable quality. Their purpose is usually to provide a vague and general overview to let the casual reader orient themselves, not to provide perfect accuracy or the most up-to-date scholarship. (Exceptions exist, of course.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying. The issues I have with Britannica are really issues with non-specialist tertiary sources generally. Unfortunately, there are people who insist that Britannica is a reliable source above specialist sources, see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6#Encyclopedia_Britannica. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I will agree to such a disclaimer at WP:TERTIARY. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Given some of the tripe they have published in the past (yes Murrey I am looking at you) I am unsure they should be an RS. Maybe they have changed and have peer review now (if they do muy opinion would alter) but if they do not and still just pick a currently well-known expert to create an entry it may not be all that much cop. It is only as good as who writes the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It's good that EB is not listed as "generally reliable" in RSP. The phrase about "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is puffery and could as well be expanded with "full with inconsistencies and obsolete content". Some articles in EB are wildly inconsistent and reminiscent of user-generated content, and it is often easy to see that some sections in an article have been updated in the last ten years, while other parts of the same article haven't been touched for more than 40 years. Updates are at times lede-focused, again reminding of user-generated content: I have seen articles where the further down I scroll, the more I recognize (outdated) stuff I have read as a kid in the 15th edition. –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
EB is often useful for establishing common views on topics. There are areas it is outdated, but Wikipedia can pick and choose what to exclude we are flexible that way. No single source must accepted as writ. EB at least tries to be right it's not terrible. Like any source use common sense if something is obviously outdated and don't rely entirely on tertiary sources. -- GreenC 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree, EB is valuable for assessing topic ranges, general notability and also due weight. But they would make a better job if they at least overtly indicated when an article was last updated. And as Slatersteven indicated, some articles are in effect primary, not tertiary sources (whenever an expert can write uninhibitedly presenting his own POV of a topic). –Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I avoid using tertiary sources (as defined by Wikipedia policy) as sources. If there are errors, it is difficult to prove, since they don't provide footnotes. Take for example their article on U.S. conservatism. It says, "In matters of foreign policy, however, the Old Right, as these staunch conservatives [opponents of FDR] were known."[19] In fact they were not known as the Old Right until another group emerged decades later that called themselves the New Right. If EB used footnotes, we could trace it back to when the error was first made. One of their editors might have misread a source, but equally the source they used may h
Another problem is that tertiary sources often oversimply issues, particularly in social sciences.
So I agree that the problem is with the guideline.
TFD (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I concur with TFD that the lacks of references or footnotes (at least in the online edition) is a serious issue. It makes any statement of fact made in Britannica completely inscrutable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think too many people make a fundamental error about the nature of reliable sources. RS ≠ Infallible. Even the best sources will occasionally get something wrong. Or some information may not be up to date. If there is doubt regarding a claim of fact in an RS, then we try to find corroborating statements from other RS. The system is imperfect. But it does work, most of the time. And IMO EB is very definitely a reliable source with an excellent track record of fact checking and overall accuracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, wouldn't you agree that it's a lot easier to resolve errors when the sources we use themselves provide sources? In the example I gave, where EB said that conservatives in the 1930s were known as the "Old Right," it would a lot easier to disprove if they provided references and we could see that they made an error or perhaps their source did. In that case we could look at the evidence the source provided. I have come across many of these types of misinformation where the sources do not provide sources. It's hard to prove a negative. TFD (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Unquestionably it would be helpful. But it is what it is, and we have to deal with things as they are. When in doubt double check with other sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure the ability to check the underlying source is always helpful - except in very obvious and very factual errors. The danger is that drifts into the WP:OR of questioning the RS’s interpretation of other sources. I’ve seen discussions where this has happened and, in practice, the outcome is an editor claiming their OR interpretation of the underlying source is superior to the RS’s interpretation…under the guise of a “factual” error by the RS. It’s better to check against other RS’s and establish were the balance of RS’s are on the issue per NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The RSP entry should not be based on the WP article but from the discussions at RSN. —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my experience, this resource's coverage of folklore topics is often objectively bad. It does not appear to be a reliable source for such topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I also consider Britannica to be a poor source. Not so much on actual facts but I feel it oversimplifies complex narratives and subject to be digestible to readers as secondary school pupils. I generally avoid using it, but I wont challenge it either, unless there is reasonable doubt. Cinadon36 09:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing the quoted language and also think the entire entry should be significantly shortened. It's yellow and the entry should say it's a tertiary source, reliability is varied, don't use it unless there is really nothing better out there, not for controversial BLP statements. (Typical yellow.) Levivich 16:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • While I'd like to think the good work of anonymous people on the internet qualifies WP as a reliable source, it doesn't. I also want published, verifiable back-up that supports allegations or anecdotal information alleging errors and misinformation in any reliable source, including tertiary sources like Britannica. To compare WP to reliable tertiary sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Britannica Academic is quite a [stretch], but at the same time, I'd certainly like to believe it's true despite the pragmatist in me. I also wouldn't give much credence to opinions in an article published back in 2005 regarding the blanket reliability of WP, much less Britannica. Citing sources is, in and of itself, subjective considering human nature. According to libguides, Britannica as well as some of the specialty encyclopedias are considered reliable, but when in doubt, find more sources to corroborate the material. See the indented policy section in WP:Tertiary or check with some of the university libraries as to the reliability of Britannica. Atsme 💬 📧 08:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment that EB has "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is way too strong... EB is a middling source at best with a reputation for a rather loose take on fact checking and not exactly a strict sense of accuracy but more a "thatle do" approach. The content written by subject matter experts is somewhat usable but most of it simply isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the "strong reputation" comment should go. If you look, you will find that a number of the subject matter editors that decide what suggestions should go in aren't really specialists in the field. I also found a globally blocked sockpuppet managed to get his fringe views into Britannica. The sockmaster Relpmek Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive has repeatedly tried to get his fringe views into Wikipedia.[1], discussion of his fringe material is here. He persuaded the Britannica to add it to their article on Mona Lisa. See the article [phttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Mona-Lisa-painting here] and click on its history, which says :"Revised to say that the memory of Leonardo's mother, Caterina, may have been the source for the woman in the Mona Lisa." No reliable source of course. Just Relpmek's argument. Of course now presumably it can be used in our articles since it's in the Britannica, whereas it was always removed in the past as an editor's original research. Has Relpmek won then? He gets his way because the Britannica is too loosely edited and doesn't require sources? Doug Weller talk 09:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pope Krav - likely a citogenesis

Hello. I am pretty sure I found a WP:CITOGENESIS case at Conclavism.
The information that Mirko Krav Fabris is the first conclavist antipope was added to the article Conclavism in 2008 without giving any source.
I have not found anything on this supposed antipope from Croatia apart from a reference from Chryssides (see below). The information on the standup.si website of "MIRKO FABRIS KRAV" does not match with someone who is born before 1978.
George Chryssides gives in his Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2nd ed. from 2012) the name "Mirko Krav Fabis" (not "Fabris", but the book also has in the same entry "Joaquia Sánez y Arriga" which is a typo mistake for Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga so maybe "Fabis" is also a typo) as the first Conclavist antipope. However, I am afraid it may be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The first edition of the book is from 2001, and after consulting this first edition on the Internet Archive, I see there is no "Conclavism" or "Conclavist" entry where they should be (p. 96-7), and after a digital OCR search inside the book I see there is no mention of "conclav", "Krav", "Fabris" or "Fabis".
You can see Talk:Conclavism#Pope Krav? for the places where I went to ask for help on the situation.
My questions are:

  1. Does any of you have any source from before 11 October 2008 stating this Mirko Krav Fabis/Mirko Krav Fabris claimed in any way to be pope?
  2. Do you also believe it is a citogenesis incident?
  3. Do you think the author, George Chryssides, should be concted? If so, how? Should I ask an admin to contact him?

Veverve (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm could this be the same as Clemente Domínguez y Gómez also known as "Gregory XVII" (2nd of the name)? If so it may be possible to find more information using these names. If in doubt and it still cannot be verified, the easiest is to exclude with an edit summary explaining the concern and ideally a talk page post... Another affected article is Palmarian Catholic Church, —PaleoNeonate – 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: it is absolutely not the same. Clemente Domínguez y Gómez's case is widely documented (for example, by Magnus Lundberg), whereas this "Krav" case is only documented in one RS which likely used Wikipedia as a source. I have already excluded all information about Krav and have added invisible comments to explain my decision. Veverve (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Heavy.com quoting IMDB

Folks, I would like some additional input on a source from heavy.com cited in Jennifer Holland. I tagged it as needing a better source and an IP reverted the addition of the {{better source}} template. WP:IMDBREF is clear about using IMDB as a source and in my opinion, any source that uses it, is by extension at least unreliable, if not indirect WP:UGC. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They do have a published editorial policy that includes verification of published information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
When they say IMDB reports blah blah blah, as long as it's on IMDB, it passes that editorial policy. Pretty weaselly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't really make them unreliable, because, as you said, they're just reporting on what a source said. That said, I would never use heavy as a source because I can't trust any website that does "8 things you need to know about Juice Newton right now" articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Everything on that Heavy.com article that is "according to her IMDb page" is WP:FRUIT and can't be used. If Heavy.com is reporting on something else that isn't from an IMDb page, I guess it can stay. —El Millo (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The part of Jennifer Holland which is being sourced from Heavy is the relationship. Heavy did not rely on IMDB for that information (only the fact that she was a working actress at the time). Since Wikipedia is not using the potentially unreliable portion of the source, it should be irrelevant, imho. --SVTCobra 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is an... unusual essay. I do not think that it remotely reflects standard practice; normally the presumption is that if an WP:RS cites a non-WP:RS, the RS has done their due diligence. Every previous discussion I've seen on the topic has concluded that it is WP:OR to try and influence article content by questioning the sources used by an RSes. Of course, in this case Heavy may not be sufficiently reliable. But if this was eg. the NYT citing IMDb, I would come down unequivocally on the side of "doesn't matter, the statement's reliability comes from the source we're citing and not their sources; questioning their sources is completely inappropriate because it means second-guessing their conclusions via original research." Without that principle, nothing would be citable because everything can ultimately be traced back to primary sources reporting on raw data and other things we would not accept as a WP:RS - you would see nonsense like "yes, the NYT says this, but their reporter just questioned some people on the street to determine what happened; those people are not WP:RSes." The very nature of a secondary RS is that they can collect data from sources we would not use directly, confirm it or be willing to stake their reputation on it, and through that process make it into something we can cite. Sometimes they screw up, and if you have a specific reason to screw up in a particular case (ie. a source that disagrees), by all means, but just saying "this RS is citing sources that aren't RS" is not a meaningful argument against using it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused about our current WP:RSP entry for Heavy, which says There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. My usual assumption would be that as dry facts, dates of birth (unless there's actual reason to think they're contested, or they're somehow WP:EXCEPTIONAL in terms of making someone older / younger than expected) are among the least contentious statements that can be present on a BLP and do not normally require particularly strong sourcing. If it can't be used for that, what can it be used for? --Aquillion (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That's basically the question I'm asking here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks, generally, that is always better to use another source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel like maybe we should have a broader discussion about Heavy (rather than this specific usage) since the previous ones have been so brief. My immediate observations are that:
1. Reading the article, I don't think Heavy got this from IMDB anyway, the IP is right about that much.
2. It's not a terribly controversial point as long as there's no reason to think that the relationship is disputed and provided there's no untoward implications about it (and I'm not seeing any.)
3. OTOH if we discourage using Heavy to cite something as uncontroversial as birthdates, surely we can't use it for relationships, even relatively uncontroversial ones?
4. A {{better source needed}} tag doesn't really require a high bar anyway - it is entirely valid to place it on a source that is technically acceptable but which would be best replaced with something better. Even if Heavy is usable for the statement, a better source is still desirable, so it doesn't make sense to remove the tag entirely (maybe remove the bit about IMBD.)
And finally, when a dispute about the quality of a source for a particular statement comes up, it's usually worth taking the few moments necessary to search for a better source - WP:SOFIXIT applies here. More time and energy would be consumed arguing over Heavy than would be needed to find a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In line with this, as WP editors we are not required to take an RS's statements made in a factual tone as actually being correct, particularly if there are other RSes that put doubt into the fact or that seems dubious. Eg: this is how we keep abreast of citogenesis. And if we are talking a BLP here, and the statement by an RS seems question in truthfulness, it is better to omit than include until other RSes come along with confirmation but without the dubious nature of the fact. --Masem (t) 06:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, while it is true that if there are RFCs that contradict a source we can express it as an opinion, we are in fact required to report things as fact when the sources do so. This is a core element of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. It is completely unacceptable (and an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV) to present something that high-quality reliable sources treat as uncontested fact as mere opinion simply because an editor personally disagrees with it or is personally skeptical of the source's research. Omitting "dubious" things is fine, but the argument that it is "dubious" must be backed up by other sources contesting it or casting it into doubt - it's not an "especially" thing, that is required for the sort of argument you are describing. That is part of the reason why determining whether a source is sufficiently reliable for a particular statement is so important - because once we have established that, there is little recourse to argue against it outside of finding another source that disagrees (or arguing that it is WP:UNDUE, which is a separate argument but also ultimately comes down to the weight given to and within the sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of unattributed source for categories in Enochian

  1. Enochian
  2. [20]
  3. Addition of categories: Category:Constructed languages, Category:Artistic languages.

Discussion (Enochian)

Source cites neither its author(s) nor its source(s). My concern is that I have seen several sources that summarize that some occultists have called it the former, but I have been unable to find a source from a linguist so categorizing it for either. Since we know neither the qualifications of the presentation's author nor their sources, it's impossible to tell whether they might be relying on these occultist sources (which I haven't found but which are referred to in one or more articles on the topic, never listing who the occultists are). Skyerise (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say the presentation isn't a good source. We don't know that the presentation is what it's claiming to be. It claims to be presentation slides given at a conference, but there isn't any actual proof of that beyond it being a PDF file on the people who run the conference's website. It's possible this was a draft presentation that hasn't been reviewed yet, that this is an example of how not to make a presentation, or a thousand other things. Since there's no proof of this file's provenance I don't believe we should use it, even ignoring all of the other potential issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Even if we assume that it is a presentation by a subject-matter expert for a linguistics conference, I don't see that we can even say for certain that whoever gave the presentation did say that Enochian was a constructed language. Just because they included it on a slide doesn't mean that they didn't say in the lecture "though Enochian looks like a conlang, it isn't really one because foo". Slides divorced from lecture text aren't always straightforward to interpret, and we shouldn't be using them as a source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Vizaca

Vizaca is and entertainment news website/magazine that seems to be powered by Artimization and has an affiliated website called Influencive News. It looks like their staff has editorial experience based off this and this. Is it reliable? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For what? Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alexbrn for film news stuff I don’t know what that is called entertainment? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not too impressed by Vizaca and would perceive it to be a low-quality source for the following reasons:
  1. The site has no masthead to indicate who takes responsibility for the content overall, nor is it owned by an entity known to be a reliable source or publisher of other reliable sources.
  2. There are numerous errors of grammar and missing words throughout the site. The bio of contributor Monica Thaker says, "Monica Thaker is British Indian journalist and reporter who have vast experience impactful stories from Asia Pacific region." That one sentence has three or four errors -- it should more properly say something like "Monica Thaker is a British Indian journalist and reporter who has vast experience writing impactful stories from the Asia Pacific region."
  3. Nor does the writing use good logic. This article is titled "Tina Turner Net Worth: How A Swiss Estate Just Made Her A Whole Lot Richer". It begins, "Tina Turner, the ‘Queen of Rock & Roll,’ is boosting her net worth with a brand-new $76 million estate on Lake Zurich, Switzerland. The powerhouse songstress and her husband reportedly purchased the land containing ten buildings, a pond, a stream, a swimming pool, and a boat dock earlier this year." When Turner and her husband bought an estate, their real estate assets increased but their cash assets decreased (and/or their debt increased). Purchasing the real estate would not increase their net worth until the value of the property increases.
  4. It seems that much of the site is intended to promote businesses (see https://www.vizaca.com/about-us/ ), with the celebrity/entertainment content being there to attract more readers than a plain business promotional website would garner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90 Thanks for that detailed review. I’m not very impressed with Vizaca either. Do you think it would be fine to use it as a source for an opinion on television and movies? Like in the reception part of an article? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90 It looks like Vizaca is cited by Global News Wire and OltNews don’t know if that helps with their reliability. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Neither of those do anything to impress me. The Global News Wire link is just a press release. OltNews appears to just pick up articles from other websites using no clear news judgment or selection process, and its site gives even less of an indication of who is in charge than Vizaca itself does. As to your previous question, I would discourage the use of Vizaca in the reception section of an article about a television show or movie unless I saw some indication that its coverage of television and film is a lot better than I currently think it is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 22:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Findmypast and Genes Reunited

I would seek reliability of British genealogy websites, which might be unreliable, same as Ancestry.com and the Genealogical Society of Utah (FamilySearch). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

is iNaturalist a reliable source?

Although it's UGC, I think an exception is okay as it is monitored by a bunch of biologists. @Rusalkii:@Kueda, AntiCompositeNumber, Bob the Wikipedian, and Invertzoo:thoughts? Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 10:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I mean the taxon and taon changes page, the obs are definitely unreliableLeomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Source for what? Evidence of a species existing in a locale? That seems appropriate. Evidence for taxonomic opinions? Not really. It's important to remember what the source is an authority of when citing it, not just whether it may be trusted. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I would be less sure, as it is partially run by citizen scientists. So we would need to know who made a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I looked into it briefly when AfC started getting a lot of drafts sourced to iNaturalist and ended up confused at how much oversight there was. They don't seem to have any biologists formally on staff. I would personally be inclined to trust the general range given, but trying to cite "this species has also been found in place X" on basis of a small number of observations in that area seems inappropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd put iNaturalist in a similar bucket as IMDb. It's a useful database, but it's not a reliable source. It's a collection of user-generated primary sources, which presents two problems. Because iNaturalist observations are user-generated, they shouldn't be considered reliable. Even if the observations were considered reliable, they're still primary sources. Most of the things we might want to say based on iNaturalist (like species range) would be improper synthesis of primary sources. Other things on iNaturalist, like taxonomy, are either user-generated or imported from other sites including Wikipedia. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with AntiComposite on this one in full: iNaturalist should not be cited as a reliable source for any claim. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
As a founder and co-director of iNat, I am somewhat biased, but I personally think a "research-grade" iNat observation page is a reliable primary source for claims like "species X occurs in place Y" or "species X eats species Y," or at least no less reliable than Wikipedia itself, because all iNat observations are subject to a peer-review process, like any Wikipedia page. That said, it's not clear to me whether an iNat observation meets the Wikipedia standard of a Reliable source, which seems to imply that reliability requires some kind of hierarchical quality control process, which doesn't exist on iNat (we have a peer-to-peer QC model for things like identification accuracy). I totally agree it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims, where we actually have more of a hierarchical QC process but as a result the taxonomic information tends to be patchy in its currency and sometimes even contradictory (multiple active synonymous concepts, for example). So I guess if you were to apply Wikipedia's sourcing guidance strictly, you should not cite iNat observations because a) they're primary sources, and b) they probably don't quite meet the Wikipedia definition of "reliable", but I would also argue that for many taxa, there is no current source of information that meets both of those requirements. In those situations, would citing iNat be better than nothing? On a related topic, is it better to cite a reliable secondary source that is very hard to check (like an undigitized book out of print) vs. an unreliable primary source that is easy to check and/or correct (like an iNat observation)? And, to address some of the uncertainties above 1) there is no staff oversight of every single observation on iNat, 2) two of our staff have PhDs in biology-related fields (env. sci. & ecology/evolution) and one has a BA in biology though none are currently practicing biologists. We have a little more info about our QC process if you're interested. I also tried to summarize our internal (though ad hoc) efforts to assess identification quality on iNat. There are also several peer-reviewed papers out there investigating data quality on iNat, though they are usually taxon-specific (e.g. termites) and thus tend to ignore the fact that quality varies across taxa. Kueda (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
is it better to cite a reliable secondary source that is very hard to check (like an undigitized book out of print) vs. an unreliable primary source that is easy to check and/or correct (like an iNat observation)? Yes. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:SOURCETYPES. Wikipedia articles should (in theory) be based on the highest quality sources (books, journals, etc.), even if paywalled or undigitized, rather than easy to Google sources of lesser reliability. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Nearly always unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. The taxon pages often incorporate corresponding Wikipedia articles if they exist (WP:CIRCULAR) and/or draw from other databases. The taxon changes should in theory represent changes in other scholarly, secondary sources (with the caveat that many taxa may have different competing classifications, with no "official" or consensus status, and both iNaturalist and Wikipedia have to sometimes pick an arbitrary taxonomic scheme to ensure some level of internal consistency). The observations themselves are user-generated and primary sources even if 2 or more users agree on the species ID (making it "Research Grade"). It only takes 2 users agreeing on an identification to make it Research Grade, regardless of whether the users are PHD biologists or high school students doing a class assignment. Errant Research Grade misidentifications can persist until a third user suggests something different. There are also issues of accuracy: an observation may have incorrect date or location, off mildly or wildly. Using observations to infer the range of a species ("Species X is found here and here and here") risks WP:SYN: In the past I've seen Wikipedians misuse even published papers in a myopic way to misrepresent the range of a species (e.g. using a study on a wide ranging European beetle conducted in Poland to state "this species is found in Warsaw and Krakow": a true, but wildly incomplete and misleading statement.) --Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean, the taxonomy.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 09:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not suggest relying on the taxonomy in iNat, because it is not constantly updated. For some groups of organisms the taxonomy may currently be very good, and quite up-to-date, but for other groups the taxonomy is out-of-date or very patchy in quality. Invertzoo (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

Would columns at Skeptical Inquirer be considered Self-Published Sources WP:NEWSBLOGS and/or WP:QS? Updated to match discussion, see below BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The standard definition of columns and columnists would suggest that they are, and while the editorial policy doesn't discuss columns specifically, it does state that "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective", which suggests a general lack of editorial control that would extend to columns.

Further, if they are would Susan Gerbic (column) be considered a subject matter expert for scientific skepticism and associated topics?

This is in relation to this ongoing discussion at COIN, and is of relevance to a number of articles, including BLP's. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Gerbic definitely has a long history of writing on the topic, but from my readings of her work I'd say she is an expert on scientific skeptic conferences and organizations in Europe and US, but not the movement as a whole. As far as I know she has no academic background on the subject (a professional photographer) and all her work is published in publications with what seems like lax editorial oversight, so I'd probably categorize her in the same way I'd do Joan Didion or Hunter S. Thompson (and other New Journalists). However, I don't think Gerbic is an expert on pseudoscience so I wouldn't use her as a source there. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not WP:SELFPUB because the content creators and and content publishers are distinct parties (except in maybe some cases when an editor publishes their own work without review, if that happens). Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NOTRS also includes Questionable sources, described as those lack[ing] meaningful editorial oversight, which would fit (in my opinion) BilledMammal's quote, which then means it could be used in the same way as selfpub in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. I do agree that Skeptical Inquirer is not an SPS, but if consensus is that they are a questionable source then there's not much difference in how it should be used on wiki. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    This except in maybe some cases when an editor publishes their own work without review, if that happens is the point where things get unclear in my opinion; most columns don't have a review process like most content (although it appears that the review process at SI is generally weak), and I think that Santacruz makes a good point about treating at least the columns as a questionable source, and possibly the entire publications due to the lack of meaningful editorial oversight - I note a lot is written by actual experts, and should remain usable.
    Separately, I am wondering now if WP:NEWSBLOGS would apply to the online columns? It doesn't help us with the offline columns, but the definition appears to fit, and it does allow us to use the professionals who write such columns. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Looking at their last four articles, for example:
    Just thought I'd link them here in case it's useful to the discussion (hopefully the list doesn't mess with the indent formatting of the thread). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It's essentially an opinion column from one of their authors. As the submission guidelines state, the authors are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective, which shows a lack of editorial control. Perfectly acceptable for the opinions of the columnist, unacceptable for BLPs. Also, looking at the tone of the latest column, it shows even more-so that it should not be used in a BLP. Thomas John Flanagan, better known as the Manhattan Medium, the Seatbelt Psychic guy, drag queen Lady Vera Parker, and a grief vampire...[21] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Is there an actual example of use on WP to consider? Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Many; from the COIN thread, Suzane Northrop (1) and Thomas John Flanagan (1 2). The second are also referenced to the NYT's and the Las Vegas Review Journal, but as far as I can tell neither state Gerbal's position in their own voice, so the fact that we are doing so comes entirely from Gerbal's column. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah I don't think her sting operations should be cited, especially not in the leads of BLPs. The publication does not fact check them at all nor is she an expert in the subject.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      The Skeptical Inquirer is not self-published, no. Which does not make op-eds the same as a journalistic piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      Neither of those uses in the current ledes are particularly contentious. Why would they need an extremely high quality source? They aren't alleging criminal acts or anything that the subject would disagree with... I'm not sure why the use of these sources in those article ledes would be an issue. You could probably state those things without any source at all, per WP:V. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      Versions from when the above was linked: Suzane Northrop and Thomas John Flanagan. The issues are also not limited to the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No it is not an SPS, it also does not seem to be well known for making stuff up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Skeptical Inquirer is def not a SPS. Contributors (approved in advance due to their expertise) submit articles which are worked on by editors either for the printed magazine or for the website. Additionally, if necessary due to content, their legal staff does a content review to approve the article. Rp2006 (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not an SPS. If it's an opinion column, treat it accordingly; if it's another type of column, bring evidence of its quality (or lack thereof), preferably in the context of use on Wikipedia, and we can evaluate it that way. As for Gerbic, I don't see a reason why she wouldn't be considered a reliable source on the skepticism movement (trying to distinguish between authority on "skepticism conferences" and skepticism more broadly is, frankly, bizarre). That doesn't mean that she knows everything about every science, obviously, but the skepticism movement is as much a sociological, political, rhetorical, organizational, etc. subject as science subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What I meant by not an expert on the movement is that as far as I know she doesn't do much analysis of the movement in a historical sense. She doesn't break it down or try to see, for example, how it is connected to other movements (e.g. radical atheism through its overlap with speakers such as Richard Dawkins) as much as she is a good (for lack of a better term) diarist for the movement as it is now. She certainly creates valuable documentation on the evolution of its organizations, how it is attempting to maintain its relevance in an online world, etc. but she doesn't analyze it per say. I'd call her an expert on the movement if her articles were less 'check out this cool new podcast' and more academic/removed from the subject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
"as far as I know" or wp:or, how do you know what she does, have you ever met her (let alone examined all of the work she has ever done)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you? However, it seems the best way to address this question would be for editors who are aware of her conducting such analysis to provide examples for us to consider. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of her work on skepticism are either conference reports, personal stories and wiki-related analysis, or interviews. What I mean by analysis would be closer to "Insider Baseball" by Joan Didion or the type of monograph you'd see in academia. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
And stuff like this [[22]], seems fairlery in-depth to me (but it does nmentiuon an accidental sting).Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure dispelling the notion that mediums have powers is indicative of expertise. Hell, anyone could do that. Additionally, the publication does not fact-check anything related to the sting (from what I understand, based on their editing policy) so I wouldn't even call the sting reliable. Again, my point was her not being in-depth about the skepticism movement and the subject of the article is a drag queen medium, not a skeptic. It's also not in-depth as much as just terribly long. There's a difference between sharp, detailed analysis and just adding more and more volunteers to an "operation". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It is in depth enough to show she did research, and a lot mrope than just interviews and reports on conferancies. It is as in depth as most news paper reports of an incident. Nor does she have to be an experts, as that would only apply if this was an SPS, its not. As to "her not being in-depth about the skepticism movement", as she is not reporting on them, why would she need to be?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
To me, this whole tangent is unnecessary. If she's an expert or not, or on what, doesn't matter. Generally, we shouldn't be allowing someone with a platform with no editorial oversight for columns, where the authors are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective to perform a sting operation and then have huge, undue amounts of negative content added to a BLP based on it. If Captain Picard had a column in Space Captains Bimonthly Journal of Space Captains and ran a sting on some other captain saying that the other captain was looking at Spacebook pages for aliens in contravention of the Prime Directive, we wouldn't include that either. If a secondary source, say Wolf-359 Times, does a story, and provides secondary coverage, then we can look into including information as it shows that it has widespread coverage, and has some editorial oversight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
On this I note that the New York Times when they reported on one of her stings did not back her conclusions with their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It is in depth enough to show she did research, and a lot mrope than just interviews and reports on conferancies. [sic] There is no guarantee her research is actually correct. It is as in depth as most news paper reports of an incident. This is a generalization without evidence, nor does it deal with the point I made on the character of the analysis made in the article. Nor does she have to be an experts, as that would only apply if this was an SPS, its not. It does apply if it is a questionable source, which SI is in my opinion. Additionally, the question of whether she is an expert or not is the one posed by BilledMammal at the beginning of the discussion. As to "her not being in-depth about the skepticism movement", as she is not reporting on them, why would she need to be? That is the criteria I use to judge whether someone is an expert on a subject: can they write in-depth, analytical, and thoughtful pieces on a subject backed by either strong credentials, a rigorous system of peer-review by the publisher, or are they called experts (verbatim) by RS. I'm not saying it's the criteria everyone should use or the correct one (consensus will determine that and I trust the wiki process more than myself), but it is the one I use. Therefore, I don't judge Gerbic to be an expert on the skepticism movement, but I do think she is an expert on skeptic conferences and organizations in the US and Europe (I guess I'd add the Commonwealth just to have NZ in there). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain, the thing Gerbic is recognized for within the skeptical community is not the study of that community, or its conferences and organizations. She is recognized for her activism investigating and reporting on those she terms "grief vampires." And of course for her work with GSoW. Those two things earned her recognition, and earned her non-profit a grant from James Randi. Rp2006 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Rp2006 I trust you on that. I think she'd definitely be an expert on GSOW (and I'd additionally give her some credit for her wide knowledge on skeptic organizations as I did above), but I'm hesitant to call her an expert on mediums (what she calls "grief vampires", a characterization which I agree with but is infinitely hard to justify using in wiki-voice). All her work on them is published through SI and a book (which as far as I understand still upcoming), a publication that does not take responsibility for the accuracy of information, she is not a trained psychologist, nor has she written (as far as I am aware) any academic works on the subject. Again, dispeling the idea that mediums have powers is not a hard thing to do nor does it require much understanding of why people still trust mediums, how the psychology of the mediee (idk what the term is) functions during a reading, etc. That is the type of questions I'd expect to be more prominent in the writings of an expert on the subject, and which I have found lacking in her writing on the subject. So while she's certainly done a bunch of work in the subject I don't think quantity is more important than quality at determining expertise.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
For once we agree. Gerbic is not an expert on the psychology involved in either the people who claim to speak for the dead, nor of those fooled into believing it. She has not claimed to be. (I doubt there is such an "expert" on Earth, as this certainly has not been scientifically studied.)
However, learning about HOW the cons work and how people are deceived, and educating the public to reduce the number of people harmed, IS what she is a recognized expert at (by the skeptical community as well as the media). And that is what she writes about primarily. As for your claim "dispelling the idea that mediums have powers is not a hard thing to do." Really? Then why do upwards of 40% of Americans (and likely other humans) still believe it? Why do countless people lose their life savings to these con-artists? Are you aware of this? Do you care? We do. Rp2006 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Many people believe in many things for irrational, emotional reasons. If humans were perfectly rational beings, things like parasocial relationships wouldn't exist. I'd appreciate if you could link some sources were Gerbic is cited as an expert in mediums. I don't doubt they might exist, but until you provide those sources my opinion is strong (if weakly held) that she is not an expert in this area. Giving mediums fake stories to get "Gotcha'!" moments does not make you an expert. Your rhetorical questions don't affect the fact you must provide proof she is an expert if there is no consensus she is. In a kingdom of opinions, fact is king. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
So are you retracting your claim that "dispelling the idea that mediums have powers is not a hard thing to do."? You clearly said that to imply there are no experts in this field, and indeed no expertise is needed because (I guess) you think anyone can do it. This is the Dunning–Kruger effect on full display. In realty, it takes a level of "expertise" gained via much experience to successfully unmask these con-artists, and to get results worthy of coverage by the NYT. In fact, I see no one else at all doing this now besides Gerbic. That is why James Randi (who used to debunk paranormal claims) awarded her a grant from the JREF before his passing. It contributes to why she was elected fellow at CSI. It is why she has been covered and consulted by media as prestigious as the NYT here and here in the rare instances they cover this topic at all. Rp2006 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you or someone else please share the exact way she is characterized in the articles? NYT is paywalled to me. I disagree by the way, it's not hard to prove a medium is a scam as long as you have the time for it.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Priceless. It's not hard to be a pilot for a commercial airline, or an astrophysicist, or an MD, as long as you have the time for it. Rp2006 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Her work is covered, but her claims are not endorsed, while she is described as a "psychic skeptic". It wouldn't seem to endorse the claim that she is an expert in this field, just that she is a prominent sceptic of it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Then I don't see any reason to characterize her as an expert on mediums if the only RS describing her work on the topic does not characterize her as such. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If you're not familiar with the history of debunking mediums and spiritualists (and how difficult it could and can be), I would highly recommend reading about it. Any competent biography of Houdini is a good place to start, but in keeping with the Skeptic movement theme I'll recommend "Houdini, His Life and Art" by James Randi. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it precious that she just admitted that she has not read the articles in the NYT but has a strong opinion on them. Also that she does not know how to get around a paywall, that's beginning GSoW training BTW. One more thing that I should mention - when the New York Times reaches out to someone for comment on an article they are writing about a psychic, and you are the lone person asked to do so. That means that the NYT thinks of that person as an expert. When they write a full article about you in the NYT Magazine, even more so. That is considered a very big deal ACS. Belittling the work I have done over the years as "easy" and something you could do is insulting, not only to me, but to the few other experts on the subject. If you are not up on the topic, then I suggest you refrain from commenting. You do know who James Randi is, right? Sgerbic (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I am literally acting in good faith and asking someone to provide the quotes in the article that support you as an expert. Strong opinions weakly held means that if I am shown proof my opinion is wrong I am quick to admit so, but until then I maintain my positions resolutely. I am just asking for one or two sentences, and the attacks on my character or the lack of assuming good faith on my part in this discussion are both unnecessary to resolving the topic of this RSN thread. I apologize if you feel offended that I think the methodology you use is simplistic. However, that is my opinion and I shouldn't need to shy away my thoughts on your reliability just because you happen to be reading. It is your choice to read discussions regarding your expertise. If you cannot handle professional assessments without feeling personally offended I suggest you do not participate in these threads. Hope you enjoy the weekend.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a more pertinent question would be are columns written about stings that the author ran considered a primary source for the sting? If there is no secondary sourcing about the sting, should we be inserting it into an article, especially a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a better objection, but it's more about undue than RS (assuming we are talking about stings, and not (for example) investigations).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven that the question might not be usually discussed in this noticeboard but I'll still give my two cents. I'd say the columns on the stings are primary sources. As there are no secondary sources and they are published in a magazine that does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the information they should absolutely not be mentioned in a BLP or anywhere in articles. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
relative to something mentioned above, we have never accepted the fact that a newspaper, even the NYT, asks someone to comment on something indicates their notability; it doesn't necessarily indicate they're a RS either, since a journalist normally uses a range of familiar sources. If anything, it indicates that the newspaper is not taking responsibility for what the source is quoted as saying. (I intend this as general, not the specific situation here) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC) �
Yes, but I actually think there is a supplement somewhere that states that many multiple RSes all quoting someone as an expert is good enough to call them an expert, right? Am I misremembering that? I can't think of where it is specifically or find it, at the moment. But I thought it was buried somewhere in a supplement. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as a note, in the latest issue of SI they describe a breaching experiment conducted on Wikipedia [23], where the author created a fake article and left it up for 13 years, with meatpuppetry to try to retain it after it was nominated for AfD. I'm not sure to what extent it is relevant, but breaching experiments sit in an ethical gray area which tends to raise concerns. I worry about publications which uncritically publish these sorts of articles, and concerns have been raised in the past when this has happened elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bilby: is the full text of that piece available anywhere? That sort of behaviour is concerning on a wider level than whether or not SI is a reliable source or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th:, sorry, but the full text is only available to subscribers, as far as I know. As a summary: the author claims to have requested the creation of the Eachy article in July 2006 as a breaching experiment through WP:AFC. The hoax article was created by User:Kevin, who was not aware of the hoax. It was nominated for deletion in August 2019. According to the author, "An appeal to my Fortean and skeptical colleagues then resulted in some edits to the page. In my first intervention in the article for several years, I argued that it should be kept, because I managed to find an article that bizarrely mentioned in passing Victorian accounts of the monster (Robinson 2017)." [24]. They were usuccessful and it was deleted. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It might be relevant to see who edited that page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The only edit in the AfD that fits the description was this one. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the article itself, in reference to this "An appeal to my Fortean and skeptical colleagues then resulted in some edits to the page" - although I think this edit is more likely, as it seems unlikely to be User:Dream Focus. BilledMammal (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem. The only significant edits to the article after it was nominated for AfD were by an IP. In regard to the AfD vote, I find DreamFocus to be unlikely, but the problem is that the author is claiming to have added a reference to "Robertson 2017", which is the reference given by DreamFocus in their edit. The reference given by Tullimonstrum isn't by the same author. I guess if it isn't DreamFocus - which I hope it isn't - then the author is lying about the edit, which speaks to the reliability of the source. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Good points, particularly about the reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I second this. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eachy I scratched out what I said before and voted to redirect it to another article, so it clearly not me. That was back in 2019. Only one editor still said Keep in that discussion and they edit these types of pages a lot. Special:Contributions/Tullimonstrum. Anyway, you'd have to be able to view the deleted article to see who added what sources to it, and who just quoted those in the AFD, or found them on their own by clicking the AFD search options. Dream Focus 05:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I found this at https://twitter.com/CharlesPaxton4 Dec 29, 2021 Create a false fact on Wikipedia with no support. Then someone uses that fact beyond Wikipedia. Then that usage can be used to justify the Wikipedia article. People can now point to Eachy articles to justify the existence of a Wikipedia article about the Eachy.
  • And his post before that was: Dec 29, 2021 Replying to @CharlesPaxton4 My article lasted just over 13 years on Wikipedia, and successfully, as you can see above created a monster tradition. See also.
  • So this guy made a fake article. Dream Focus 05:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dream Focus: I'm really glad to hear you say that it wasn't you. However, the author states that they were the one who provided the Robertson 2017 source in the AfD, which was only used by you in your keep argument. Just to be clear, you are saying that the author of the SI article falsely claimed to have made the edit you made? If so, that suggests a significant problem with SI's reliability if it is publishing false statements about editors here. - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Searching for "Eachy" shows the article is at https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Eachy and it says Bassenthwaite Lake as the location. Search for that location and its name and you get plenty to sort through. [25] Since the AFD was years ago I assume I just searched through that. I linked to the official Facebook page for the area it is reported in, as well as a reference to The National Cryptid Society and quoted them mentioning it as the "The Beast of Bassenthwaite Lake". Not sure how these seems even remotely suspicious to you. Whoever put the article over on the fandom didn't do the most recent version. If I was trying to save the information I would've done a full history export to it as I have done for a large number of articles to various wikias/fandoms over the years. Dream Focus 06:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dream Focus: All good. I'm not worried about how you found the source. I'm concerned that SI is making false statements about editors, such as claiming that the author made an edit that they didn't make, because it was made by you instead. If you are not the author of the article, which I assume is what you are saying, then the article has not been sufficiently verified by the editor, and that makes me suspicious of the source and suggests that it is unreliable, which was the main thrust of the discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm getting really lost in this thread, personally. Could someone please reply with the questions that are being asked in this thread about Skeptical Inquirer? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Additional question, seeing how contentious this topic area is, I think it might be a good idea to request a closure once it is clear no more comments are forthcoming (not yet, obviously). What are y'all's opinion on this? I feel having a formal close to the discussion would help avoid later stonewalling when the results of the discussion here are applied in relevant articles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a deprecation RFC, a closure won't accomplish anything useful. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Having a consensus outlined after a discussion is helpful to point to for content disputes is highly fraught topic areas. I think it could be handy. I don't know how much consensus is going to be gleaned from this discussion though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Even if not a strong consensus, outlining the major points or positions brought forward by the community would still be helpful. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, these columns are like WP:NEWSBLOGs in the sense that they should be used with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. The following hasn't been directly asked here, but it's probably worth noting that magazines published by advocacy-based groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry generally fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Skeptical Inquirer is not a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. This means that it should not be considered generally reliable. Since it's quite clearly WP:PARTISAN, it should in many cases be attributed in-text when it is used. The only, important exception is its very legitimate use per WP:PARITY (where all other possible alternative sources are equally non-independent or otherwise unreliable): in these cases it can also be used without in-text attribution. But wherever better sources are available, its use should just be avoided entirely. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes i would agree they should be used with caution. But some likely are subject to some fact-checking, as described above they also often send out for review. I have only, so far, seen uses that are actually uncontroversial and likely do not need a source at all, or a questionable source would even be fine (the examples given above). I would be interested to see any example uses of these blogs that are defamatory or may violate BLP and are not supported by any other sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • When they're opinion pieces, they're WP:RSOPINION, just like anything else. When they're not opinion (for example Steven Novella's 'Science of Medicine' column), they're reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1 (Columns at Skeptical Inquirer)

  • I've hit some significant problems with this as a source before. Other than the recent issue where the author claimed to have made edits on WP that were actually made by someone else, (and I should mention that this is the second time it has happened in SI), we hit a number of problems with [26] on the D. Gary Young article. On multiple occasions claims in the SI article were counter to what was said in the sources they used, or at least not supported by the sources. I'm not going to regard it as automatically unreliable, but I think Apaugasma's points are pertinent: as a partisan source, it should be used with considerable caution, especially where living people are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Boy do I agree with Bilby that D. Gary Young is an example of how SI is being used. And boy do I disagree with his characterization. The reason pro fringe editors want to minimize SI, is because it is often the only WP:Parity response to the one two punch of ABOUTSELF and BLP. X person says they can fly. Nobody but a skeptic is going to waist their time disproving this claim. An editor attempts to put X "falsely" claims they can fly, is told they are lacking sources and NPOV. An article in SI that says X cannot actually fly is called not WP:RS, so until and unless the NYT writes about how X cannot fly, the wikipedia page would say X can fly. And conversely and perversely, if X has also claimed that they are a two headed dragon, and an editor wanted to include this claim on their page (IRL see Rain Drop Method and D. Gary Young claiming to have made distillers that killed a man). Editors who want X to look good will keep this claim off the page by saying, "there is no good source for this silly claim. X himself cannot be citied on this" So X's business partners and followers can use wikipedia to promote the idea that X can fly while hiding the fact that X claimed to have two heads. Only skeptical publications like SI stand in the gap on FRINGE and PARITY.DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    What does this have to do with how we should judge SI's reliability? I am strongly opposed to the idea we should decide a source is reliable because we 'need' to use it to dispel fringe. You are assuming that the claim X can fly cannot be refuted without SI sourcing. I heavily disagree, as it can just be removed outright. The only way it would be justifiably kept in an article is if it is mentioned in RS, and I'm pretty sure any site that says a human can fly is most definitely not RS. Thus, it seems unnecessary to me to argue for SI's reliability based on some unnecessary hypothetical. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    We absolutely should consider what we need so that wikipedia doesn't become Goopipedia. Blogs, podcasts, youtube videos, Twitter are regularly dismissed when they should be allowed for WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY. And SI is much better than those outlets, even if you want to cherry pick the worst moments in SI. I could compile a long list of false things printed in the New York Times. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    DolyaIskrina I'd appreciate if you could rephrase your comment, as I'm not sure I understand two things: why youtube videos and tweets are relevant to a discussion on the reliability of SI and why the NYT is worth comparing to SI. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Parity (and WP:MEDRS actually) allows lesser quality sources to counter fringe claims if there are no better sources to be had. Most editors don't know this and will ding YT, Twitter, blogs, etc claiming they are not "as good" as the sources that promote the fringe claim. SI, while hardly as good as the NYT, is generally better than those other Twitter type platforms (I'm talking about a ratio of quality content to bad content). And yet Twitter can actually be used for Parity. For instance, a renowned epidemiologist's Tweets about a disease are pretty good for Parity or even WP:MEDRS (though most editors don't know this). So SI has had some bad content. How much bad content? If you were to do such a comparison of good to bad with a highly regarded source like Snopes (many will argue this) or NYT (fewer but still some would argue that this is a good source) you will still find that they had wrong, retracted, never corrected or biased content. So reliability is not just determined by cherrypicking the bad content. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    The only thing sourced only to SI is Young also founded and operated the Young Life Wellness Center, a medical clinic in Chula Vista, California, which in 1988 was ordered by a court judge to be shut down which isn't exactly what the source says. The SI source says, The district attorney’s office convinced a Superior Court judge to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the operators of the Chula Vista and Rosarita Beach clinics from advertising and selling misleading and deceptive health cures and to schedule a hearing for an injunction. In June 1988, the judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Youngs and Crow prohibiting operation of the Chula Vista clinic. One of the defendants told the court that the clinic already ceased operation. Everything else has better sources, except for providing the name of his non-notable second wife. Assuming that the Chula Vista clinic closure wasn't widely covered, would it really hurt the article to be missing that? Would someone read that and go "Oh, well he might have actually cured cancer. If only there was one other factoid about how the guy was an obvious quack and constantly in legal trouble, then I wouldn't think essential oils would cure cancer. COI disclosure: I put essential oils in the soap I make, but not to cure cancer. It smells good, and cedar oil helps repel some insects. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Essential oils?! Really?! And I thought I was dealing with a rational pro-science editor, rather than a pro-fringe quack. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined. /s A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I also really really like cedar oil as part of scented waxes, but... I am sorry to say I actually think the quote you gave is a fair summary of the source. The judge really did order the clinic to be shut down. It was already shut down, but the judge did order it. Do you think we are somehow defaming the subject by including this? We could supplement with a primary source, probably. It's not a contentious statement if the judge really did order that, and it's DUE if the SI column covers it, and this guy doesn't get much coverage anyway. The SI coverage is part of how we determine DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I that using a soap with a decent amount of cedar oil in it, I pick up far fewer ticks. As far as the quote, I was more pointing out that it's the only thing sourced to SI, and although it is a summary, I think it's a bit NPOV not to mention it was already shut down. I didn't care enough to edit it, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Then I would just add that fact. I agree, it is more NPOV with the fact added, as long as it isn't done in too long of prose. Given that we only have one source in an article with few sources already per WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Wow, I read that thread you linked to with the incorrect and NPOV title D. Gary Young claiming to have made distillers that killed a man. That is the exact type of editing that is a problem. Trying to coatrack the worst things you can find that are tangentially related to someone into their article. Someone died in a work accident, no one was charged, no lawsuit was filed. Lets make sure to mention it in this guy's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not going to lie, after reading that thread DolyaIskrina, I am somewhat concerned about your use of sources. Not only are people in that thread saying that you are misrepresenting what the sources say, but your comment above strongly indicates a WP:RGW mindset within this topic area. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. Bringing up your want to include WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE in the DGY page here is just another way to attempt to secure support for your WP:POVPUSHing. The issue with DGY is not about sources being reliable, but about trying to tie multiple sources together to say that he killed someone. Not sure why this is even a discussion for this noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    The SI article quotes the OSHA report which says he designed the entire operation. One Secondary and one primary source. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't bring DGY up. You'll have to talk to Bilby about that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@DolyaIskrina:, my apologies for the accusation on who brought it up. I have amended accordingly. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry for starting this whole tangent. I raised that article because there have been three instances where clear errors were in SI articles that I have encountered - two related to Wikipedia editing (edits claimed by the author were made by different people) and one was the article I linked to, in which there were problems with claims in the article not matching the source material. I didn't want this to focus on how it was used - just that there have been errors in SI articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bilby:, my apologies as that was meant for DolyaIskrina and I got it wrong about who started it. Reading more in-depth, I don't think there was any issue bringing it up. It just opened the door for editors of that page to bring the dispute here and conflate the issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish I agree that's a POV thread title that never should have been written. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @DolyaIskrina: please don't call editors whom you disagree with "pro fringe" unless you have very good cause to do so (i.e., the kind of thing you could take them to ANI for if it formed a pattern). As for the substance of your comment: yes, WP:PARITY applies. If someone is notable for claiming to be able to fly, and if there are no better sources than the ones who would take such a claim (semi-)seriously (lifestyle magazines, sensationalist press, etc.), SI can be used without a second thought. Just don't reverse WP:PARITY's logic: the fact that a source like SI can be used when all other sources are of the same quality or (probably) worse does not automagically render SI reliable outside of that context. Always look for the WP:BESTSOURCES. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't know "pro-fringe" was an official accusation, I'll refrain. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would overall agree with this comment about PARITY. We should always strive to use the best sources, but sometimes SI is all that's available. It is those times that SI (and its columns especially) is likely appropriate. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    While I agree, WP:PARITY doesn't override BLP, and PARITY doesn't say that we can use unreliable sources - more that how we determine reliability is broadened. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @DolyaIskrina: Do you have any COI with SI, such as affiliation with GSoW? I would also mention that WP:ABOUTSELF forbids material that is unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim, so it would not support the inclusion of such a claim and can be handled without having to rely on Blogs, podcasts, youtube videos, Twitter or other unreliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal I would tell you that asking questions like this is likely unproductive, and I would put it on the same level as the place where @DolyaIskrina describes another user as "pro-fringe" above. Neither are very helpful contributions to the conversation and should be ommitted moving forward if at all possible.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think the question of whether someone has a potential COI with the source (or article, though that is not relevant here) being discussed is relevant to the conversation, though perhaps I should have taken it to the users talk page first. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Let me get specific. Donald Gary Young claims to have invented the Raindrop Technique which some other equally unreliable sources have called a dangerous technique. It's being kept off his page because editors are calling it (going from memory here) fringe, not WP:RS, implausible etc. The net result is that a popular and dangerous technique that he claims to have invented and that has been criticized by others in his industry stays off his page, and readers don't get any sort of warning about it. So this would be an example of an exceptional claim that should be included, but is expediently excluded by editors who like essential oils. So this is my "two heads" idea from my hypothetical. They keep the flying, but ding the two heads. I don't have a COI with SI, unless you count a subscription as one. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    If it were popular enough to be notable, then it would have coverage. It's not the place of an encyclopedia to list non-notable things that may be dangerous then debunk them. Also, stop claiming editors who disagree with you are pro-fringe or "like essential oils." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    This section is way too large to edit effectively on mobile. Pretend my last comment doesn't have random capital letters and typos. Thanks BilledMammal! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    So we can have a page that presents as a businessman someone who made a fortune off of essential oils, but we can't mention any dangerous treatments they claim to have invented unless they are proven popular enough by... whom? His own promotional material which lauds it to the heavens and even has it trade marked? Oh, no. Now we cant trust the source. This is why we need sources like SI or we are going to continue to get played in this way by well funded PR departments in the wellness industry. Welcome to Goopipedia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't have a COI with SI, unless you count a subscription as one: Before I respond to the rest, could I clarify whether you are associated with GSoW? BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? nableezy - 00:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    This exactly why a GSoW scope for the upcoming arb case is the wrong idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I note that this isn't a fishing expedition, and so long as the question about whether membership of GSoW causes a COI with SI is open I consider it a relevant question in the context of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Do we even know what determines "membership," particularly? Is there an iron-on badge or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure it's a face tattoo. I heard Mike Tyson is a member. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I believe that claim, SFR, on account on his difficulties pronouncing "thkepticth". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Back to discussing the reliability of SI

  • From my understanding, the position that seems the most reasonable to me is that:
    A) SI is not a SPS
    B) whether SI is a source of questionable reliability has not reached community consensus in favor or againt, at least numerically.
    C) the use of SI is sometimes necessary in the interest of WP:PARITY, but not strictly necessary outside of that
    D) as there is no fact-checking done by the editors, but the site often features experts, it's use can be supported under cases like WP:RSOPINION. However,
    E) using SI to quote non-experts (say, on anorexia) is best avoided and
    F) as there is no editorial fact-checking, their use in BLPs is potentially dangerous as it could introduce false information that would greatly harm a living person's reputation could be introduced in articles
    Please let me know what y'all think of this summary. I thought I'd summarize a bit to keep the conversation a bit focused. I also think having an RfC on B would be useful.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    (C) - huh? when is a source "necessary"?
    (D) and (F): where was it decided that "there is no editorial fact-checking"? Are you conflating that with "no editorial oversight"?
    (E) I'd dispute this, but mainly because of the bizarre expertise-related claims that have been made by some of the SI/GSOW/Gerbic critics in these discussions — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    For D and F, see their article submission guidelines. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites I mentioned E as a consequence of D. While expertise as related to humanities articles is much more nuanced and should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, things like using RS:OPINION sources in a medical article (like anorexia) is best avoided, or in cases where the opinion of a psychologist is added to an article on UFO sightings where the psychologist makes statements on light refraction (for example). Those are the kinds of cases that I mean by E, and where SI is most often used in what I see as a misguided fashion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not entirely sure if WP:MEDPOP is the proper guideline to mention in this case, as I'm not aware of a general science version of this but think it is still applicable, even if only on the SI MED articles case and not all. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    huh? when is a source "necessary"? my thoughts exactly. I think the OP was trying to say: "not preferred" but I think their point about WP:PARITY is well taken. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    as there is no editorial fact-checking I was under the impression that there is occasional fact checking about contentious claims, just that it is not universal, as is the case with many media outlets. Per SFR above. Am I wrong about this? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    The issue is that if there is occasional fact checking we should treat it as no guarantee a particular fact has been checked. As in, we cannot tell if fact x cited in controversial article y has been fact checked and so should assume it has not in the interest of being accurate. Thus, we should attribute it to the author of the article from which x is cited. I'm struggling to find the exact words, but that is roughly what I think should be done in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    No source guarantees that every fact has been checked, that's not how publishing works anywhere. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    But normally reliable sources don't say The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. That's the opposite of editorial oversight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's very similar to how editorials/expert columns/opinion columns in places like The Conversation and The New York Times are set up, though. And we generally consider those reliable for statements of fact, but attributed for statements of opinion. (as long as the author is reliable or generally considered to be an expert on that topic) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Based on the Dream Focus discussion above, I am not certain we can consider them reliable for statements of fact. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    I read that discussion, and I see very little cause for concern. Where did SI state a consequential falsehood directly? (I'm pointedly not referring to who made a certain wikipedia edit, as that is the most inconsequential example I have ever heard -- worse fact checking inaccuracies are introduced into every single issue of every RS used on this site). AFAICT, the more sustained issue is that an SI columnist perpetrated a hoax. Lots of descriptions of hoaxes have been published in the pages of RSes such as the New York Times, Scientific American, etc. Consider, for example, the Sokal affair, which was published in the esteemed Lingua Franca. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    The author claimed to be responsible for an edit that was made by Dream Focus - "In my first intervention in the article for several years, I argued that it should be kept, because I managed to find an article that bizarrely mentioned in passing Victorian accounts of the monster (Robinson 2017)" BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is an ocean of between misremembering who added which source, and reliably stating that a sting took place. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not when it is trivial to verify who added which source, and the fact that they somehow failed to do this raises serious questions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    You could literally do this kind of "factcheck sniping" for any article at most RSes. Here's an example: "A Shrinking Band of Southern Nurses, Neck-Deep in Another Covid Wave" published today. It was the first link I clicked on the NYT home page just now.
    It states (emphasis mine):

    Ms. Sison, a nurse manager at Pascagoula Hospital, slammed on the brakes, made a U-turn and raced to fetch her. “We have staff members dropping like flies from Covid so there was no way I was going to leave her on the side of the road,” Ms. Sison said a few hours later as she walked the corridors of her 350-bed hospital.

    But Pascagoula Hospital is actually a 435-bed hospital. [27] [28] [29]
    Do you think I should put up an RfC about how the New York Times should no longer be GR because of this egregious fact checking error? Or maybe we should only care about errors that actually matter... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Or maybe we should only care about errors that actually matter: We should, but this one does matter. Unlike your example, which is contextual information, this is directly related to the substance of the article, and unlike your example, where the author is unrelated to the claim, this claim is directly related to the author. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Then how do we handle a sting operation? With that, we're not talking scientific facts stated by an expert. The fact/opinion line is a bit blurred in that case.
    I don't think we should be using a source that explicitly says the authors are responsible for their own fact checking as a reliable source for anything but the opinion of the author. If there is an expert making a statement if scientific fact, there should be a better source than a magazine without any fact checking. I can see some WP:PARITY reasons to use it, but it definitely shouldn't be used for claims about living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Do we have any actual reason to believe the outlet is making up sting operations? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    And we generally consider those reliable for statements of fact, but attributed for statements of opinion. Since when is this done? I am not aware of this being the case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The subject here is "Columns at Skeptical Inquirer". A column is something that is in every issue and written by the same author, and much of the reasoning above has been based on things said about columns specifically. Now, this is suddenly about the whole of SI. See Ship of Theseus. Of course, most of SI content is articles by non-columnists, and those should be judged separately. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I personally would treat columns and non-columns identically here: in my opinion they are all opinion pieces due to the lack of fact-checking by the publisher. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I would disagree that such things should be treated similarly. We have no reason to believe that Skeptical Inquirer treats them the same. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Shibbolethink The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. [...] Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal, although a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer. is literally the second paragraph in their article submission guidelines. There is no indication anywhere that columns are held to a higher standard, so I believe we should assume they are not. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
When we say that a the New York Times is a reliable source, we mean it is a reliable source for news, i.e., what happened today, not that its analysis or editorials are reliable sources. Those must be evaluated based on the expertise of the writers. The same applies here. Actual reporting by SI is reliable, but most article must be evaluated on the expertise of the writers. Expert in this case doesn't mean a journalist or freelance writer who is familiar with and has written about a topic, but someone who has published academic papers and is regarded as an expert by academics. TFD (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with this assessment by TFD. This is how we treat many sources, and it should be how we treat these SI columns. They're columns! Just like in editorial pages or places like The Conversation. Meaning we should attribute statements of opinion, and only wiki-voice statements of clear and uncontroversial fact. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
My main concern with this source is it's use making claims about BLPs. Should we be including opinions, and especially an author's report of a sting they ran, as fact in a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say it should be included as an attributed statement. We have tons of attributed statements in other BLPs, why would this be any different? Do we have concerns from any events, articles, or other means that the actual sting didn't take place? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe there are two differences. First, it is rare for these statements to be primary sources; they are typically statements by an expert who has reviewed the primary sources. Second, I don't believe that author meets the definition of expert on this topic, as provided by TFD. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Let me give an example edit, [30]. Should we be using that source to claim, in wikivoice, a BLP subject was caught doing something? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
According to The Center for Investigative Reporting magazine's ethics guide, "Ethics Guide" ("Fairness Section"), "Subjects of our stories should have many opportunities to respond to our findings and facts. Whenever practical, multiple attempts should be made to contact anyone named in our stories, particularly those cast in a negative light, and those attempts should begin as early as possible in the reporting process. Reporters and producers should discuss with their editors what is appropriate in terms of notice and attempts to obtain comment or response." Since that does not appear to have been done here, it cannot be considered professional investigative journalism and therefore fails rs.
While it is rs for its writer's opinion, the facts they state are not opinions and therefore cannot be included. In this case sincce no opinions were expressed, nothing would be usable.
If the author had expressed an opinion, then we would have to establish weight in order to include it. That would require secondary sources that reported the opinion.
To express it without Wikipedia jargon, it isn't fair to report a claim by a non-expert that they have exposed someone without allowing that person to reply. And we should not draw attention to information that has received little or no attention in professional news reporting or academic scholarhip.
TFD (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The amount of energy being spent here to save Goliath from David is impressive. SI is often the lone PARITY source to hold back a tide of well positioned propaganda. Take a look at how long Havana Syndrome was a page parroting all sorts of fringe claims leaked to Politico by off-the-record CIA agents and tort lawyers. Or how Wim Hof can turn a couple medical studies and a bunch of anecdotes into proof positive that panting before an ice bath cures cancer. Even with the help of SI, these pages have remained more pro than anti fringe. BLP concerns with SI are obviously addressable on a case-by-case basis. The impugning of SI here seems to be a Motte-and-bailey fallacy. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how my summary above does not account for that PARITY, DolyaIskrina A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Who's Who? publications

Who's Who publications rely on self-reporting by those included in the publication and are typically not fact checked. Many appear obvious scams, but even those where most entries are broadly accurate do not fact check; they simply report the text those sent questionnaires send them back (and even then return rates are secret. Where questionnaires are not returned the entries remain the same year after year). There are plenty of reasons, including commercial, for those included to nuance and even falsify their entries. As a class of publication, they do not seem reliable enough to amount to reliable sources for Wikipedia? Is there a Wikipedia position on Who's Whos? I apologise if the subject has been covered, which it may very well have been, but I am a less experienced editor and I cannot see a reference to it. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of previous related discussions in the RSN archives and there are some specific mentions at WP:RSP. Generally considered promotional and not independent enough. Interestingly, some time back when it was discussed again at RSN I did a search and found a number of promotional non-notable BLPs in user space created by single-purpose accounts that cited "Who's Who" publications, suggesting WP:PAID editing. —PaleoNeonate – 00:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
In terms of notability, I think a difference is generally made between those like the UK Who's Who which make their own decision on who to include, and the vanity versions which allow nearly anyone to be included if they pay. In terms of using them as a source, I agree given uncertainty over what level of fact checking they do even for those like the UK one, we can't really use them. I mean at best they should be treated as BLPSPS despite not really being self-published, but that's also the problem. Since they aren't really self published we have no idea if editors may have modified details for whatever reason. I seem to recall a BLP complaint where someone said they were the child of someone who had sent details to some vanity publication as an elderly person possibly with dementia or something and it was now creating problems. I thought this was some Who's Who but can't seem find this at BLPN so maybe it was some other similar pay for inclusion vanity publication. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The UK's isn't much better... Its the same self promotional schtick with a touch of class gatekeeping added, that actually makes it less useful as a source as far as I am concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Who's Who (UK) is much better, & should be an RS for basic bio details, though it won't contain criminal convictions, & might miss a first marriage etc. Anyone making a false claim in the UK one is likely to be found out, & the subject of huge ridicule - I think this has happened for relatively minor things. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
UK Who's Who just simply doesn't have the relevance it once had even two decades ago. I doubt anyone would care if someone was making stuff up in their questionaire. This Spectator article from 2004 notes a number of instances where people were making stuff up (including making theirs birthdays years later than they actually were), which is followed by [Publishing director for reference books] Jonathan Glasspool insists they can only go by what people tell them. "We’ve got 32,000 people in the book, and at least half the records every year are amended or corrected in some way, and a thousand new records a year. It would be impossible for us to check every fact." If an error is pointed out to Who’s Who they will raise it with the biographee, and Glasspool maintains that the vast majority of errors are sorted out by agreement in this way. But, to take one example, what if Jeffrey Archer insisted that his entry was correct when it wrongly states that he became a member of the Greater London Council in 1966? "We would have to take him at his word" says Mr Glasspool. Newspapers have in the past pointed out that Susan Hampshire’s entry gives the wrong date of birth. Who’os Who have written to her about this, but had no reply, so they let the current date stand. Wrong information remains in what is supposed to be a definitive reference book. If Who's Who can't even correct information if the person in question insists otherwise or doesn't respond, I can't see how it can be a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow thats much worse than I though, that would put UK Who's Who solidly into deprecation territory. I don't think I've ever seen such a bold admission of knowingly publishing false information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech Times (techtimes.com), iTech Post (itechpost.com), Gamenguide (gamenguide.com)

What are your opinions regarding Tech Times, iTech Post and Gamenguide? iTech Post was added as a source on an article in my watchlist (diff), but I don't think it's a RS. To my knowledge, neither of these sources have ever made a standalone appearance on RSN.

I'm treating all three under the same section since they all list their address under "Tech Times LLC" in New York City on their contact pages [31], [32], [33]. Currently, Tech Times is used 603 times on Wikipedia, iTech Post 44 times, and Gamenguide 44 times.

There doesn't seem to be a clear editorial policy, and author bios are virtually inexistent across the board. Sponsored content seems to be their business model. This investigation by SocialPuncher, which seems to be an auditing firm specializing in digital ads, and which has been cited in RS in the past (e.g. BBC), links it to the generally unreliable IBT. On page 6, the report points out that hundreds of thousands of visitors from Tech Times vanished overnight, which is definitely suspicious. A 2018 Glassdoor review calls Tech Times a "content mill of rewritten articles" whose articles are created in low-income countries, and where the author doubts that they are based in New York (Socialpuncher, 9). According to Socialpuncher, not much is known about the owners of Tech Times or Tech Times LLC, other than a now-scrubbed bio of former IBT employee Surojit Chatterjee, who was listed in 2014 as founder, publisher and CEO (Socialpuncher, 7.) Some articles on Tech Times also seem to be undisclosed promotional content, in violation of Tech Times' very own Terms of Service (8.1): this article, for example, while not letting the reader know about paid-for content, lists Miss to Mrs Box as one of the best bridal box subscriptions, and links to another website which has a short disclaimer that states that "Miss To Mrs Box sponsored this post". I originally even thought that Miss to Mrs Box was run from Tech Times LLC itself because of this listing, but the former company is based in Canada, so I wouldn't look to deeply into that.

Because of the unreliable parent company, I believe that all three publications should not be considered reliable sources. What do you think? Pilaz (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the modest price of $600, you can hire someone on Upwork to make a "guest post" for you on TechTimes.com so that your own website can get linked to and result in higher visibility in Google searches. I wish I were joking. Pilaz (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Glassdoor reviews are questionable, though the rest of the evidence is compelling. This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Added all three to WP:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364&oldid=1068989725"