Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 26 June 2007

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

• ]

Archives

English vs. non-English sources

The current wording of that section is in direct contradiction with issues like NPOV and countering systemic bias. a "source of the same quality" isn't necessarily a "source that says the same thing with the same authority".

It's a very real issue e.g. for articles about international relations: English-speaking countries are allies, and the prevailing POV in their media and other sources is different from those in other countries. By preferring sources in English, we're preferring the POV of English-speaking countries. Zocky | picture popups 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I am confused by this. To many people, Misplaced Pages is considered a "reliable source". If the Washington Post were to get all of it's information from the New York Times, which got all of it's information from the BBC, then by the time the story got to the Washington Post reader it would be rather skewed. And furthermore, there would be no point in reading the Washington Post because you would get more reliable info from the New York Times or the BBC. Just an example. Obviously all of these newspapers have their own journalists and researchers going out to try and find the facts. This brings us to Misplaced Pages. If we want to remain a reliable source we have to do more than just say the same thing someone else said. Time was Misplaced Pages was built by experts who knew their stuff. Now anyone can post what anything they like and rather than getting deleted it just gets a little tag. If they can find an article talking about it, then no one will ever care. We have to do more than see if one other source said it. We have to see if it is generally excepted as true amongst the experts. Plenty of things are verifiable and completely false. Plenty of things are difficult to verify and completely true. Sure more sources would be good and should be a goal for but it SHOULD NOT be the end all or the be all of this site. If it is the site will quickly degenerate into worthlessness. Olleicua 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the purpose of the guideline for reliable sources. While everything has to be verified with a source, the source itself must be reliable. So, while someone may be able to dig up something that says that martians landed in their backyard 50 years ago, unless it passes the standards set by that page, it can't be included. --13 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, in practice, there are pages on this site that are full of statements that are linked to sources that are not necessarily reliable or otherwise biased and that are ignored. There are also pages full of facts that are well agreed upon by experts that are full of tags added by someone who didn't know what they were talkiong about. Whether a source is reliable or not also happens to be a subjective issue and therefore should not be involved in the Misplaced Pages process. The fact that someone who some people trust said something does not mean that it should be believed by everyone. Olleicua 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I totally agree with you. There are definitely flaws, but that comes with the territory. When you allow anyone to edit, it's going to happen. Usually, however, I think this is caused by someone who just does not know any better. I think the best that can be hoped for is that people who understand the guidelines and know what they're doing go through those articles and tag/de-tag them as needed. If a user is seen doing these things, it should be gently brought to their attention on their talk page so they can learn from the mistake and correct themselves in the future. Unfortunately, it's a massive effort that would never end. --13 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SPS about oneself

I've seen instances where a person has a blog or writes an article on an SPS and that article cannot be used as a source, even about the author. For example, if someone wrote a controversial opinion on a blog, why couldn't their Misplaced Pages page reflect that they made that comment? It seems that the concerns of reliability are less relevant (assuming the person actually wrote the quote in question) if the person is simply speaking about themselves. In short, can something written by a given author in an SPS be used as a source about that author or their opinions? Oren0 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V makes clear that this sort of SPS is ok IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE AUTHOR, and provided all six of the conditions spelled out in WP:V are met. But it is not ok as a source in any other article (like a larger artcle that covers the author along with other topics, or as part of a larger topic). UnitedStatesian 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the first of these criteria, "it is relevant to their notability"? Why can't we use a SPS for basic facts, biographical infromation here. Suppose someone writes on their own web site or blog that they "grew up in Hope, Arkansas," or "my latest album was influenced heavily by "Weird Al" Yankovic's Dare to be Stupid," neither fact makes them notable but it may be relevant to an article about them or their work. -MrFizyx 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the sentence differently. I read it to mean close to "it is relevant information taken into account how they are notable." Rhanyeia 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps we should edit the policy to make it more explicit. What do others think? -MrFizyx 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of criticism?

On the article for the show Man vs. Wild, there has been some fighting recently over the "Controversy" section, which was recently removed altogether. Concerning the show, the Discovery Channel forum is packed full of viewers complaining that the show is a fraud, as are numerous other forums unrelated to the Discovery Channel. Example: google search for "Man vs Wild" and "fake"; you'll get ~17,000 hits.

The question is: how can this be reported on the article with citations -- or can it be reported at all? It's not like Discovery is going to call one of their own shows fake, and there are hardly any reviews of the show at all from "reputable" sources. As the article stands, the widespread criticism isn't even mentioned.

I added many references to the Criticisms section before it was deleted, but the whole section was deleted because the deleter didn't like the quality of the references. I didn't create the criticism section, but since it was full of "fact" requests, I filled them in and expanded the section. The types of references included:

• Links to video clips of the episodes and time offsets into the episodes to see the obvious cases of cheating that people have been complaining about on the forums (a raft supposedly lashed with hibiscus actually bound with manilla cord, a "free climb" of a waterfall actually involving a climbing harness, wearing a life jacket when swimming in a river in the Rockies, and so on.)
• Links to many, many different threads of people complaining about the episodes. This includes people who lived in the areas where he visits. Example: in one episode, he pretended to be lost in the sierras -- first climbing down from a mountain, rafting through a river, walking through a meadow, and swimming across a lake to freedom. Yet, a rafting photographer who used to work on the river that Bear went down and knows the whole area well pointed out that at no point was he far away from civilization, there was a road on the side of the river he went down, rafting companies went by it every 15 minutes, and to get to the lake, he had to walk right past several rafting companies.

Is it impossible to point out these criticisms here? Was my choice of references appropriate? I could also have linked to pictures from the host's own photo gallery clearly showing, for example, that the ends of the bamboo poles are saw cut, not burned off as presented in the episode, and the raft is tethered to the crew's boat near the island, not adrift in the ocean as presented in the episode. Would that be any better, or would that count as "original research"?

Let me know what you think the proper solution to a problem like this is. -- Rei 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You can only really include this kind of thing if you find a reliable source talking about it. If these criticisms about the show are relevant, I'm sure somebody (a magazine or newspaper reviewer perhaps) must have commented on them. JulesH 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New Discovery Channel shows rarely get treatments like that (only the big ones like, say, MythBusters, tend to). I've searched and can't find any non-forum/non-blog reviews that are more in depth than your basic two-paragraph Discovery Channel blurb, and there's only a handful of even those. So... no way to comment on the tens of thousands of annoyed viewers posting all over the place, then, or even to note that they exist? Even though they're pointing out things that you can clearly see with your eyes in the videos (primary sources), plain as day, and commenting based on expertise (such as local residents to the areas he visits)? Also, isn't "many viewers complaining" a primary source to the claim that "many viewers are complaining"? -- Rei 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. In principle, they could all be sockpuppets of a few people. Of course I don't think that is plausible, but the possibility exists.—greenrd 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The other question that invalidates this is what does "many" mean? It would usually be interpreted to mean a significant number, but how do we determine what a significant number of viewers is? I think any way of doing this would inevitably be original research. JulesH 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So, to sum up, in the videos (available at YouTube for a reference) and stills (available at Bear's website), you can see with your eyes rope on the raft, him wearing a life jacket in a river, him wearing a climbing harness when 'free climbing' a waterfall, etc... but we can't mention this, right? Not until a newspaper decides to do a non-blurb review of the show (which may never happen) and comment on this fact, correct? -- Rei 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We can, as editors, make descriptive comments about an image. "This is a cat", "he is standing by a car", "this is a sunset" and so on. What we cannot do is make interpretive or evaluative comments "This is the largest cat in the universe", "This is the worst car ever made", "He will attempt to climb the waterfall but because he's a sorry-ass loser he's going to fall into the pool." Wjhonson 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: If the show is isn't discussed in any independent sources, should we include it? It's one one thing to relax our normal verifiability standards for popular entertainment that's basically fiction. But It's another to do so for anything that claims, or is believed, to be factual. Under our regular standards, we couldn't include anything that can't be independently verified. The whole purpose of verifiability is to protect against this sort of thing. If there's no really commentary on such a show at all, perhaps it simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the criticism part here, I'm talking about the whole article. This article has no independent sources at all. If it can't be verified, shouldn't we delete? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I had a question concerning a comicbook and I sent the writer of it an e-mail. He responded to me. I was wondering if there are any ways to cite this e-mail as the information would be relevant to the article I am working on.--CyberGhostface 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the e-mail is a reliable source, and on top of that it looks like you are conducting original research. I STRONGLY encourage you to leave that information out of Misplaced Pages. UnitedStatesian 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a tag re: reliability

There is an interesting proposal at WP:RS to creating an inline tag for situations where a source is reliable, but hardly the best of sources available. The proposed wording would be something polite and non-confrontational, like . To give you an idea of where such a tag might be used... take an article on an historical topic, containing a statment that cites to a Histroy Channel documentary as a fact source. While the History Channel is not completely unreliable, I hope you would agree that there are probably sources that are more reliable for the same information. However, more community input is needed. (Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages Talk:Reliable sources#Inline tag?) Blueboar 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article should discuss the subject of print sources directly

The opening paragraph of this project page is widely interpreted to mean that web sources are better than print sources because they are more easily checked by random readers. This is not the case and needs clarification.

The discussion of self-publication is sloppily written in such a way to allow for harassment of area experts who are sufficiently prominent to also be involved in the publication process of books and journals.

Also, Misplaced Pages must recognize the fact that many extremely reliable print sources are not readily accessible to random wikipedia readers. Many volumes published by prestigious university presses are printed in editions of only a few hundred copies and may cost hundreds of dollars. They are none-the-less reliable and verifiable sources. The issues arise with newspapers from the pre-web era. --Pleasantville 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pleasantville's comment concerning the opening paragraph. The phrase "any reader should be able to check" ignores the (unfortunate) fact that many of our readers don't have access to a large research library. If the best sources for a particular topic happen to be found only in a few libraries, we should use them, despite their inaccessibility. By doing this, we get a more accurate encyclopedia, and we also give the public access to information that they couldn't otherwise obtain.

Here is a possible rewording of the second sentence that would solve the problem, I believe. Instead of this:

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source.

this:

"Verifiable" in this context means that every addition to Misplaced Pages must be based on existing material published by a reliable source.

Opus33 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How can a reader determine that an assertion has been published by a reliable source if they can't see the source? While academic journals, etc, may cost hundreds of dollars, most reliable ones are collected by university libraries that are accessible (albeit with difficulty) by most readers. If readers can't verify the source text then it's impossible to make sure has been accurately summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the answer is that we only need to have enough editors available who can check the reference sources--as I argued above, it's hopeless and counterproductive to insist that all readers be able to check the source. In fact, however, most of the big libraries are at universities, and make these libraries available to their students--thus to a huge population of WP editors. So I don't see any real problem here. Opus33 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability Standard

Is it true that if a reliable source publishes a book and makes a statement in the book that he or she does not validate with any kind of proof, that this book can still be used as a source for that statement? For example, if author Smith says that Jones murdered 20 people yet offers no footnote or proof to that effect, can editor Johnson edit an article saying that Jones murdered 20 people and list author Smith as a source for this claim and that this falls within WP guidelines for Verifiability? Jtpaladin 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, This actually relates to the previous topic so I have juxtaposed them. I would say, you have to rely on the quality of the source. So, if Smith submitted his book to (for example) the University of Chicago Press, we can be certain that the editors of that press found qualified reviewers, who know the topic of the book, have read through the whole book (they get paid to do this) and made sure that the evidence for the claim of 20 murders was solid. This would have to have happened before the book qualified for publication. University of Chicago Press has to do this, because otherwise long-term they would lose their credibility as a serious academic publisher. On the other hand, if Smith finds a so-called "vanity press", and pays them $5000 to publish the book, then the testimony of the book is worthless.

More generally, the important criteria are: is there peer review, and does the publisher have strong motivation to adhere to the standards of scholarship? Opus33 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Postscript for Jtpaladin: since writing the above, I noticed that you are involved in a big controversy. My advice would be: find a biography of Joe McCarthy, published by an established academic press, that says that alcohol did not play a role in his death. Cite it, and you'll be on very solid ground for purposes of editing and debating your fellow editors. Opus33 03:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opus33, thank you very much for your comments and taking the time to address the issue. My biggest concern is that knowing how political book publishers are more interested in making money from sensational charges and the wanton manner in which these books are released without footnotes and sources for their charges, this really speaks to the heart of Misplaced Pages's basic foundation of verifiability.

How we can allow just any author or set of authors to get away with making unsubstantiated claims when we know for a fact that they are unsubstantiated, opens Misplaced Pages for attack as a repository of fraudulent information. The standard should be, does the author provide sources for whatever charge they are making? In the case in question, you have biographers who are not doctors, who do not have access to medical records, who have never met the person of which they speak, possess no medical evaluation of the person, no authority upon which to speak regarding medical matters, and provide no source for this medical allegation. And this is supposed to be OK with Misplaced Pages rules?!! It's absurdity of the highest order. The only thing we know about this case it that the person in question died from a particular cause of death. That's it. Why we can't simply quote that fact and then allow for speculation apart from that fact is a question I can't get answered.

In my opinion, the reason for so much conflict in Misplaced Pages is because of this very loose standard regarding the use of authors who are either lying, merely copying what they heard from another author, or are simply ignorant of the matter.

Let me give another example. Let's say that 100 books have been written about a particular subject. Then, one day, key material information is discovered that make all the 100 books wrong about the subject. So you have one published source saying one thing and 100 published sources saying another. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines, "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research." Does this seem right?

I know that under "What is a reliable source?" WP:RS, it states, "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." So it appears that if you are not someone with a background in autopsies, medical examinations, medical evaluations, etc. your opinion on the cause of death of a person beyond what is stated in the coroner's report, is inadmissable as a qualified source under this rule. Does my analysis sppear correct to you? In the case in question, "the most reliable sources available to its editors" is the coroner's report since none of the authors have access to the subject's medical records or an opinion from a medical authority who has examined the person in question. Is this a correct line of thinking? I think so.

Of course, this has no bearing on the author's opinion on other issues of the biography of the person being discussed. However, I have seen flat out falsefication of the record of this person by the authors and yet the publishing company, who is principally interested in profits, allows this information to be published without proper citation. So, then the Wiki editor has in his hands, a book from a published source that even though the author is lying, distorting, or simply erring in the record of the subject, it can be used as a source in Misplaced Pages. A simple way to avoid the abuse associated with such a situation is to require that if an author is being cited as a reference for a topic, that the source that the author is using be the true piece of evidence in making the argument of the author. For example, if author Smith were to say that Mr. Jones spent 3 years in the military, that it be incumbent on author Smith to state the document or source that author Smith is using in order to make the claim that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years. Because as I understand the rule now, and correct me if I'm wrong (and please do so by showing me the Wiki rule regarding it), a Wiki editor can simply state that author Smith said that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years and that is all that is required for proper ciation in Misplaced Pages. So if author Smith has the only published source for this information then 100 other authors simply can cite author Smith as a source for the claim that Mr. Jones was in the military for 3 years. Again, does this describe Misplaced Pages's guidelines? Am I right in this assertion? Please let me know.

In summary, my concern is that as we develop more and more into a partisan world where publishing a book is a great deal more simple than it once was; where books now get published all the time with scant levels of foot-noting; where the claims of conspiracy theorists get published by reputable publishing companies; where fact-checking takes a backseat more and more in favor of releasing a book that will generate great profits for the publisher, the Wiki rule of verifiabilty without requesting access to the facts or sources upon which the claims of the author are made, will take Misplaced Pages down a slippery slope of irrelevancy. I believe this is because the current rule of verifiability seemingly omits any requirement that the author be required to provide evidence supporting their claim for a particular issue.

The simple solution would be that if author Smith is making a claim, the Wiki editor can use author A as a source for that claim by citing the publication, page number, etc. However, if that editor is challenged on author Smith's claim, that it be incumbent upon the Wiki editor to further cite the precise source upon which the author rests his claim. If the author has no source or the source is just another in a long chain of authors repeating the same thing over and over without reference to a document or other source-material which could be used as simple evidence, then the Wiki claim can be removed. In other words, just because some author in a book makes a claim of something, does not necessarily make that claim a fact. Why we would allow an author to make a claim of anything less than requiring scholarly supported proof is mystifying.

On the other hand, maybe I've missed some guideline that addresses my concern, if so, I would appreciate a link to it.

Again, I appreciate your time and help and would be very thankful if you could further address this matter. And if in fact Wiki rules are as I outlined above with the author Smith example, that perhaps some dialog be initiated to require a stricter guideline regarding the presentation of evidence to support an argument made by an author. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources discussion from RS

Copy-paste from RS talk

Someone left a note on my talk page saying there was a discussion here about scholarly/non-scholarly sources, but I don't see it. The point is that we use academic and non-academic sources, obviously, and this page must reflect that. SlimVirgin 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching on scholarly would have found it, but it's #A bit that I find questionable. above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No mention of scholarly sources. Any attempt to prioritize them over other mainstream sources flies in the face of V and NPOV. SlimVirgin 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want a caveat based on subject area it might be "Primacy should be given to scholarly sources, particularly in the sciences. Historical and arts topics will often have a greater range of reliable material, scholarly and non-scholarly." It needs a caveat if its to go in at all, but singling out Pop culture, as Tim's edit did, is not the way to do it.

But this will take up two lines on V, so I suggest moving it there. While we're at it, let's tighten the wording on Exceptional claims and move it over as well. Marskell 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The exceptional claims thing is already in V, as I recall. It would definitely be better to discuss this there, because this is just a guideline, and it can't contradict the policies. SlimVirgin 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The exceptional claims is here as a single sentence. I'd suggest unpacking it midway between the length here and at RS, and then removing it from RS. It's a little meandering over there. Marskell 08:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I can't quite follow Slim Virgin's original comment (the phrase "I don't see it" is ambiguous). For what it's worth, here is a restatement of the main content of the previous two sections:

• Publishing organizations that do a lot of prepublication peer review have special claim to our attention, and should be favored over those who don't.
• The organizations most likely to do peer review are the ones where heads roll when error is commited (example). I believe that the outlets that normally show this kind of commitment to accuracy are prestigious journalistic outlets and academic publishers. In contrast, the compilers of (for example) amateur web pages can ignore accuracy as they please.
• We need to combat the truly alarming view (see Pleasantville's contribution) that only resources available to every single reader can be used as WP reference sources. The correct criterion is to use the best sources, so long as they are accessible to at least some WP editors for checking. This is why we should change the wording of the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability page, as I suggested in italics above. Your opinion on this proposed change is solicited.

Thanks for listening. Opus33 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Somethingwe need to decide is if the WP:Verifiability policy should define reliable sources, or if this should be done on the WP:Reliable sources page. I think the verifiability policy should state that reliable sources should be used (as it does at the moment) and the specific page on reliable sources define what this term means and give examples of how it is applied. Does this seem reasonable? Tim Vickers 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a definition would be helpful, because what counts as a reliable source depends heavily on the context. What we encourage people to do is use the most appropriate sources, and then we have to leave what that means to their editorial judgment. If they don't have any editorial judgment, a guideline won't help them anyway. Anything that says peer-reviewed sources are always better in a certain context would almost certainly be wrong at least some of the time. SlimVirgin 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything in Misplaced Pages's policy will be "wrong at least some of the time", which is why we have WP:IAR. But does that mean we should give up on providing guidance? Let's work toward a useful guideline instead of leaving the question wide open to the whims of individual editors. Raymond Arritt 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to give some guidance on what we mean when we use the term "reliable sources" and give some examples of what is reliable and not reliable. Furthermore, I think the best place to do this is on the WP:Reliable sources page. If we give no guidance at all on this subject new editors will have no idea what the WP:Verifiability policy means when it uses this term. Tim Vickers 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RS is a discredited guideline (which doesn't actually say anything that isn't in another policy), so anything added to it will be ignored by most good editors anyway. If you want to develop something, so long as it's not detailed, it's best to develop it here, but we can't, as was suggested at RS, prioritize peer-reviewed material over other reliable, mainstream sources. That idea flies in the face of everything Misplaced Pages stands for. SlimVirgin 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)