Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:36, 17 June 2006

• ]

Archives

Articles sourced too heavily to a single person and to a website operated by that person

The debate on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universism (5th nomination) makes me aware of another potential hazard. Usually, I regard websites operated by organizations as reliable sources for that organization, or at least for that organization's public positions. In the case of small organizations, e.g. house museums, it's very likely that these websites are effectively controlled by a single person. But that's usually not much of a problem.

But... particularly in cases of possible use of Misplaced Pages to promote small or nascent organizations... it is important to be alert for instances in which most of the article content is actually traceable to a single source, and too much of it is traceable to a website under the direct control of that source.

In the case of Universism... it turns out that most of the article--originally entered mostly without sources--can be sourced only to the universism.org website, registered to Ford Vox (founder of "Universism"). The portions that aren't sourced to the website are sourced to writings attributed to Vox, or to articles by reporters interviewing Vox.

The article contains one very mildly negative item: "On March 24, 2006, the Movement's public online form was shut down (according to an email from Ford Vox) "because the quality of conversation had deteriorated, reflecting badly on the state of our Movement and had become a detriment to new members," with a pledge to open "a new forum in the near future."--which had been linked to the Universism website. It was removed by an editor whose interests appear to be closely aligned with Vox's, with the comment "Please note that your source link doesn't work. The information is false."

Indeed, the link no longer works. Universism.org has apparently been excluded from indexing by archive.org for some time. The link does exist in Google's cache, but not indefinitely.

All of this is trivial, but I do find it to be a concern that we have a situation where an entire Misplaced Pages article is sourced almost entirely to a single individual, and mostly to a website he controls, so that he is effectively able to control the article content by altering the cited material (or dumping it down the memory hole). Fortunately it's not an important article.

But if someone had previously post this situation to me as a possibility I wouldn't have believed it could be a problem in practice. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dpb, the policy says that we may use personal websites, and the websites of organizations that wouldn't normally be good sources, in articles about themselves so long as the material is "notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by third-party sources." It sounds as though the first two conditions were violated by this article. People controlling Misplaced Pages content by adding material to websites, then citing the websites as sources, is becoming a bigger problem all the time. It might be a good idea to start keeping track of examples so we can determine how much of an issue it is. SlimVirgin 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it. (Needless to say this is not a perfectly clear example and my characterization of it could probably be disputed...) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation you are discussing is exactly why Web sites should be avoided as much as possible as sources. As far as I can tell, the only people who have a real reason to object are people living in Third World countries or very rural areas where decent libraries are hard to find. For the vast majority of topics---including fictional universes like Star Trek---one can always find a good book or article at the library. --Coolcaesar 02:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another situation that brings such sites to the fore on Misplaced Pages is certain anti-(anything) sites. That is, a personal website created by an individual to oppose an idea. There is an anti-narconon site against Narconon and an anti-scientology site against Scientology, all personal websites whose owner has one objective. Such sites are attractive to opponents and are overused in the Dianetics and Scientology articles. Terryeo 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Native language question

What if I have a good source, but it's in Spanish? If I translate the quoted text, is my translation considered a WP:OR violation or does it mean that my source is not reliable? Hdtopo 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's no published translation, you can translate it yourself. When I've done that, I've posted the English version, and then directly below it the original-language version, so that readers can check it for themselves. SlimVirgin 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. Hdtopo 07:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

books.google.com, amazon.com

These and other internet companies have begun scanning the contents of academic libraries systematically. There is, of course, a copyright controversy over it. What's important is they are far enough along to be a great help in finding pages inside books that discuss a subject -- and sometimes a book whose credibility you're trying to judge. Do folk here think this is useful enough to put on this page or another as a helpful hint? If so, I'll write it up. --CTSWyneken 21:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find them invaluable. The copyright issue does not apply to Amazon (which gets explicit permission). Note that Google also puts on line full texts of many pre 1923 books. Rjensen 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From our perspective, you're right about copyright, especially if we do not link to a google image page. There's enough info in these to fully cite them as if they were physical books in our hands. So, do you think a tip about them has its place on this page somewhere as a suggestion? --CTSWyneken 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note about the google image is a good beginning. Terryeo 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll write something up and put it here first for review. --CTSWyneken 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many other companies that have already scanned in a huge amount of books (Questia, ProQuest Chadwyck-Healey) and articles (ProQuest, LexisNexis, Thomson Gale, InfoBank). See Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article. Of course, the problem with them is that you either have to subscribe directly (at enormous personal expense) or be affiliated with an academic institution or public library that subscribes. We have many community colleges in California (see California Community Colleges system) so one can always visit a community college campus if there aren't any decent public libraries nearby, but I don't know about other parts of the world. --Coolcaesar 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true. As a librarian, I myself have such power (*evil laugh*)... ;-) I can search almost all ancient greek and latin texts (if I wish). For our purposes, I'll emphasize the open engines. I'll also mention the fact of Subscription databases along with the other advice.--CTSWyneken 11:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Text

Well, here it is. I worry that it might be a bit long and I'm not sure where to place it on the page. What do you all think of it? Do not be shy. Feel free to edit it and or tell me to go away!

Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming. Your local public or academic library may not have the work cited by an article on its shelves. Often you can ask for a book through interlibrary loan, but this can sometimes take several weeks to do. Fortunately, new tools are now available online to make this work easier. Services such as Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!” , the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project allow you to search the full text of thousands of books. In addition, many similar subscription-based services may be available to though your public, college, university or graduate school libraries.

To check on facts and citations in Misplaced Pages, however, these databases are powerful tools. You can search them the same way that you do in an internet search. Enter the author in quotation marks and the title in quotation marks. If the book is in the database already, the search engine will find it. If it isn’t, you may discover another work that discusses the book you seek. For subjects, enter as many terms as you can recall. The engines will display a list of pages that contain these terms. Often you will be able to verify the fact you are checking or discover a significant point of view not represented in the Misplaced Pages article.

When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. Please do not link to the online version of these books. The copyright status of many of them is in litigation. --CTSWyneken 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research in exterior links

There's a discussion in Misplaced Pages Talk:External links about whether or not original links can constitute original research. Misplaced Pages:External links lists, among links to avoid:

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

However, I was under the impression that WP:NOR only applied to the actual content of articles. Having read it along with this page a bit more carefully, I understand that exterior webpages about something that hasn't been talked about in reliable sources can also constitute original research. Is that right? How could we make things clearer on Misplaced Pages:External links?

(Yes, I'm aware that there seems to be tons of discussion of this or something approaching in the archives :P I'm looking for a new start with a more concrete goal: how to better formulate that on the policy page?) Flammifer 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Owners of Personal Websites editing their counter-articles

The Narconon talk page has an interesting entry at its top. An editor who is active in the article states that it is his site which is anti-narconon, and is used within the article. Presently it is being used as a citation within the article to present the controversy. Is there a policy or guideline which specifically spells out that an individual should not use his (or her) personal site as a source of secondary information or convenience links to Misplaced Pages articles? Terryeo 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of linking to your own site, Misplaced Pages:External links suggests you not do it yourself, but you may mention it on a talk page, and let others do it. But, in the case you refer to, it seems somebody else (not the owner) brought up the site anyhow. The fact a site is owned by a Wikipedian does not exclude its usage. As well, the current version seems to only use the site as an External Link, and not as a "Reference". Also, it's ok to add facts with a citation to a reliable source, even if the editor originally learned those facts from a non-reliable source. --Rob 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense, especially as an exterior link. What I've seeing in some of the articles is a responsiveness to Misplaced Pages edits. That is, a wikipedia article "kind of needs" a source of information about a particular point. *poof* a personal website suddenly has exactly the document which is then used as a secondary source, a repository sort of document which is linked to. Compared to linking directly to the source document, the personal website holds the document on its site and the document is linked to there. This makes a lot of links to personal websites. Not as secondary sources, but as "repository sources" or "convenience links".Terryeo 07:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That is, a wikipedia article "kind of needs" a source of information about a particular point. *poof* a personal website suddenly has exactly the document which is then used as a secondary source, Terryeo, that is an interesting accusation and it is one that I would like to explore further since you are implying that other editors are engaging in bad faith editing. Are you able to point out a specific diff which documents this event happening? I do not believe that any editor has created a document and put it on a personal site in order to then use it as a response in a Misplaced Pages article. And secondly, when you demand citations for claims and then "*poof*" the citations appear, you should not assume bad faith. There are many places for you to verify the authenticity of the source material and despite your nearly endless supply of free time to vandalise articles here you have not discovered a single instance where an editor has added an improper convenience link (one that was not an accurate duplication of the original). Vivaldi (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're implying that someone has to vandalize Misplaced Pages to make a point before you'll believe it. That's smart. Personal Web sites are inherently unreliable due to the lack of any filtering or editing mechanisms. There is no need to rely on such unreliable sources when there are many excellent reputable databases available with millions of articles from established publications. See Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article.--Coolcaesar 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that. Yes, there may be many reputable databases with articles from reputable publications, but they don't contain the sum of human knowledge (or even more than a fraction of it). Personal websites may have information from reputable third party sources which isn't to be found anywhere else online, such as old newspaper articles or out-of-print books.

As for Terryeo's claims, he has for some time been pushing a bizarre theory that if such things are hosted on a personal website they're somehow contaminated and can't be cited or referenced. Since this seems to have been laughed out of court by everyone else, he's now pushing the theory that people are creating content on other websites just so that it can be quoted on Misplaced Pages. I've never seen any evidence of this (and Terryeo has presented none) but if it ever did become an issue, our usual rules on citations would deal with it anyway. He's already been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for tendentious editing and wikilawyering, so I suggest that you don't take him too seriously on this issue. -- ChrisO 09:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you take the care to point out to people the result of the arbitration you brought against me ChrisO, and it isn't wrong of you to inform other's of my status. I don't appreciate that you suggest people ignore me, as you have done in several places already. And its true, I often am pointing out that personal websites are being used as secondary sources of information within wikipedia articles. For example, the article, Volunteer_Ministers presently has a "References" subsection and within that subsection appears an essey by Chris Owen (that's you, right Chris?) which is titled: Casualty Contact (Chris Owen) and which concludes with the statement, "This, evidently, is the true context of "Casualty Contact". An essey which is unpublished by any recognized publisher, but appears on Karen Splink's own personal website and is listed as a Reference within the article. Here's the link to that subsection and the link to Chris Owen's personal essey which appears on Karen's site. Volunteer_Ministers#References, Casualty Contact (Chris Owen) That's the area of my question. I'm not making an accusation, though it appears some people think I am, I'm not suggesting bad faith, I'm not attempting to wikilawyer anyone, I am attempting to get good quality sources for controversial topics. As compared to personal esseys on personal websites. Terryeo 08:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other places besides the Internet that collectively hold the sum of human knowledge. They're called libraries. I make a point of writing down a citation or two for a Misplaced Pages topic I'm interested in almost every time I go to the public library or the public law library. It's not that hard.

It seems to me that most people pushing the use of personal Websites on Misplaced Pages are those too lazy or incompetent to go down to the library and dig up legitimate sources (as I have for Lawyer). I don't know about other parts of the world, but here in California, we have a huge number of public libraries, community college libraries, university libraries, public law libraries, and archives. I think the total number within a 10 mile radius of where I am right now is well over 100. I'm sure other urban U.S. states as well as certain European countries can easily match that density.

And as for old articles, ProQuest Historical Newspapers continues to scan in a huge number of old newspapers every single day. That's how I got the citations from the 1930s for the Freeway article. --Coolcaesar 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Making Misplaced Pages a reliable source

What can be done to make Misplaced Pages itself a reliable source?:

Note that Misplaced Pages itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines...

At present anyone with spare time on their hands and a PC can edit, revert, vandalize, and otherwise waste other people's hard work, and there is absolutely no form of "finality" to an article. It is always vulnerable.

1. Is anything happening on the "who is allowed to edit" front?

2. Is anything being done to establish some form of protection for reasonably complete articles?

I am not proposing that articles should ever reach a point at which no editing is ever allowed, just that at some point reasonably complete articles should be protected from vandalism and unhelpful edits. Further editing should only be allowed after consensus is reached, and the agreed upon edit is then performed by an authorized administrator who has responsibility for the article. -- Fyslee 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages will never be a reliable source by its own standards, nor should it be. In general tertiary sources should not be used by other similiar tertiary sources (like anything, there are exceptions). Rarely should one encyclopedia cite another one. Same goes for secondary sources. The New York Times and Washington Post generally shouldn't rely on one another, but instead each should do their own original reporting (or reprint a news service that does). To do anything else creates an infinite gossip loop. Our WP:NOR policy ensures that, any encyclopedia with an equivilent WP:RS policy, could never use us. If an organization does fact checking themselves, that's original research. If they don't do their own fact checking they're not a reliable source. I think the wording in WP:RS you mentioned probably needs to be changed to remove the word "currently". --Rob 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Added: I obviously do want us to be reliable, but not in the sense of the term, defined in WP:RS. --Rob 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

fact checking is not original research. Original research means interviewing people or studying primary documents or running lab experiments. Fact checking is looking at several published reliable sources, which editors do all the time.Rjensen 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem we have here, is Misplaced Pages has somewhat unique working definitions of words. A typical writer (say at a newspaper), could take various secondary sources together, analyse them, and come up with some novel finding, and be the first to publish it. Outside Misplaced Pages, normally that's not called "original research" as they didn't go to primary sources. However, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, that is original research, and prohibited. Almost any newspaper story that is a reliable source for us, involved what we would call original research. That is, a Wikipedian editor could not directly do the same type of "fact checking" that the newspaper writer did, without breaking WP:NOR. --Rob 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report, FEMA Report, and NIST Reports on 9/11 vs. Conspiracy Theories

On the talk page for Collapse of the World Trade Center a user has been making the argument that various 9/11 conspiracy theorists are essentially just as valid and reliable as the reports on 9/11 put out by the 9/11 commision , FEMA, and NIST, because the latter 3 are not peer reviewed, and that the 9/11 Commision report is not relevant because Congressmen are not qualified to speak on matters of structural engineering.

I know there is some sort of flaw in his argument, but I can't find a Misplaced Pages policy to back me up on this one. (And I've really been looking)--DCAnderson 10:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I am the user in question, and I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that FEMA, NIST or Commission reports are invalid or that "various 9/11 conspiracy theorists" are valid. DCAnderson, User:Mongo and others have been trying to enforce a inclusion threshold of 'peer review'. However, I have been simply pointing out that such a threshold, applied without bias, would also exclude the NIST FEMA and Commission reports, which is something no-body wants to do. Seabhcán 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Scale

Couldn't we scale sources? Usenet posts (newsgroups) would be the most unreliable (don't know who posted, don't know where from).Then Bulletin Boards (hosted on one person's server, other unknowns apply. Then Weblogs (blogs) and then Personal Websites. Personal websites are frequently being used in a responsive manner in the Scientology articles, where a hard to find source (such as Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky is hosted on a personal website and linked as a reference. If we made up a scale, a "Reliability of Source Scale" then an editor could look at a reference, compare it to the references he knows of, an put his reference into an article if it was more reliable. Today, editors don't have a quick scale handy, but only have the concepts spelled out for them with just a few mentions of "don't use newsgroups". Terryeo 00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Socialist Worker Party a Good Example of "extremist?"

The Reliable Sources article identifies the UK SWP as an "extremist source" right next to the white power stormfront.org. Is this appropriate? The SWP campaigns against war and is anti-racist. The headline at their website now is in support of gov't pensions. Extremist? I'm not ruling out that I missed something about them. Can anyone else comment about UK SWP and whether the example should be changed? DanielM 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this example. I would argue that the UK Socialist Worker Party is not widely considered as holding "extremist" views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Intent to add text to the Project Page

Dear Friends: I've had this text on the talk page for a day or two and intend to move it to the project page tomorrow. Does anyone object to this? Have any tweaking they'd like to see in it?

Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming. Your local public or academic library may not have the work cited by an article on its shelves. Often you can ask for a book through interlibrary loan, but this can sometimes take several weeks to do. Fortunately, new tools are now available online to make this work easier. Services such as Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!” , the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project allow you to search the full text of thousands of books. In addition, many similar subscription-based services may be available to though your public, college, university or graduate school libraries.

To check on facts and citations in Misplaced Pages, however, these databases are powerful tools. You can search them the same way that you do in an internet search. Enter the author in quotation marks and the title in quotation marks. If the book is in the database already, the search engine will find it. If it isn’t, you may discover another work that discusses the book you seek. For subjects, enter as many terms as you can recall. The engines will display a list of pages that contain these terms. Often you will be able to verify the fact you are checking or discover a significant point of view not represented in the Misplaced Pages article.

When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. Please do not link to the online version of these books. The copyright status of many of them is in litigation. --CTSWyneken 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

popular culture

I'm not particularly impressed by this addition of a "Popular culture & and fiction" section. To me it sets the bar pretty low for reliable sources. I didn't revert it, since it appears to be based on an arbcom decision. Of course, popular culture publications don't have the same standards of reliability that scientific ones do. But I also don't think we should accept truly lousy sources, just because they're the best of a bad lot. If the best source covering an item is the National Enquirer, then maybe we shouldn't mention it. --Rob 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps... that's more of a notability/encyclopedic value question than a verifiability or referencing question. My real point was to counteract the more hardline view towards internet forums, mailing lists and so on above that don't apply to the same extent to certain popular culture items. Now, if peer reviewed acedemic studies about television shows, movies and so on are available, then they should be used. But they often aren't, so we have to make due with the best material that exists, as per the Arbitration Committee decision I cited (Here).--Sean Black 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a *huge* gulf between peer reviewed journals and internet forms/mailing lists. Peer reviewed journals (to my knowledge) are almost never available (for this type of thing). So, we can't demand that level of sourcing. But still, web forms and mailing lists are also almost always useless garbage to normally be avoided. To me Court TV coverage of a celibrity trial is an example, of a reasonable source. It's not nearly as reliable as I would like. But if Court TV says something about Michael Jackson, I'll accept that as a valid source. I know their sensationilistic, and ratings seekers. But we can't be so picky to exclude them (as long as we cite them appropriately). But, if there's a widely circulated story on message forums about Michael Jackson, but not in a professional media outlet, then that's garbage, that should never be used, and would actually be a violation of WP:LIVING (if it was of a negative nature). Also, the ArbCom case, seemed to involve dead people, whereas, normally pop culture edits are about the living. Also, I hope I misread you completely. I hope you agree that mailings lists are rarely reliable sources, and never useable for contentious matters. --Rob 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I was speaking too generally when I really meant a more specific area. I used several USENET posts as references on Kamen Rider Stronger... Special Duty Combat Unit Shinesman is almost strictly sourced from personal websites— My problem is that this page makes says "never", which just isn't true. See also this post on the mailing list.--Sean Black 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the line "However, keep in mind, that personal websites and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources", just to make clear, that while we're relaxing standards, we're not throwing them out the window. This isn't a change in policy, just a restatement, which seemed necessary. --Rob 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how citing the best source available lowers the bar. I would think that the unilateral exclusion of all x sources could limit what information we can give, making the project less effective. It's not saying to go all out with questionable sources, but there could be instances where a usually questionable source can be fairly reliable. Misplaced Pages is known for having articles on obscure topics, and obscure topics don't tend to show up in peer reviewed journals. Just my two cents. --Keitei (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's what newspapers and magazines are for. There are many respectable well-edited publications like the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's Weekly which publish articles on a wide variety of interesting but obscure topics. You can find practically anything on ProQuest or LexisNexis or Infotrac nowadays---that's how I researched most of the articles which I have contributed to Misplaced Pages (see my user page). As I have said before and will say again, my personal suspicion is that the editors most resistant to digging up respectable sources are either living in areas with no libraries or are simply too lazy to go down to the library and dig up some real sources. --Coolcaesar 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative newspaper

How do we determine if New Times Los Angeles is a reliable source? It's website looks suspicious http://www.newtimesla.com/ --Nikitchenko 11:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The http://www.newtimesla.com/ is no longer owned by New Times Los Angeles. The site itself is a domain name parking FOR SALE sign and it registered out of Taipai, Taiwan. The New Times Los Angeles is no longer in operation. However, you are correct to point out that the New Times Los Angeles was an alternative newsweekly. As an alternative newsweekly, their articles are not generally subjected to the same rigorous editing and fact-checking that occurs at larger papers, like the LA Times, NY Times, or Wash Post. Thus, factual claims made by New Times Los Angeles should be considered in that light. Are the claims they are making supported by other more reliable sources? Are the New Times claims consistent with the testimony of other parties found elsewhere? I don't think we can automatically exclude as reliable sources the alternative newsweeklies, but we should make sure that the information they provide is supported by other reliable sources. Vivaldi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

N.B. One notable example of an article being based almost solely on the content of a newsweekly is Sollog. Vivaldi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of consolodation in the "alternative" weekly business, and the LA version of New Times was a casualty of that, but a chain of New Times papers in other cities has continued. I believe that chain has since merged with Village Voice Media, and that group now owns many of the better-established "alternative" papers, including LA Weekly and the Village Voice in New York. Despite the "alternative" label, these papers are run by large corporations who are sensitive to lawsuits and they do indeed have editorial and fact-checking staffs. BTfromLA 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

these papers are run by large corporations who are sensitive to lawsuits and they do indeed have editorial and fact-checking staffs. In the larger market areas this industry has been consolidated, with Village Voice running most of the nations alternatives. However, these papers still have a tendency to engage in hype, innuendo, and tabloid-style stories. (On the other hand, they have done a lot of good things, exposing a number of fraudulant politicians and companies.) I'm not suggesting these groups are all bad, but merely that they sometimes engage in journalism that is unprofessional (if news journalism can even be "professional"). There is a tendency for Misplaced Pages editors to overvalue comments that are placed in newspapers. When evaluating sources, researchers in general do not consider newspapers to be an accurate source for information. This is in large part because many newspapers, and especially newspapers in the "alternative" market, do not require their journalists to receive any training at all in the craft of journalism. There are no independent tests given to journalists to prove they are competent before they are given access the front pages. Newspapers are not peer-reviewed. Newspapers generally don't have fact-checkers go back and investigate their reporters sources to make sure they are quoting people correctly (or even if the sources exist at all). In some cases, reporters are allowed to use anonymous sources to make their claims, which makes them even more suspect. The whole point being. Yes, alternative newsmagazines can be used by wikipedians as sources, however they should also consider that such sources are not the best kinds of sources and editors should strive to find more reliable sources that back up the information. If claims are truly notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, they should have been reported on by more than one reliable and reputable source. Vivaldi (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment on that issue. An assertion drawn from an alt weekly article should always be backed up with corroborating sources. I have worked in journalism. Generally the quality of journalism is highest at the big newspapers of record like the NYT and WSJ, because most people who have reached that level are smart enough to not wreck their own careers by making stuff up (Jayson Blair being the obvious exception). However, journalists at alt weeklies are often independent writers with very odd backgrounds. --Coolcaesar 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To Link or not to Link...

Rjensen makes the point that we should not restrict editors based on future court findings. Fair enough. This still leaves the question as to whether or not it is fair to link to them. Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works asks that we do not link to infringing works. There is a very good chance that the Google Books] versions of copyrighted works are infringing. They are not produced for an educational use, they are by-and-large copyrightable works, the copying is of the complete works and their is an argument that Google will supress sales of electronic versions of these works by placing them online.

So, what, if any, should we say to our editors about this? --CTSWyneken 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Google books is set up to let you view a small portion of a book, not the whole thing. Whether or not it is fair use is argued by many. I'd prefer that editors of wikipedia just link to the ISBN numbers of books rather than to google books directly. Then the admins and controlling board of wikipedia can decide what to do with the links to the ISBN as a group. Vivaldi (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll put it in! --CTSWyneken 12:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let the editors link to google books. If Google is found to be copyvio, the links will go dead. If not then we have given users a remarkable resource. Rjensen 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk about timing; try Scan this Book! about the effort to scan every book ever written. --CTSWyneken 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Over zealous fact tagging

I find an increasing number of articles that are over linked and over fact tagged. By over linked I mean an article where there are links to every word including links that are ambiguous and wrong.

By over fact tagging I mean the cases where there is a citation in the introduction to basic information about the subject that gives a set of pretty obvious, basic facts. Then when the facts are mentioned later in the article there will be a fact tag on practically every other word .

Could we have a note to the effect that before fact tagging people should familiarize themselves with the citations in the introduction? --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to ask how many citations we really want in an article. Do we want to, say, require a note for Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence? Or do we save it for less known facts?

It seems at the moment that we do not insist on citations for non-controversial subjects, but insist on it in every phrase for articles like Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current situation as described by CTSWyneken. That's the logical result of having an encyclopedia where anyone can post information and anyone else can challenge it. Assertions about controversial subjects will be challenged more often, necessitating more citations to sources that support them. --Coolcaesar 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the policy pages say that all statements have to be sourced, cited and properly attributed, editors that want their contributions to have a chance of staying in an article have to cite and attribute every sentence. Drogo Underburrow 03:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, practically speaking, how do we decide which articles we should tag? Then, how often? The rules of thumb I've always gone by, and taught, is as follows:

If you find the same information in two or more sources, you may summarize this information without a note. If less, you should cite at least one source. If you quote a source, even a phrase, you must cite it. Even though you need not cite common knowledge, as described in the first rule, your readers may find it helpful to cite a good example for further research. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out that WP:V does not say that all statements must be sourced. In fact, it doesn't say anything about sourcing individual statements at all, just that material included in WP should have already been published somewhere. Inline citations for statements is a requirement for featured articles, not every article. That said, inline citations are probably best to justify controversial statements. But I personally think that the {{fact}} tag is being overused because except in the case of controversial statements or statements whose verifiability is not settled, and except for articles trying to reach featured status, this tag is not really necessary. Mangojuice 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go somewhere in the middle. It is helpful to source things, for the same reasons academics cite sources. First, it give intellectual credit to the scholar the first made the contribution to scholarship. Second, if we have the "I want to know more" feeling, we have some idea where to start.

So I guess the question is: does everyone find the text of Reliable sources sufficient on this point? And, no matter what the answer to that question, will my little rules of thumb paragraph be useful on it? --CTSWyneken 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is a good addition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, could you provide some examples of articles that are overcited? SlimVirgin 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When to cite

The following was added by CTSWyneken, and is something that might conflict with other policies, so I'm moving it here for discussion. SlimVirgin 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When Citations are required; Some Rules of Thumb

There are no hard and fast rules as to when a citation is required. Here are a few rules of thumb to use when trying to decide whether a citation should be requested:

1. If you find the same information in two or more sources, you may summarize this information without a note.
2. If less than two or three sources have this information, you should cite at least one source.
3. If you quote a source, even a phrase, you must cite it.
4. Even though you need not cite common knowledge, as described in the first rule, your readers may find it helpful to cite a good example for further research.

That's fine. I had it here for awhile for that purpose. With which policies do you see a conflict? --CTSWyneken 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly V, CITE, and NOR, especially the last bit about "common knowledge." The rule that "if you find the same information in two or more sources," you don't need a reference, is completely new, not a good idea, and definitely clashes with V and NOR. SlimVirgin 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll review them. Thanks! If so, that's kind of odd, don't you think? Do we need a cite for every phrase? If we don't go by common knowledge, at least as a rule of thumb, isn't that where we're at? Even though I've written them, personally I don't like reading and correcting five page papers with forty footnotes. --CTSWyneken 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We use common sense and provide citations for any point that is likely to be challenged, or that readers might be interested to pursue, or any point that is actually challenged. SlimVirgin 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever seen one article that was over-cited, and it was a biography someone had complained about, which is why there was that reaction. Our big problem on Misplaced Pages is lack of citation, so our policies and guidelines shouldn't say anything that appears to discourage it. SlimVirgin 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I do agree that we do need a lot more citation. But I do think a little honesty with folk will go a long way. (we shouldn't say, "cite everything" when we mean, "make sure we know where things come from." )But, if others agree with you and if it is impossible to reconcile with the other policies, I can drop this rule. What do you think of the others? --CTSWyneken 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the policies says "cite everything." The only one of your suggestions I'd agree with is the need for a citation when quoting, but that's not an issue for WP:RS, although there's no harm in adding it, but it's probably more for WP:CITE. SlimVirgin 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about quoting to Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources, because you're quite right that it should be mentioned somewhere, and I see no harm in adding it here too if it's not already explicit. SlimVirgin 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that line to Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources/

I'll do a policy/guideline reread and get back to the discussion after that. I still think that, while we do not say it, we imply everything should be cited, unless we say something about it.

Perhaps it would help to ponder some examples. Should we require a cite for:

1. London is the capital city of Great Britain.
2. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
3. Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, Italy.
4. The composition of the ink used by Johannes Gutenberg to print the Gutenberg Bible.

Given we can agree on these, how do we explain to new editors how to disern which to cite? --CTSWyneken 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot give a cite for that, because I only remember what suprizes me and due to that I can give a cite from a reputable source that Aarhus is a city in the Netherlands. Can I use that reputable source for the article Aarhus? : ) Andries 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is really reputable and not just reputed to be so. ;-) --CTSWyneken 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A quote that may or may not be helpful:

Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to indentify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked ... the primary criterion is sufficient information to lead readers to the sources used, whether these are published or unpublished materials, in print or electronic form. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), 594, para. 16.1-2.--CTSWyneken 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites as secondary sources

An example of a personal website being used to publish an individual's personal opinion and then using that publication as a secondary source of information can presently be found at Volunteer_Ministers, Note 4. Chris Owen (User:ChrisO), an administrator who edits the Scientology articles, wrote an essay which concluded; "This, evidently, is the true context of "Casualty Contact"." and that essay was placed on a personal website and is used within an article to define what Chris Owen means by "casualty contact". The article goes on then, stating more about "casualty contact" after introducing what Chris Owen understands the term to mean. Terryeo 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't edited that article, ever, I haven't added that reference to the article and I don't think it's an appropriate reference to include. I note that you haven't bothered to bring it to my attention but choose instead to make insinuations of misconduct behind my back on policy pages - not the first time you've done that, either. Frankly, it's just more of the dishonest trouble-making conduct we've come to expect from you. -- ChrisO 01:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Because you are the author of publication I appreciate that you are concerned and say so. However, if you will carefully read both the above and this post, you will find at no point have I done any of the things which you state.

• I did not state that you added that reference to that article.
• I did not ask you whether you thought that was an appropriate reference.
• I did not bring it to your attention because you are not the person who is most active in WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS.
• I made no insinuation of misconduct, either behind your back nor to your face.
• You have, however, accused me of "dishonest trouble-making" and that verges on personal attack. Please stop your personal attacks, User:ChrisO. Terryeo 00:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are patents peer-reviewed sources?

Are patents peer-reviewed sources, suitable for use as primary sources? On the one hand, the patent clerks who examine them are, to a degree, experts in the field. On the other hand, some notorious patent applications have slipped through from time to time. Gerry Ashton 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only read a little in the area. While early patents might have been written by the inventors, modernly, patent application, review and granting has become a cumbersome process. So much so that I have read, for some things, people choose to simply market, rather than apply for patent. There may exist somewhere today, some small country wherein patents are not a specialized, high-tech, legal battlegrounds of experts, but in most countries it is beyond easy description. Applications expect peer-review, they are specifically written to withstand extreme peer-reviewed scrutiny, yet stand up to scrutiny and protect the inventor's idea. Terryeo 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish! The target audience of papers and patents is different. With a paper you want to establish scientific cred, a patent OTOH is to hedge your bets against competitors. Dr Zak 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To echo Dr Zak: Patents, are a RS as far as the patent claims go--in other words, if Megasoft Corp claims to patent technology X (or even to invent it), an issued patent on X is a reliable source for that claim. (Though an active dipute may seek to dilute the soundness of the claim--but if a source is disputed; that may become the province of NPOV). They're probably of little use as a general reference on technology or science matters--not because of the (in)competence of the patent office (in whatever jurisdiction), but because patents are not written to inform the world at large of the details of a discovery; they're written to inform the world what is claimed as a protected invention. The style and construction of prose used in a patent is notoriously difficult for laypersons to decipher, and often includes superfluous items (and a great deal of redundancy) to allow the application to cover as many bases as possible.--EngineerScotty 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read pleanty of patents in my time, and I agree that the claims section is usually indecipherable to anyone but a patent lawyer; even scientists and engineers will have a difficult time with the claims. However, the description of the invention is supposed to enable a person skilled in the art to build the invention, and I've seen some patents that have a very useful description. So, I generally would not look to patents to learn about a subject, but if I happened to know of one that was worthwhile, I am wondering if it is considered a peer-reviewed source for use in Misplaced Pages or other places where peer-reviewed sources are preferred. Gerry Ashton 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it like this (and WP:RS explicitly mentions this): just because it's printed it isn't necessarily true. Sometimes results are misinterpreted, sometimes papers are just made up. The consensus formed after publication is much much more important than the conclusions drawn from a paper (or a patent). Dr Zak 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just found this in the bowels of Misplaced Pages: Brown's gas. The article quotes several patents and the claims are Total Bollocks altogether. Dr Zak 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with the current patent system is that patents are not being subjected to peer review, or in many cases adequate review. The proof of this is found in the patents that have been issued for perpetual motion machines, or for lossless compression methods which achieve compression on all inputs (to give you an idea of how strong a proof that is that patent != peer-reviewed, the existence of a perpetual motion machine would merely require setting aside all experimental observations that have ever been made regarding the law of thermodynamics, but the existence of a lossless compression method which achieves compression on all inputs would require setting aside '2 > 1'.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Court Testimony

I propose that additional information be added to explain the following statement from this guideline:

"Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer..."

It should be explained that merely claiming something came from a court stenographer is not sufficient. Some type of reference information needs to be given to make the average person capable of contacting a specific PLACE to give some REFERENCE information that would be sufficient to allow a reader to receive that particular information. I am not sure exactly what that is, as I have never had to perform this action to get a court transcript. Secondly, this guideline should make it clear that TESTIMONY in a court cannot be "hearsay evidence". The word "testimony" is derived from the Latin root "to witness", and it must pertain to the knowledge that the witness has received information first hand through his own senses. One cannot fully accept testimony under oath where a man swears that a "several people told" him that a certain person has been "hanging around the bank window planning a robbery for several days". The only reliable part of this testimony is the fact that some people told him this. The man who took the oath did not witness this. It is merely "heresay evidence" as to the content of WHAT those people said to him. The only way that what those people said could become reliable is if they themselves actually took an oath and gave their own testimony. The court stenographer would have to be asked if another transcript may contain other testimony of other witnesses. --Diligens 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens, in citing court transcripts, all we would do is quote them, or very carefully paraphrase, and give a full citation. We don't judge whether any given witness is credible. Please see WP:NOR. SlimVirgin 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Testimony under oath probably has a bit more credibility than claims made otherwise; and testimony which supports a finding by the Court a bit more so. At any rate, court transcripts and documents are certainly a RS concerning what was stated at trial or in briefings; even if we don't accept them as evidence concerning the veracity of an individual's testimony. --EngineerScotty 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable?

I propose that we should change “Reliable sources” to “Credible sources”. I am currently in an argument with another editor, trying to explain why his fansite is not an appropriate source. He argues that the information has been consistently more accurate than major media outlet IGN. This is a good point, but to me it reflects more of a semantics problem than an actual flaw in procedure. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Polish sources not reliable?

Some editors seem to be suggesting that since an article uses Polish (academic) sources it must be POVed. Comments appeciated at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Index of reliability

I have started a discussion closely related to 'evaluating sources' sections on this policy page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Index_of_.27sources_of_dubious_reliability.27_needed. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Methylphenidate Revert War

I am currently engaged in a revert war on the Methylphenidate page with User talk:PHenry. He is accusing me of violating the terms of this page by including a link to negative information on that drug. The links I added are reports of people with negative side effects on this drug. I did not include the information on the website in the body of the article - I merely added a link. Is that a violation of this policy? I think not, but PHenry insists that I am doing something wrong. See Talk:Methylphenidate for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsk (talk • contribs)

We shouldn't give undue weight to what may be doubtful assertions. Personal websites that make them are always doubtful. We can't include them and we can't link to them either, as that would give an unproven assertion undue weight. Dr Zak 02:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the external links section carries no burden of neither reputability, nor verifiability. If that is not the case, we ought to make thsi very clear in this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So I'm looking for an interpretation. Is it acceptable for me to put disputed links in the external links section of that article? I belive that the answer is 'yes'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsk (talk • contribs)

I think the external links policy is clear. Section "Links to normally avoid" states "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" This is actually sane. Especially some medical subjects attract endless amounts of quackery and advocacy. We don't permit those in the article and shouldn't give them undue weight by linking to them externally. Of course we can (and should!) say many people believe that $MEDICATION is a bad reputation because of $SIDE-EFFECTS, but there must be a better way to back that up than someone's blog. Dr Zak 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Important to say that WP itself is not a reliable source

I'm restoring the sentence that says

Note that Misplaced Pages itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines.

(while omitting the puzzling phrase "however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Misplaced Pages:Build the web. Wikilink freely.) I think it is important to be crystal-clear on this. When I ask people to cite sources for an assertion, I am frequently told that none is needed because the assertion contains a bluelink to another Misplaced Pages article that makes the same assertion. That is, if List of people known as father or mother of something says "X is known as the father of Y" and I ask for a source, I may be told "it says so right in our article on X." But more often than not the article on X contains no source, or at least no inline reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Email Discussion List Archives

A question has come up at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies as to whether or not such sources constitute reliable sources. Please share your thoughts on this. I can see it both ways. No matter what the consensus here, I’m game to write a paragraph for the project page that covers the collective opinion here.

The listserv in question is H-Antisemitism. Below are excerpts from its pages so that you can get a feel for this resource.

http://www.h-net.org/lists/

H-Net's e-mail lists function as electronic networks, linking professors, teachers and students in an egalitarian exchange of ideas and materials. Every aspect of academic life--research, teaching, controversies new and old--is open for discussion; decorum is maintained by H-Net's dedicated editors.

http://www.h-net.org/~antis/

Welcome to H-Antisemitism, a member of H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine. H-Antisemitism encourages scholarly discussion of the history of antisemitism and makes available diverse bibliographical, research and teaching aids.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/welcomeletter?list=h-antisemitism

The moderators see it as their task to weed out extraneous postings and to make every effort to keep the list functioning as a medium of scholarly discourse. Postings shall in no way be censored. Nor will they have to conform to some preconceived philosophy or agenda. However, the moderators propose to distribute only those messages which meet the standards of scholarly seriousness and reasonably good manners. Let us emphasize that our intention is not to exclude for the sake of exclusion but rather to maintain quality. We are well aware that valuable contributions can come from people who have published little or nothing in the field. When doubt arises as to the suitability of a posting, the moderators will be advised by the board.

What are your thoughts, fellow editors? --CTSWyneken 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Caveat: No idea about this particular mailing list and its denizens. At least (opposed to Usenet posts) one can trust the participants to be verified, that is they are who they say they are.

Apart from that I see no reason why posts to mailing lists should be treated different from self-published material in any other form, whose reliability hinges on the reputation of the person that made the statement. Dr Zak 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The same can also be said about all the H-Net lists, which have been around since the early 1990s. If any list archives are acceptable, these would be. On the other hand, there are some lists less carefully maintained, so it is difficult to approve of them in a blanket sense. Do we want to craft a rule that allows for H-Net and similar lists, one that rules them all out or accepts all lists? I'm gathering you're saying, even though this is a respectible organization, no exceptions. --CTSWyneken 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You may gather as you please. However, the editor is clear when he states, "No idea about this particular mailing list and its denizens." The facts are that no posts are published without approval of the editorial board of scholars.Doright 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather compare a mailing list post to an interview. How "quotable" the person making statements is depends on the newspaper/radio/TV station (obviously NPR is more trustworthy than FOX) and on the person interviewed (you can have a controversial scholar appear put forth his theory or you can have someone impartial sum up the state of knowledge). It depends. It very much depends. Dr Zak 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CTS, thank you for the careful manner in which you are going about your research into the reliability of this source. It would be better if all participants in this discussion would limit themselves strictly to this issue. I receive the distinct impression that there is one Wiki user who appears to be following CTS everywhere he goes on Wiki trying to all he can to pick a fight. Isn't that childish behavior? And is it something that Wiki admins wish to condone, tolerate and encourage. It would be nice if the person would do the right thing and stop this kind of behavior.--Ptmccain 12:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of h-antisemitism

Please see and for background and analysis.Doright 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I helped found H-Antisemitism a decade ago. It is an edited list--every posting has to be approved by its editors, who include the leading scholars in the field. Rjensen 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. So are you saying, let's accept this list? --CTSWyneken 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be asking, what are your thoughts, fellow editors. I would say first of all, it is obviously not one man's personal opinion, it is not a personal website. It doesn't quite have the status of a government website, it apparently has a program or point of view which it presents, but I would say it is a good source of information. I am not endorsing it as philosophically valid, but as valid, published information, akin to a newspaper article in its repute, I would say it is good information. Terryeo 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeoit, I agree with you that "it is a good source of information." However, I do not agree that it "apparently has a program or point of view which it presents." What about it suggests to you that it might have a "point of view which it presents?"Doright 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because its first paragraph says what it addresses? "H-Net .. links professors, teachers and students .. Every aspect of academic life .." So it is not talking about a war machine or about nudity or about the yield of rice per hectre, but about academic life. Terryeo 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources... A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources...

No further explanation is given what the difference between a secondary and a tertiary source is. Please, revise.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident. A secondary source is one step removed from the primary source, while the tertiary source is two steps removed. Therefore, the probability of distortion increases. For example, a summary may omit vital points and quotations can be taken out of context. I don't see why any more explanation is necessary. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An individual goes out into the field and makes an archaeological dig. His personal notes and his speeches and the books he publish are Primary sources of information. Other archaeologists combine his work with others, similar primary sources and thus publish information about the time period and the area of the globe which is a secondary source. The other archaeologists are secondary sources of information because they provide a context and expertise which recognize the primary source of information. Then, Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. There are two sides to the coin of informational accuarcy. Encyclopedias don't give you much information "Straight from the horse's mouth", but, on the other side of the coin, they give you widely accepted information in context. Often this is easier to understand than the specialist's technical jargon and handwritten notes. Terryeo 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your trouble explaining what secondary and tertiary sources are, folks; however, this is not what my question was about. I myself know perfectly well what the difference is. My issue is regading the definition as it currently stands. This page is an official Misplaced Pages guideline, and just because we know the difference does not mean every other person researching our policies and guidelines would (think of a schoolboy trying to figure this out using our guideline page). The definition in its present form is extremely confusing to an uninformed reader, and the notion that the definition is "self-evident" does not really help. I think that when it comes to wording used in our policies and guidelines, we should make every effort to spell everything out. Schoolboys aside, folks out there often apply the guidelines after interpreting them quite literally; and currently the guidelines literally say that secondary and tertiary sources can be the same thing. The "self-evident" clause can easily be dismissed as a non-issue (trust me, I've seen situations like this happen more than once). Please, have the paragraph re-written more clearly. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point and there was really no need for any sarcasm by anyone to have crept into the discussion. It would be just ideal to have really good, really clear definitions. Terryeo 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on Talk:Fedora Core

I have been asked to mention this discussion here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites as primary sources

I noticed this section here quotes WP:V, but the quoted text in WP:V was edited on May 23 and no longer exists. Gimmetrow 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its like editing into a headwind or something, heh. It would be helpful if at least the three policies, NPOV, V and NOR were more stable. Terryeo 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reference made to WP:V should go. The verifiability policy demands that statements be verifiable. This guideline here gives advice how to go about finding them. Dr Zak 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, finding them, yes. But there is more to WP:V than the idea of verifiability. There is also the idea of published which necessarily happens first, before verifiability. A newsgroup of a particular date could be stored on a dozen websites and become "verifiable" but would not meet the threshold this guideline provides. WP:V states the threshold of verifiability must be met. While this guideline states Misplaced Pages's threshold of publication. A book is published, a court document is published but a newsgroup is not published and a personal website's essay is not published. (some possible exceptions) Terryeo 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with websites and newsgroup posts is attribution. For all we know, it could have been the family dog that made the newsgroup posting/blog entry/website. Dr Zak 03:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Attribution is certainly a problem. A newsgroup's postings can hardly ever be sure of who created the posting. Newsgroups can satisfy "verifiability" if they are reposited on numerous servers but can't satisfy the problem of attribution. Quality blogs and quality personal websites could satisfy both verifiability and attribution. However, neither blogs nor personal websites are "published to the public" per WP:V for other reasons. Terryeo 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse banned user Terryeo. Publicly accessible websites and newsgroups are published, per the definition. --Fahrenheit451 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, User Fahrenheit451. I notice you can scarcely speak my name but to mention my status. My user page already tells anyone who is interested what my status is. As you see, I can post freely here so your statement about "banned" is not completely, 100% accurate. But your statement about newsgroups and personal websites is not accurate either. Newsgroups are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources. Blogs are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources. Personal websites are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources. Personal websites can, however store information which is published to the public, held as repository information on a personal website. The threshold of "published to the public" includes, you see, an author and attribution. Newsgroups do not meet this minimun threshold. Blogs and personal websites meet the minimum threshold of having a author, but don't meet other thresholds which WP:V require. Your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding. Terryeo 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Any literary or graphic works that are publicly accessible are published. I suggest you review the legal definition before you make false statements. So, blogs, "personal" websites and newsgroups are all published to the public. Please stop attempting to spread misinformation here, banned user Terryeo.--Fahrenheit451 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for not catching on to him earlier. If anyone wants to hear my personal two cents on Operation Clambake, it's this: we know who runs the site and the person and his work are well-regarded in the field, consequently it is a good source. (If the wording of the guideline disagrees the guideline might need adjusting.) Dr Zak 06:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Clambake is known for a single field. It is the opposition to freedom of religion. If you wish to consider Andreas Heldal-Lund who first opposed Chrisianity and then opposed Scientology, is "well-regarded" then I invite you to similar thinking done by other such heros. Heros such as Hitler, Saddam, and today's president of Iran. All of those individuals likewise were and are "well-regarded" by a narrow group of people, but most of our planet's people considers them to be suppressive to freedom of religion. Terryeo 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Terryeo actually have a point to make within all that personal attacking, ad hominem arm-waving and Godwin's Rule confirmations, seeming made with intent to provoke? Could he provide a cite showing that Andreas is currently a well-regarded dictator of a nation-state? AndroidCat 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is such a double-standard by Dr. Zak. He says "personal websites are OK if I give my say-so they're OK". However, he has been cracking down on me linking to other websites, where I've verified on my own that they're legitimate.

If you can come up with evidence that websites such as or are well-regarded by any significant number of activists they will stay. Note that no one ever thought of removing Dr Breggin's site - that man is respected. Dr Zak 06:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those two websites, those two links. If you explore the sites (Click "about us") you find they are both personal websites. That is, created by 2 or 3 individuals whose purpose is to present their own, personal viewpoint and experience about a specific area. As such, any opinions on them would not satisfy WP:V, though if they had repositiory newspaper articles or books, those could be used as secondary sources of information, if they were accurate. Terryeo 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those two sites could not be used within an article for information (except reposited, published books and other published information), but could be used in a "Exterior Links" section. Terryeo 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the burden of proof for "well regarded"? It seems like such a wishy-washy standard. Plus, we are debating the standard for what is acceptable for inclusion in the "external links" section of a page, which is a much lower threshold than what is acceptable as source material for the body of an article. It appears that Dr. Zak asserts that "well regarded" is "whatever I consider to be acceptable".

There seems to be a fascination amongst non-scientists with "peer-reviewed journals". Well, there is much stuff published every day, even in refereed journals, much of it is boring, and some of it isn't even so, either because of mis-interpretation of results or outright fraud. What is more important is the prevailing scientific consensus that emerges when published research is discussed in the scientific community. So up to a point, "well regarded" is that people consider acceptable. WP:RS#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus actually mentions this. Dr Zak 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak writes, Note that no one ever thought of removing Dr Breggin's site - that man is respected. Peter Breggin is well-respected among the Scientology kooks at the CCHR. He's not that well-respected in the psychiatric community. However, Breggin has had books published by reputable publishers. I'd say that Breggin's personal website is appropriate for discussing himself, but not for sourcing claims that Breggin makes about other topics other than himself. If you want to source a claim about psychiatry to Breggin, find a peer-reviewed journal in which he makes the claim, or at least find a published book. Vivaldi (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well stated, Vivaldi. A personal website's opinions may only be used as references to itself, in an article about the website or about the author. Breggin's books, because they are published, can be used as secondary sources of information.

I would be more specific. Those statements of Breggin's that made it into the accepted body of literature can be used to back up statements about psychology. The statements that are made on his website can be used in the article on himself. Dr Zak 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Reliable resource but false claim

I have two questions and I want to extend the WP:RS policy if consensus is developed. Below is the first one.

• Question 1: What if a source/book makes false a claim. Will it be still okay to use that claim? For example: If a source "A" says that the fact "k" is obvious from source "B", whereas "K" is never mentioned in source "B".

I will give real wikipedia example later but want to have some comments first. --- Faisal 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered about "verifiably false" claims. In the simplest case, if the New York Times prints a story saying "A", but then issues a correction a week later saying "We were wrong, 'A' is false", the first story is verifiable, but also verifiably false.

If somebody comes along and cites to the first NYT story to establish "A", are we really required to have two sentences, saying "On November 2, the NYT said 'A'. However, on November 8, the NYT issued a correction, saying that the November 2 story was incorrect, and actually 'not A'."? As it reads now, verifiability, not truth suggests that we are.TheronJ 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is the threshold for our putting information together, to create articles. But the quality of an article rests on more than a policy. It is the great advantage of Misplaced Pages to have many editors. An editor might create an article who has read the first NYT article but not the second, and a second editor come along who considers the second NYT article important. Both pieces of information can then be included, producing a balanced article. Terryeo 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Here is the real wikipedian example. Please tell me what I should do. The article jizya says:

It was of course, evident that the tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers....

However, I am NOT able to find any verse of Quran that say so. I invite other users to present any verse and they are also not able to do that. However, if I try to remove this misleading claim of a so-called well-know writer then other Users do not allow it and say that I should read WP:RS. Do not you think that WP:RS need to be change. Book reference is not enough but also the claim made by a book should be verifiable. Should I change WP:RS? --- Faisal 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I'd say the first thing would be to find a copy of Goiten and check pp. 278-79 and see if he cites to a specific section of the Koran. You can probably get one by interlibrary loan. That might resolve the issue in one direction or the other.TheronJ 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is upon the shoulders of the editor who quotes a book to provide his / her source of information. A quotation of that sort should not just say, "book xyz" but should tell when the book was published, what company published ,etc. so that another person can locate a copy of that book and look at the page number and see that exact text. Terryeo 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Terryeo's analysis on this issue. That's why I, for one, provide publisher, year of publication, and city of publication for all my book sources, in line with Turabian citation style (see Lawyer for an example). --Coolcaesar 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The ISBN also serves as an identifier which is different for different versions of the book.--Fahrenheit451 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to find that book in Pakistan, I have to visit city main library. However, suppose that the book really has written exactly what is mention in the jizya article. But still the point is that if an author says something with reference to Quran then he should specify the relavent verse of Quran. However, apprently from the text he has not. Furthermore, other users and me not able to find any such verse. Hence it is possible that the author has made that comment because he might be biased or mistaken. My question is that If a source "A" says that the fact "k" is obvious from source "B", whereas fact "K" is never mentioned in source "B" then WP:RR should not allow to mention that fact. I wish if I could improve WP:RR regarding this. --- Faisal 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal has got a point. To summarize (there seem to be a few misunderstandings along the way), in our entry on jizya, the Muslim poll tax for non-Muslims, someone has cited an article by the Arabist S.D. Goitein, who makes a statement about the Koran. Faisal feels that Goitein's assertion is false. Per our policy of No Original Research we can't add our own opinion if any statement is true or not. What I would recommend is to get the article (by interlibrary loan) and try to find out what verse of the Koran Goitein bases his interpretation on. Then I would get a reliable Koran commentary and add that interpretation, saying "Goitein asserts ayat such-and-such to mean this-and-this, whereas Muslims on general interpret it to mean that-and-that." Dr Zak 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. An unverified piece of information may be removed by any editor. The citation is to a large, thick volume of many, easily identified verses. Per WP:CITEMisplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence he would have the right to remove the verse to the discussion page where it could be properly attributed, or dropped from the article.Terryeo 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's right, Terry. If you look at the article, it says "Goiten says 'in the Koran's own words, the jizya is intended to . . .'" Assuming that Goiten is a reliable source (and he apparently is) and that he actually says what he article says he says, that's it. There's nothing in WP:V that says we check to see whether claims in otherwise reliable secondary sources are themselves verifiable.TheronJ 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Being perhaps the greatest authority on the issues of jizya, S.D. Goitein is most certainly right here. It is the predominant interpretation of the Quranic verse 9:29, namely its last word saghiruna ("to make small" or "to belittle"), that jizya is an expression of humiliation and submission. There are plenty of Muslim scholars and academic historians, apart from Goitein, talking about that. Faisal has made much ado about nothing, just because he feels uneasy about this aspect of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam. Pecher 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal has stated something about both the content and the attribution. His statement that the verse should be cited is 100% correct. Chapter and verse should be cited. WP:CITE#How_to_ask_for_citations If the editor had cited the verse, the discussion would not have reached this page. Since Faisal has questioned, surely other readers of the article likewise have questioned. I would say one of two things should happen. Either the quotation should be better cited or the quotation should come out. Misplaced Pages doesn't want confusing articles, Misplaced Pages wants easy to understand articles, articles that will pull more people into contributing. Terryeo 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Terry, the article does cite to chapter and verse of the Goiten book cited. (See footnote 11 here).TheronJ 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Terry. TheronJ the Quranic verse needs to be citied. I never said that Goiten is not cited properly but the Quranic verse that Goiten is referring is not citied. Now if the User:Pecher says that Goiten is refering to version 9:29 then see the differnt translations of 009.029. These translations only mean that fight until non-Muslim accept jizya, that is they submit themselves to pay jizya. It does not remotely means to humiliate non-Muslims. If you do not believe me than I could present different tafsir regarding that verse meaning. Also the Goiten text presented in the article jizya does NOT mention 9:29 verse of Quran. --- Faisal 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says that "Goiten says the Koran says X." It's his opinion being reported. If a contrary opinion can be reliably sourced, can't you just add "Authority Z interprets it otherwise"? Gimmetrow 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my analysis of this ongoing debate. First of all, someone (preferably a Wikipedian with a strong track record of good edits who has access to a really big humanities library) needs to go verify the content of the 1963 article to make sure it actually says what the current article text credits Goitein with claiming. If Goitein did say all that, then the article should remain the same per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The NPOV and Verifiability policies (both core Misplaced Pages policies beyond debate) imply that it is not relevant whether Goitein's analysis was actually right or not, as long as his viewpoint is accurately summarized. I know Faisal does not like that conclusion, but that is how the two policies have been applied to all controversial issues since the early days of the Misplaced Pages project, and I highly doubt the Wikimedia Foundation will reverse its position now.

Second, if Faisal is correct that Goitein was just plain wrong, then it should be easy to find at least several citations to articles by distinguished Islamic scholars arguing for the opposite interpretation (it's been a long time since 1963). At that point, Faisal can then edit the article to say, "Goitein argued this in 1963, but more recently a number of scholars has argued otherwise." But if Faisal can't find any citations to the contrary, then perhaps it may be likely that Goitein was correct. --Coolcaesar 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal began making those claims on Talk:Dhimmi; after several editors demonstrated to him using a really impressive array of sources that he was plain wrong, he moved to Talk:Jizya. Now he has migrated here. It's a resolved issue for everyone but Faisal, who keeps pushing his original research; discussing it again is a waste of our time. Pecher 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur: there's no reasonable indication that Goitein's scholarly assertion is wrong or wrongly represented, except for a wikipedian's POV. --tickle me 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of those talk pages. As Americans say, Faisal is clearly two cards short of a full deck. I'm not sure if he is capable of understanding the philosophical system of epistemology which Misplaced Pages operates under.--Coolcaesar 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the Goitein reference. There is a minor misquote but the text is there, with a footnote mentioning 9:29. Gimmetrow 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like always I am convinced, because both of you have presented very good reasoning. Thanks for your kind words about me Pecher and Coolcaesar. They really helped. Obviously they cannot come under wikipedia Personal attack policy and you are allowed to say whatever you wish about me. --- Faisal 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Today I looked up Goitein's 1955 book on Jews and Arabs while visiting the public library (we have excellent libraries in Silicon Valley). In that book, at pages 97 and 98, Goitein goes through a variety of examples to show how the tax as applied was extremely oppressive. On page 97, he discusses how although the tax was usually one gold coin per year, a typical peasant earned only six or seven gold coins per year. On page 98, he points out that to prevent tax evasion, people living within Muslim-controlled regions could not move about without special permits and had to always carry their receipt showing they had paid the tax. On page 98, Goitein also notes that in Iraq the receipt was cauterized on the necks of non-Muslims. So it seems to me that Misplaced Pages's portrayal of the jizya as discriminatory and oppressive is accurate. --Coolcaesar 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just looked up the Goitein reference out of curiosity at Stanford University's Green Library while visiting today for a different research project (feel free to trace this IP address). Yes, I am one of the participants in this discussion and will affirm this statement under my own WP username when I get home. The citation is correct. Actually, the bulk of the 1963 article is not about the underlying verse, but is directed to analyzing extensive empirical evidence (in the Geniza archives at Oxford and Cambridge) that the tax as applied was extremely harsh and oppressive. Again, Faisal has no case. If he attempts to modify the article, he should be classified as a vandal and permanently banned. --171.64.140.160 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The post above is mine. And I reiterate my positions as stated. Faisal is simply nuts and in denial. --Coolcaesar 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives

(Continues discussion at: #Email Discussion List Archivesand

Dear Friends: in light of the short discussion above, I propose to add the following to the guideline:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Only if you can verify that the author of a post is a scholar on the subject you are editing should you use these sources.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers.

Does anyone object? If so, is it because you do not feel any email-based source is unreliable or that you would like the wording changed? --CTSWyneken 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I object. Online sources are inherently unreliable. Email in particular is extremely unreliable. --Coolcaesar 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I have mixed feelings about this. The posts by scholars to this list are very interesting and can be quite helpful to us. In fact, this would be an expansion of the "use with caution" advice already in the guidelines concerning internet sources. On the other hand, we've all seen poor materials on the internet.

When I've expressed such misgivings, after I've been accused of trying to supress the truth, it has been pointed out that lists like the H-Net ones are moderated by scholars, verified by the organization, and are about as trustworthy as it gets on the internet. (they've been around since before the World Wide Web had images). 8-) I suspect they will ask: "are you saying that a post by, say, Shelby Foote to the Civil War list is unreliable?"

My interest in this is closure. Some are quick to remove info from these sources, others are inclined to be incensed at their removal. So, we need closure on it.

OK, enough ramble. Coolcaesar, could you explain why a set of lists such as H-Net are unreliable, given they have safeguards in place? Anyone else have an opinion? --CTSWyneken 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a long time (12 years) manager of an academic mailing list, I find that the contributions are widely varied in quality. Off hand, they're better than the general run of the internet, and when the interaction is good, they often turn up some details that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find in the published literature. Since there are also loonies and trolls out there, I think the proposed guideline has the proper level of caution and should be approved. I would add to the guideline that "all citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message." We don't want to invite citations to a general discussion on x-list. --SteveMcCluskey 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point! I'll add it. --CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that most such lists are not mirrored in enough places like physical books or magazines as insurance against retroactive censorship or modifications. I am mindful of Milan Kundera's famous opening passage in the Book of Laughter and Forgetting about the guy who was airbrushed out of all the history books in Czechoslovakia. With an electronic source hosted in one or two places, it is much easier to modify the "authoritative" copy, and unlike conventional books or periodicals, there is no paper copy to check the computer copy against. In contrast, it would be much harder for a hacker to vandalize the ProQuest newspaper database and get away with it, since there are literally thousands of copies of the New York Times back issues in libraries all over the world on microfilm. As for rare items in university archives, they are guarded by tight security procedures, as I can personally attest to: I have visited archives at Stanford University and UC Berkeley. Anyone who vandalized archive items would be quickly identified and prosecuted.

Yes, there is some danger of this. Although, as a librarian, I'm more worried about natural disasters, the folding of hosting organizations, technology foul ups, and physical items crumbling into dust or back up tapes degrading. But the same can be said of doctoral dissertations. For most of these, there may have been at most a dozen copies ever made, including microfilm, and only the school of record and the microfilmer are ever serious about preserving them. I'm not sure we would want to eliminate them as sources, however, since they are as juried as anything gets.--CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the fact that posts to such lists do not go through the editing and polishing that is required of most books and journal articles. However, I concede it might be all right, if there is no other source available, to cite such a post to support the statement that "Famous Professor contends that Event A occurred because of Cause B."

But I think such citations should be relied upon only as a last resort where there is no other source available, since it is so easy to find out what most scholars think about a specific issue by simply searching their published works through JSTOR, LexisNexis, ProQuest, EBSCO, or InfoTrac (even if most people don't personally subscribe, they do live close to a community college which probably subscribes to at least two of these databases). And I think that it is simply unacceptable to rely upon such citations as the primary ones in an article. They should always be provided sparingly in combination with citations to more reliable sources. --Coolcaesar 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. We should be clear in the text that such are resources of last resort. But I think, if we put in a paragraph that these are OK, they will be used as first resort, rather than last. Do you have language that we could add to allow editors to challenge such citations with something like a "do your homework" edit summary? --CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you say, most relevant research has found its way into print. However there are some rather esoteric subjects where there exists much informal knowledge simply because the circle of participants is so small. The flagship example is crystallography, especially mathematical crystallography, where my degree supervisor once remarked that "there are two dozen people in the world who understand direct methods. Trouble is, half of them are older than 50." One well-known exchange (on top of it on USENET!) concerned the question whether DIFABS should be banned. I don't think it any of it ever made it into Acta Cryst A. OK, it's an extreme case, but mailing list posts are good only for highly esoteric matter. Dr Zak 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposed text

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Only if you can verify that the author of a post is a scholar on the subject you are editing should you use these sources. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good; go with it. --SteveMcCluskey 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK with you, Coolcaesar? Other folk? --CTSWyneken 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I sort of concur. Though I would prefer: "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist." The point is to encourage people to exhaust other sources before relying upon electronic mailing lists. What I'm afraid of is some idiot citing an entire article to list postings he/she found through Google, and then when challenged, claiming that the article is "well-supported." --Coolcaesar 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can well understand that fear, having seen nearly that bad several times before. I'll substitute your line for my third. Anyone have other ideas? --CTSWyneken 00:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may not suffer from the above stated problem with Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --Doright 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note this user substituted his version of this section on the page for the one achieved by consensus and then put his version also here. I have reverted the page. --CTSWyneken 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, Please note that claims of consensus seem a bit premature, since, at present, no one has agreed to your final text. Also, this so called, but yet to be formed consensus, consists of only yourself and one editor (that agreed only to a prior version), plus an editor that says, "I sort of concur." By rushing to slam your version into the article, you left me no choice but to edit it in the article. Please calm down. I suggest, if you don't like my version of the text you talk about it here rather than making unfounded and personal attacks. What do you object to in the version you reverted?Doright 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Revision of Electronic mailing list archives

Perhaps this is an improvement over my last attempt?

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, it may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date.Doright 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright's two changes miss the point of the earlier discussion. All previous versions discussed on the talk page insisted that the list must be maintained by a scholarly organization and that the person cited must have scholarly credentials in the field. The final consensus version added the caveat that this should only be done as a last resort if no other source is available.

Doright's changes water down the intended limitations so that the new statement would aprove citation of assertions made by almost any identifiable person on a list maintained by almost any kind of organization. But the issue isn't just identification; it's expertise.

I do not favor Doright's changes. --SteveMcCluskey 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, that's false. They would still need to meet all relevant criteria, such as, notability, authority, etc. But, those concerns are already addressed by other policies and need need not be duplicated here. Steve, so according to your favored version, a message from Tiger Woods on a PGA moderated list archive where he might discuss his opinions on the Pebble Beach Golf Course could not be included because (1) Tiger Woods is not a "scholar", and (2) the PGA is not a "scholarly organization." However, according to your preferred version, a list archive maintained by someone called a "scholar" can be used to cite a posting even if there are no procedures in place on that list to even verify the identity of the author. Also, I don't think we should duplicate other caveats and protections that are already addressed on this page. For example, read the following. Beware false authority "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. Reliability of online sources Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. The policy page that governs the use of sources is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight..." When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote or embedded link if the source is online. See WP:CITE for more details.--Doright 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Which he would have learned had he brought it to the talk page first. Instead, he has now once again replaced the text we discussed here with his own. He should remove it. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Doright asked me personally to reply to his comment, let me make two brief points and quietly drop out of this discussion.

• His suggestion that we consider other than scholarly sources is useful, but must be used with caution -- there are disinterested organizations and organizations with an axe to grind.
• One such caution that concerns me is Doright's use of the word opinion (e.g, "Tiger Woods ... might discuss his opinions on..."; "When reporting that an opinion is held..."). I don't see sources as a source of opinion, they are sources of reasoned opinion, i.e., opinion based on evidence which is presented. An encyclopedia article should be evidence based, not opinion based.

--SteveMcCluskey 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the reply. Your two points are stimulating. Since you have “drop(ped) out” of the discussion, I’ll address my analysis to others that still may be interested in working toward consensus language for Electronic mailing list archives.

With respect to the issue of a person’s views or “opinion,” I point to the following quotation from WP:RS: " An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Misplaced Pages if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion. That’s one of the reasons (it also distinguishes it from Usenet), I add the phrase, "that confirms the identity of its contributors." Furthermore, WP:RS also states, " Keep in mind that many articles are about characterizing the various factions in a dispute. This means that you will be looking for reliable published reports of people's opinions."

I also appreciate the concern expressed regarding the exclusion of sources that are not "scholarly." And, that there are "disinterested organizations and organizations with an axe to grind." This is, of course, universally true and not unique to Electronic mailing list archives. It’s not even unique to online sources. It's therefore better addressed in a more appropriate section. Clearly, many sources are reliable but not “scholarly.”

Prejudicial admonitions like, "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist," can be said for every citation from every source which leads one to wonder why add it here? And commands like "Cite list archives only when no other source is available," appear to be overly dogmatic, over reaching and of questionable reasoning.

In light of the above, I propose the following text, which I have edited into the Electronic mailing list archives section. Unfortunately the section was initiated prior to a consensus being achieved. Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Antisemitism, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. Collegially, Doright 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doright: It is only your opinion that consensus was not achieved in this matter. As it is, Steve and Coolcaesar both expressed the need to urge the use of this kind of source only as a last resort. The current text was adapted twice to increase the caution. Your version not only does not reflect this, but you argue against it. It seems you are alone on this issue. If you wish to adapt your text to somehow state clearly that email lists should be cited only if no other source is available, please do. Otherwise, the text as is should stand. --CTSWyneken 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear CTSWyneken, I think "consensus" is a bit over glorious a term for what you have achieved. Yes, that is my opinion. Yes, Steve and Coolceaesar expressed some concerns, however others have challenged your and Coolceaesars analysis. Thus, there is obviously no consensus on your version.

For the record, user Doright has once again reverted a consensus text, inserting his own in its place, even after an editor explicitly expressed misgivings about his version. Would someone besides me explain how this is behaving badly? --CTSWyneken 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Doright probably is not trained as a historian, journalist, attorney, or librarian. Generally, historians, journalists, attorneys, and librarians tend to pay the most attention to reliability of sources because the reliability of the information they compile into their writings is so important to their careers. In other fields, factual errors in documents may be embarrassing but not career-ending. I am not sure if there is any way Doright's rather generous view of the reliability of electronic list archives can be resolved with the more conservative view taken by those in the professions that actually do fact-finding on a daily basis. If Doright keeps reverting, he needs to be blocked under the 3RR.--Coolcaesar 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, your attribution of "the problem" to my personal training (about which you know absolutely nothing) is not helpful, especially when combined with an incitement to an edit war. Do not make personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.Doright 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider the example of Daniel Dennett, a notable person who is known for answering his own email. If I asked him by email to explain whether he is in fact a behaviorist, it would be hard to use his reply as a WP:RS because only I have the email. On the other hand, if he responded on any reputable (but not necessarily moderated or even scholarly) mailing list whose contents were available on a public web site, his response would be visible to all, hence verifiable. In fact, any text by him on any web site that can be confirmed as his own words should be an excellent primary source. Can we modify the policy to reflect this? Al 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, Alienus, good point!Doright 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You still don't get the point which CTSWyneken and others are trying to get across. The problem is not just verifiability, but survivability. Nearly all books and periodicals exist in the form of redundant copies. Until about seven years ago, it did not make financial sense to do offset lithography print runs under 1000 copies.

Even where documents have been digitized, as in the New York Times archives, the online copies can always be double-checked against the paper originals. Therefore, there is relatively little risk of tampering or corruption or complete loss. The obvious exception is a thermonuclear war that could destroy all extant copies of a work simultaneously, but fortunately that hasn't happened yet.

Furthermore, items that exist only in a single copy in museum or university archives are usually under heavy guard so that there is a paper trail if someone tampers with them or steals them. For example, archives (like the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley) require visitors to go through a lot of bureaucratic hassles before they can enter the secure area (including several forms and pat-down searches going in and out).

In contrast, a competent hacker (for profit or fun) can easily modify documents on public Web servers. If there are only two or three copies, and they are all modified, then it is impossible for anyone to know what the original copy said.

Of course, in theory, the original author could disavow the modified version---if they ever detect that it has been modified, out of all the thousands of messages they have drafted in their lifetime. But what about authors who are dead? People die from accidents, disease, and old age all the time. Are they going to be able to contest an edited email that dramatically misstates their position on an important issue? No. And that's assuming the author of the email is who he says he is. As the famous New Yorker cartoon stated, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!

The point is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia for the long run. I don't think any of us would bother to contribute to Misplaced Pages if we thought it was something that would be really cool for a year or so and then would be superseded. Rather, I think we contribute to Misplaced Pages because we hope this is a valuable project that will be passed on to the next generation. And that means we have to think in long run terms (which is what historians already do). That's why I, for one, cite only sources that have already been published in paper format. --Coolcaesar 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This reads like an argument against using any online sources. Is that really what you want to say? Al 21:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right Alienus. That's why all the baggage that these two and maybe three editors (the so called "consensus") want to hang on electronic mailing list archives is misplaced.Doright 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's merely an argument against online sources which aren't backed with some kind of redundancy or security. For example, I have no problem with linking to articles from Web sites from any publication that also simultaneously publishes to paper, like the New York Times, Time, and Communications of the ACM. Furthermore, while deriding my argument as "baggage," neither you nor Alienus has attempted to directly refute my argument, which implies that you have no valid counterargument. --Coolcaesar 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Still no good. Now you're claiming that all web sites are unreliable unless there is a paper and ink archive available. This is, to be frank, absurd. If we followed this rule, we'd have to remove most of the articles in Misplaced Pages immediately. Al 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Absurd in what way? Are you simply defending the status quo because you're too lazy to improve the encyclopedia by digging up legitimate resources? It's not that hard to write down a citation every time one goes to the public library, you know. Do you have some kind of ulterior motive for getting bad information into Misplaced Pages? I'm trying to coax you into making your underlying assumptions explicit (which I have done), because I'm simply not seeing where you're coming from.

To be clear, I'm not proposing that we delete half the encyclopedia. What I am proposing is that if and when information is challenged as unreliable or inaccurate, it should be replaced by information cited to verifiable, legitimate sources that exist in massively redundant copies, not fly-by-night electronic mailing lists that live on a single server and could be wiped out by a hacker, virus, or natural disaster (like Hurricane Katrina). --Coolcaesar 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you figured me out: it's pure laziness on my part. It has nothing to do with my concern that raising the bar arbitrarily high would allow selective attacks by POV-pushers, even though I've seen this happen already. In fact, it has nothing to do with the fact that such a standard would be entirely impractical and cause great harm to Misplaced Pages. No, it's because I'm lazy. Glad you read my mind. Al 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you still didn't respond to my arguments on the merits. Particularly the survivability one. Do you have any training, formal or informal, in SSK (the sociology of scientific knowledge) or epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge)? Do you understand how important those fields are to this debate?

It seems to me that you and Doright are coming from a rather naive position that grants first-order legitimacy to all documents, electronic or paper, without question. You are clearly unfamiliar with the efforts of various persons throughout history to modify the historical record to suit their agendas. In fact, there was just a wonderful article in Smithsonian magazine last month about the evolution of Mary Magdalene's story during the time of the early Christian sects (before the Catholic Church branded all the competitors as heretics and purged them).

As a lawyer, I have been trained to be skeptical about the relevance, reliability, and authenticity of all evidence. I've also been heavily influenced by Milan Kundera, one of the most brilliant writers ever on the malleability of historical memory, and Thomas Kuhn, the founder of SSK. CTSWyneken, as a librarian, is similarly skeptical, since librarians are charged with ensuring that their collections accurately reflect the historical record.

Turning to your points offered in rebuttal, I have seen numerous attacks by POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages who cite to extremely unreliable Web sites and USENET newsgroups. Allowing them to use electronic mailing lists would only make the problem worse.

Also, you are apparently unfamiliar with the huge number of electronic databases out there that have already digitized all significant periodicals published after 1990, and most periodicals published after 1900. Plus there are many smaller databases that have scanned in and published older books and magazines going all the way back to the Magna Carta (like Project Gutenbert and Chadwyck-Healey's Literature Online project). Most of these databases are easy to use and can be accessed at libraries throughout the English-speaking world. In fact, most public libraries allow patrons to access databases like Thomson Gale Infotrac and ProQuest from home, which I have done many times when researching articles for Misplaced Pages. Your argument about setting the bar "too high" is just plain wrong. --Coolcaesar 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, then you'll understand the meaning of prima facie. If a verifable email message has my email address as the sender, that is prima facie evidence that I sent it. It may well be that further evidence will reveal that my address was spoofed, or the contents were changed after the fact. Perhaps, perhaps not, but the burden of proof is shifted onto the skeptic. The defense rests. Al 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again you're not responding on the merits. It is precisely that inquiry over authenticity that Misplaced Pages is not suited to go into, just as it is not suited to inquire into the actual truth or falsity of statements asserted in verifiable sources (which is already stated in the Verifiability policy).

If you were familiar with e-discovery, then you would know that corporations spend billions of dollars every year (I recall it was $2 billion last year in the United States alone) on e-discovery consultants who fight over the production of electronic records like e-mail and whether they are authentic. In those projects, such insanely painstaking efforts are worth it because there may be billions of dollars in potential liability at stake, and because there's usually a liability insurer on the hook who's willing to pay a little now rather than a lot later. But it's not worth it for Misplaced Pages.

Furthermore, most corporations have security measures in place on their internal email servers to ensure that users are who they say they are. But the public email protocols like SMTP and POP3 and IMAP do not have such measures. If there was a mechanism in place to accurately link every single email address back to a physical person (a perfect one-to-one correspondence between both sets), spam would not be such a huge problem. This is all obvious to anyone who has studied computer science, security, and set theory, of course, which you clearly have not.

As a project staffed by volunteers, Misplaced Pages does not have access to the power of subpoena or the armies of technical experts which would be necessary to ensure that email archives are reliable. The other alternative would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to start serving as a public mirror for all mailing list archives, so that there would always be a copy available of known reliability (much as Google hosts the Google Groups archive). But Wikimedia can barely afford to keep Misplaced Pages running as is. --Coolcaesar 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(below suggestion copied here by Doright 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If the contents of a list are available on the web in an archive or forum so that they can be verified, they can be cited and carry all the authority (if any) of the author. Citations must include the name of the author, message subject line, archive or forum name (and URL) and date. A good faith effort must be made to ensure that the named person is in fact associated with the email address used, and as always, that they are notable. Al 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This works for me.Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can post it to the article or we can wait for more input. -Doright 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot support this version unless it also includes the line "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist." Misplaced Pages should not tolerate articles that are cited solely to unreliable electronic list archives (which will be the logical result of a guideline that fails to indicate that such archives are a last resort). This is not the "MailingList-Pedia!" --Coolcaesar 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not acceptable, of course, but there may be a reasonable compromise available. How about:

"Mailing lists are generally understood to be less reliable than sources that are archived professionally, particularly in print. As always, we should prefer more reliable sources over less."

Al 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What's not acceptable with ensuring that no other sources of superior reliability exist? It's not that hard to run a cursory search of Google, a couple of local library catalogs and Gale Infotrac from a home computer (10 minutes max, I've timed it in the past). Then the editor can say in their edit summary, "I searched the local catalogs and databases and came up with nothing, I'm posting a link to this archive instead," and then if no one else can come up with anything better from any other source (because it's a truly obscure subject) then the citation will stand. But if it's a common thing (like freeways) there will always be a few articles on Infotrac or ProQuest. Even Roger J. Traynor (whom only lawyers know about) gets about 30 hits on Infotrac (that's how I researched most of the article). It sounds like you've never used Infotrac or LexisNexis or any of their brethren.--Coolcaesar 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, all your stated concerns are already addressed on the WP:RS page. If you haven’t read it lately, give it a try. Also, I find your analysis and conclusions a bit strained. For example, I’ve had opinions published in some of the largest circulation newspapers in the USA without confirmation that I was who I said I was. You would, for example, require that paper source be given preference over my posting to h-antisemitism, despite the fact that h-antisemtism does not publish my post until I am confirmed as the source. That’s bad policy, in addition to being a bit strange.--Doright 07:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a step in the right direction, Al. Would you take a look at the version I developed before Doright decided to unilaterally replace it with his own version? What, if anything, makes you uncomfortable with it?

And, yes, Doright, I welcome your on this one if you can express it in a civil manner. --CTSWyneken 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is complicated. In any case, I made some grammatical and content revisions to the section. It still doesn't clearly say that email lists which don't meet the stringent criteria are not acceptable. -Will Beback 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I tired to include your concern in a minor revision. Take a look. --Doright 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken's Summary of Discussion

CTSWyneken, The last dozen posts to the subject of list archives have been in the section immediately above and is titled, "Further Revision of Electronic mailing list archives", which is a subsection of "Revised proposed text" which in turn is a subsection of "Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives." Now you create new headings, reframing the discussion from that of "revisions of proposed text" to all comers versus your version, that you falsely and repeatedly claim is the "consensus" and "original" version. Against your alledgedly accepted version, you deridingly call Doright's a "unilateral version," which can have no effect other than to "poison the well," and to make the casual reader think your position carries greater authority. This is shabby rhetoric and a waste of our time. If you want to join in the discussion, please feel free, but don’t create POV forks, they are a nuisance. Other editors and admins pointed out this kind of behavior in your failed attempt to become an admin. Please stop it. -Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Since this conversation has ranged across several subheads, Let me try to summarize what's being said here.

We have two proposed texts:

CTSWyneken's Alternative adjusted version

(title clarification added by Doright)--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Written by CTSWyneken, adjusted in conversation with two editors and posted:

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available.

Proposed alternative

Written by Doright, unilaterally substituted for the original version.

CTSWyneken, please stop this corrosive rhetoric.--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Antisemitism), that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Other proposed alternative

Written by Alienus in response to discussion

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If the contents of a list are available on the web in an archive or forum so that they can be verified, they can be cited and carry all the authority (if any) of the author. Citations must include the name of the author, message subject line, archive or forum name (and URL) and date. A good faith effort must be made to ensure that the named person is in fact associated with the email address used, and as always, that they are notable. Al 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Summaries to follow when a moment presents itself.

CTSWyneken's Summary of discussion so far

(title clarification added by Doright) NB: This summary is misleading and skirts many issues. I'm not interested in having a meta-debate over CTSWyneken's Summary. I advise interested editors to read the appropriate section for themselves and to respond, if desired, at the appropriate location. The below is a POV fork. --Doright 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: please do not engage any of these points here. Go to the comments section below. You may feel free, of course, to edit these to reflect what has actually been said, or add something I missed. I'm hoping this will serve as an "executive summary" to help us focus.

Points agreed to

1. Archives of scholarly email-based discussion groups, when moderated and posts signed can be allowed as evidence that a scholar said words attributed to him or her.--CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Favoring full endorsement of moderated discussion archives

1. Moderated groups are at least filtered, if not vetted and so should be allowed without qualification.
2. Scholarly literature relies on rare and unique sources all the time. We would be unable to say nearly as much in scholarly discourse if we do not cite them. One of the things students of these disciplines must take into account is it may become impossible to verify a citation. It tends to weaken the case case for an argument when this happens, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it. --CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Favoring "Last Resort" language

1. Emails have very little, if any jurying. While we may be more or less confident that a scholar wrote the emails in question, we cannot assume the work has been reviewed in the same manner a scholarly journal article or monograph is reviewed.
2. Email archives are often not backed up, are rarely mirrored at other sites and when backed up are often done on unstable media by preservation standards. (no degrading of information on the master item under 100 years of storage in optimal environment) It is better to depend upon items which exist in a number of placed.--CTSWyneken 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright Attacks Again

Please cease characterizing my opinions, misstating facts and attacking people. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to Clarify Issues, Once Again

Since there are a few new editors in on the discussion, let me once again try to summarize the issues here.

The current version has been contributed to by more people than CTSWyneken's so-called “consensus”

The current version has been contributed to by more people than your so-called “consensus” that you slammed into the article. I suggest interested editors not rely upon these summaries.

CTSWyneken, Please cease characterizing my contributions, misstating facts and attacking people. I view this summary like your last, as biased. They take up more space in the table of contents on this page than any other single topic. Perhaps you might consider not making a new heading in the TOC each time you attack me, like here and here --Doright 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

History according to CTSWyneken

A text was composed and adjusted by three of us. Here is the place where we were just before the text was posted: state of discussion before guideline added

This is the form that I posted at that time: Guideline addred

User Doright then substituted his own version without first discussing the guideline. See Doright's unilateral replace and Doright's first talk page contribution after guideline post.

Since then, some discussion has occured, while I have reverted the text to the original guideline and Doright has either reverted to his version or replaced the original version with modified versions of his own, reflecting views he agrees with.

If no one thinks this kind of behavior a problem, I will drop it.

Where everyone seems to agree according to CTSWyneken

High quality lists are solid enough to quote as sources.

Issues according to CTSWyneken

Three of us at least believe these sources to be of lesser quality than formally published works, especially those formally juried.

1. One of us argues the fact that electronic sources are easily faked, hacked and are backed up, if at all, on unreliable media.
2. My argument is that emails tend to be written more quickly than typical publications, tend to be less well researched and do not have the formal review that goes into journal articles and books.

Because of this, we put "last resort" language into the article.

So far, the new folk have yet to reply to the original guideline. So, may I ask, what do folks find unacceptable in it?

It is:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message. Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen Doright spell out what problems he has with the black box warning that he so avidly removes either. (In fact I'd prefer to have it in.) Dr Zak 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ArXiv preprints and conference abstracts

I'd like to add a statement to the discussion of sources in Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine that ArXiv preprints and conference abstracts are not peer reviewed publications and should not be cited.

I know there are good pieces on ArXiv, but I've seen a number of ArXiv papers cited on Misplaced Pages that seem to be little more than self-published pieces that would not be likely to be approved by a refereed journal.

Conference abstracts pose a similar problem, where controversial topics are accepted for a conference but get shot down as soon as they're presented (or soon after).

I think an encyclopedia (even one on the internet) can hold off citing the good preprints or conference papers until they get published.

Before rushing on with this, I'd like to see the reactions of people involved. --SteveMcCluskey 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this. Published papers are reliable; preprints are not. --Coolcaesar 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about that but with the single, narrow exception. The same exception that is widely recognized about personal websites' opinions. That is, in an article about a particular conference, the abstracts from that conference might be quoted and cited in that particular article.Terryeo 00:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's a first draft; I see it as going after the subsection "Which science journals are reputable?"

==== arXiv preprints and conference abstracts ====

There are a growing number of sources on the web that archive the full text of articles before they have been published, and publish abstracts of papers to be presented at conferences. Editors should be aware that preprints in arXiv collections may or may not be accepted by the journal for which they were written — in some cases they are written solely for the arXiv and are never submitted for publication. Similarly, papers presented at conferences may not merit publication after presentation at the conference.

For this reason, arXiv papers and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published and should not be cited as reliable sources in Misplaced Pages articles until the results appear in a peer-reviewed publication. Abstracts and arXiv versions of published papers may be cited.

--SteveMcCluskey 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an important point, and a case that attempted to cite self-publication on arXiv is presently on WP:DRV. I would observe, however, that many publishing organisations provide abstracts through their search engines, and that these, being the abstracts of peer-reviewed, published work are citable. I say this because in some cases, abstracts are available to Joe Random, whilst the full text is available only to those with a subscription. -Splash - tk 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed in the discussion archives that this concern about arXiv is a long-standing one, with no follow-up to date. That seems to suggest going ahead with this new guideline. --SteveMcCluskey 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I really really don't like the paragraph in its present form. On one hand one can upload complete bollocks to arXiv, on the other hand an established researcher won't intentionally ruin his reputation by publishing random crap. Besides, the fact that something is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it true. Papers can be retracted or turn out to be outright fraud. It was in the news today: the author of the "MMR-causes-autism" study has now been charged with professional misconduct. The study did get published in 1998, a few months later ten of the twelve people on the paper withdrew from authorship, subsequently the journal kind of backtracked, and no one takes the study serious. What counts is the scientific consensus.

The second paragraph should be changed into something like:

For this reason, arXiv papers and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published and as such should be approached with extreme caution as they have neither been peer-reviewed nor has there been time for any scientific consensus to be formed. Preprints by unknown authors should not be cited as reliable sources; preprints by established reseachers should bear the caveat that the scientist may turn out to be wrong. Abstracts and arXiv versions of published papers may be cited. Dr Zak 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for making the change; I especially like your attention to scientific consensus. The one problem I have is that most of the criteria on RS so far have been looking at authoritative sources by considering different kinds of publication venues. Identifying quality publications is fairly easy: established presses with a good track record in publishing serious work, established journals or magazines are serious, blogs are not.

Your change adds the question of the quality of the author. It certainly is a relevant factor but off the top of my head I'm not certain whether the question of identifying "established researchers" may be opening another can of worms. Major bibliographies and citation indexes suggest a starting point. But really, do we want to discuss "established researchers" or just let the term stand with all its ambiguity. I know who "established researchers" are in the fields where I work and read. --SteveMcCluskey 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just see if we can live with the term. :-) As you say, people working in any academic field know who the relevant figures are, and they can back up their opinion by pointing to a couple of review articles, where $BIGWIG's work is extensively cited. Dr Zak 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source but false claims -- Part-2

I need to post few more problems. Just like I already said that WP:RS need to be changed so that every claim of otherwise reliable source (a book) is accepted by default but it should be valid claim. Hence, It is not important that a Book ABC has said something, it is also important that if that thing is right or not. See following The Dhimmi article marriage-section.

"Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non muslim) may marry a Muslim woman. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the People of the Book because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed."

Now Obviously according to above text MOST of the scholars does not think that wife is salave of husband. However, all the scholar agrees that a Muslim women cannot marry any non-muslim man. So the above text leave a question in the mind of any fair user. What is the logic of not marring non-Muslim wowen by MOST of the scholar. Why the logic of SOME scholars is presented above and hidding the logic given by MOST. The WP:RS should empower users to remove such propoganda statements without even going though the trouble of finding the book and verifying the existance of wrong claim in it. --- Faisal 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor introduces "Some scholars have an opinion...(any opinion), then it is on the shoulders of that editor to present citations from "Some scholars". That might be 2 or 3 scholar citations to published, scholar's opinions. If only a single scholar has that opinion then the statement should name the scholar and cite his published work containing his opinion. Terryeo 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, Misplaced Pages is not in the business of verifying truth, only accuracy. As long as a book did say something and the book is accurately cited for that proposition in a Misplaced Pages article, the article is fine, even if some people do not like the proposition. The neutral point of view policy implies that Misplaced Pages is a secondary source that merely summarizes the content of debates in a neutral fashion. But it does not get involved in them.

For example, as a lawyer, I am deeply offended when people say there are too many lawyers (a common complaint in America), because statistics from the American Bar Association and the federal government show that there are not enough lawyers to enable all Americans to properly enforce their legal rights. However, when I rewrote the Lawyer article, I specifically went out of my way to identify and cite several sources for that proposition (see the Criticism of lawyers section of the article). Do I believe those sources are correct or unbiased? Of course not. But they do exist, so I cited them. --Coolcaesar 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only add here that Faisal has misrepresented the marriage section as it currently stands, which is easy to verify. Pecher 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher you have written following. Based on the Quranic verses , , and , the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. Tell me that which book what page number I should see to verify this great consensus that has nothing to do with Quranic verses you have quoted. Also the consensus is among whome. All mankind?--- Faisal 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your approach to the situation, Faisal. If it isn't published then its not wikipediable. Terryeo 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Revert without discussion, Feldspar?

I made several small changes in the article. Feldspar reverted them without discussion. Why? None of them were large changes, they seem to me to more accurately state the situation than the present edit does. Terryeo 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What article, or is this a misplaced private conversation? --SteveMcCluskey 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS, here on 6 June Terryeo 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OPPS. The link is this difference , sorry. That link to the Dianetics article, please ignore, my mistake. Terryeo 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo's remark is indeed displaced and should properly be on the discussion page of the Dianetics article.--Fahrenheit451 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for, once again, as with every opportunity which you reply, for recognizing my special status, User:Fahrenheit451. You might notice the subject of the discussion and reply to it ? The discussion about the article, "Reliable Sources" which is the discussion page to, you see? Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to describe them as "small" changes, since you have previously indicated (for instance, on Talk:Dianetics, as F451 mentioned) how you intend to interpret the phrases you inserted into the article, and those interpretations represent very large changes in policy. For instance, as has been pointed out to you, under your interpretation of "Published means 'published to the public'", Misplaced Pages could never mention anything about the contents of the Pentagon Papers, since the Pentagon did not make the choice to "publish them to the public". Frankly, some of your changes don't even make sense. "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information." How does information view information? No, I don't think your changing definitions such that a person, rather than a person's statement, is now considered to be the "primary source", is "more accurately stating the situation". Frankly, I think it's introducing inexactitudes into the article, inexactitudes which the unethical could then try and crowbar further away from the spirit of the rules to create loopholes. Not that you should presume I am accusing you of deliberately trying to create loopholes; I merely point out that people who like to wikilawyer to serve their agenda also like to introduce unnecessary changes into policy which they can then misrepresent to speciously claim support for the changes they wish to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't reply to the question I raised. I asked why.

• I call them "several small changes" because they were a word or two here and there in the article. Their total might be something like 20 or 25 words. Not all of them had to do with "published to the public" Yet you simply looked at what I had created and removed every word of it. It appeared like more like a personal issue than a content issue.
• I simply don't understand what you are talking about with your mention of "F451" and the discussion on the Talk:Dianetics page. Certainly a talk page is the place to talk about how guidelines and policy apply to a particular article, there is no better place to discuss such issues. What are you talking about?
• You use an example of "published to the public" where the creater of the domuments did not intend they be published. But Misplaced Pages could not include such documents, nor citations to the actual documents unless those documents had been previously published to the public. Which is why my modification to WP:RS spells out more explictly in a single phrase, Previously published to the public.
• My statement, "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information." is not a good one but this statement would be: A secondary source is composed of published information which has been created by someone who has viewed the primary source information.
• I ask you why you revert without discussion and you reply by accusing me of wikilawyering. Previously published to the public is already present policy. WP:V states, ..already been published by ... It is not something new that I am suggesting. I did create that particular phrase but that idea is already present in WP:V as a first statement. The reason I would like to have WP:RS use it as a phrase is because a number of editors, in a number of articles do not understand that personal websites can not be used as secondary sources of information in articles. User:Fahrenheit451, whom you see has posted my status without replying to the issue raised, in Patter drill is presently insisting on 4 cites to personal opinions on personal websites. A well written WP:RS would prevent such insistance by an editor. Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The legal definition of publish is, according to Oxford, "Communicate to a third party". A website that is publicly locatable by a search engine, advertising, or referring links, is published to the public. RS is a guideline, banned user Terryeo clearly wants to make it a policy to facilitate his POV. --Fahrenheit451 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, once again you are unwilling to say anything about the issue I raise without stating my status. I am attempting to tell you, Fahrenheit451, that the present Misplaced Pages Policy is that Personal websites of personal opinion are not published. There are verifibable, they are attributable (sometimes) but they are not published. This is not my personal attempt to change any policy, nor any guideline. This is simply a statement of long existing, Misplaced Pages Policy. Despite your particular definition from the Oxford Dictionary which is 100% accurate, that definition is the not the definition which Misplaced Pages uses. Terryeo 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is an opinion on a personal website a "published" opinion?

This guideline begins: "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable published sources". I understand "published" to mean "In the past, published to the public" and "published to the public" to mean, "Published by a reliable source to the public". Yet not every editor understands those words in this manner. User:Fahrenheit451, for example states: The legal definition of publish, according to Oxford, is "communicate to a third party". Websites whose content can be found by search engines or is advertised or referred to, is published. Thus, lermanet and xenu.net are published sites. here and here. User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely. At Patter drill the following links are cited by him within the article. personal website, opinion and robertdam's personal opinion and another robertdam opinion. Is User:Fahrenheit451's understanding the correct one, and I am mistaken? Terryeo 04:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo is to stop his personal attacks. --Fahrenheit451 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the phrase "reliable published sources". The key part for analysis is "reliable", not "published". F451 is correct that "published" should be understood to have its ordinary meaning, that is, "communicated to a third party (or parties)". When I put up something on my personal web site, I have indeed "published" it, for all legal and common-sense purposes. However, that does not mean that my web site is a reliable source. Think for a second: if, for Misplaced Pages purposes, "published" meant "published by a reliable source to the public", then the word "reliable" in the guideline's sentence "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable published sources" would be redundant and meaningless.

This does not mean that any of the material referred to above is necessarily a reliable source, nor that it should be used to write Misplaced Pages articles; merely that it is, in fact, published, as both common sense and legal definition will confirm. --MCB 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, ty. So then, a man who places a soapbox in the village square, stands on it and speaks day and night of the coming of the savior has "published" his opinion. The notice which is stapled to the telephone pole, telling of the coming yard sale is likewise "published, is that right? Terryeo 14:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with reliability of sources, not with issues of prior publication as relates to copyright law, the appropriate meaning of "published" should be the academic sense. In that context publication requires that the item

• Has gone through a formal review process before being accepted for publication.
• In the course of the review process has been checked for factual accuracy (and often for omissions of relevant detail).
• Has been copy edited for logical coherence and style.

By those criteria a personal web page is definitely not published. --SteveMcCluskey 14:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, We need to differentiate between "peer-review" as you describe in the first two points you state above, "copy editing" as you state in the third point, and "publishing" which is communicating a work to a third party. The reliability of the work is verified only by the first two processes that you describe. So, I have to correct you here, a personal webpage IS published if it is publicly accessible and locateable. It may or may NOT be peer-reviewed. Let's make this distinction explicit.--Fahrenheit451 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

F451, I'm coming from an academic perspective, where we evaluate our colleagues' publications every year. If someone were to claim on their productivity report, that an unreviewed essay on a personal web page is one of the publications required for promotion, it might give the personnel committee a bit of a laugh, but the committee wouldn't recommend a promotion on that basis. In academia, if it isn't published by a reputable independent publisher, it isn't published.

If Misplaced Pages means to be a serious encyclopecia, it needs to maintain scholarly standards. --SteveMcCluskey 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I agree wikipedia needs diligent standards. In academia, polish, peer-review, and publication in an established media is the criteria for credibility. However, we do not need to redefine a word in the english language to effect proper standards. During my involvement with academia, "published and peer-reviewed' was a criteria for advancement. Let's just say what we mean using standard english. --Fahrenheit451 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I had an interesting experience editing voting method articles. One editor wanted to include citations to his original research from his website, which was Not peer-reviewed, even though it was indeed published. I disputed his opinions and inclusion of his site as a citation, but was overruled by consensus of the editors at that time. Checking those articles several months later I found that he moved on and new editors had a different consensus. There went his citations. I don't think it is realistic to expect academic-like standards on wikipedia, although the pattern I have seen is that in the long term, articles Do approach diligent standards. They do become more credible and better in quality. --Fahrenheit451 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two elements to the phrase, "published, reliable sources" and the first elements is "published". F451 suggests a certain definition for the word and it comes from a recognized dictionary. But what about a large company who "publishes" orders to their distributers? In a sense, their distributers are a third party, (not part of the management stucture which originates such orders). I feel like, for Misplaced Pages purposes, we need to define Published to mean Published to the Public and include the whole phrase. Also, I agree with SteveMcCluskey's statements. Terryeo 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments about what I think "published" should mean with respect to reliable sources. We should use the ordinary meaning rather than restrict "published" to publication in a peer-reviewed medium, because academic journals do not address all areas of life, and limiting ourselves to peer-reviewed sources would preclude coverage of significant areas of life (much of popular culture, for example.) Also, we should not expand "published" to "published to the public" in part because it is redundant, and in part because whenever a customary word or phrase is altered to an unusual form, people tend to think the alteration is to create some new, non-obvious meaning.

If someone were to cite a source that was only communicated to a limited number of people (for example, a technical computer standard that is only supplied to people who sign a non-disclosure agreement) the citation could reasonably be attacked as (1) not truely published, or (2) not verifiable, because the practical steps necessary to verify the citation are unreasonably burdensome. Gerry Ashton 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Published" to a limited number of people is the difficulty I too have with the definition mentioned, to a third party. Other examples might be Ford Motor Company's annual publication to its dealerships or an internal directive about the company picnic. The intent is not to "publish to the public". If we can eliminate confusion in guidelines, then we should. Doesn't it make more sense to use Published to the public to define what sources can be used ? Terryeo 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good observations and sensible commentary, Gerry. --Fahrenheit451 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not a reliable source by its own standards. A house of sand

I recently tried to point this out in the article, and was immediately reverted. I will include the dialog which followed, so you can all see what happens to people who dare to raise serious questions here.

The policy page on verifiable sources contains no verifiable sources (by its own definition). The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources (by its own definition). Please explain why pointing this out is disruptive. Is what I have said not true? Sbharris 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Harris, I'm afraid you are totally correct, but there is a logical structure to the reliability of WP:RS. It rests on WP:V which rests on WP:NPOV which our founder states is non-negotiable. Therefore, the manner in which Reliability of Sources is defined depends on creating a Neutral Point of View. Now other wiki have been known to include newsgroup data and personal website data. The threshold for inclusion into wikipedia articles has to be placed somewhere, but it is an arbitray decsions. It could be placed very low (as some wikies do) or it could be placed very high. It is placed just above including personal websites, but allowing major newspapers. That is the grey area which gets discussed again and again. The single verifiable source for WP:V is our founder's statement of Neutral Point of View. Everything more than that is simply examples of how NPOV is normally achieved, achieved by other encylopedias and recognized reference works. Terryeo 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us where Jimbo has stated that the WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable? The policy page itself only gives two quotes, where he states that NPOV is non-negotiable. This is widely interpreted as referring to the Neutral Pont of View principle as explained at the top of the policy page. This has been the official interpretation ever since the quote was added to the policy on 5 November 2003.

(Please note that I'm not trying to advance my opinion on the negotiability of policies here; just trying to find out why you (and probably many others) are convinced our founder has stated that it is.) AvB ÷ talk 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's Jimbo's statement that I refer to. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable.". And that statement is the foundation of all our policies and guidelines. From it springs WP:NOR, eliminating a source of non-neutrality. Then comes WP:V which insures neutrality by insisting that "widely published" be presented in articles as being widely published and narrowly published, likewise. Thus, Neutral articles present how much, and what quality of information, has been created by mankind (about a subject).Terryeo 19:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources..." Can you point me to a reliable source that supports your assertion? Tom Harrison 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is more clever than useful. It is obvious by inspection, and the burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources for citation, not the revising editor who removes material because such sources don't exist. Do you need a citation for that? It is WP:RS. Why do you fail to see the problem here?Sbharris 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious by inspection? It sounds like you want to be released from the very requirement you demand we adhere to, in order to make your case that we should adhere to it. Appropriately enough for something that will ultimately approach solipsism, you can have the last word. Tom Harrison 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism would be avoided if the policy-makers of WP simply held to their own rules and published policy in another venue than WP, thereby bypassing the whole problem. And since your own comments above have been less than helpful, I'm simply going to paste this exchange in the appropriate talk page, and let other people comment. Sbharris 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion totally misses the point. An encyclopedia article reflects expert opinions about a topic; it requires citations of outside sources as evidence that those opinions are held in the larger expert community.

A policy page asserts policy. It is not based on evidence, hence it does not need to cite such evidence to support its assertions. --SteveMcCluskey 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A policy page asserts policy, yes. It certainly must be based on evidence, since how else would you know whose policy it was, or if correct? I can change it to assert MY idea of WP policy. Then you will certainly dutifully change it back to reflect what you assume is WP policy. But how do you KNOW any of THAT? Did WP issue you a set of guidelines, written by Jimbo and signed and notarized, in the mail? All you know is generation 58.3 of what you see in the Wiki. And you think it's scripture, don't you?

Where is the verifiable WP policy? How is it verified? What is the citation. Where did it originate from? How do we know? What is your reliable source for WP policy? How do you know the source is reliable? All these questions are very, very basic. They cut across all WP articles which are modifiable by users, and WP:V and WP:RS are no exceptions (why do you think they are?). The problem here is we're all arguing over what Jimbo Wales thinks and nobody knows what Jimbo Wales thinks. Do you notice him as one of the contribuing editors to either of these Wikis? And if you did, how would you know it was him? The demand for outside publication (of some kind, even electronic, so long as it's verifiable) on facts, is not done lightly here on WP. Sbharris 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some orgnaization is better than no organization. A policy is a statement of what will work. It is an organizational effort. NPOV is our policy, our stable datum, the platform on which we edit. Neutral talks about the quality and quantity of information published. It leads to Widely published (by good sources) is to be widely present in articles. Without that foundation articles would be full of personal opinion from personal websites and blogs. Misplaced Pages is a creation, it isn't based on published, established ideas but is a creation. Its organization and implementation are based on a single idea, NPOV. Terryeo 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiny suggestion: maybe familiarise yourself with the *namespace* concept, before continuing this discussion. The namespace concept is explained at wikipedia:namespace

Different namespaces have different rules. Just giving some random examples:

• some rules are for all namespaces, in all Wikimedia projects, e.g.: m:Don't be a dick
• some policies are for *one* namespace in *one* project, e.g.: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories), applies only for the "category:" namespace in en:wikipedia.
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view only applies in main (or: article) namespace, in category:, and part of template: namespace (the "reader-facing templates")
• There are content guidelines specifically for what happens in "wikipedia:" namespace, which is the "project" namespace for en:wikipedia. For instance, WP:V does not apply in wikipedia: (or: "project") namespace. Misplaced Pages:how to create policy on the other hand applies to a part of the wikipedia: or "project" namespace, that is the part that contains "policies" and "guidelines" (so, for example, it does not apply for the *essays* in that namespace).
• There are namespaces you maybe didn't even hear about, like the "MediaWiki:" namespace (the namespace with the system messages). The major rule there, is that you can't edit it if you aren't a sysop. Afaik there's no "written" rule about that, it's just: the software is built that way.

--Francis Schonken 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. How do you know where these rules come from, or who made them up? You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Perhaps it's time you reexamined your premises. Because you read it in a Wiki, you think it's true. But go back through the history of the Wiki and see if it's the same. If not, who made the changes? And what makes those people different from you or me? THINK. Sbharris 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The implicit issue in this section seems to be, how do we know what the policies are if the policies themselves can be edited by any editor? I suggest that hierarchical policy-making is not the only model for making policy.

Yes. I just had a note from some other editor that he was going to revert some of my discussionon this point on grounds that Misplaced Pages is not the medium for "extended epistemological discussions". Maybe the long word scared him, but RS and V are intrinsically epistemological topics, and if they left free to float as editorial policy, then extended discussion can hardly be avoided, can it?Sbharris

The policies exist, and although they could be drastically altered every ten minutes, they are not. Indeed, the changes that occur only affect a small number of articles. Most good articles satisfy most versions of the policies, and most bad articles satisfy hardly any versions of the policies. Therefore a rough consensus has been achieved. Those who have the technical ability to freeze the policies have elected not to do so, so we can infer that the powers-that-be concur with a consensus-based policy process, even if some of the powers-that-be might not concur with the wording of a certain policy on a certain day.

I follow your logic, but your use of the word "infer" above highlights my point. If you don't mind my saying so, that's a sad state of affairs, and worth pointing out. It especially rankles in a project which takes verifiability as a standard for most of what it does. Sbharris 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been argued that making the policies uneditable would reduce time spent arguing about policy and increase time spend writing articles. The powers-that-be are always free to decide that arguing about policy has become an unprofitable diversion, and make them uneditable. So far that has not happened. Gerry Ashton 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It has not happened. We can only speculate about why. The parallels with religious and scriptural interpretation arguments are striking, are they not. And it's sad because it doesn't have to be this way on WP Sbharris 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some things have needed to be flexible (aka editable) due to changes from scaling. PROD (although only a pseudo-policy right now) would never have been conceived of when there were only two hundred articles. - brenneman 09:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:DICK. Steve block Talk 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• • You insolent little pickle! How dare you cast aspersions at my esteemed personage in that manner! Trouts at thirty paces, you have only to name your second. - brenneman 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you amended my format in order to take offence at a comment not directed at you but at the thread originator. I have amended the formatting, since, when I offer offence, I would rather defend myself against the original target and not engage in that American practise of friendly fire. I'm aware of my own danger of dickish behaviour in suggesting the link, but I think the original point is merely an imponderable extension of the term pedantic into areas where it ought not apply, and where the guidance at WP:DICK really ought. If you really would like to take offence, however, I have no option but to declare Sbharris as my second, since he has demonstrated a well developed sense of process and I believe I can trust him to serve me well as second. Steve block Talk 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point that User:Sbharris is trying to make is that Misplaced Pages (specifically this page) holds wikis are not reliable (including Misplaced Pages), so how can it be reliably held to pronounce anything? There's are lots of interesting points to be made here: this line of reasoning is similar to that offered by many critics--yet, we all seem to consider our efforts here to worthwhile, and many many many people out there consider us a useful resource. Likewise, many articles here do link to other wikis as sources, particularly MeatballWiki and WikiWikiWeb. Personally, I think it's time to reconsider language which regards wikis as inherently unreliable; instead we should consider numerous factors:

• The quality of the wiki's engine: Does it provide a complete history (like Misplaced Pages), or does it routinely discard all but the most recent edits (like WikiWikiWeb)?
• The wiki's user/authentication policies. Who gets to post? How good is the maintenance? How well does the site fend off vandalism? Is it possible for users to impersonate other users?
• The wiki's editorial standards: Is the wiki edited/authored by experts in a particular field, or is it a free-for-all? Does it have published standards (like, say, WP:RS)?
• The wiki's reputation: Is it highly regarded, lowly regarded, or seldom regarded at all?

Now, Sbharris may have pointed out a bit of an inconsistency; though it's not a new one. His doing so will not, fortunately, cause Misplaced Pages to annihilate itself in a great burst of energy, as the contradiction causes it to cease to exist.  :) Far too much heat seems to be being emitted in the above debate. --EngineerScotty 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One more point. What does the panel think, if we do permit linking to wikis, of linking to specific versions of articles, rather than the latest version? Doing so potentially sacrifices up-to-date-ness (a wiki advantage) for stability (the main objection to linking to wikis). --EngineerScotty 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of us appreciate the point, but just don't see it as having any real worth as something debatable. Misplaced Pages itself has long been held to be not a reliable source, so why should consideration of this point change anything? One could make the same point about any facet of life; for example who has the authority to state that the Queen is the Queen? It's a redundant point of little interest outside small circles. It's a bit like that mathematical proof where 1+1=0. Fabulous, but it doesn't help me tie my shoes up in the morning. As to your point, my argument is that we don't reference wikis, we reference the sources they cite. Just as I would recommend anyone coming here does. Steve block Talk 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For some topics, at various points in time, a particular wiki might be the source; wikis can be primary sources, in which case there may be nothing else to cite. As social software evolves; I suspect we will see more and more examples of websites where wiki functionality is integrated with other arrangements. Using WP as an example, again, the wiki is a great idea for article space, but the protocols and procedures used on talk pages essentially provides a poor emulation of forum software within a wiki. At any rate, a key point that must be made is that ultimately, the authority of any source, like it or not, is only really determinable by what others think of it. WP's reputation has grown over the years, as have the reputations of many other non-traditional publishers. I think, FTMP, we're in agreement. --EngineerScotty 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't appreciate the point. WP:RS and WP:V are self-published sources in articles about themselves. I wouldn't think twice about citing to the AOL homepage for information about AOL's privacy policies; why should I think twice about citing to WP:RS for information about WP guidelines?TheronJ 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The point SBharris would make is that nobody can edit AOL's privacy policies (not without authorization from AOL, at least). In theory, a vandal could edit WP:V to make it say something else (there are no technological impediments to doing so); in practice such vandalism would be reverted in minutes if not seconds. It's a standard anti-wiki argument. --EngineerScotty 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm not making that standard anti-wiki argument, but something a little more subtle (give me credit, please). These "policy pages" change in a slow way over time, by a kind of consensus creep. If you compare WP:V with a version 500 changes ago (less than a year) you'll find it's a somewhat different article, and not just in punctuation, style, and moving text around. Whole sections and arguments and subpolicies have been added. Now, if somebody was to have done all 500 changes at once back in Sept 2005, they'd have been reverted as a vandal. But apparently if it's done over a longer period of a time, it's like cooking a frog who has dT/dt (rapid change in temp) sensors but no absolute T (temp) sensors. It can be done without him jumping, but only if you do it slowly. What looks like vandalism when done fast, is not vandalism when done piecemeal.

Now, I have no problem with policy at WP being set by slow editorial consensus (hey, it's a neat experiment), and not by authority "from the top." But for consistency, I'd like to see this and its corollaries boldly stated in the relevant policy articles, so that they are widely understood. One of these corollaries is that policy is negociable, not "non-negociable". Just because you find it in a policy Wiki, does not mean it wasn't put there by some lay-editor long ago, and managed to slide by, by concensus. And maybe, just maybe, it's not such a good idea, on second thought. Maybe it's no longer relevant to our time. Fine. So change it. A second corollary is that WP policy changes can't be used in the way we've seen them used, to bludgeon people over the head with, in edit wars. They aren't scripture. They're just a slowly building and changing concensus of stuff which is out there, some of which is bad and hasn't been changed because it hasn't been noticed or thought about. Sort of like irrelevant and no-longer enforceable laws on the books, or case-law. We'd hate to have cops shoot people on the basis of obscure case law, would we not?

I've gone too long without an example. In WP:V you'll find a new section on "self publishing". In it you will find the following: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. I've objected to this paragraph, because it seems to place ANYTHING a professional journalist writes, on equal reliablity footing with what a professional researcher writes in their relevant field. I argue that the only "relevant field" a professional journalist has any expertise in, is journalism itself. I got reverted for suggesting this. And yet the original statement was placed by somebody else (perhaps a journalist?) and survived. Is that because nobody thought too hard about it at the time; or because most people don't agree with me, and ascribe nearly omniscient powers to professional jouralists, making their writing comparable to the writing of any other professional writing in the professional's field of expertise? Discuss. Anyway, overlook the issue and consider it as example. At present, this paragraph is WP policy. And is quotable as such, by those who don't seem to understand where WP policy comes from. Sbharris 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with your proposed changes concerning journalists (though I'd modify it a bit). I would consider Woodward and Bernstein to be experts on Watergate, for example. I don't consider Andrew Orlowski an expert on WP or on encyclopedias, even though he seems to fancy himself as such. Most journalists are not "experts" on the subjects they write about, though their accounts may still be acceptable as primary sources (which need not be penned by experts). At any rate--did you propose the change here, on the talk page? Or did you just make the change without discussing it first? The latter is generally considered inappropriate, and grounds for a revert.

Regarding "negotiability"; the only policy I've heard pronounces as "non-negotiable" is WP:NPOV. Now, I cannot provide off-hand a link to where Jimmy Wales uttered this; mainly because I'm too lazy to search for it at the present time. Many other policies are grounded in encyclopedia science, but are "negotiable" in that the community can change them and how they are applied.

--EngineerScotty 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion requested on this issue

A difference of opinion has arisen at this discussion.#Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives Additional opinions are requested. --CTSWyneken 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What about things that don't have reliable sources?

Like in AOHack Programs there's a link with a history of it all. It's not a published research journal, but it's important info for the article. Some things just don't have professionally published references, so I don't think their sources should be held to such high standards. Whereas things like famous people and big news topics and anything really well-known should. Any thoughts on this? DyslexicEditor 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the WP article stated a person had been convicted of an offense; fortunately that allegation was backed up in the cited Wired article. If the allegation had not been backed by a reliable source, the proper course of action would be to immediately edit the page to remove the allegation.

Ideally the author of the unreliable source could be persuaded to find a reliable publisher for the information, if it is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages.Gerry Ashton 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Affidavits

What makes an affidavit a published document? A notary must witness an affidavit for it to be one, but a notary only confirms the person is who he says he is and does no fact checking about the validity of the information comprising an affidavit. That a statement is sworn and witnessed does not make it published, does it? This is the affidavit in question, in html and on a personal website . It is being used as a secondary source of information in Scientology, portions of paragraphs are quoted. There are two problems with it (I think). One is the signatures, neither the instigator of the statement nor the norary public who witnessed it appears. And the person's identity who typed it up for the website does not appear either. Finally, there is no clear indication (as I understand the legal jargon) that the affidavit was actually part of a court record. Could someone who understands legalese take a look at it please? As comparisons, here is a genuine affidavit and the same affidavit in html Terryeo 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would Andre Tabayoyon's affidavit of 5 March 1994 not be a "published source"?

• It is widely available, in English, in French, etc...
• Its author is known (Andre Tabayoyon)
• Its copyright holder is known ("Copyright © 1994 Andre Tabayoyon Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes" appears on several of the web copies)
• It is quoted in scholar works (Misunderstanding Cults, edited by Benjamin David Zablocki, Thomas Robbins, University of Toronto Press © 2001 - Page 357 - ISBN 0802081886)
• The original publisher of the affidavit is known ("UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA", see e.g. p. 377 of the publication mentioned in the previous point)

Really, establishing whether something is "published" is not the hard part. --Francis Schonken 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That affidavit has at in its header "Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx)". Seems to have been filed in a case between COS vs Fish and Geertz. Note that an affidavit can be used to provide the supporting material for WP:V as it pertains to the POV of the person signing the affidavit (i.e. so that the statement by the signatory of the affidavit can be verified), and not for any other purpose. An affidavit, is different from a scholarly source in this respect. What I mean that an affidavit is a reliable source for the statement of the signatory but not a reliable source for other purposes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, as a primary source document it could be used in an article about Andre Tabayoyon and his views. But it is being used as a secondary source and the threshold for inclusion is "previously published by a reliable, reputable source". So that's why I ask how I can be sure it has been published by such a source. Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, if there is a problem with the 5 March 1994 Tabayoyon affidavit being used as a source in the Misplaced Pages article on Scientology, than such problem would be linked with it being used as a primary source. If it is a primary source, it isn't turned into a secondary source by the way it is used or referenced in a Misplaced Pages article. Even less would a primary source be turned into a secondary source when it is linked from a different Misplaced Pages article. Neither could the Zablocki/Robbins book be turned from a secondary source into a primary source by the way it is used in a Misplaced Pages article, nor by linking it from a different Misplaced Pages article. Inviting you to read the definition of "primary source" on the WP:RS guideline page, in the "definitions" section. I'm quite sure you'll find all you need there. --Francis Schonken 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean, whether it should be treated as if it were a "self-published" source? Terryeo asked about "published" (and that of course includes "self-published" sources). Like I said, distinguishing between the "published" and the "non-published" is not the hard part. FWIW, I don't think Tabayoyon's 1994 affidavit is a "secondary" source. As far as I can see it is very "primary source".

So using (for instance) the Zablocki/Robbins book (which is definitely a secondary source) as a reference for the Misplaced Pages article on Scientology would probably be a better choice (but you made that suggestion already below - copying after edit conflict).

Anyway, as far as I can see, in the Scientology article Tabayoyon's affidavit is exclusively used to provide the supporting material for WP:V as it pertains to the POV of the person signing the affidavit like you put it. So there appears to be no problem there either. --Francis Schonken 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is used to present a negative slant to an aspect of Scientology which I am pretty sure is completely untrue, though I don't oppose that Tabayoyon has another view. What I am questioning is whether his personal opinion ((that document) has been published. If his personal opinion is published, then it meets WP:V and can be used as a secondary source. But, if his personal opinion (that document) has not been previously published by a reliable, reputable source, then that document can not be used as it is presently being used.Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis has already explained quite accurately the difference between primary and secondart sources. The question that begs to be asked, IMO, is the notability of the author of the source. If the author is notable, he will be surely quoted and referred to by a multiplicity of sources. In this case we have one book (Zablocki's) that mentions it, so I would argue that it may be cited only in the context of that book and not directly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely more books quoting this source. I counted at least three at Google Book Search (), and this is probably a fourth: - above I just picked the one that looked most scholarly, and showing page content without subscribing. If wanting to write about the "celebrities" aspect of Scientology (that's what the Tabayoyon quote in the Misplaced Pages article tried to elucidate), I might recommend this replacement candidate, maybe somewhat less "academic" than the Zablocki book, but "secondary" source by all means: Andrew Breitbart, Mark Ebner. Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon — The Case Against Celebrity. Wiley, 2004, ISBN 0471450510. p. 137 --Francis Schonken 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As this document in cited in Zablocki's book, I would argue that it can be used by citing Zablocki's rather than a direct citation from that affidavit. As this subject is highly contentious, I would suggest that it is discussed amongst editors involved in that article, rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, the Zablocki book quotes another part of the Tabayoyon 1994 affidavit than the Misplaced Pages article on scientology. I'm perfectly OK to leave it with the editors of that Misplaced Pages article. The affidavit "not being published" should however not be an argument in that discussion, that's the question I tried to answer. --Francis Schonken 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. When was it published, how can a person know that it was published just by viewing the HTML page?Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editors of that article will have to weight if OK to use the primary source, or the secondary one. I would argue for the latter, but I agree that making the right choice is to be left to that article's editors.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a general guideline and not trying to get into any specific difficulty. My question was about the HTML presentation of an affidavit. It doesn't have a notary signature block, its only indication it is genuine are the typed words of the author's name at the end. The person who typed it didn't even give their name or date. It appears on a personal website. Apparently you are both more familar with the document than I am. I think you have both affirmed that it is valid and was present in a court case and become published because A) it is part of court records and B) because, in addition, Tabayoyon published a book which contained it? That answers my question about its validity. But doesn't quite make it clear how we can know that "affidavits" are published or not. As part of a court record, sure, they are published. But an individual HTML document (unsigned, undated, un-notarized) hwo can we know they have been previously published by reliable, reputable sources? Terryeo 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions would be to look at whether there was any serious dispute about reliability. I'm normally not a big fan of the "WP:RS is flexible" argument, but this might be a good place for it. Some things to look for might be:

1. Is the affidavit available from the Court? Even if you would have to go to LA (or whereever) to see it, that makes it verifiable, and at that point, I would say it's the same as a website excerpting some rare journal article or book from 1852 - unless there's some particular reason to doubt it, it's probably fine until someone gets the original and argues. (You can call the court clerk's office with the case number and date and see if the documents are available for review.) Alternately, some court documents have probably been published.
2. I would approach these on a case by case basis. If most people think the transcription is probably accurate, it's probably reliable enough.
3. A closer problem would be if the original affidavit was not publicly available. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts about that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs)

That is why we are much safer by citing a reliable source, in this case Zablocki's book. Zablocki surely did not get the affidavit he cited from an unsigned and unverified transcript of it on a personal web page. My opinion is that we should not rely on uncorroborated transcripts of anything, including radio and TV interviews, legal documents, etc. These are as easy to falsify as personal websites are dime a dozen. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on any aspects of the Scientology debate (a hornet's nest I will studiously try to avoid)--perhaps we can make a distinction between a particular document and a convenient electronic copy? Nobody objects to electronic copies of the United States Constitution being used as a reference; even though they aren't the genuine article found in the National Archives. Likewise, I've included references to electronic copies of research papers whose authoritative version is in print; am I sinning if I don't hop down to the nearest University library and ensure for myself that the electronic copy I provide a URL to is exactly the same as the official dead tree edition? How often haw Misplaced Pages linked to electronic "copies" of some document which misrepresented the original (intentionally or otherwise)? --EngineerScotty 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The United States Constitution is not a good example, as it is widely available from a variety of sources, and its content easly verifiable. What we are discussing is the use of uncorroborated transcripts of court orders or TV/radio interviews hosted on personal webpages (that in themselves are not an acceptable tertiary source). Big difference, Scotty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Allow me to abstract the situation, to avoid reference to any real-world controversies or sources:

Editor E makes reference to some document x, where the official copy of x is held by some party A. Assume that the veracity of A's x is undisputed. E refers to x by name in some fashion. However, x may be difficult to access--no certified-accurate (by A or some other mutually trusted authority) version of x exists online or in print publication; examination of x requires travel to the premises of A, and may incur even further restrictions. (A can be examined by the public, so it is "published" in that sense, but it isn't widely available).

To make up for this shortcoming, E instead uses document x_2, which is widely distributed (or made available online) by some party B (who is independent of A), and claims it to be a true and accurate reproduction of x. A does not certify (or otherwise comment on) the authenticity of x_2, perhaps by policy.

Editor F, who holds a position in some debate D which is compromised by the claims present in x_2 (and thus, it is claimed, but the claims present in x as the two say the same thing), challenges use of x_2 as a proxy for x, on the grounds that its veracity hasn't been demonstrated.

The question is: When should such challenge be considered legitimate reason to disregard x_2?

• If B, the publisher of x_2, takes a position on D (likely one favorable to E and unfavorable to F)
• If B has been shown in other manners to be untrustworthy?
• If B, while not an untrustworthy source, isn't a particularly authoritative one either?
• If F asserts that he has side-by-side compared x and x_2, and observed significant difference?
  • If F enumerates the differences?
• If F asserts that he has seen both x and x_2 (though not together), and insists that there are significant differences
• If F has no evidence that x and x_2 are indeed different; but merely insists that E must prove they are in fact equivalent before using x_2 as a proxy for x?

I would think that any specific enumeration of differences would be grounds for debate. Likewise, rampant and demonstrable untrustworthiness on the part of B (in other words, B has been caught engaging in fabrication or other acts of intellectual dishonesty previously) is probaby grounds to disregard evidence provided by B and not checkable elsewhere. However, absent reasons to presume otherwise; I think a default presumption that x_2 is in fact a true and accurate reproduction of x should, in general, apply. Thoughts?

--EngineerScotty 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gawd. Yeah, that's the situation I was asking about all right. LOL. Terryeo 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-withstanding the brilliant exposition of yours above, the issue I have with it is that I would not think that we can make generic descriptions such as these. In situations were there is a dispute about accuracy of a reproduced source, consensus of involved editors is needed to assess the verifiability/accuracy/trustworthiness of the source. In addition, WP:V does not pass judgement about the difficultly or ease of accessing a source. If a source is verifiable, e.g. actually going to a public library to check a source, rather than googling it and finding an uncorroborated source, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with EngineerScotty's extremely naive trust in the reliability of Web sites, and I concur with Jossi that electronic copies of documents should be relied on only when they are republished by a reliable neutral source like LexisNexis or ProQuest. It is simply too much work for Misplaced Pages editors to have to cross-check copies hosted on personal Websites pushing personal agendas word-for-word against the original copies, particularly when those originals may exist only in court archives (which can be very difficult to access). --Coolcaesar 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jossi, assuming I've understood him/her correctly. (1) If the source is verifiable (for example, available from the court) and there are no specific concerns with the website transcription, then it's probably fine - the website isn't any worse than some editor just typing in the stuff and citing to the court docket entry. (2) If the source isn't verifiable, then it's probably up to the concensus of the page's editors, with the burden on the people who want it in. TheronJ 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An affidavit which is presented in a published book will (probably) give more information about it than the affidavit itself. A book, being published, is also a pretty good indication of accuracy. The problem I was having was an HTML presentation, without the signature of the notary who witnessed it and without a date of creation. In the Scientology articles, such citations to "Affidavits" are not uncommon. If they were in PDF, the signature block could appear and the author's signature could appear. But a re-typed HTML duplication (even if it doesn't have mispellings) has none of that information. Therefore, the only confidence we have in the reproduction of an affidavit is how well the website owner typed. In addition, a simple HTML presentation might give no historical context or use of such an affidavit, as in the affidavit I asked about. Whereas PDF is generally used by legal websites and can contain signatures, date stamps and other information which contributes to authenticity. You all have made helpful comments :) Terryeo 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I've changed the implication that self-published abstracts of papers submitted for peer review are reliable sources. Self-published material is only a reliable source in very limited circumstances, which the policy explains in its own section, so I've referred the reader to that section. SlimVirgin 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The serious problem with this guideline as regards the physical sciences is that so much reference is made to peer-review and not enough to scientific consensus. It can't be said often enough: Just because it's referreed is isn't necessarily so. A fact or method that has made its way into a review article is important and is accepted research, an article in a journal may turn out to draw the wrong conclusions, be irrelevant or, sometimes, outright fraudulent.

What we should ask ourselves is if we must really present the latest, best research the day after it appears in print (or is uploaded on arXiv), or if we can wait until a review appears where the material has been sifted. Dr Zak 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The change mentioned above is to the section WP:RS#arXiv preprints and conference abstracts. The section could now be read to mean that all conference abstracts are self-published. I must admit that I personally have not presented a paper at a conference, but my electronics engineering colleagues have, and the conferences I've attended only accepted a fraction of the papers submitted, and publish every accepted paper in a digest. While the article acceptance screening was not as rigorous as full peer-review, it was substantially stricter than the criteria for self-publishing (the criteria for self-publishing being having enough money to pay the printer). Therefore it is not accurate to label all conference abstracts as self-published. Gerry Ashton 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And, to completely dispel the myth of peer review, journals of type "Cold Fusion News" do peer review, and AFAIK recently the Creationists have started a refereed journal, too. Don't get me wrong, peer-review does an admirable job to keep the cranks and bores out of a journal but it does not establish "scientific truth". For that we have to wait for the "invisible boot" that kicks out the irrelevant bits. Dr Zak 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a fundamental misunderstanding?

Slimvirgin, could there be a fundamental misunderstanding between us about what "self-published"/"unrefereed" work actually is? Anyone who presents work at a conference or uploads a paper to arXiv has a reputation to lose and thus won't completely go off the rails. Conference abstracts and preprints are really done on a "best-effort" basis. The greater problem with brand-new work is that people don't really know yet what to make of it.

On the other hand, some dude who gets himself a domain and some webhosting can put forth whatever theory he wants. I guess that is what you mean by "self-published". Dr Zak 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I define self-published as published with the author's personal effort (i.e. the author operates the printing press) or by an information distributor who distributes anything submitted by an author with hardly any regard for the merit of the submission. Any substantial screening by the information distributor raises the standard above the level of "self-published" even if the standard falls short of peer-review. Gerry Ashton 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm using self-published to mean that nothing stands between the writer and the act of publication. In other words, no one is fact-checking, checking for libel etc. An academic who uploads a paper to his own website also has a reputation to lose, but the point remains that it's self-published, and if no one else publishes it, there might be a reason for that. Is there a need for Misplaced Pages to publish papers that were only self-published on arXiv? In other words, is there a lot of good material that is available only on that website? SlimVirgin 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the things us editors have to ask outselves. Is the paper on a preprint server because no credible journal wants to print it, or is it there to be published faster than in a regular journal. That's the advantage of preprint servers, it appears there a few months earlier than in the journal. Hence the advice to take "extreme caution" in the old version as it hasn't been reviewed in any way. We really need a black-box warning there.

The question is this: Let's say someone well-known uploads a paper to arXiv or gives a talk at a conference, stating he has solved the problem of baryon asymmetry. Should we be allowed to say so-and-so claims to have solved the problem, should we wait until the paper is past the reviewers, and then say so-and-so claims to have solved the problem (because these are ideas that haven't been digested by the community of physicists) or should we wait until an authoritative review on baryogenesis appears and then say that the problem has been solved?

Note that what we are doing here is sifting and grading sources. Per WP:NOR we can't add our own opinion or interpretation about any source, we are however allowed to judge how crediable the available sources are. Dr Zak 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to wait until the material has been published by a reliable source other than the author. By "published," we mean made available to a wide audience, so I would include speaking to a conference as "publication," so long as it's a conference that will make papers available on request, and which is organized by a reputable body. Although no one is fact-checking what the author has written, there are people standing between him and the act of publication, in that he had to be invited and had to agree the topic in advance, and so on.

None of this is the case with arXiv, as I understand it. Anyone can publish anything on that site, is that right? If so, it is the author, and the author only, who is making it available to a wider audience, which makes it entirely self-published, and there are obvious problems with that. If famous Professor X claims on arXiv to have solved famous problem Y, someone else will write about it soon enough, and then we use that publication as a source. If no one writes about it, that suggests it's not notable, not correct, not interesting, or whatever. SlimVirgin 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The selection process for conference presentations goes like this: One submits an abstract (half a page), and the organizers choose those talks whose topic and speaker promises to be sufficiently exciting. No extensive checking if the data supports the conclusions is done - the audience will see to that.

With preprints it's quite the same - you put your reputation on the line; if you publish too much junk people won't believe you any longer.

Our article on the arXiv actually says that there are some preprints that were never formally published - because everyone believes that they are key papers anyway. There are some more key papers that were never published in a refereed journal. The publication on transposable genes that earned Barbara McClintock her Nobel Prize is the 1951 Cold Spring Harbor report. According to your position we couldn't cite it, which would be silly. Dr Zak 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(What I'm trying to say here is that only scientific consensus, not peer review that makes a paper relevant.) We need some guidelines to help people gauge the relevance of non-conventional sources, like preprint servers, and the text as it stands now is unhelpful. It lumps together self-published material within and outside the scientific environment. Dr Zak 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I looked at lanl.arxiv.org. It seems that they divide the subjects they cover into topics, and they may require that a user either have already uploaded papers on a certain topic, or be endorsed by an existing member from that topic area. Of course they reserve the right to delete any paper, but it appears once a contributor has been endorsed, there won't be further review when the member uploads papers on the topic that he or she has been endorsed in. Gerry Ashton 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "self-published"

Anyway, could we have a definition of "self-published" in the guideline, for instance in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Some definitions? Seems like you all are talking a bit next to each other, each of you taking his/her own definition, and adapting the guideline from that angle. I suppose that, anyhow, and for avoidance of later disputes, we need a definition of "self-published" about which there is consensus, for the workability of this guideline.

I don't know whether this would work (just proposing what pops to my mind):

Self-published: a source is considered self-published when, for all the available publications of the work, the author of the work can not be distinguished from its publisher.

This includes "anonymous" works for which there is only one publisher (unless it can be verified with external sources that the identity of the author is different from the publishers' identity)

This includes (for instance) also "book catalogues" published by reputable publishing houses: however "reputable" the publisher is, when that publisher provides a list of works that are available for purchase, that is a self-publication.

This includes websites where it is only the author who decides on the content of what gets posted and what doesn't (even if the author had to go through an acceptation process as trusted person: if after that the content of what such accredited author contributes is always accepted for publication, it is self-published). Note that for most "forum" applications moderation is a post-publication process (usually restricted to removing some contributions). Since in such case there is no "filter" prior to publication, forum/blog contributions are nearly always "self-published". Examples:

• However much I appreciate Scott Adams, and the courage he has in discussing "hot" topics with the general public in his blog, none of that falls outside "self-published"; Scott Adams also has an e-book published concurrently in webspace and on paper, God's Debris. The publisher is Andrews Mc Meel. Not self-published.
• The Erik Satie website published by Niclas Fogwall has a forum application (here is the archive for the 2000-2004 contributions to that forum: http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/satie/newsg.html ) and "publishes" contributions by Erik Satie scholars (for instance, Articles listed on this page). One of these articles is an English translation of a piece that, on paper, was only published in French (Give a dog a bone). As the author of that piece (O. Volta), and the translator, are not the same as the publisher: not self-published. In the forum application on that website, however, almost anything is self-published, except in a few rare cases where Niclas Fogwall quotes an answer he received by snail mail from one of the scholars contributing content (reviewed by the publisher prior to publication).

The definition proposed above includes printed books where the means (money) for getting the book printed and distributed is provided by the author, even if that printing and distributing is done by third parties. However, if a printed publication is distributed by a publisher different from the author there's no pre-emptive assumption the publisher works "on hire" for the author, unless this can be verified by thrustworthy sources.

My proposed definition for "self-published" includes an editor-in-chief's editorial in a newspaper: the author of such editorial can be assumed to promulgate the stance of the periodical that publishes the editorial, so in that case there's no distinction between the "publisher" and the "author". However, regular journalism regarding events and topics in periodicals can be assumed to have to go through an acceptance procedure by the journal's editorial board, so then there is a distinction between author (journalist) and publisher.

In some of the other definitions proposed above I saw a danger of OR, I mean: Wikipedians are not equipped to assess whether an editorial review (exercised by universities, editorial boards and the like) is "sound" or not. So I tried to center my proposed definition on the author/publisher distinction, not on the "quality" of reviews prior to publication (which is a much more subjective area).

Unless there is a better proposal, I add the definition proposed above to the list of definitions on the guideline page. --Francis Schonken 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of that is needed. None of your examples includes working scientists either. We aren't really discussing if any source is self-published, what we want guidelines for is if a source has been fact-checked or is reputable.

Grigori Perelman published his paper on the Poincaré conjecture on arXiv in 2002. As of 2006 it is still under review and hasn't been formally published. It is however believed by people working in the field that he has indeed solved the problem. Should we be able to quote that paper, if so, with what qualifiers? I think we should be able to, pointing to the scientific consensus as we find it in review articles. Dr Zak 14:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

1. S.D. Goitein in Evidence on the Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1963; Vol. 6, Pp. 278-279.
2. Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–163