| Revision as of 04:47, 14 November 2024 editRollinginhisgrave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,067 edits + specific, policy-based← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:44, 2 December 2024 edit undoRollinginhisgrave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,067 edits rs concl | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Strictly speaking, a source cannot by itself be described as reliable. A source can only be reliable for verifying a piece of information. | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:TRUMPRCB}} | |||
| On Misplaced Pages, bias means something different to what it means elsewhere. We say content is biased if it doesn't have a ], which means {{tq|representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}} | |||
| There are two types of statements a source can verify: those that are attributed and those that are not. With the former, editors look for attributes such as independence, peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. This can indicate it is reliable for such a statement. They also look for counter-considerations, such as contradicting other sources that also have such attributes and a lack of expertise to make such a statement. | |||
| Likewise, ] on Misplaced Pages means something specific. Reliable sources have qualities such as a reputation for fact-checking and ] from their subject. They can have a bias but still be reliable; we just have to attribute their views and not give them too much weight. You can see a list of popular sources and how the editor community has evaluated their reliability at ]. Click on this footnote to see how these policies can be challenged.{{efn|These policies can be challenged at the page ], but you will need some experience editing to understand how they are applied and for your challenge to be effective.}} | |||
| How considerations and counter-considerations are weighted, and the determination of reliability for a statement is made, comes down to any consensus editors can form. The community has some preferences for which considerations are more relevant; experienced editors are more able to apply such intangible preferences. If a source meets this, the material can be put in wikivoice. | |||
| Editors have evaluated reliable sources and have determined they are are generally critical of Trump. His article reflects this. We can't do much with a simple claim of bias; we need evidence the article doesn't have a neutral point of view. Click on the footnote to see some ways this can be done.{{efn|One way is showing that something discussed by a significant portion of reliable sources is being underrepresented, or something discussed in the articles overrepresents coverage in reliable sources.<br>Another way could be demonstrating, using evidence from reliable sources and policy, that a source used has bias and should be given less weight.<br>You can read more at ].}} | |||
| When a source falls short of this, we can move from using the source to verify the content of what they said, to verifying that they said something. If the source has a credible claim to representing what it purports to be, it is considered a reliable source to verify the attributed claim. An example of a "credible claim": Donald Trump's Twitter may post something, but whether the tweet is a reliable source that Trump or merely his Twitter said it is considered (considering the potential that a social media team-member tweeted it). | |||
| If you start a discussion based on this, ensure your proposal is '''specific''', refers to the '''policies and guidelines''' it is based on and that it is supported by '''reliable sources'''. You need to ]. They will assume the same of you. ] is very important on Misplaced Pages; your edits should create a {{tq|pleasant editing environment}}. If a ] forms, the article will be changed. | |||
| Misplaced Pages has some resources to help you further: | |||
| *] is a good starting point for reading about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. | |||
| *If you have any questions, visit the ] and experienced editors will do their best to answer. | |||
| *] provides instructions on how you can address real bias on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *If you want to become more active in Misplaced Pages editing, ] can set up a one-on-one "mentoring" relationship between you and an experienced editor. | |||
| == Footnotes == | |||
| {{notelist}} | |||
Latest revision as of 02:44, 2 December 2024
Strictly speaking, a source cannot by itself be described as reliable. A source can only be reliable for verifying a piece of information.
There are two types of statements a source can verify: those that are attributed and those that are not. With the former, editors look for attributes such as independence, peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. This can indicate it is reliable for such a statement. They also look for counter-considerations, such as contradicting other sources that also have such attributes and a lack of expertise to make such a statement.
How considerations and counter-considerations are weighted, and the determination of reliability for a statement is made, comes down to any consensus editors can form. The community has some preferences for which considerations are more relevant; experienced editors are more able to apply such intangible preferences. If a source meets this, the material can be put in wikivoice.
When a source falls short of this, we can move from using the source to verify the content of what they said, to verifying that they said something. If the source has a credible claim to representing what it purports to be, it is considered a reliable source to verify the attributed claim. An example of a "credible claim": Donald Trump's Twitter may post something, but whether the tweet is a reliable source that Trump or merely his Twitter said it is considered (considering the potential that a social media team-member tweeted it).