Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 31 October 2015

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

"fact-checking", proofreading, relying primarily on press releases

See .

Few publications have any "fact checkers" at all any more. And essentially none have proofreaders - they depend utterly on computer "spill chuckers." And almost all rely extensively on press releases - often editing them to a minimal extent.

Ought this new fact of life impact this content guideline?

Perhaps we should state something on the order of:

"Reports written by local named journalists not relying on wire service reports and press releases, and published in major newspapers, are generally considered acceptable sources for claims of fact about an event. Where possible, material based substantially or primarily on press releases and wire service accounts should treated as less reliable, and the wire service or press release should be noted if known. Headlines, especially ones which are sensational in nature, are written by headline writers, and are not necessarily a good indicator of the content submitted by a journalist, and are not 'reliable sources' in themselves, other than for indicating that such a headline was published. Current newspapers and magazines are rarely fact-checked, and more rarely proofread."

"Books from publishers deemed to be 'reliable source publishers' in a specialized field are still likely to be proofread and verified."

Or something on those lines? We can no longer say "reputation for fact-checking" with a straight face. Nor make any comments about proofreading for that matter. And with studies showing the outrageous prevalence of stories based on press releases and being minor rewrites of wire service copy, the old theory that "major newspapers with awards are really good sources" is no longer true. Collect (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

? Your dissmissal of wire services seem much more overblown than is the usual case on Misplaced Pages. Remember wire services were basically created by those "local" publishers to provide good journalism. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources - many of the wire service items are from press releases. Collect (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with this proposal. First of all, "proofreading" has never been a criterion in determining reliability, so the emphasis here on human proofreaders vs. computerized spell checkers seems irrelevant. More to the point, I'm not sure the text is accurate. High-end national magazines are still fact-checked ("highly regarded national magazines are one of the last bastions of rest for a mind perpetually on guard for BS, for they employ fact checkers."). Many high-quality newspapers do as well (Der Spiegel employs a fact-checking department of ~80 people, for example). I see no grounds for prioritizing "local named journalists" over reputable wire services such as the AP, Reuters, or AFP, and no grounds for denigrating the latter category of sources. Finally, the issue of headlines has been discussed extensively and separately and should not be tacked on as a rider to this proposal. MastCell  16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the sources I provided - the fact is traditionally the proofreaders were the final ones to catch errors of fact - the proofreaders were considered the most knowledgeable of all the employees. And the issue is that of "press releases" dominating not only the local newspapers, but also dominating the wires as well. I apologize if I did not make that aspect of the multiple studies I cite crystal clear. By the way, the studies did look at headlines - with devastating rigour - baseball now officially has an "amphibious pitcher." And this is not my opinion, it is the result of multiple scholarly studies and books. Collect (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read the sources you provided; I just don't agree with your interpretation of them, nor do I agree that they support your proposed changes to this guideline. Most of the studies you cite are specific to the biomedical sciences, where science by press release has long been recognized as a problem. In fact, we recognized it as a problem, awhile ago, and addressed it specifically in the relevant sourcing guideline (see WP:MEDPOP). There was also an effort to extend these higher sourcing standards, which deprecate the popular press in part because of the press-release issue, to the sciences more generally. But that effort was shot down. If you're interested, though, we can revisit WP:SCIRS; you were quite vocally opposed last time around, so if you're on board now it would have a better chance of becoming an approved guideline and thus tackling the press-release issue which you've raised. MastCell  19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The strongest scholarly articles are on scientific topics, or course. Some of the sources I gave are more general, as I am sure you noticed. You have good searching skills to find comments from 2010 for sure. In that discussion I stated I had no problem with MEDRS, as I am sure you would have noted to prevent this looking like a personal attack on me, or course.

I do not support promotion of "fringe science" so that argument was a straw man raised at that discussion - the issue was whether Misplaced Pages should self-determine an official "Scientific Point of View" such that " If mainstream secondary sources in a field do not consider a detail or opinion relevant, it may not be appropriate to cover it at that article."

The proposal also stated that consensus determined whether material in a peer-reviewed journal was "relevant" to a topic, which seems to run contrary to a position that the primary concern was whether the material comes from a peer-reviewed journal, not whether the material agrees with what the editorial consensus on Misplaced Pages says is required. This I found intrinsically troubling in 2010 - the peer-reviewed journal requirement is a significant barrier to fringe views, but having Wikipedians then being a further filter on whether the material should be in any article seems contrary to logic in any science.

I also demurred on "Statements and information from reputable major scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." as encouraging an actually weaker source than we allow elsewhere - whilst we should actually use stronger criteria for solid science articles, IMHO.

If I recall correctly, Tryptofish had reservations, MastCell felt the criteria should more heavily promote primary sources ("Several editors who (to put it kindly) have difficulty with forest-tree discrimination have gotten hung up on the idea that primary sources are never permissible, and that all sourcing has to be review articles. Occasionally this has resulted in sprees where large volumes of appropriate journal citations have been removed "per MEDRS". Obviously, no policy can be proofed against misuse, but ideally we should emphasize the role of primary sources"), Cla supported work by non-scientists, (which I did not agree with), ImperfectlyInformed found it was specifically more exclusionary than proper, Atren opposed it as being a reincarnation of WP:SPOV, Heyitpeter opposed the proposal as not defining "science-related", Ludwigs2 called it WP:CREEP, Jrtayloriv said the current guidelines and policies were sufficient, Wnt said "What we have here is the worst "special case" misinterpretations of Misplaced Pages policies driving out all the good precedent.", in short the proposal was supported fully by only a handful - with even MastCell expressing reservations. So much for the en passant remark implying that I "vocally opposed" a proposal.

The problem is that newspapers are in poor economic shape, that journalist employment is down over 40% in the US in a matter of a few years, and is still headed down, and that the number of straight press releases used, and releases sent through wire services, is way up, along with use of such material by all media.

And it is that problem with which Misplaced Pages must eventually cope - the "clickbaiting headlines" are now used by major publications as well as the lesser ones. This has nothing to do with proper peer-reviewed journals, and primary or secondary sources - it has to do with lazy media taking pre-written copy which may or may not accurately reflect fact. Collect (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there something more fundamental going on?

Just an observation... I note that we currently have no less than three seperate threads that center on the question of what is and is not a "reliable source" in medical related articles. So what's really going on? Is there a dispute at MEDRS that is spilling over to here? Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is, quite correctly, more general than just MEDRS and should be kept on a general page to include the maximum exposure and number of contributors to such an important topic. And Yes, I think there is a spilling over of some specific topic guidelines being incorrectly imposed by some editors on other topics.DrChrissy 21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this is in part spill-over from the recent e-cigarette controversy in which (as I understand it without having taken part in any of these discussions) some e-cigarette proponents claim that as recreational rather than medical devices they should not be subject to MEDRS while some e-cigarette opponents claim that because e-cigarettes have been pushed as a treatment for cigarette addiction MEDRS should be applied strictly to the articles on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It is also a spill-over from MEDRS being imposed on articles which are not MEDRS related - e.g. Foie gras.DrChrissy 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

See the diff here.]DrChrissy 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And similarly at Magnetoception here.]DrChrissy 22:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

1936 King George Penny

I have a 1936 GeorgIVS V DEL CRA:BRITT:OMN:REX FID:DEF:IND:IMP Penny I think it is Bronze about the size of the American half Dollar Source Photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4200:45EB:A845:9F71:1100:E14B (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a place to request help. If you need general information about something use the reference desk. If you need help with editing, request it at the Teahouse. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can a specific Topic Wiki become a reliable source?

Hi Guys, I'm interested in learning more about reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. My question is about public Wiki-systems based on a specific topic, are there samples and how could a community of a specific topic become a reliable source. It's a general question, so I don't wanna provide the topic as it should be a neutral discussion. The community uses a current MediaWiki and is open to develop editing standards which would be required to make the system a reliable source. At the moment the Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ is in place. But this could also be changed. Thanks for the feedback! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you're asking a general question, I'll give you a general answer: no, usually not. The license is completely unrelated afaik. If the wiki is "public", which means "anyone can edit", it would be self-published which would mean it can usually not be used as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages. How to enhance your own reliability by whatever standards you choose, that's your choice, and I can't see how Misplaced Pages could be of much assistance there. Specifics may apply, but we weren't talking specifics, were we? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me add to that: There are some truly terrific special-purpose wikis out there. While Francis is absolutely right that they cannot be directly used as reliable sources, if they were to adopt and enforce the same reliable sources standard as English Misplaced Pages uses, then the sources given for particular bits of information on that wiki could often be used to verify the same information here on Misplaced Pages even though the wiki could not be directly used as a source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

... and/or webpages on some of these websites can be used as convenience links for free content: this happens a lot, even semi-integrated in Misplaced Pages, e.g. scores:Main Page (for the IMSLP website), choralwiki:Main Page (for the CPDL website), etc. Note however that these websites do use the MediaWiki software, but are not fully "public" (can't edit without registering). Didn't mention at first while there are a lot of specifics (including which content it is about) that need to mentioned for such websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Determining sources for article titles

In light of discussions, like Talk:Hurts Like Heaven and WT:manual of Style/Capital letters, how do we determine which sources are reliable? In this case, "like" as a preposition has been uppercased by many sources. Then users disregard existing MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS in favour of sources. Or maybe "like" is not a preposition at all? --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We determine reliability for article titles the same way we determine reliability for everything else - Generally, we deem "reliable" any source that is written by an author who is respected in his/her field, and published by a reputable publishing outlet, and edited by a staff with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So... I would say that if a source is reliable for article content, it would be reliable for article title determination.

Of course, reliability is not an "on/off" switch... there are degrees of reliability (with some sources being more reliable than others). We can and do give more weight to higher quality sources than we do to sources of lesser quality. And there is a huge amount of wiggle room depending on context and topic.

Ultimately, reliability is determined through consensus... those sources that we (as a community) agree are reliable are deemed reliable, and those sources we agree are unreliable are deemed unreliable.

On the broader issue of conflicts between source usage and MOS guidance... I will just note two things: a) The main MOS itself notes that exceptions can be made to it's guidance (something that is often forgotten about in debates) b) WP:Ignore all rules is policy. So... (again)... Ultimately, if there is consensus that a specific word should be capitalized in a specific article title ... we can do so - even if MOS tells us that normally we shouldn't. Making an exception in a few articles does not negate the guidance for other articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source

When it says that "other wiki's, and this one or not considered a reliable source" does it mean the Misplaced Pages in general? Or does it take into account with other things like the Minecraft Wiki. RMS52 06:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is taking into account other things like the Minecraft Wiki. Basically, things that let random people contribute are not reliable sources. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong information!!!

To whom it may concern my name is Eva D.Jones Young in my bio you have me as being KO in a fight with one of the female fighters from Germany I was never KO we fought to a decision please correct your mistake!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C04C:8970:E8DE:9637:D583:8C78 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

→ Wrong venue. Post at Talk:Eva Jones. Put {{Request edit}} above your request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources?

I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources.

The RfC is at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Neutrality 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This source has affected a lot of articles, and this discussion is important. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave mattocks Drummer

Hi Just want to point out in your article about Dave mattocks there"s no mention in the article that he Played and recorded with Bill Nelson"s Red noise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.190.214 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

There is a current RfC that concerns which claims should be sourced under WP:RS and which claims should be sourced under WP:MEDRS. This has the potential to affect sourcing rules for a large number of articles, so please help us to arrive at a clear consensus on this issue.

RfC:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

Related:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Clarifying "biomedical"
• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RS/N
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)