Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 20 December 2008 (→I think we may need a new section in the Guideline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 72Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

Third party link appears to go to unrelated page

I was reviewing the RS guidelines and wanted to learn more about what "third-party" means. As best I can tell, WP:RS does not define the term. However, at WP:RS#Overview it does link to Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Superficially this seems related, but upon consideration they seem unrelated. I'm interested in "third-party" (and presumably related terms like "first-party"). The linked page talks about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Just a simple difference in language and "third-party" is the same as "tertiary source?" Maybe, but I can't reconcile WP:RS telling me "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." and WP:NOR telling me "Misplaced Pages articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." As such, they cannot be the same thing. So 1) I believe the link in question should be removed, as it is likely to lead to confusion. Any objections? 2) Could someone direct me to a guideline or policy that does define third-party? (If one exists, I would obviously replace the link instead of removing it.) Thank you for any assistance. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A third party source would be one that is not connected to the topic of the article. As an example, if you were writing an article on the history of Mickey Mouse, the Disney website would not be a third party source, but a book written by an expert on cartoons would be. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my intuitive understanding, but I was hoping for something a bit more formal. I remain interested in a more formal guideline or policy that defines it if anyone can direct me to one. Meanwhile, I've been bold and removed the link that is likely to cause confusion and doesn't really doesn't add anything. I'd normally be hesitant to edit such a widely referenced guideline, but I don't think eliminating a link is terribly risky. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See wikt:third party, second definition. See also the first definition here and the second definition here. And if that is an adequate explanation for you, then please add the Wiktionary link to the article, because this is the third or fourth time recently that someone's assumed that the word relates to some special Misplaced Pages-specific definition instead of the plain old definition that you'll find in any dictionary of the English language. Otherwise, please try to help us understand what would be more useful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, upon reflection I was unclear, probably because I hadn't sorted it out well in my head. Your comment has helped me sort it out a bit, thank you. I think I can now express the area I still see as undefined. Is third-party relative to the subject of the article or the claim being cited? By way of example, obviously in the Academy Award article, the official site at http://www.oscars.org/ would be first-party and not what we're looking for. But would a link to the 2006 awards on the official site be an appropriate citation in the article Happy Feet for the claim, "Happy Feet won an Academy Award for best animated feature film of the year?" My guess is yes, because the Academy Awards are third-party to the subject of the article, the film Happy Feet. (And it certainly seems a good citation, as no one can be more official than the Awards. All any other source can do is repeat what the Academy announced.) But an alternate interpretation is that the Academy's site is first-party to the claim itself, and thus is a bad citation. I'm asking because my understanding was the former, but another editor believes the latter is correct. (It's actually a different topic, but it is about a group that issues awards. If you're really curious this is the discussion.) Upon having my belief challenged, I sought out the relevant guidelines to learn if one of us was operating under a mistaken understanding, but I'm not finding a clear answer either way. Thanks for your time! — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are editing the article Happy Feet... then I would say that oscars.com is a legitimate third party source for the statement "Happy Feet won an Acadamy award for best animated feature film" (the first party source would be the official website of the movie, or its production company). While I suppose oscar.com might be considered a primary source for who won an Oscar, this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of such a source. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of (any) sources are (always) determined relative to the specific claim being cited. Our mantra that "no source is universally reliable" means that no source is universally independent, universally third-party, universally accurate, universally neutral, etc. The appropriateness of a source is only evaluated in relationship to how it's being used. A source that is being used to support a single sentence does not need to bear the burden of the entire article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interpreting your first sentence as being "Third-party is considered relative to the claim being cited." So if I understand you, WhatamIdoing, the "Happy Feet won an Oscar" example I gave above would be a bad citation. Assuming I got that right, I appreciate your point of view. But it appears to be different from what Blueboar (and admittedly I) would expect. Thus my desire for a more formal definition in a guideline or policy. I'm not currently finding a formal definition, so I suspect that one does not exist. I think Misplaced Pages would benefit from such a definition, although I expect hashing out consensus to make such a change would require more than just the three of us. (That mantra is new to me. &hl=en&filter=0 It doesn't appear to be especially used on Misplaced Pages. If by "our" you mean Wikipedians as a whole, I'm not sure I'd call it "our mantra." Still, I like it. It's a good, memorable summary of an important idea.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are different ways of saying it, but it's a constant theme at RSN. All the entries that begin with "Is my source reliable?" get a reply along the lines of "It depends on how you're using it." No source is universally reliable is just a more formal way of expressing it.

While I consider the Academy Awards website to be an authoritative source for who won what, it's clearly not a third-party source for that information. The people giving the award are the first party in that award-giving exercise, and the people receiving the award are the second party. The fact that a first-party source could be reliable, and even more authoritative than a third-party source, is one of the reasons that we permit the use of first-party sources in limited ways. Does that clarify my position? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that clarifies your position... and I think what you say here is correct. While the bulk of Misplaced Pages should be cited to independant third party sources, a first party source might be reliable (indeed, in some circumstances, it may even be the most reliable source) and may be cited, with limitations. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar and WhatamIdoing for your time and thought! — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

back dent<---- The definiton of Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources and if it means First/Second/Third party sources needs to be clear in WP:RS and WP:V. I'm still confused and trying to discuss it at WP:RS/N right now on congressional memos. Very frustrationg. It should be very explicit in both articles. We shouldn't have to dig around talk archives and get various shades of opinion, as the above here, to figure it out. And I don't think I've quite figured it out anyway. Newbies will have even more trouble and be discouraged from editing if old times throw the phrases around to make their points. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

These terms are not synonymous. (For one thing, the "first party" and "second party" (terms that derive from legal proceedings) would both produce primary sources.) Could we persuade you to read the regular Misplaced Pages articles on, for example, Primary source and Secondary source, and the Wiktionary definition of wikt:third party? We're using the normal, everyday, well-established definitions of these words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

consesus documents are more reliable than journal articles, this policy should reflect that

Reports written by consensus bodies like the National Academies of Sciences are much more forceful and should be taken into account much more than any individual journal article. In addition, review articles represent a document on "the accepted state of the art" written, often at the invitation of the editor, by an acknowledged expert in an area. These too are far more reliable than an individual article.

Why doesn't this policy recognize this? PDBailey (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that this guideline (it isn't a policy) does not recognize this... its that it concerns itself with a more basic issue... explaining what is and is not considered reliable. Since the different types of sources you list (individual journal articles, review artices and reports writen by consensus bodies) are all considered reliable, there is no need to discuss which are more reliable than the others. Obviously, for any given article, we hope that editors will use the most reliable sources that apply. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And when they conflict? i.e. Peter Duesberg has had some success getting articles published claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that doesn't mean much in light of consensus at places like CDC and NIH. PDBailey (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have core policies like neutral point of view and what Misplaced Pages is not. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If someone wants to push a fringe view and improperly imply that it is an accepted view, their edits can be challenged and reverted under the principle that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that it is so obvious, it does not require saying. I guess I can understand that, especially given the desire to keep the length of the policies to a minimum. PDBailey (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are saying exactly the opposite... It is so not-obvious that we can not make a rule on it. We are saying that determining which sources are more reliable than others in any specific field is a matter of editorial judgement best determined by those who are knowlegible about that field, and so can not be legislated by policy... When two sources disagree, and both are reliable, then we discuss what all sides in the debate have to say. However, we also trust our editors to determine how much weight to give to each viewpoint (see WP:NPOV and especially its subsection on Undue Weight. You may also want to see WP:FRINGE which seems to apply in your case.) Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of my cases is actually Radiation hormesis, where I argue the National Academies of Sciences represents the most forceful consensus, defining what is main stream. My co-editor argues that hormesis is not fringe. I have argued essentially this same thing many times. When there is an important policy question, I think the scientific consensus is defined by NAS, not a bunch of people getting little journal articles published, most of which will be debunked, buy only after the four year queue of the journal finally allows the publication. PDBailey (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it may not be possible to come up with a generic rule as you wish. If one simply said "consensus body reports are more reliable than journal articles", then what is to stop someone using that to promote the opinions of a blatantly biased (or thoroughly discredited or disrespected) consensus body? If it were to be specified as "national consensus body", then what would happen were the consensus bodies of different countries disagree? As such, these decisions must be left to those editors with the most knowledge of a field. Unfortunately, you are right though - there are major problems with this approach and its interaction with the greater wikipedia system. LinaMishima (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I often leave radiation hormesis alone for several months and then come back to find it a huge list of articles, mostly in questionable journals, and when I try to bring the article back to some semblance of NPOV I end up in an edit war with the most recent editor who has read some articles on the topic and now things that it is a suppressed truth. The other editors who edit the page are mostly in agreement with them (this topic is such a non-starter for the main stream, who would want to edit it?) and then every time I have to argue that the United Nations and US Congresses consensus bodies are not filled with hacks. I would argue this policy is badly needed, but I might be alone in having these types of problems, and maybe radiation hormesis isn't an important article to have be accurate. In response to your complaint I would say that bodies that consensus are official and commissioned by a state or the UN have more weight than those that are ad hoc. PDBailey (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly not alone with this problem - I was once involved in the mess that is (was?) homeopathy, and I know full well the problems that questionable sources being promoted can bring. The problem is that there is a risk that a UN commissioned group could go off on a tangent not supported by the rest of the scientific community, or that a state commissioned group would only write to benefit its state. As such, a general rule really could cause more harm than good, even though it might help in the short term with a specific article. Sadly there is little advice I can give other than to work on getting WP:FRINGE to monitor the article. I admit, it is tempting to offer to monitor the woo myself, however I no longer actively edit on a regular enough basis to offer much support (and I know exactly how damn depressing it can get :( ). Perhaps look to see if there is a specific editing group in existance (or create one, spanning other articles with good anti-woo editors) to guide your articles, and get them to agree (as it would consist of people with knowledge of the field) on rankings for sources. LinaMishima (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have not seen it... check out Misplaced Pages:Scientific consensus, a very good essay that deals with some of these issues. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks for the link! I've created the shortcut WP:SCICON, since that essay looks to be rather useful, and a good summary of arbcon decisions on the matter (and I remember shortcuts better :P). LinaMishima (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Official bodies have agendas, and statements of consensus from national academies, and legislative advisory groups, and similar organizations, cannot be assumed to be free from political considerations. The NAs statements on matters of public policy can be in some cases informed by as much public policy and prudence as by pure science. They inherently tend to be the conservative views of establishment scientists. Sometimes this is a problem, sometimes not. I'm thinking in the medical field now, where the consensus statements about appropriate medical treatment in the UK and the US can be very different--the UK being somewhat less likely to come to consensus to accept as a standard things that require large amounts of money. There are a great many articles and subjects where it is naive to say there is a single scientific consensus.08:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk)

Very good point about the political aspects. Academic politics can also get dirty at times.

Another difficulty with identifying consensus is the differences between subjects. In science there is at least the possibility that hypotheses can be refuted, either empirically or by indentfying clear errors in maths, methods, etc. Even that is only partially true, for example in "big-bucks" physics (particle colliders, Hubble telescope, etc.) allocation of funding is a political process. In non-scientific academic subjects this is not generally possible and debates go on much longer with no clear copnclusion. In non-academic subjects, it's very difficult to see whether there is anything even vaguely approaching a consensus. I'd go along with Blueboar's comment (20:22, 20 November 2008) that "determining which sources are more reliable than others in any specific field is a matter of editorial judgement best determined by those who are knowlegable about that field, and so can not be legislated by policy."--Philcha (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) In this particular case, you might be able to get some help from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG worte, "The NAs(sic) statements on matters of public policy can be in some cases informed by as much public policy and prudence as by pure science." I don't know that "public policy" is in the sense it is used the second time, but, I would argue that using prudence when you are on the frontier and the convincing work has yet to be performed is okay because sometimes you just need to make a decision now. Gathering together experts in the field and some excellent scientists from outside the field is about the best way I can think of to do this. I would challenge DGG to give a good reason to believe the following claim, "a journal article can be expected to be better than a NAS study in the topic of " PDBailey (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pdbailey, would you like to read Russian Academy of Sciences#USSR_Academy_of_Sciences and come back here after you're done with the bit about "However starting in 1928 the Politburo started to interfere in the affairs of the Academy..."?

The fact that the United States National Academy of Sciences doesn't currently admit to government interference mean that no National Academy of Sciences has ever suffered from this problem, and it's certainly possible that an outfit that sends a major annual report to the US Congress might make the occasional politically motivated statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was making. I think in this specific case, Pdbailey should probably look to find a wikiproject to assist in this matter. Wikiprojects within them can reach a consensus on how to advise on the reliability and correctness of sources. Plus, getting additional editors on board would help with the underlying issue of point of view pushing by opposing sides. LinaMishima (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think you know that you intentionally misinterpreted my statement. I specifically was talking about the US NAS. There is little reason to consider the the opinions of a country's NAS when it is not independent of the government. My challenge stands and I think you are being obstinate not to admit NAS has an unparalleled history, and Misplaced Pages should recognize that. PDBailey (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Hello, I am the other editor of radiation hormesis that is mentioned above.

In this case, PDBailey decided that the consensus body opinion that there is no hormesis is more valuable than a boatload of good journal articles that suggest that there might be hormesis. Hormesis is not a fringe opinion, just the opinion of a significant minority, and this is a case where there is no real consensus yet.Likebox (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this really is an issue of having multiple reliable sources that disagree with each other. The argument stems from trying to determine which of these reliable sources are more reliable than the others. As several editors have stated above, this is not an argument that can (or should) be resolved here on this page. It simply isn't a policy issue. Please take the argument back to the talk page of the article involved. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Help please.

Today, I got information on a John Isaac Hawkins from a website. I understand that if not cited correctly, my info will be challenged. Since I already know were my info came from, how do I cite it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhalofreak (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Use the {{cite web}} template. Instructions can be found on the linked page. Gary King (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again question about mass media

I want to ask, what we should do if say, in several newspapers or monographies a politician called "nationalist" or a businessman called "oligarch" or a state authority called "thief" or "criminal" or "traitor" and there is no refutal from the other side? Should we represent this point of view as the only correct? Do things change if the media belong to a political group?

For example, if Goerge Bush called "war criminal", Putin called "dictator", Abramovich called "oligarch" etc? Are there any general rules? --Dojarca (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To some extent this depends on the reputation of the newspaper that is applying the label. If it is a fairly mainstream paper, then there is a good chance that the paper has a reason to apply the label. If it is not mainstream, then we should probably be warry of repeating it.

As to your question about the lack of refutation... we can not talk about the other POV if there is no published sources (ie no refutal). That said, we do not need to represent the negative POV as being "correct"... we can present it as being an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. What to do if the editors disagree over reputation?

2. If the newspaper is mainstream and calls Putin "dictator" or Saakashvili "insane" or "mad", should we add Putin to the category "dictators" and place in the lead of Saakashvili's article that he is mad?

3. Yes we can represent the negative POV as opinion, but other users may say that since there is no refutal or other contradicting source then we should present this POV as a fact.--Dojarca (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Discuss what reliable sources say, not what editors say.

2. No, we can note that the newspaper calls them a "dictator" or "insane"... but should not place them in a categorize them as such without more solidly reliable sources (see: WP:BLP).

3. Yup... it is not always easy to maintain a balance when people want to POV push. Point them to WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV does not say anything about that we should attribute any opinion. Or am I wrong? So I can point them here but with no result.

2. What if professional psychiatrists say Saakashvili is insane? Look here and here . The one is professor of psychiatry and the other is the head of psychology chair of Institute of Psychiatry. So we can represent this as a fact in the article about him?

3. Okay, what about objects, not people? For example, why Yodok called "concentration camp" in Misplaced Pages and Guantanamo camp called "detention camp"? Both widely called "concentration camp" in the media, and there is no refutal, so it seems Misplaced Pages is taking sides here? Is there any general rule how to deal with such cases?--Dojarca (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to this... If a reliable source uses a label to discribe someone or some thing, we should note that the source does so. If different reliable sources use different labels, we should note this as well, attributing the labels so the reader knows who says what. When categorizing people, priority is given to "self-identification". There are some restrictions on all of this, especially when discussing living people (see WP:BLP), but that is the basics. Does all of this sometimes lead to arguments? Yes... in which case you need to argue it out in good faith, compromise and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there is no source that Bush does not "self-identify" himself as war criminal or Putin as dictator. They simply do not comment on such accusations. What we have is only media, papers etc that make lebels. So why Kim-Chung-Il or Milosevic is "dictator" in Misplaced Pages, but Putin is not? I suppose all of them did not identify themselves as dictators, but there is no source. Also I suppose Saakashvili do not identify himself as insane, but there is also no source.

You say we should attribute opinions, but please give me a link to the rule that requires attribute any opinion. For example recently a user added in Viktor Alksnis that he is ultranationalist with a reference to some publications of his opponents. Do the rules require us to attribute such claims in the text itself or we should present it as fact with references?

Also it seems Misplaced Pages supports double standards? If a camp belongs to the USA, it's "detention camp" but if it belongs to N. Korea, it's "concentration camp", yes? Because there's consensus among editors, correct?

Simply there are no rules to solve such problems in unified manner, so such problems are solved by the voting of Misplaced Pages users (this called 'consensus'). --Dojarca (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "concentration camp" vs. "detention camp", and without expressing an opinion regarding bias within WP based on whether or not a particular camp belongs to the USA (Guantanamo Bay detention camp) or to North Korea (Category:Concentration camps in North Korea), or to India (Hijli Detention Camp), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Manjača camp, described in the article as a "detention camp"), or was a Nazi concentration camp, or was one of those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902, etc., I'll opine that discussion of this question would probably better placed on the Talk:Internment page than here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian copyright and YouTube questions

Mark of the Year is at WP:FLC now. It has multiple references / links to YouTube videos of the different marks (spectacular catches in Australian Football League games). The question is whether these refs / links are allowed, but their copyrtight status is unclear. Could someone who knows more about Australian copyright please take a look at the article and provide feedback on the video reference links at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

It looks like the links to youtube have been removed. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue

Hello.

User:Wikidemon and I, among others, are having a spirited debate as to whether or not using the self-published blog of Martin Kramer, the externally published blog of Ron Kampeas, and a letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman, are acceptable sources to allow the article on Rashid Khalidi to say that the above three state that Khalidi misrepresented the facts when he (Khalidi) denied being an official of the PLO. The debate starts at Talk:Rashid Khalidi#Explanation of recent edits and is rather involved with point-by-point discussions of specific phrases. We all would appreciate it if some clarity could be demonstrated as to whether or not the sources brought are sufficient, as we are trying to balance BLP and NPOV on either side of the discussion, and our respective discussions have devolved into repeating the same assertions of the others' incorrect application of policy, so fresh voices would be welcome.

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with in-text cite for online comments re-printed in a newspaper

Increasingly newspapers are publishing online as well as in print, and as they do so some are permitting reader comment online, and some are then printing selected comments in the paper. I think I understand WP:RS with respect to newspapers and blogs and blog comments, but how about when an anonymous online comment is reprinted in a newspaper? I could use some guidance as to the proper treatment of this as a source for an article.

Of course my first idea is don't, but suppose you had an insistent editor. I understand a ref tag would unacceptably obscure the iffy nature of the source, and that minimally some kind of in-text citation would be required. I'm guessing "as reported in the Someplace Herald-Tribune" would not be accurate, nor would "according to the editors of the S H-T." Maybe something like "according to anonymous online commenters on the S H-T website"?

Thanks.Hugh (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your last suggestion is okay; you could also say, "according to anonymous comments reported in The SHT". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Websites of towns

In this discusssion: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Towns.27_websites_as_a_source_for_history, different opinions have been stated regarding the use of towns' websites as a RS for history articles in wikipedia. Though currently most editors think these websites are not a RS, one editor thinks they are, and several editors think they are under certain conditions. Because WP:RS is one or even the core of wikipedia, the policy should be clarified to not give room to such various interpretations. Authors must definetly know what they can use as a RS and what not. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Though currently most editors think these websites are not a RS"

Could you name them and show their statements confirming so ? So far all editors besides you and Karasek who cooperates with you believe them to be reliable enough to warrent inclusion in articles.--Molobo (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history, Molobo says they are, Drilnoth, Blueboar and Piotrus say they are only under certain conditions, with every one of these editors proposing different conditions (Piotrus: for temporary use, Drilnoth: not for notability, but for everything else; Blueboar: for attributed statements regarding the town's oppinion about itself). That's why I think the policy ought to be clarified. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dlabtot, Collect"-where do they state this ? "Piotrus: for temporary use"-under the condition that "reliable" source is found. Anyway the bottom line is that everyone besides you and Karasek are in agreement that it can be used. --Molobo (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the thread and reconsider. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the thread carefully and your claims are unsupported by it. Best regards,--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you use your browser function and search the site for the usernames above. If you find them, read what they stated. Feel free to remove the part of this thread that is only about your misunderstanding, including my posts, when you are done. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The names are well known to me and I have read the comments of those users. They do not support your claim. The overwhelming consus is that official statements of authorities of locations are notable enough to be used as source of information. In case of different versions the proper claims and their representatives should be marked. This seems to be the obvious solution.--Molobo (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot:"No -- is not a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy""

Collect:"Town websites are not a "primary source" but the reliability on other than obvious facts might be questioned." Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I stated at RSN ... a town's website is a self-publish source. Thus, when figuring out reliability we look to WP:SPS. They are considered reliable for some things, but not for others. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the RSN thread, this is not accepted by some. According to WP:SPS, the town's website would not be reliable for historical information. It fails to meet the exception criterion "self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It also fails the criteria listed in SPS "about themselves" - e.g. towns' websites are self-serving and they do make claims about third parties. Yet, many editors do see it as an RS.

Per the above, I would have to remove the source from the article and probably mark the information introduced from this source with a cn-tag. This would most certainly be followed by reverts of editors who have stated other oppinions in the RSN thread. How am I to proceed now without starting an edit war? Ineither want edit war nor do I want to help non-RS be introduced into wiki as a source, which I would do if leaving the website in place as a source. That's why I asked for a policy clarification. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast... Self-Published sources such as town websites can be exempt from the exclusion criteria about experts... You have to read the rest of the section in the policy ...

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
6. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Since town websites are published by the towns... they can be used in articles or sections about the town... so long as they meet the qualifying criteria. My guess is that in your specific situation, the town website may not meet some of these qualifying criteria (especially the last one)... but if it does meet with all of the qualifications, then it most certainly can be used... even if it isn't written by an expert. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine if these criteria are all met by towns' websites about their history (or is it sufficient to meet one?).

1. Towns' websites are of course self-serving, the web presence is not primarily to inform, but to attract investors and tourists. One might argue about "unduly".
2. Towns' websites do make claims about third parties in their history section. Even if one understands the town throughout its history and all its historical inhabitants as "one party" (which is not my understanding), the history websites involve claims about people not from the town (e.g. dukes, kings, neighboring towns/villages, architects etc). If one does not understand the town and all their historical inhabitants as "one" party, but only the author, all towns' websites on history will fail this criterion.
3. This is met.
4. This is met.
5. depends.
6. Most websites will certainly fail this criterion.

This analysis shows that towns' websites on history are excluded from being usable in wiki already by definition and could be removed per WP:SPS. They all fail the "it does not involve claims about third parties" criterion, and most fail the self-serving and mentioned-by-another-RS criterions. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, your analysis shows that some (perhaps even most) town websites should be excluded... but others should not. It depends on the specific town website. It also depends on the statement that is being made in a specific article that we are sourcing to the town website. We should not make broad, sweeping statements about town websites. Remember, there are very few sources that can be deemed as "always unreliable" (ie not reliable under any circumstance or in any context). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources about media are regarded as more reliable than the media themselves?

It has always puzzled me when someone requires a "reliable source" for texts in an article about a book, a recording, or a movie. Are not these (media) considered to be the primary, foremost (i.e., reliable) sources themselves? If a movie or a book are readily viewable, say, in a Library, why should one disregard them and look elsewhere for someone's written opinions or reviews instead? To read a book, to listen to a recording, or to watch a movie, and write about what one has read, heard, or seen, just cannot be regarded as "original research", as anyone can verify the validity of any assertions by doing just the same: read, hear, or watch it (just IT, and no other materials). That is, by the way, one of the basic pillars of the Scientific Method: the ability to duplicate any observation anywhere, anytime, given the proper conditions. If you have the time and patience, I'd like to read comments on this policy and the WP:NOR policy in view of the above reasoning. Perhaps these ought to be revised, or expanded? Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed primary source... Whether they are reliable sources, depends what you saying about them. If you are saying "the plot of the book is X" or "the album contains song Y", then the book or album (or what have you) is without a doubt the most reliable source. If however, you want to say some thing like: "the book takes the lead character on a journey into his inner most psyche which leads him to a new understanding of himself" or "song Y is a cry for social justince and equality" then no, because these are interpretatory conclusions that are not necessarily obvious to any reader. We need a secondary source to verify that someone besides yourself has reached these same conclusions. See WP:NOR for more on this. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. I agree. The doubt had arisen because many editors seem to believe that by tagging, tagging, and just tagging, thay are doing a service to Misplaced Pages, and I've found many a tag complaining "quotation needed", and "unreferenced", and "NPOV violations" attached to factual information about a film, a book, or a music record, where the work itself is a sufficiently reliable source as you explain above. Patience... Regards, --AVM (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide episode recaps

I was not able to figure out if these "episode recaps" on the TV Guide site are just blogs or if they have the official oversight of TV Guide and can be considered reliable sources? What is the community consensus? -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You should post this question at WP:RSN. Be sure to tell them what article(s) you're dealing with, and how you want to use the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the article Baby Not On Board. The items in the cultural references section of that article all refer to songs. Frankly, editors should have no trouble identifying songs themselves. If there's really a disagreement, you can go to a source, in this case, Alex Rocha of TVGuide. In the future, you may want to take note of the top of this page, which says, "To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." --Pixelface (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

re: wrong place - oops my bad - I had searched on the main article page to see if there was direction to a notice board and didnt find any instruction there, but missed it at the top of this page. Is there an appropriate way to link to the notice board from the article page? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added it in our "see also". If there is a better place or format, feel free to correct my edit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs vs Podcasts

Usually we do not use blogs as sources, unless the blogger is a recognized expert in the field. So, what about podcasts? Should we apply the same understanding? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The important difference is between audio interviews and written interviews. Anybody could sit down and create an exchange and claim it to be an interview. It would be far more difficult to stage a faked audio interview, so that there is a presumption of reliability in an audio interview that doesn't exist in a printed interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's a blog or a podcast is irrelevant. The question you should be asking is, "Is it reliable?" Most aren't. Some are. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliability is an attribute of the source in which the podcast is published. A podcaster that is not notable should not be used as a source or as an external link, otherwise anyone can be "interviewed" and use that interview in a WP article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing an external link here, not a reliable source issue, so this is probably the wrong page. But even if this were about reliable sources, why wouldn't we use an interview with an article subject? Unless there is a reason to to think that an audio interview is faked, it's reliable, regardless of the notability of the interviewer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a good argument. Anyone can be "interviewed" by a non-notable podcaster. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Take this example: Mr. XYZ a knonw neo-nazi, gets interviewed by a podcaster who has an online website and who is not an expert in the field. Will that interview be suitable for a source and/or external link in the article about Mr. XYZ. I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A podcaster does not need to be notable to be reliable. If the podcaster is, for example, an editor at an established newspaper and the podcast is an official podcast of that newspaper, then we should consider the material therin to be reliable, just as we would the newspaper. Same with a blog. Blogs and podcasts are just words to describe a specific way to deliver content. They don't describe the content in any real way. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course blogs and podcasts published by reliable sources are themselves reliable, to the extent of postings by authorized representatives of the source (any section for commentary by the general public isn't reliable). However, most blogs and podcasts are self published, have no editorial control, and may not even be restrained by libel laws, if the blogger is using a series of open proxies and/or a publicly accessible computer that will hinder the discovery of his identity. John254 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said that the question is whether the material is a reliable source or not. Whether or not it's called a "blog" or a "podcast" has no bearing on the reliability of the material. The reason we wouldn't use a self-published blog with not editorial control is because it's self-published and has no editorial control, not because it's a blog. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite easy to stage a faked audio interview, simply by finding someone with a voice that sounds similar to the purported interviewee. Since a self-published audio blog/podcast/etc has little reliability of its own (unless published by the interviewee himself), the only means by which we could verify the alleged interview would involve audio analysis whereby we would perform a qualitative and spectral comparison between the voice in the supposed interview and a known voice sample of the alleged interviewee, attempt to find any abrupt cut-outs which might indicate the splicing together of audio clips in a misleading fashion, etc. Because we would be performing our own determination of whether the purported interviewee's voice was authentic, and not relying on the representations of the source (the blog in which the audio interview was published), such audio analysis would constitute original research. Even if acceptable for articles concerning video games, or similar non-critical purposes where there would be little incentive to fabricate an audio interview out of whole cloth, the use of third-party audio blogs as sources should especially be avoided for the purpose of making controversial claims concerning living persons, where the temptations to fabricate an audio interview for the purpose of defamation are high, and the damage done to the subject of the controversial claims by the inclusion of bogus information from a faked audio interview may be considerable. Indeed, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source expressly prohibit the contemplated use of third-party audio blogs in biographies of living persons. John254 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the page under discussion, the subject is an active editor on Misplaced Pages. If the interview had been faked it's reasonable to assume that he would say something. The assertion that it's "quite easy to stage a faked audio interview" seem unsupported. Do we have any evidence of any faked audio interviews? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation of a fake audio interview is self-evidently as easy having voice actors read from a script. It really shouldn't be necessary to create a fake audio interview, and upload it to Misplaced Pages, just to demonstrate that it can be done. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages requires positive evidence of source reliability, rather than assuming reliability as a null hypothesis unless a counterexample can be provided. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

We aren't going to accept an audio interview as reliable when it appears in an otherwise unreliable source such as a third-party self-published blog or podcast, simply because Will Beback idiosyncratically asserts that an audio interview would be difficult to fake, without providing a shred of evidence to support this claim. The statement that "the subject is an active editor on Misplaced Pages. If the interview had been faked it's reasonable to assume that he would say something" is solidly within original research territory, since we would effectively be relying on a non-source, and a novel synthesis of circumstantial evidence, for evidence of the interview's authenticity. We might as well have Will Beback interview the subject himself, and upload the resulting audio recording directly to Misplaced Pages. While it's quite likely that such an audio interview would be genuine, that wouldn't render such original research any less offensive to our fundamental policies. In practice, we might tolerate a little bit of OR in writing about relatively non-critical subjects such as television episodes or video games. When it comes to biographies of living persons, however, original research must be stomped out. John254 02:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One peice of this puzzle is missing... Is the person being interviewed considered an expert in the field he is being interviewed about? Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's linked from his biography (are we experts about ourselves?). The article in question is Rick Ross and here's the relevant thread: Talk:Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Media.2Fnews. The actual subject of the podcast is Ross' field of expertise, "Destructive Religious Cults". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: The blog is called "Dogma Free America", so presumably has an anti-religoin POV. I can't find an "About" page with more info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Specific discussion about specific articles, should go on that article's talk page. Here we are discussing basis as they apply in general. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Even general discussions need to be grounded in specifics, especially if the intent is to use this duscussion as a basis for action in a specific dispute. The fact that it is the subject of a BLP being interviewed is certainly an important detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

@Blueboar: If the interviewer was an expert in the field, we may make an exception as pr WP:SPS, but that expert as per policy must had "previously been published by reliable third-party publication." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The interviewee has certainly been published in reliable 3rd-party sources. Soince this is for his own BLP, he's certainly an expert on his own opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No no no... The policy refers to the blogger (In this case the interviewer) to have been published in third-party sources in relation to his area of expertise. You got this wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically in a BLP we can mention the LPs opinions published in SPSs as long as these are not related to third parties. Read the policy carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may need a new section in the Guideline

You know, I don't think we have ever addressed the issue of podcasts before... so let's go slow here and really think about this issue carefully. What we say here will be used in future debates, so let's get it right. Here are some initial questions that I think need to be answered before we can figure this out...

1. Fill in the blank: radio:podcast as newspaper:_____. (blog?...website?...what?)
2. If a person says something on radio (or TV), how do we treat this as far as RS is concerned?
3. How are podcasts different than radio (or TV) broadcasts?
4. Does it make a difference if the person making the statement is the subject of the Article? Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really, and we have the backing of existing policies and guidelines. Same as we do not use blogs or other self-published material (unless the blog is an expert in the field, and his work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication. See WP:SPS), we do not use podcasts, vcasts, YouTube or any other user-generated content. Basically, the issue of "reliability" is directly connected to the editorial control that a reputable publisher will use. Bloggers and podcasters do not generally have any of that in place, and as such we would be crazy to accept any material "published" by them in an encyclopedic article, unless the material is used in an article about the blogger or the podcaster (if they are notable enough, that is). We may need an extension to the WP:V, which I will add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is no different from any other personal appearance or writing by a biography subject. Per WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source: Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. It is self-evident that the subject is the interviewee, and that the interview is a reliable source for his own opinions from his own mouth. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have a caveat, namely we do not allow comments about third parties in SPS. An interview is no different than a written piece. Does the interview refers to third parties? If so, we do not use it. Is that simple, and as I said previously, we have existing policies that deal with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing to use this as a source for 3rd parties. It's being used as a link in the interviewee's biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think we can assume that the vast majority of podcasts are self-published. They should be evaluated like any other source. We'd accept an audio recording on the National Public Radio or BBC World Service websites a refs because they're properly "published" for our purposes. If I record something and stick it up on my own website, that's not really "published" as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. The medium itself is not the problem: it's the (lack of) publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But this specific issue is an audio interview with the subject of a BLP. If I have a regular podcast, and interview a notable person, why shouldn't that interview appear in the external links of that person? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Because we have guideline that describe what to link to and what not to link to which describe self-published sources as links; and because anyone can have himself "interviewed" to make claims about himself/herself and about third parties. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional platform, or a place to publish information which has not been published in reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as Jossi makes it out to be ... a podcast interview is more like an amature radio interview than it is like a blog. A blog has a definite author and everything is filtered through that author's words. This is not true of a podcast. In a podcast interview there is more than one person speaking and making comments... the podcaster, and the person he is interviewing. The podcaster may be an amature, but the inteviewee (podcastee?) might be a pro... an expert in the field he is being interviewed about.

With a radio broadcast (which we consider reliable), we can quote or paraphrase what the person being interviewed says during the interview (and we cite to that interview), so why is it suddenly different when the same person says those same words in a podcast interview? At minimum, I would say that the SPS limitations should apply to both the podcaster and the person being interviewed. If the person being interviewed is a published expert in the field he is being interviewed about, his words can reliably be used for a statement as to his opinion. No? Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Look at it this way: Say Mr XYZ published a blog and in it he makes allegations about Mr ABC. Per SPS, we will not use that blog (neihther as a source, not as as EL) on Mr. XYZ's article in Misplaced Pages. So, the same would apply if Mr. XYZ is interviewed by Mr Podcaster. No? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What if he made the same allegations in an interview on BBC radio? Could we link to BBC radio as a source? If so, how is this different from a podcast? Same person speaking, same statement... the only thing changing is the venue. Blueboar (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to Misplaced Pages:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source policy, does it not? To wit:

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

Now that is policy. As per policy, an autobiography on the subject's website is off-limits for use in the article subject's BLP (let alone as a source for articles on other people) as soon as it strays into making claims about 3rd parties, contentious issues, etc. I don't see an interview as being any different there. If it was a BBC radio interview, a recording of which is hosted on the BBC website, then it will have gone through their vetting process, there was editorial oversight, etc., just like there is with an autobiography published by a reliable publishing house. If I just stick it up on my website, there is none of that, and if it is self-serving, makes contentious claims about 3rd parties, etc., it's curtains. It's really a kind of quality control function: after all, I can tell my mate that I am the greatest mathematician of the century, and my friend may mutter in agreement; then he puts the recording of our conversation up on his site, and bingo, a great external link for my article on myself ... the BBC, however, is unlikely to broadcast an interview with me claiming to be this century's greatest mathematician. Jayen466 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As another point, WP:SPS also states

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

So even if the podcaster were a well-known radio journalist, his self-published podcasts on his private website would be unacceptable as sources, while the same journalist's work hosted on his radio station's website would be fine. There is oversight on the radio station's website; there is none on his private site. Jayen466 11:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A German source may be highly reputable, in Germany, but how many of our readers and editors will actually read it? Misplaced Pages only works when we can rely on many people to catch mistakes and NPOV. If we find that not many editors are actually listening to the whole podcast to catch mistakes and POV, then our policing system breaks down, and it's not a good source for us, even if it's a good source in theory. I'd be a lot happier talking about the reliability of a transcript of the podcast, and I wonder about the quality of podcasts that no one does transcripts for. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC):

I came here from the notice at WP:VPP. IMO, Blueboar has it right: there's nothing "special" about a podcast that makes it different from any other interview as far reliability is concerned. Also IMO, Jossi is needlessly confusing the issue by trying to make some sort of demand that the interviewer be an expert in the field. Consider this example: If John Stossel interviewed Stephen Hawking, by Jossi's reasoning we couldn't use anything Hawking said about physics because Stossel isn't a physics expert. I'm also not convinced of Jossi's interpretation of WP:SPS in relation to Mr. XYZ and Mr. ABC; is it really that the source may not include Mr. XYZ's opinion of Mr. ABC, or is it just that we may not use that part of the self-published source? Anomie⚔ 06:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawking really is a very bad example here, because he is unable to speak and uses a synthetic voice. If I saw a Hawking interview on the BBC website, I would be reasonably sure that it was Hawking who authored what his electronic voice is saying. If it's some podcast on a private website, frankly I would assume that it wasn't Hawking and that the electronic voice might be telling a lot of tosh. Hawking is unlikely to spend hours writing interview segments for an interview with a podcaster; it's a very laborious process for him. Jayen466 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Anomie⚔ 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek. ;-) But seriously, I would not use an interview of a notable person located as a podcast on a private website, any more than I would use a purported affidavit alleging wrongdoing that only exists on a self-published website and is not discussed in any reliable source. Jayen466 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that a joke? You and Jossi proposed that a purported affidavit that was never discussed in a reliable source, that alleged wrongdoing, and that was published only on a self-published site was itself a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Will, I explained it in the arbcom case, did you not read my response there? To recap, the affidavit you are talking about did not allege wrongdoing on the part of a third party. If an affidavit which is only present on some private website, and which to date has not been covered by any published RS, states that someone mistreats his subordinates, is mentally unstable, is cruel or has committed some crime, then that is not an acceptable source for stating in the BLP of that person that he has been accused of being mentally unstable, a criminal, etc. Such accusations become relevant only if RS repeat such allegations. (To give an example of inappropriate use of an affidavit, the second para in David_Miscavige#Other_matters is sourced to an affidavit that does not seem to have been covered in any RS. Either a secondary source should be found, or the paragraph dropped.) The affidavit we were discussing all those months ago did not contain any such allegations about a third party. Rather, it was an official and formal retraction of allegations the man had made some time prior in a press article. We saw a record of the affidavit on the court website. This is a completely different situation. We did not use this affidavit to add derogatory or any other type of information to a BLP. Rather, we said that if someone alleges one thing in March and in September signs an affidavit averring that he made it all up, then we shouldn't present the earlier allegations as reliable, especially not in a BLP. Again, the principle is to err on the side of caution in a BLP. Jayen466 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the sarcasm in my reply, but you're still missing the point. Jossi claims that an interview is not "acceptable" unless the interviewer is an expert in the field. So I used the example of a co-anchor of a nationally televised news show interviewing an acknowledged expert in a highly technical field to point out how ridiculous that claim is. I suppose I could have made it explicit that I was talking about an interview distributed in the standard manner for that interviewer (i.e. national broadcast television), but I had thought that would be obvious. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted what I say. Podcasts are no different than blogs as it pertains to reliability of the source, when speaking about self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on where they come from. A PodCast of The CBS Evening News would be just as reliable as the on-air version. A podcast of Joe Bob's Local Cable Access Show would be just as reliable as the on-"air" version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what we are narrowing in on is the idea that not all podcasts are equal... some are reliable and others are not. Most are self-published, but not all are. In the case of a podcast interview, we have to look at several factors: who created the podcast (What editorial control is there? is it likely that they edited it to twist what was actually said?); what is the reliability of the person being interviewed (are they an expert in what they are talking about?); where is the podcast hosted (what is the reliability of the website where we found the podcast? does it violate copywrite?); what was said in the interview (did the interviewee say something about a third person?); What article are we citing the podcast in (a BLP? if so, is the subject either the interveiewer or interviewee?); and probably several other factors that I am not thinking of.

In other words, perhaps we can't make hard and firm rules that apply to all podcasts, the best we can do is apply our guidelines and policies to a specific podcast. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Substitute "Podcast" with "source" and we are back to our existing guidelines. A podcast is just a content-delivery system, and content-delivery systems do not affect the reliability or non-reliability of the content. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Same applies to blogs, i.e within the caveats expressed in policy regarding WP:SPS and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear consensus for your change to WP:V, which should have been discussed on that talk page. Audio or video interviews, in which there is no question that the people are who they say they are, seem like an obvious exception to rules intended to cover printed secondary sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As expressed above, the medium is irrelevant. It is the publisher, its reliability what counts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose any remaining confusion that I have comes from determining who the "publisher" is when someone says something on a podcast? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to consider it "self"-published with respect to both the interviewer and the interviewee. A similar situation obtains if I have my own private website and a friend writes a text and allows me to put this (otherwise unpublished) text up on my website. I'd say that neither I nor my friend can claim that the hosted text is anything other than self-published. Jayen466 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In that situation, I would certainly agree with saying that it is "self-published"... but let's take a more complicated senario... Ronald D. Moore, the director of the TV show Battlestar Galactica, often posts podcasts about the show on the Sci-fi Network's website. Suppose he asks a friend of his who is a physicist to join him on one of his podcasts, to explain some aspect of physics that impacted how Moore filmed a particular scene. Who is the publisher of the physicist's comments? Moore? The physicist? Sci-fi Network? Some combination of all three?

Part of the issue with self-published sources is that the author is the same person as the publisher (or is at least directly responsible for the publication of what he wrote)... with podcast interviews we have a bit more of a grey area. Say a noted physisist agrees to be interviewed by some kid (perhaps the kid lives next door, or is going to the same grade school that the expert went to) and the kid posts a podcast of the interview on his personal website... I don't think we can say that the expert is "self-publishing" his remarks in this situation. And I think there is a good argument that the expert's remarks are reliable (he is an expert after all), even if the venue in which they appear is not. As I said... grey zones. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Any time a person is self-evidently speaking, whether in print in their own blog, or in a podcast, or on a video, they are a reliable source for their own statements. In those latter cases, the publisher is irrelevant, but it is analogous to being self-published. Take your example of a notable physicist interviewed by the kid next door. If he describes details of his own youth, like what schools he went to, that don't appear in any other sources then I'd consider that interview to be a suitable source for the information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Will .... if the person is making claims about third parties, his SPS is unacceptable as per current policy. If he names the name of his dog, that is not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.