This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GodBlessYou2 (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 27 January 2015 (→"Reputation for Fact Checking"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:08, 27 January 2015 by GodBlessYou2 (talk | contribs) (→"Reputation for Fact Checking")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page. |
|
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Questions
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
| The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page. |
| There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation. |
 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, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83 |
|
Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Televised interviews from established network news sources
Perhaps there should be a warning in the guideline as to not use video (or transcripts from broadcasts) from network news sources for establishing quotes and facts. Most network news source now edit interviews to the point that it is impossible to determine what the subject of the interview actually said. Some are even chopping up statements in mid-sentence and rearranging the order of phrases. Many times the edits are so skillfully executed as to be impossible to detect, even when examining the video frame by frame. For example, they will syncronize the edit to match the movement of the subject's mouth or change camera angles to make it difficult or impossible to tell that an edit was made. Even content which is labeled as "live" is often edited. I think a general warning should be included not to use television network news as a reliable source. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any material difference between editing a video recording to make an on-topic "quotation" and editing an e-mail message to make an on-topic "quotation". The latter is done every day in print journalism. Journalistic ethics are supposed to prevent you from misrepresenting the person's words, but not to prevent you from removing "um, uh, well" or irrelevant tangents. You can look for corrections in which the allegedly quoted person claims to have been misrepresented. Reputable news agencies promptly publish all such claims from people they quote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- The difference is that in the written form, an ethical journalist will include an elipsis, whereas many (most?) edited videos don't provide adequate indication that an edit has been made. When the video is subsequently transcribed — either directly by a WP editor or by an intermediate source — the indication of the edit is lost. I think some warning should be included in the guide about the potential for inaccuracy. Also, because of the proliferation of the technique and the historically ephemeral nature of video, many subjects don't bother to correct them (often for fear of drawing additional attention to whatever issue was being reported), so relying on interview subjects to initiate correction is not reliable. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Reputable journalists" only use an ellipsis of omission if they are dropping the middle of a single sentence. Most quotations in print are one sentence or less. An ellipsis is not used if you only quote only one continuous phrase from a sentence. For example, I would write that "Sparkie82 said, 'an ethical journalist will include an ellipsis'." I would not write that "Sparkie82 said, '...an ethical journalist will include an ellipsis...'", even though your complete sentence has a long phrase on each side of what I quoted. It's the same rules that we use for direct quotations here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is that in the written form, an ethical journalist will include an elipsis, whereas many (most?) edited videos don't provide adequate indication that an edit has been made. When the video is subsequently transcribed — either directly by a WP editor or by an intermediate source — the indication of the edit is lost. I think some warning should be included in the guide about the potential for inaccuracy. Also, because of the proliferation of the technique and the historically ephemeral nature of video, many subjects don't bother to correct them (often for fear of drawing additional attention to whatever issue was being reported), so relying on interview subjects to initiate correction is not reliable. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Self-reference
I sometimes run across an editor who wants a citation for a detail about a published book, like year published or the like. Once I updated an author's bibliography, noticed that the formerly forthcoming book—fact referenced to the author's website—was in print, so I deleted the citation and someone put the citation back. In each case I point out that the book itself contains the information—that is, the "reference" is actually in-lined—and they accept that. Can the policy wording be modified to clearly accommodate this? Choor monster (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- You might find some help in WP:Inline citations, but in general, if someone wants to add an unnecessary <ref> tag, it's simpler to let them do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Linking to the Preservation policy
Kendrick7 and I bumped heads when I deleted unsourced content he had added to article. He reverted, saying that per WP:PRESERVE I should have copied it to the Talk page. In reply, I cited this policy (which is referenced in WP:WONTWORK - specifically, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". I didn't say, that WP:PRESERVE says nothing about copying unsourced content to the Talk page. Anyway, to correct his perceived conflict between the two policies, Kendrick edited this policy as follows and left a nice note on my Talk page telling me he did so:
Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed, but should be preserved on the talk page. Please completely remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.
I reverted, asking for discussion for a change to policy; Kendrick unreverted (and left a not-so-nice note on my Talk page) and Flyer22 deleted it again. So here we are. Does anybody want this change? I don't. There is too much crappy unsourced content in WP as it is, and I already spend more time than I like maintaining articles that I watch than I do building new (well-sourced) content: the burden should not be on me to copy some lazy editor's content to the Talk page. Which, i will re-iterate, is not even described in WP:PRESERVE. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (self-trout -- copying to the Talk page is in WP:PRESERVE. oy. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
- I don't want the proposed addition, which is why I reverted it, and I agree with you on the matter. I noted in the edit summary, "WP:PRESERVE lists different options; we don't have to preserve the content on the talk page." There was also this and this matter involving Kendrick at the WP:PRESERVE policy, and this other matter at the WP:PRESERVE talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair points. This wasn't meant to be a change in policy; WP:PRESERVE is already policy after all. I was simply attempting to bring greater awareness to this section of the WP:EP. As such, a link without changing the underlying language will do just as well. -- Kendrick7 02:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is probably the most deceptive edit I have seen in Misplaced Pages. Ever. And to a policy page nonetheless. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand how a link exchange between two WP:POLICY's is either controversial or deceptive. -- Kendrick7 03:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- piping a wikilink to WP:PRESERVE at the word "remove"? If you cannot see the tension there, I don't know what to tell you. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand how a link exchange between two WP:POLICY's is either controversial or deceptive. -- Kendrick7 03:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is probably the most deceptive edit I have seen in Misplaced Pages. Ever. And to a policy page nonetheless. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose linking WP:PRESERVE to the word "remove". Reyk YO! 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestion... I think the Other issues section would be a better place to include a link to PRESERVE.
- Oppose per Reyk. Doing that implies that the obligation to copy to the talk page trumps BURDEN while WONTWORK makes it clear that if anything it's the other way around. Just because unsourced material was removed without copying it to the talk page doesn't mean that the editor who restores it doesn't still have the obligation to not do that without providing sources; if he does not want to do that then the remedy is for him to copy it to the talk page, not restore it, or to report the other editor to an administrator or to ANI. Moreover, there's not an obligation, per PRESERVE, to copy it in every case, but only in those cases in which the page is "rewritten or changed substantially" (emphasis added) and that, too, makes it a bad idea to link it to BURDEN with those implications. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- We ought to link WP:PRESERVE from somewhere in the policy, I think, although I tend to agree with Reyk and TransporterMan that the suggested place is less than ideal. Some editors wrongly feel that there's a tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN. There is no tension. WP:PRESERVE says to preserve appropriate content. Content that fails WP:BURDEN is inappropriate and thus is not shielded by WP:PRESERVE. Perhaps we could find some way to make this clear without bloating the policy too much?—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Before this edit by Chillum last year, there was tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, and, with this WP:Dummy edit, I pointed Chillum to the very discussion showing that to be the case. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have been BOLD and added it at the end of WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... I think the link works very well there - but feel free to revert if you disagree, or even if you agree but think it simply needs more discussion. :>) Blueboar (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- With this edit, I see that you also tweaked the WP:PRESERVE policy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- That change to the WP:PRESERVE policy is certainly an improvement. The previous version did not accord with actual practice, and it was completely unrealistic to suggest that every time an article is substantially changed we preserve all removed content on its talk page. That would make talk pages completely unworkable. Goodness knows what the person who put that in the policy had going through their head. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what's so tough about having a "Deletions" section with a list of difflinks, but the behaviour is more concerning. Editors changing policy and guidance should be familiar with wp:TALKFIRST and the rest of wp:PGCHANGE. Multiple reverts amount to disruptive behaviour. Just don't do it. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- A list of difflinks may be useless in practice. Most of what I remove, at any rate, is either obviously wrong (e.g., putting information about X in the article about Y) or inappropriately detailed (e.g., any cure for cancer that has only been tested in a cell culture) and doesn't qualify for preserving; I assume that the rest of you largely remove things for similarly necessary reasons. But even if the removals were limited to the potentially useful ones, then a list of "" won't be very useful to anyone who wants to find things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what's so tough about having a "Deletions" section with a list of difflinks, but the behaviour is more concerning. Editors changing policy and guidance should be familiar with wp:TALKFIRST and the rest of wp:PGCHANGE. Multiple reverts amount to disruptive behaviour. Just don't do it. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- That change to the WP:PRESERVE policy is certainly an improvement. The previous version did not accord with actual practice, and it was completely unrealistic to suggest that every time an article is substantially changed we preserve all removed content on its talk page. That would make talk pages completely unworkable. Goodness knows what the person who put that in the policy had going through their head. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- With this edit, I see that you also tweaked the WP:PRESERVE policy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources that borrow minor details from Misplaced Pages
I made this edit just now and was reverted. Per my edit summary, I had already posted on what I thought was the relevant talk page, and got no opposition. I hadn't noticed that this page already included a similar warning. My proposal is in the above edit: any problems with it being re-added? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Could you give us an example of a source that uses minor stylistic elements of Misplaced Pages please?—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anime News Network: Akira Toriyama is best-known for his manga, Dragon Ball. In January 2012, someone altered the Misplaced Pages article on Toriyama to say that he was best-known for "Dr. Slump and Dragon Ball". Up until January 2012, ANN described him as being known for Dragon Ball, and after January 2012 they started describing him as being known for Dr. Slump and Dragon Ball. Last month I attempted to remove the reference to Dr. Slump (I eventually found a workaround that satisfied all parties) and was opposed partly on the basis that ANN described him as being known for Dr. Slump.
- The Austerity Delusion by Mark Blyth, Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University: Mimics Misplaced Pages's current style guidelines for the formatting of Japanese personal names, as "Takahashi Korekiyo" was born pre-1868 but "Osachi Hamaguchi" and "Junnosuke Inoue" both just happened to be born very shortly after 1868. This means that Blyth follows Misplaced Pages in somewhat clumsily (and uniquely) mixing two naming conventions based on an arbitrary criterion that no one ever used before a small group of Misplaced Pages editors developed it roughly a decade ago. One can imagine the reason a Brown professor would be consulting Misplaced Pages for this kind of thing would be that Japanese nomenclature is not his area of expertise and is peripheral to the main subject of his article. Which brings me to...
- Sources that barely mention a subject but are being used to justify maintaining the status quo on the Misplaced Pages article on that subject: Some of the comments on the RMs on Talk:Empress Jingū and Talk:Emperor Jimmu are exemplary.
- I gave a few more in the post I linked to in my edit summary in the diff above. I imagine virtually every idiosyncrasy on Misplaced Pages has been duplicated somewhere else.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am still not sure what the concern is... It seems you are in a content dispute, not a dispute related to style. Could you clarify... because it does not seem that you are using it with the same meaning as WP:Manual of style? Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are mixing together factual issues (such as what Akira Toriyama is best known for) and stylistic issues (for example, rendering Japanese in an English-language article). I don't think a useful discussion is possible before this confusion is resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: Sorry not to be clear -- I'm not involved in any dispute, content or otherwise. There was a content dispute on the Toriyama article, and another user cited a source that, on examination, was clearly copying Misplaced Pages. The reason for this was that an otherwise reliable source had, in the very minor issue that was under discussion, seen it as appropriate to refer to the subject the same way Misplaced Pages did at the time, presumably because when one Googles "Akira Toriyama" the first thing that comes up is our article. Minor issues such as how many items to put in the parentheses after his name are something people are often free to use Misplaced Pages for. (I consider "how many items to put in the parentheses" a "style" issue, and this problem applies to it in the same way as Japanese naming order and how to write Japanese names in the roman alphabet.) Given this (and the other problems I refer to above) I think we should encourage more caution when using otherwise reliable sources to prop up the Misplaced Pages status quo in particular.
- @Jc3s5h: Okay, I think I should clarify -- no one (even in the big fustercluck last month on the talk page) thinks Toriyama's best-known work is something other than Dragon Ball. The problem was whether we should put his second best-known manga on the same level, and (to a lesser extent) whether he is better known for Dr. Slump or Dragon Quest. Japanese mainstream media usually describe him as being known "for Dragon Ball" or (less commonly) "for Dragon Ball and Dragon Quest". The inclusion of two items specifically, and Dr. Slump as one of those, was a unique Misplaced Pages format. "How many items to but between the parentheses" is what I meant when I said a "minor style issue"; like "which order should I write this person's name" and "should I spell this person's name with an m or an n", it's a minor formatting concern that, a lot of the time, writers are free to just do what feels right, and sometimes that means they'll copy Misplaced Pages. It's either because they don't have any particular incentive to find out why Misplaced Pages is the way it is and make an educated decision on whether to copy Misplaced Pages (this is presumably the case with ANN and Blyth), or because they do have a particular incentive to use the most recognizable formatting, and since such-and-such is most readily searchable on Misplaced Pages (most small coastal municipalities in Iwate Prefecture are not widely known outside Japan...) they went with the Misplaced Pages formatting.
- One might wonder why this matters if it's only about minor formatting differences, but the fact is that this page already discourages use of circular sourcing where a source explicitly consulted Misplaced Pages, but when an otherwise reliable source (deliberately or otherwise) got certain points from Misplaced Pages and didn't make this explicit it means we also can't cite those otherwise reliable sources when specifically addressing those point, and use of Misplaced Pages for minor formatting points and stuff only peripherally related to one's particular topic seems to be pretty prevalent.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- in my view the analysis that Hijiri88 is doing is too fine and becomes a sort of peer review that we as editors cannot do. The analysis that either source uses WP at all, much less deliberately or "otherwise", on fine points like this, is something that I do not think can be verified. (btw I do not know what we are intended to see here), In this kind of situation the best thing would be to report conflict between sources (if it exists) or simply report what the source says, without editorializing/OR. We should not introduce this into a policy page. This set of issues is quite different from what is described in WP:CIRCULAR. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"Reputation for Fact Checking"
It is my view that there is a prima facia presumption that any mainstream news source that has a professional staff of trained journalists and editors (i.e. "meaningful editorial oversight") is a reliable source. Yet some editors will claim, without any evidence, that this or that publication does not have a "reputation for fact checking," a phrase used twice on this policy page.
So where is one to identify and verify which publications have a "reputation for fact checking?" It may be easier to identify publications that have a history of failure in fact checking, and a source identifying such publications would be very helpful. But how are we to address claims that a source that employs professionally trained journalists and editors is not a reliable source based on an unsourced assertion that the source lacks a "reputation for fact checking," at least with the editor raising the objection to that source?–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to arise from a discussion at Talk:Abortion_debate#Pro-abortion_violence_section where some editors are arguing for using (for example) breitbart as a source for content about pro-abortion violence. MastCell is stating that some of these sources are not reliable because they don't check facts, among other reasons. And generally it is a good idea if you notify editors of postings relevant to discussions, GodBlessYou2. I have done that on the Talk page. btw, to the extent you are asking a real question above, this posting is a good thing. The issue also arose in a now-closed RfC here: Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy#RfC:_Claims_of_discrimination_against_Darwin_sceptics where GodBlessYou2 argued to keep sources that other editors said failed this test. I do think the question is interesting. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that GodBlessYou2 is now topic-banned from the latter subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is a good general question, which is why I raised it here in a general way without tying it to a particular ongoing discussion or specific source. I had hoped to see it addressed as a general question of principles. Now, because you have posted an invite to this thread at the abortion debate page , I'm afraid the discussion will sink too quickly into particulars (especially conservative vs liberal conflicts regarding "trust" and "distrust" toward various media outlets) rather than remain at the highest level of general principles...which is what this policy page is supposed to be about. Oh well. You can't unring a bell. (I also appreciate how so many editors track my contributions page just to chime in and cast disparagement on everything I write. Is that stalking or flattering? And they are fast, too!)–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- sigh. No I am not stalking you. I watch this page and saw your posting. Questions like this never arise from a vaccum, and it is good practice to notify other editors of related discussions you open. You are too aggressive for a new editor, GodBlessYou2. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Turning back to the original question. The question should really be asked at the guideline level - WP:RS most generally, and WP:MEDRS for anything health-related. Those guidelines flesh out issues touched on briefly here, about what reliable sources actually are. The relevant section of RS is WP:NEWSORG (which gives some good bullet points).
- I also want to say, that if you are working on a controversial subject, it is a very good idea to raise source quality. Always, but especially in controversial articles, the best practice is to bring sources that no one - not even your "opponents" - would question, and to strive to write really NPOV content that stays true to what is the source. There should never be a doubt about the reliability of any source you bring. I generally find that disagreements over sourcing tend to happen when someone advocating for some particular POV (in other words, someone who comes into the article with pre-determined ideas) finds some source that expresses their point very well, and pushes to include the content and source into the article. That is the opposite of how we are meant to work, which is that you read a bunch of mainstream, as-recent-as-possible sources on the topic, and craft content based on them. The search for sources should go right down the middle of the plate - really unimpeachable stuff (for news, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Times of London, etc) and for health stuff (as described in MEDRS) statements of major medical and scientific bodies and reviews published in mainstream biomedical journals.
- And if you have have questions about specific content and whether its source is reliable for the content, you should first check the archives at RSN (for breitbart, you will see that it has been discussed a zillion times). If you are not sure after that, you can present the content and source(s) (not just the source, but the content you want to support with it) in a new thread at RSN. And even after that, there may be subsequent questions about WP:WEIGHT which RSN cannot answer.
- But I do recommend that you "close" this and ask the question at WT:RS.Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't for RSN because I'm not looking for input on any particular source or any particular article. I'm not familiar with breitbart nor advocating for it as a reliable source. While I agree it would be great to find sources that no one would dispute, the reality is that even the most reliable sources do not cover all issues much less in full detail. That's why multiple sources are needed.
- The importance of the general question remains, so I see no reason to close the conversation. What bothers me is that rather than address the general question and attempt is made to pigeon hole me and my question by "framing" it within other articles . . . and it is not you, but Andy who has been following me about.
- So the question remains, how is a "reputation for fact checking" identified and established? Conversely, how is a poor reputation for fact checking identified and established?--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- you missed my point. I recommended you open the discussion at the Talk page of the reliable source guideline (WT:RS), where details like this are discussed. if you search the archives there, you may find it has already been discussed. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just did a little searching. see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_35#Assessing_reliability and also Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_39#Definition_of_.22Questionable_Sources.22. The latter is especially instructive, I think. Certain aspects of PAG are left vague, to a certain extent, to allow room for the 5th Pillar (common sense) to operate with regard to their application to any given situation and to avoid the temptation for wikilawyering. I don't think you are going to get clear "metrics" for what the "reputation" thing means, exactly. But that's all I'll say here. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- A little bit of information may help. You can read this short page if you want to know more. A fact checker is someone who phones a source and asks questions like, "Did you actually say 'Our company earned diddly squat in profits last year' to our reporter? No? You said, 'Go away and leave me alone, you blood-suckers'? Okay, I'll make a note to have your quotation corrected." The fact checker is not the same person as the reporter, but is working from the reporter's notes and list of contacts instead of finding his own. Depending on the publication's standards, they may check everything that constitutes "a fact", only direct quotations, everything except direct quotations, only major facts, only facts that fall into specific areas (e.g., medicine and money), or only facts that the editor is concerned about.
- Almost no daily papers do this for more than a miniscule fraction of their contents. If the news happens at ten in the morning, is written up at two in the afternoon, and the press starts running at six in the evening, then there just isn't enough time to fact-check. (What if your source is busy that afternoon?)
- Fact-checking is common for magazines, especially high-circulation monthlies, but there's a range. A large health-related magazine is probably going to fact-check everything in sight: in case of lawsuit, they want to be able to blame a named, licensed healthcare professional. A small political newsweekly might check only things that seem like they might result in libel lawsuits (and the bar is very high in that area). The seriousness of the subject or the biased-ness of the publication are irrelevant. A fashion magazine is likely to more thoroughly fact-check an article about sexual positions than a legal journal does for an article about a proposed law.
- The practical equivalent for a daily paper is the corrections column. A publication that posts corrections is usually deemed to constitute "a reputation for fact checking", even if we know that the paper does almost no actual fact checking. You would not expect to find actual fact-checking at daily papers (like The New York Times) or in peer-reviewed journals. (Peer review considers questions of experimental design, but not whether the author is an outright liar.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Understand that what I'm about to say is just personal musing, not what policy says or even an interpretation of policy, per se. But I've always looked at the fact checking obligation as at least colored by the issue of what the publisher has at risk. Most professional publishers — mainstream news, magazines, books — have cash on the line and investors/stakeholders/shareholders to tick off by loss of value: if they don't get things right then they're at risk of being sued for various things, the primary one being libel, but they also have their reputation on the line. Academic sources such as peer-reviewed journals don't have the economic incentive so much as the reputational one, but they have that one in strength. The further a publication moves away from these economic and reputational incentives, the less likely the publication has adequate fact checking. Oh, and just for the record, we always need to be cognizant of the fact that the question isn't really, "Is a publication reliable?" but "Is a publication reliable for X in instance Y?" Even though we generally regard peer-reviewed journals (at least the non-predatory ones) as our gold standard, there are parts of them such as their letters columns which may not be reliable sources. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good points by WhatamIdoing and TransporterMan. I agree with both observations. They seem to underscore the phrase "a reputation for fact checking," as used in policy, is at least vague, perhaps misleading, often ignored (for lack of any way to measure it), and very possibly a phrase that creates more conflict than clarity.
- I think it should be possible to come up with a better standard. Clearly, self-published sources are suspect. But once there is a layer of paid editors and publishers, as TransporterMan indicates, there is at least a fiduciary responsibility to provide what the publication claims to provide in the way of facts about the stories it covers. In addition, the layer of professional paid journalists and editors, who are presumably trained in journalistic ethics, also supports the presumption that they are striving for accuracy and professional integrity (and perhaps eventually a higher paying job with a more prestigious publisher). A secondary test may be the longevity of the publication. A publication has been around for a while indicates that it has a reputation trusted by at least a substantial number of readers. In short, publications with (a) fiduciary responsibility for content , (b) professionally trained staff, and (c) established market / readers or viewers would seem to taking the appropriate measures to minimize errors in their stories which may harm their reputation.
- All of the above qualities can be called into question by evidence and reports that demonstrate that a publication is frequently misstating facts. So, evidence of a poor reputation for fact checking is clearly relevant, but that poor reputation should be at least referenced to a reliable source criticizing it, rather than simply something asserted by a WP editor with no support.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Understand that what I'm about to say is just personal musing, not what policy says or even an interpretation of policy, per se. But I've always looked at the fact checking obligation as at least colored by the issue of what the publisher has at risk. Most professional publishers — mainstream news, magazines, books — have cash on the line and investors/stakeholders/shareholders to tick off by loss of value: if they don't get things right then they're at risk of being sued for various things, the primary one being libel, but they also have their reputation on the line. Academic sources such as peer-reviewed journals don't have the economic incentive so much as the reputational one, but they have that one in strength. The further a publication moves away from these economic and reputational incentives, the less likely the publication has adequate fact checking. Oh, and just for the record, we always need to be cognizant of the fact that the question isn't really, "Is a publication reliable?" but "Is a publication reliable for X in instance Y?" Even though we generally regard peer-reviewed journals (at least the non-predatory ones) as our gold standard, there are parts of them such as their letters columns which may not be reliable sources. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)