Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

There is no cabal running WP:V

That is the conclusion of my academic article, finally published :) Read it here (seems free for now, may not be after it is archived). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to inform you that the article is not available in my Explorer due to forced redirect,[1] even when the entire site is tagged as 'trusted' in Internet Options/Tools. --Poeticbent talk 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing I can do about that, other then strongly recommend the use of Firefox (or anything else but the Exploder ;).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn... I was hoping there was a Cabal so I could join it. I was really looking forward to learning the WP:V Cabal secret handshake! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be happy being a member of the "Fraternal Order of Non-Original Researchers". (besides... the FONOR has better looking silly hats!) Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

nor did it work for me in Safari. DGG (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... how do we know that Piotr isn't part of the cabal, and only published this to throw the rest of us off the scent? devious, very devious... but of course, maybe I'm part of a cabal that's trying to throw suspicion on Piotr, so that people will continue looking for that other cabal (that doesn't exist), and miss the real cabal (which, uhhh... doesn't exist, of course).

man, I need a beer. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interestingly, the link didn't work for me the first time on a new session, but worked on the second one. I am also posting details at WP:ACST, and if that doesn't work, the article's title is "Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia" and it is published in Sociological Forum, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 162-192, 31 Jan 2009. Issue ToC: [2].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources

I reverted to an earlier version of this, because recent changes seem to have altered the meaning slightly. For example, the header "self-published and other questionable sources" suggests that self-published sources are questionable, and they aren't always. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have unreverted... the language in question has been stable for several months, so we should not go back without some solid discussion and an indication of consensus.

I don't think the header is implying that questionable and self-published sources are the same (and reading the text will show that this is not the intent)... what it does imply is that they are similar... that we handle questionable sources in the same way and apply the same cautions as we do self-published sources. Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so others know what SV and I are disagreeing about... here is the diff. Blueboar (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of the changes SV made there, actually. I'd prefer Blueboar's version of the non-English sources section, but having the major section on types of source with "questionable" and "self-published" as subsections makes more sense logically than the current situation. It also removes the "relevant to the subject's notability" phrasing in the self-published sources in articles about themselves section, which is a confusing requirement that almost nobody seems to understand. I mean, even after tracking discussions here and at WP:ATT for the last 2 years, I still don't think I fully understand its point. JulesH (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "relevant to the subject's notability" stipulation really isn't accurate. We often taken dates of birth and other personal details from people's websites, for example, and they're not usually relevant to notability. I'd be fine with Blueboar's version of non-English sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned, though, not to let the SPS talking about themselves open the door to stuff like the following hypothetical, in an article about ferrets. "Ferrets should be legalized in California, according to Doctor X, a leader of the free ferret campaign. Doctor Y, on his blog, stated his opinion that Doctor X is on the payroll of the pet food companies and an academic fraud." BLP concerns aside (which is a big concern of mine, actually) this sentence would be excluded by the "relevant to the subject" caveat because the statement is about Doctor X, not ferrets. However, it might be permitted under the old rule because it is a SPS used to source a statement about the author, namely his opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this would be ruled out by BLP. Can you think of an example that doesn't involve BLP, for the sake of clarity? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for the delay. If instead you substitute "Organization X" for "Doctor X" there's no BLP problem, only perhaps a WP:COAT or WP:POV problem. The other problem with using unreliable sources for purposes of self-reporting their own opinions, achievements, etc., is that without the editorial oversight and accountability usually present in a neutral third party reliable source you don't always get an accurate picture of WP:WEIGHT or relevance. I guess using self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of potential violations of other policies and guidelines - demanding good sources helps police all of them. But thinking about this some more, I think my concern about expert SPS used for purposes not fairly related to the article subject would be the same as for any reliable source. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Wikidemon here. Allowing self-published sources opens the doors to a lot of problems. The Verifiability policy was a clear standard for inclusion, but opening up self-published sources to be used in articles or material not related to themselves allows a backdoor for original thought. Regards, -- 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P v. S

If something can be verified by both primary and reliable secondary sources, should the latter be eschewed in favour of the former for simplicity or ease's sake? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I would say both can be cited, but we rely on analysis from secondary sources as preferred sourcing - WP:OR.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SPS- "used as sources of information about themselves"

I've been watching a discussion unfold about this term, and figured someone here would likely be able to explain the phrase more definitively. I'm trying to get clear about what exactly does or doesn't qualify by this: "should only be used in articles about themselves.". For instance, in a biography about a dead person could details from a self published book or website about the person written by someone else be included in the article? i.e. could details from where the person lived and went to school come from a self published website? Can it still be "about themselves" if the person the article is about didn't write the information, but someone else did? Elijah Walker (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It fundamentally comes down to the credibility of the work. Many people will, for any number of reasons, assert things which are not true about themselves, others, and even non-biographical subjects. The false assertion "The moon is made of green cheese" would not aquire any additional credibility by being self-published in Neil Armstrong's autobiography. On the other hand if he said "As a child, I believed that the moon was made of green cheese" on his blog, we might be tempted to use it, though the source could disappear the next minute. If he published the same statement in an autobiographical book it would be verifiable at the local library (remember those?) by any industrious reader, so we could assert "Armstrong recalls a childhood belief that the moon was made of green cheese".LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Articles about themselves"

I see that we are back to the old language of saying that questionable sources should only be used "in articles about themeselves". I strongly disagree with that phrasing. Let me present an example to explain why...

I hope everyone here would agree that Adolf Hitler's book, Mien Kamph, should be considered a questionable source. If we keep the "in articles about themselves" phrasing, we would only be able to cite to Mein Kamph in the article Mein Kamph (and, possibly, in the aritcle Adolf Hitler... as the term "source" can refer to both the document that is being cited and its author). However, I would argue there are other articles where it might be both logical and appropriate to discuss and cite it... for example, I could easily see it being quoted and cited in the article on Facism, to explain certain aspects of Nazi political/racial philosophy. I could also see it being discussed and cited in the article on Anti-semitism.

I fully appreciate that there are articles where citing Mein Kamph would be inapporpirate (It would be completely inappropriate to cite it in the article on Jews for example)... and we do want to place restrictions on using questionable sources... but I find limiting questionable sources purely to "Articles about themselves" is overkill. Limited allowance needs to be made for appropriate use of questionable sources in the context of a serious and neutral discussion in articles not specifically about themselves. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That example, where the source is not reliable but is notable is of course very far from representative of non-RS: very few non-RS are themselves notable. In the example, it can certainly be verified that the text said certain things, and it is perfectly reasonable to infer that those were the words of the attributed author. No one should draw from that the conclusion that the things said in the text are accurate. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are valid... but they do not really address my concern. Yes, the notability of a questionable source is an important factor in determining how appropriate it is to discuss what that source says. My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill. I definitely want limitations as to when it would be appropriate to cite a questionable source, I simply feel the current restriction is not realistic. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main section on this says, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ...," which covers your concern. The section on questionable sources still said "in articles about themselves" only, so I've changed it to be consistent with the main section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be this explicit, but for rare cases such as Mein Kampf, where a highly notable source is not reliable, I would simply ignore all rules and make judicious usage. If necessary a discussion of the usage on the article's talk page should be enough to justify the usage at reviews. Spelling this out at WP:V is pure instruction creep LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could invoke IAR... but that is something that should be rarely done. I really think that if we have to ignore the rules to discuss something as notable as Mein Kamph, then there is a flaw in the rules. However, I think the simple shift from "... used in articles about themselves" to "... used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" has fixed that flaw, and resolved my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Websites mirroring WP content

I have restored the passage about mirror sites. We must avoid using outdated versions of Wikipedia articles hosted on one of the many sites carrying WP content as sources for new articles. If the material was unsourced in the old version, it is still unsourced now, even if the old article version is hosted on a mirror site. Jayen466 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be sourcing our articles to websites that mirror or cite to WP content - period... even if they have the most up to date version of our article. Doing so sets up a circular reference (we cite them citing us). Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is actually important enough that I think it merits its own sub-section. I have also expanded it to caution against citing sources that cite us (ie sources that do not mirror us exactly, but where information is taken from us). Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Jayen466 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to add a policy shortcut for this. Would WP:WPNRS be okay? Jayen466 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am all for creating a shortcut... but I am less sure about the suggested WP:WPNRS (its not intuitive... what do the initials stand for?) Perhaps WP:SMWP (Sites Mirroring Wikipedia)? Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or WP:NMS No Mirror Sites? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPNRS was meant to stand for WikiPedia is Not a Reliable Source, which is a separate point from mirror sites (you get people entering something in one WP article and then citing that WP article as a reference in another). I was also thinking about WP:NCR (unfortunately taken) or WP:CIRCULAR for No Circular References, which would cover both cases. Otherwise, WP:NMS sounds good to me, it's short and sweet. Jayen466 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

At this edit, Blueboar is restoring wording that I believe is incorrect over my previous edit. It implies that the source is contained in another WP article, rather than cited by that article. His edit summary seems to concur with my reading. Am I missing something?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay. The name, author, publisher of the cited source may be contained in the WP article, and that information can be used to consult that source. Also, "may contain" is more appropriate than "should in turn cite" (we have many unsourced statements). Jayen466 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought, if "contain" really bothers you, we could perhaps say "may indicate reliable sources" or some such wording. Jayen466 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayden is thinking about mirror sites (which would probably include any citations listed in the Wikipedia article), while I am talking about sources that don't mirror Wikipedia exactly, but cite Wikipeida for their information.

Perhaps an example will clarify... Suppose you are editing our article on Horatio Nelson, and find a Website on the battle of Trafalgar that includes the statement: "Hardy, rather than Nelson, should be concidered the real hero of Trafalgar". You want to include that statement in the Nelson article, but unfortunately the website says it got its information from the Wikipedia article on Hardy. I think we are agreed that we should not cite this website for that statement (as you would be essentially citing another Wikipedia article). What you can do is go to the WP article on Hardy and note the source that it cites for the information. Assuming you double check it to see it is reliable, you can then use that source in the article on Nelson. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement on intent, Blueboar. It's just the wording that's problematic. Jayen's concern with "should in turn cite", that a journal citation at Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet may be missing (or for that matter invalid) is well founded but I think inconsequential. If missing, it won't lead to false inclusions. If invalid, the copier should catch it and in any case the copied citation will still be subject to checking by anyone verifying the Horatio Nelson article when it is at WP:Peer review, just like any other journal citation. My objection to "may contain" is simply that Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet will only contain a citation, not the cited work itself. Perhaps "may contain a citation of" would serve better? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Help clarifying SPS

Hope this is okay to ask here. I'm involved in a discussion here where we're discussing different ways of leveraging SPS for and against content in that biography (not living). It's an article about a religious leader who is sorely lacking in WP:RS to begin with due to the fact that the larger group we all broke off from ex-communicated him (and us) early on. I'm one of his supporters, and believe a couple of the self-published biographies written by a few of his followers warrants inclusion per how me and the contributors to my RFC have interpreted WP:SPS and/or WP:QS. In a nutshell this biography, and a selfpub'd bio called Charles Mason Remey and the Baha'i Faith have been deemed "OUT" by the interpretations of two editors on the article (who btw consider him an enemy of their religious beliefs). My RFC brought forward 7 impartial editors who said basically it is relevant "about itself". Those two opposers claim it's not a majority rules situation, and that policy doesn't allow the biographies usage, as Remey himself didn't write them. Is that how to interpret SPS and QS?

I noticed above this section Bluboar noted "My point is that there are going to be situations where discussing what a questionable source has to say will be both appropriate and beneficial to the article. To say you can only do so in an article about the source or its author is overkill.". Is that the general consensus here, or just his POV? In this case in question is anything not written by Remey completely disqualified as a source? Obviously no one is pushing for including anything that violates the 5 points for automatic exclusion per SPS (i.e. "unduly self-serving, etc), but rather the content in question is about series of events and details of his funeral, etc. Does SPS allow for using biographies from this man's believers? Any input is exceedingly appreciated. _Disarray^General 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that my comments were in response to shifting language... I would suggest that you consider my comments to be simply my POV. They do seem to be supported by Slim Virgin's subsequent edit, and no one has yet objected to her edit... so it may be consensus. But better safe than sorry. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The question here then is how do you define what is appropriate? Can I just self-publish a source, which is not notable, and then use it in Wikipedia. That's what the policy is trying to avoid, and this is what GeneralDisarray is trying to include; the sources he is pushing for are not notable in any regard, and are self-published. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"What is appropriate" isn't something that we can lay out in a policy... It depends on the article, the exact statment being made in the article, and the notability of the self-published source being used to support that statement. In other words appropriateness has to be determined by consensus at an article level. Remember something can pass the bar at WP:V and yet still not be included for a host of other reasons. Editorial judgement is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What is appropriate can't be completely included in policy, but policy helps to define it. The question is not what passes WP:V, but is not included (due to a host of other reasons including other policies such as WP:NPOV), but instead what doesn't pass WP:V but is included. Anyone can publish a website or a book and then want to include it in Wikipedia, and that is what is happening here. The sources are not notable in their own right. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, self-published sources are acceptable (within the limits set out in the policy) for statements as to their author's opinion. So the next question is whether the author's opinion is worth mentioning within the narrow confines of the topic under discussion. That goes to notability. If the author of the self-published source is notable within the context of the topic under discussion, then there is a likelihood that their opinion should be discussed. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite a lot of reliable sources for this article. The current version is using third-party sources from Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Peeters Publishers, Oneworld Publications, Greenwood Press and so on. These are sources that are not affiliated to either group, and some of them are academic press, considered to be the most reliable. The other sources in the article are the primary source material that the secondary sources point to and are included for reference.

The two sources that the other editor wants to include are self-published after the subject of the article's death, and include original work, and interpretation of primary source material that no other reliable source has deemed appropriate to publish. The exceptions allowed for self-published work include 1) when the work is written by an expert in the field whose work has been published in other reliable source, which these two sources fail and 2) when the source is being used as sources of information about themselve, which doesn't apply either; in this case the other editor wants to use the sources in articles that are neither about the authors of the two works or in discussions of the two works, but instead he wants to use the sources to include data about the principal subject of the article. As stated in policy "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.", which is what these two sources have done. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The "quite a lot of reliable sources for this article" Jeff's referring to are not references about the details of Remey's life, but rather reference what his stated enemies did to alienate and marginalize him. The one and only source to derive details of his personal life come from Smith's "A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith". It's used extensively, but as it amounts to 1.5 columns of a page to explain the life of a man that lived to be 99, the details are scant at best. The biographies I'm concerned about including are not being asked to state anything controversial, but rather for details. One was a self published book, and the other hosted on a website, which BTW is also presently used to reference another document called "The Proclamation of Mason Remey" that's used in the article. The arguments against usage amount to "policy doesn't allow it", even though no one contests the content. The contributors to the RFC all (except 1) agreed that of course these sources should be allowed, but again the will of two editors have blocked their usage per "it's not majority rules; policy doesn't allow it". What do you all think? _Disarray^General 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true, you have in the past used the self-published website to point to specific interpretations of primary source material, which no other published source uses. Secondly, the use of the primary source material you stated above works within the policy because it was published by the subject of the article himself, and that's why it has not caused a problem; that use fits within policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how the Jeff and Mike display a distinct onus of ownership over this page. After challenging these sources, the RFC said allow them. They said their interpretation of the policy doesn't allow it. A discussion on the policy page has shown their interpretations to be out of bound, overstated, and technically inaccurate to be polite about. They claim not to care about any of these results. It appears that nothing will satisfy their opposition to these sources, even when face with everything stacked against them. Now Mike is back to talking about policies no one challenges, yet don't apply here. The example of my opposition to Cunado is also irrelevent, as Cunado was attempting to exclude reliably sourced information, much like Mike is here. The assumption of bad faith in Mike's comments is staggering, and at the same time none of it answers to the direct challenge that has been presented repeatedly to his reasoning. The RFC spoke directly to the challenge, and they didn't like the answer so their edit warring ensued. The discussion on the policy page directly challenged and shot down their interpretations of SPS, and they didn't like it so the edit warring has ensued. Now come the personal attacks. Nothing they've presented has overridden anything, but in fact it's all been shown to be paper tigers. They're posturing with the policy flag still wrapped about them, when their arguments have been demonstrated to be wrong, and they're no longer presenting anything worth considering. It's really time to give up the charade, or pursue dispute resolution. Edit warring will likely get them both banned from editing this page. _Disarray^General 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus, not truth

User:QuackGuru has been engaged in a discussion on Talk:Larry Sanger whether the goal of Wikipedia can be fairly and neutrally described in the text of the article as "Consensus, not truth". Opponents repeatedly pointed out that the attested official principle is WP:Verifiability, not truth. Therefore, he recently proved his WP:POINT by creating WP:Consensus, not truth as a redirect to WP:Verifiability (a redirect to which he now kindly refers disagreeing editors). If anyone here happens to feel, strangely enough, that WP:Verifiability does not equal "Consensus, not truth" either in whole or in part, or at least that such an interpretation is not entirely obvious and uncontroversial, then I hope that someone will request the deletion of the redirect. Opinions could be useful on Talk:Larry Sanger as well. Personally, I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this (I'm having a wikibreak, and I'm not a very active editor in the first place), but I thought perhaps someone here might. If we on this encyclopedia can't provide the public with accurate information even about our own policies, then I'd say we're in very deep ... trouble.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding religous publication

I have a question I would like to pose to see if other editors agree with me. On many religous articles, primary sources and other non-third-party sources are used. For example, on Catholic doctrine articles, many of the works used for sources are the works of Catholic priests, although other critical works are also often included. In Mormon related articles, the writing of Joseph Smith and Brigam Young and used as sources in places. Similar occurrences occor on many other religous related articles. My question is this: "Is that acceptable, or does it violate WPRS?" My answer to this would be "In establishing the content of doctrines, beliefs, and some events, it is acceptable. In controversial events or disputed beliefs, third party sources are required." I say this because in many instances, especially in smaller denominations and groups, there are often few or no authoritative third party sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)