Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Five options

I have some concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in general (all sources are reliable for something, even the WP:DAILYMAIL [which is reliable – not WP:DUE, but reliable – as a primary source for statements about the exact words that they published in any given article]), but today I'm concerned again about these standardized RFCs not lining up with reality. I think the problem is that editors aren't being given the option that they actually want for many options, which is roughly "biased but not a liar".

Consider the old joke about a race involving US and Soviet cars. The US car wins the race. The Soviet press reports it like this: "In an international competition, the Soviet car came in second place. The US came in next to last". This statement is true. This statement is factually correct. This statement is also extremely biased. But we're not letting editors choose an option that obviously aligns with that. The choices are "It's complicated" (this isn't complicated) or "They got the facts wrong" (which isn't true).

I think editors want an option that will let them declare that a source's main problem is its bias, rather than its facts. I think if we offered that as an explicit, separate option, then we would get a more accurate understanding of the problems. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the standard 4 choices is something of a blunt instrument. Then again, all sources are biased, aren't they, so that's a bit difficult to pin down as well. And we don't usually write sources off for bias unless it's extreme.Selfstudier (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes we can all agree the standard 4 choice system is terrible. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The four-option RfC format is popular on this noticeboard, because it allows editors to convey their opinions in a way that can be easily assessed by the RfC closer. I would not say that "we can all agree". — Newslinger talk 01:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it "popular", or is just reused because editors believe that it is the established process. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The four-option format is optional. Editors who start RfCs on this noticeboard are free to choose whatever format they wish, as long as the RfC statement meets the requirements in WP:RFCST. RfC respondents are also free to respond however they wish, and do not need to select an option in their comments. The RfC closer will evaluate all of the responses regardless of the format they are in. The four-option format is popular because editors prefer to use it. — Newslinger talk 08:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Do they prefer to use it, or do they use it because they believe that it is the established process? Those are two different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's terrible, and wouldn't call it standard, but unfortunately we cannot all agree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's bad. It completely casts aside nuance. It leads to a process of voting rather than actual discussion. Typically the battle is between partisans of Option 1 and Option 4. The use of that template stems from the idea that the DM ban was some kind of "gold standard", when it was not anything of the kind. It was a deeply flawed and partisan decision, and what we have seen is the same flawed process play out again and again. FOARP (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are two separate metrics. Sources that are more biased tend to be less reliable, which is why the presence of "extremist" content is an indicator that a source is questionable. However, there are biased sources that are considered generally reliable – e.g. Common Sense Media (RSP entry) and Reason (RSP entry) – as well as generally unreliable sources with no clear pattern of bias – e.g. NNDB (RSP entry) and self-published sources as a whole. Because "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (WP:BIASED), a source's reliability is evaluated independently of its bias.

If an editor's believes that a source is biased but is not sure about the source's reliability, they can still participate in a four-option RfC to say so without selecting an option. Alternatively, they can select "option 2" (unclear or additional considerations apply) and elaborate on the source's bias in their comment. The suggested fifth option would effectively be the same as the existing "option 2", but presented with different wording.

Finally, WP:ABOUTSELF does indeed allow any source to be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, subject to a list of restrictions and an examination of due weight. However, the fact that WP:ABOUTSELF exists does not preclude editors from evaluating the general reliability of a source outside of the limited use cases that WP:ABOUTSELF would cover. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the RfC format is meh. I also think we need some actual guidelines on what these discussions should look like. Having closed a number of discussions on here, it's amazing how often reliability and bias are mixed up. The evidence considered appropriate is inconsistent between discussions, where in one discussion IPSO data of complaints are accepted, and in another found to be 'not relevant'. In some discussions people link to articles from other sources to prove the reliability (or lack thereof) of another source, sometimes just multiple articles of the same incident, and sometimes that source is of questionable reliability itself. Many RfCs about sources tend to fail to demonstrate actual issues onwiki, and not infrequently there are discussions where many votes fly in before a single descriptive comment with evidence is made... In some cases where there are actual issues, the discussion reaches no consensus, IMO partly as a result of poor presentation of evidence.
  We need a standardised process that determines when a source may need to have its reliability status changed, and guidance on what kinds of evidence should be presented, and also what kinds of evidence are not fine. Given that we've now got the experience of countless RfCs on source reliability, it should be easy to document the good parts of existing practices in this matter. RSN RfCs should be evidence-based and evidence-first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The good parts - ask "Is X a reliable source for statement Y in article Z?" and get answers from people with better knowledge of the subject (esp. local language/subject matter expertise).

The bad parts - asks "Is X a baddy bad bad terrible media organisation because it says bad things about something I like?" (followed by a million Option 1 and Option 4 votes, results in automated warning messages to everyone who wants to use that source and automated reversion of editors adding that source without even bothering to look at the context it is used in).

There clearly isn't any consistency in these general RFCs. Looking at this list here, sources that are obviously not generally reliable and which have documented instances of fabrication (e.g., China Daily) are spared the deprecation warning message because "It's useful" (where?) whilst other sources that are no worse are deprecated. There has been an obvious split between the treatment of US and UK media organisations - National Enquirer didn't get the edit filter, Fox News didn't get deprecated, but all nationally-distributed UK tabloids have been deprecated + edit filter except the Daily Mirror. There is also a clear left-right split in treatment. as every nationally-distributed UK tabloid deprecated + edit filtered except the Daily Mirror, which also happens to be the only left-leaning nationwide UK tabloid. Some of the subjects for deprecation are simply bizarre. Taki's Magazine has a circulation in the low thousands if that and no evidence of problematic use on Wiki was produced in the RFC, there was also no actual endorsement of the edit filter/auto-revert in the RFC but it seems to have been applied anyway.

And even the sources endorsed as "generally reliable", well, what does this even mean? I !voted Option 1 for the The Jewish Chronicle, but I wouldn't go to them for news about football. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of the above. There is an ideological slant when it comes to things like this. Often I find that in RfCs, while there are some legitimate concerns, there tends to be a lot of bandwagon jumping to get sources that tend to have right-leaning ideologies depreciated. It just becomes a popularity contest. Sources should be taken on a case by case basis. If it's emerged that a story printed in one source (aside of editorial judgements) is fake news/fabricated and can be proven by other sources, then just ban that particular page or adapt article to say for example "The News said that X happened, however this has been disproven upon further investigation by GTV and the Daily Bugle". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am increasingly thinking that we need to hive WP:BIASED off from WP:RS, and create a new guideline to better explain when it is appropriate/inappropriate to use biased sources... and HOW to do so when appropriate. We need to separate the issue of bias from the issue of reliability - while they are often overlapping problems, they are not the same problem. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• RSP listings have notes, and additional considerations coming up in discussions are often added there. I don't think adding more options would solve anything, and actually it can make things worse, by giving even more weight to categorical results instead of nuanced additional consideration notes. MarioGom (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Are these sources considered reliable?

Hi there, I would like to ask if biographies from Broadwayworld.com like this and genealogy from Famouskin.com like this are considered reliable. Many thanks--Fulinati (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The usual starting point is to look at what the site does editorially.

Broadway World looks like it's volunteer-written and takes in reader contributions. There's no details on the editors. I'd find it questionable in general. The bio looks very short and not very usable, even if we knew where the details came from; I'd be reluctant to trust it.

FamousKin is a personal genealogical site. So I'm not sure it would pass muster as an RS. The author looks to be an enthusiastic genealogist; if his site was widely cited by RSes as a good source, that would give it credit. The site says: "The ancestor reports on this website have been compiled from thousands of different sources, many over 100 years old. These sources are attached to each ancestor so that you can personally judge their reliability. As with any good genealogical research, if you discover a link to your own family tree, consider it a starting point for further research. It is always preferable to locate primary records where possible. FamousKin.com cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy and reliability of these sources." So I'd go through the sources themselves, and see if they pass Wikipedia RS standards.

- David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot improve on what David Gerard has already written and fully agree with the assessment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender's revert where I corrected the question.

Hi Softlavender. I do not want to revert anymore in case I am edit warring. Anyways, you reverted my correction of Mikehawk's post where I added fluent/fluency because I am not just questioning whether The Telegraph is right in reporting whether or not Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese but I am trying to see if they're right in saying he can fluently (as I have argued for in the replies). It would be very nice of you to revert the edit so that other editors are not misled by the title that was quite short. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• ButterSlipper, you are not allowed to edit other people's posts period. See WP:TPO. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kk, thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability question

I need to assume that this sources aren't considered reliable?: ([1][2]) I don't see them listed at WP:RSN.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Paper Magazine

Is Paper Magazine (papermag.com) reliable? GogoLion (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I see zero on that website to suggest any editorial oversight or selection. Just looks like they post every single piece of celebrity stuff they can locate. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-open Verifiability dispute on Harry Partridge

Could the verifiability dispute on Harry Partridge [3] please be re-opened? The other editor closed it because the article ended up being redirected as the result of an AfD, but I will draftify and/or try have the article undeleted so I think the discussion might as well be held now instead of later? (less waste of time that way, so we don't have to restate our opinions) 101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)