Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. | ||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||
RfC: WikiLeaks
Notice. Non-admins are requested not to close this discussion. Quote: Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. The ruling is likely to be controversial. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
.
There seems to be consensus we should treat any WikiLeaks document as a primary source, however, opinions vary wildly on the authenticity, reliability and verifiability of the documents hosted on the webpage as well as to when to cite the documents, as evidenced in this discussion. To settle this dispute once and for good, please answer these questions here:
- "Is WikiLeaks per se reliable for publication of genuine government documents?"
- Option 1. WikiLeaks is generally reliable.
- Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
- Option 3. The resource is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
- Option 4. The resource is not reliable and editors should not cite it.
- Does your answer change if a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject (see WP:BIAS)?
Note. Please leave 1-2 sentences for a succinct justification of each vote; you may further expand on your reasoning in the Discussion section.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Edited 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (see previous version)
Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)
- Option 2. Avoid using WikiLeaks for ongoing controversies or if there is coverage by RS. All for using WikiLeaks as the only source, particularly when English courts accept them as evidence, if verifiable information (facts) are mentioned in the document; opinions should be evaluated for being WP:DUE. Their selection may exhibit owners' bias, but taken one-by-one, the documents seem to be all right, and no one has shown that any of the documents were forged or doctored, as Alaexis correctly points out. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. I don't think WikiLeaks ought to be cited directly in most circumstances it tends to cover (usually if it's notable enough RS picks up the slack) but for small clerical bits and bobs of foreign policy I don't see an issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4. Wikileaks, itself, performs no fact-checking or verification. Therefore, things there do not pass the definition of "published" in WP:RS or WP:OR and cannot be cited directly under any circumstances, fullstop. I would consider Wikileaks (when used alone) a remove-on-sight source and I'm baffled that anyone would argue otherwise - it is no different from self-publishing in this context. If a secondary source covers it, we can rely on what they say, but only for the parts they specifically mention, since only those parts have been published; the argument, which some people are trying to make in the linked thread, that we could say "well, this trove of documents is validated in this source, therefore we can go through it and pull out anything we please even if it has no other coverage" is straightforward WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- WikiLeaks does, in fact, verify the authenticity of documents before it publishes them. The most famous leaks published by WikiLeaks are all widely acknowledged to be genuine: the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. Several of these publications were carried out in collaboration with major international newspapers, including Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, the New York Times and El País. I don't believe any document published by WikiLeaks has ever been shown to be fake. If you have seen evidence to the contrary, then please post it. Otherwise, it looks like WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of authenticating documents before publication. Whether those documents are usable is a completely different matter, because they may be primary sources, they may express opinions, etc. But they are genuine documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. Generally reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS and no evidence of tampering. Probably should not be used as the only source for controversial statements or in BLP context and in general should be treated as a primary source. Alaexis¿question? 06:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4. I completely agree with Aquillion's rationale above. ElKevbo (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. I agree it fits WP:USEBYOTHERS. There are some cases when it is used to supplement or reinforce claims made elsewhere in investigative journalism and whatnot. In that case, you should probably refer to the sources doing that though I suppose it might not be necessary to also link to Wikileaks in that case. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4. Wikileaks is an indiscriminate collection of communications and internal files leaked by a website with a very specific political agenda. The documents themselves are not official in any sense of the word: they have only been drafted by government employees, often with very little oversight and—obviously—no peer-review or editorial standards. Moreover, they have been covered by many, many press articles from highly-reliable source: if editors cannot find a press article covering the leak in question, this should be an indication that it is dubious. The WP:USEBYOTHERS argument is not applicable here, because Wikileaks is, functionally, documentation center: it would be like citing files from historic archives, directly, on the grounds that professional historians use them. JBchrch (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "historic archives", such files are used quite frequently as references in all sorts of articles about old stuff. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am mostly addressing the USEDBYOTHERS argument made above. The fact that experienced journalists are using leaked emails as the basis of their reporting does not make it acceptable (in my view) for editors to use such materials as sources on the basis of USEDBYOTHERS. On your point about archive documents: yes, you sometimes see them, but (as I understand) the real standard (i.e. the one used at WP:FA) is that it's not the recommended way to source articles. JBchrch (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Never trust anything you read from unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia article you are citing, Wikileaks has promoted a conspiracy theory
"that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange"
. On its face, it looks like this content was added by some POV pusher who did not consider the context.If one actually reads the source, it is a Snopes fact-check about a Tweet by Wikileaks. The tweet actually promotes a claim in a report by True Pundit, which attributes the droning claim to"State Department sources"
. Snopes considered the claim questionable, but was unable to disprove it, rating the claim "Unproven". Clinton did not categorically deny the claim; according to Snopes, Clinton did not"recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke".
Moreover, Snopes based its analysis on some governmental documents published by Wikileaks without questioning their authenticity, which undercuts your argument that Wikileaks is unreliable. Politrukki (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "historic archives", such files are used quite frequently as references in all sorts of articles about old stuff. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. We should treat Wikileaks closer to how we treat a publisher of user-generated content (e.g. YouTube) than how we treat a publisher of in-house journalistic works (e.g. a Newspaper). Content on Wikileaks is a mix of verified and unverified, notable and non-notable, works by a massive range of authors some of whom are subject-matter experts, some of whom are random people on the internet. In most cases the copy of Wikileaks can be regarded as an accurate copy of the primary source documents, without guarantee (in most cases) that every document that is part of a set is present, but the reliability of the documents themselves must be evaluated individually. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 I agree with everything Thryduulf says above. It would be taken on a case by case basis and attributed appropriately. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 Should ONLY be used in conjunction with reliable secondary sources that have vetted the specific information being cited. Basically, if someone like the New York Times has written an article about something in Wikileaks, then it may be OK to also cite Wikileaks alongside it to cite a specific quote or paraphrase, HOWEVER, it should be treated like a primary source otherwise, and should also never be used to cite something that has not already been vetted in reliable sources which are also cited in Wikipedia. I am very leery of using results of random data scrapes from Wikileaks and accepting the results of that as sufficient to cite some statement at Wikipedia, no matter how banal. If it only exists in Wikileaks, and no other reliable source has vetted it, it's a hard no from me. --Jayron32 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4 In principle, I think there might be cases where a document posted to Wikileaks is useable, but in practice, such situations are very difficult, perhaps even impossible to find or even formulate as hypotheticals.
- With respect to the claim about documents on WL being primary: in many cases, they're quite clearly not primary. A recent example I saw was a cable purporting to be from a US embassy describing the membership of a Laotian political committee. It's clearly not a primary source with regards to that, as it doesn't purport to be from the Laotian government, nor any member of it, but from a US embassy; undoubtedly a third party.
- However, the reliability of documents on WL is highly debatable. There's no system of checks and balances, no chain of custody, and usually no way for a WP editor to verify the accuracy or provenance of the documents. They might and indeed probably are what they purport to be, but we have nothing but WL's rabid anti-secrecy stance to evince that. But we also know that WL has a right-wing, or at least conspiratorial bias, and numerous connections to Russian anti-democratic cyberwarfare actors. We even know that they don't always support their own principles, as WL and Assange were notoriously critical of the Panama Papers. We also know that they claimed that the Clinton email leak did not come from a Russian source, when virtually every cybersecurity expert out there was in agreement that it did.
- Even though I generally believe that the documents on WL are what they purport to believe, I cannot dismiss the possibility that WL would allow or even engage in the forging of leaked documents, and they provide no mechanism to assure us that they haven't.
- So in any case in which a document leaked to WL is to be cited, I would instead seek to cite coverage of that document in reliable sources, instead. At the very least, I would cite both the document on WL, and the RS that vetted the document. If no RS has vetted any particular document, then I would not cite it at all, absent a compelling (and hitherto unimagined by me) argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 (WikiLeaks has a strong record of validating documents) and Option 2 (additional considerations apply when using these documents).
Option 2 is the obvious answer.WikiLeaks hosts various types of leaked documents. It's impossible to give one single rating to all the documents, because they're so different from one another. If ever there was a case of "additional considerations apply", this is it. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying the authenticity of the documents it publishes, and I don't think there is any known case of WikiLeaks having published fake documents (contrary to the evidence-free speculation by some editors above). Some of WikiLeaks' publications are extremely well known and have been vetted by numerous other organizations: the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs and the Syria Files come to mind. The reliability of the claims made in any of these documents would have be be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote the document, the claim being sourced, etc. Most of the documents are also primary sources, which would obviously affect how they can be used. As I said, additional considerations apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (Updated based on Szmenderowiecki's clarification of what the options mean. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)) - Option 4, per Aquillion. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. I don't see any evidence that WikiLeaks has falsified information. I see the claim that they are "rabid", but not that they are unreliable; the political opinions of the people who run a website do not magically make the content on it unusable. Sure, it is great to back it up with a second reference to another RS, but that's true of basically anything. The claim that "well, I think the New York Times is trash because they're a bunch of libs" doesn't cast substantial doubt on the fact that, generally, the NYT is a reliable source for factual statements; I don't see why it is any different for WL. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 (with overlap in opinion on the question to Thucydides411). And I'm just spitballing here, but — I would recommend looking at potentially some sort of time divider similar to Newsweek here, because I think they had a much better reputation for integrity pre-2016 (or so). --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4. I have had enough of this bullshit. This is not actually a RS quesiton, it's an attempt by the Assangites to crowbar Wikileaks into the project in defiance of a blindingly obvious WP:UNDUE failure, but their determination makes it necessary to be unambiguous. No. We absolutely do not include stolen copies of primary sources published on a site that has been a Russian intelligence asset for at least five years, because of course we fucking don't. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1. Wikileaks has a process for verifying documents prior to publication.[1] It has published an enormous number of documents and, while there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents, I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. It is clear why some people or organisations would like to claim Wikileaks is unreliable. The documents themselves should be treated as primary sources. Any statements or claims made within the documents published by Wikileaks may be erroneous but that is a separate matter. Burrobert (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Burrobert Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Source(s)
|
---|
|
- Burrobert, sure, we know: as far as you are concerned, being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance. Only issue is, one in eight of your 4,000 edits is to Julian Assange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or Talk, and 100% of them are Assangite boosterism. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- "being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance": I said that a document being on Wikileaks means we can trust that it is genuine. The claims made within the document are a separate issue. I didn't comment on the significance of any document and the RfC is not asking us to address that issue. The significance of any particular document on Wikileaks should be determined in accordance with existing procedures for treating primary documents. Burrobert (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source cited here for its fact-checking process (which is from 2009 and so possibly out of date for more recent material anyway) does not inspire confidence:
The number of people involved in the verification process, as with the rest of Wikileaks, is unclear. But Wikileaks claims to have published 1.2 million documents in three years. This means its - presumably extensive - team of volunteers receives, verifies and publishes over 1,000 documents every day... There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility"... most of the members of the advisory board to whom Wired spoke admitted that they had little involvement with Wikileaks, and have not done much "advising". "I'm not really sure what the advisory board means," says Ben Laurie, a computer- security expert and member of the board "since before the beginning". "It's as mysterious as the rest of Wikileaks."... Phillip Adams, an Australian journalist, is listed as an advisor. But he told Wired that he had "resigned early on because of workload and health issues".
BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)- An anonymous person claims that they submitted fake documents, which WikiLeaks correctly flagged as fake. Meanwhile, all of WikiLeaks' major publications are widely considered to be genuine. These include the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. For many of these, WikiLeaks worked with major newspapers, such as Le Monde, El País and the New York Times. Look, if you want to argue that WikiLeaks cannot be trusted to validate documents, then you'll have to address the fact that its major publications are widely considered genuine, and you'll have to provide some actual evidence that WikiLeaks is unreliable. I haven't seen anyone in this thread do so yet, which makes the "Option 4" votes quite puzzling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 Per Aquillion and others. Wikileaks has never been a reliable source, and has only gotten less reliable as Assange's infatuation with Trump grew. Security experts have repeatedly cautioned about accepting Wikileaks dumps at face value, and given Wikileaks intentional obfuscation, and outright lies, about its sources, which it weaponizes to achieve its political goals as in the Seth Rich case, it should be abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted. Any outlet that intentionally weaponizes disinformation should not even be considered as a source for Wikipedia.NonReproBlue (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4. This is a questionable source, a disorderly collection of WP:PRIMARY claims some of which may be outright wrong of very difficult to properly interpret. In any event, one needs other secondary RS that provide proper context. But if there are such RS, then the claim can be cited with a reference to the secondary RS, not Wikileaks themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 - it is generally concluded by reliable sources that WikiLeaks is accurately portraying the documents as they are there. However, care should be taken as to which documents are used, and they are all in any case primary sources for subject matter talked about, unless they are finished copies of documents that summarize other sources - and even then, they're less usable than other secondary sources. Their obvious bias doesn't matter - we don't require sources to be unbiased at all - and in fact there are multiple obviously biased sources that are perfectly reliable sources (looking at CNN, as an obviously biased but still reliable source, as an example). Note that the "published" argument does not apply either - because "published" doesn't mean that it's accessible to the public - and completed government documents are not unreliable simply because they are or were classified and thus never published in a public source. As a primary source, documents from WikiLeaks can be used - but I echo the concerns of many here who have said that it would be preferable to find coverage of the documents and cite that instead - if only for the added encyclopedic information such coverage may provide. In a case where no other coverage exists but a document on WikiLeaks expresses a significant and encyclopedic view, it can be cited as reliable. No evidence has been provided that WikiLeaks is systematically altering documents or forging information, and in fact reliable sources don't believe they do so. TLDR: see jzg's !vote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 Per Guy & MVBW, its potentially a useful research tool, but it should at no point be cited as a source in an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 - Seems fairly straightforward option. Basically treat it as a primary source with all the considerations that go with that. RS seem to treat them as reliable for authentic documents. Lacking any substantial reasoning beyond "Assange/Trump BAD!" I see no reason to black list them or treat them as unreliable for what they are. On the contrary, as brought up by others above, their repeated use by other RS is a strong indication that they would be acceptable. Just have to keep in mind the primary nature and careful of UNDUE. PackMecEng (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 3 They seem to (or have least been heavily accused) of just info-dumping. They may well all be true, in that they are real documents, but not that what is contained within those documents is true (after all they published the Xenu bad SF story).Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- WikiLeaks is not reliable. If there's something interesting there, let journalists do their job and then cite them - First, the question is bizarre. This is formatted like a typical source RfC but the question isn't about reliability for Wikipeda, but whether it's "reliable for publication of genuine government documents". That's why I didn't just choose an option. Look, WikiLeaks is at best just a host for documents/uploads like Scribd or Etherpad or Dropbox or whatever. Add to that questions over authenticity (no, we don't need to come to a decision about whether or not they're genuine to know that there have been a lot of questions raised in reliable sources) and of course we shouldn't cite it. If it has something useful, let someone else vet it and link to it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- RFC choices aren't a good fit in this case. I agree with Rhododendrites above. This RfC is not a good fit since Wikileaks is not so much a publisher as a repository or primary source. A document on Wikileaks may be cited but only if a RS has discussed it. If the WSJ discusses contents of a document on Wikileaks then it may be appropriate to also link to the document. We might do something similar with a statement from the SEC. "The SEC released a statement saying they opened an investigation [cite RS, cite SEC statement on SEC page]". An edit like this is OK "According to the NYT documents released by Wikileaks showed the State Department issued a request to... [cite NYT, cite specific wikileak document <- must be clear from RS this is the correct document]" In this case the wikileaks document is a supplement to the RS's statements. It isn't a requirement. It would never be OK to cite the Wikileaks document absent a RS. For this reason I can see why editors have picked both option 2 and option 4. Springee (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1-2, depending on what the question is, exactly. Yes, Wikileaks documents are genuine government documents (or sometimes documents from banks or other institutions). Those documents themselves may contain unreliable or inaccurate information. So in general, information on Wikipedia that's sourced to Wikileaks documents should be attributed to Wikileaks and the government document. The only case where attribution may be dropped is when the information has been verified elsewhere (e.g. by a reliable secondary or tertiary source). In that case however we may still want to attribute to the government document, particularly if its publication was the reason the information came to be more widely known. -Darouet (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 - First: Wikileaks is not a source, but a host site for primary documents. Wikileaks is more like publisher than an author. That said - Since the possibility exists that a document uploaded to Wikileaks may have been edited or changed from the original, we can not rely on the version hosted on Wikileaks for information. We can ONLY rely on the original, or copies that have been verified to be “true and accurate copies” of the original (example, copies that have been submitted as evidence in a court case). Now... if the version on Wikileaks HAS been compared to the original, and can be verified to be “true and accurate”, THEN we can cite the original and use the version on Wikileaks as a courtesy link.
- There is one exception to this. IF a document appearing on Wikileaks is itself the subject of discussion by independent sources (say in a news story about was leaked), the version on Wikileaks can be cited as a primary source for itself (ie the text that appears on Wikileaks). The key is that it must NOT be cited as if it were the original document. Instead, it should be cited as a separate document on its own - with appropriate attribution (example: “Text of document downloaded to Wikileaks, purporting to be document XYZ” not “Text of document XYZ”). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, if a Wikileaks document was cited and discussed in other sources, then the claim can be cited with a reference to other sources (+ the courtesy link), but I do not see this as "option 2" when the source (Wikileaks) is regarded as an RS by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 seems to be the best fit out of the possibilities given, but I'll concur with the sentiments above that it's kind of a weird question to ask. Like Rhododendrites said, it's like holding an RfC for the reliability of Scribd. Let the journalists do their job, after which we can do ours. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 - WikiLeaks would seem to be the quintessential case of an unreliable source. The documents it hosts are admittedly stolen, and we have no confirmed information as to what, if any, steps have been taken to ensure that they are authentically sourced and unaltered. Indeed, WikiLeaks itself accepts anonymous submissions. The face of WikiLeaks is Julian Assange, who has been on the run from the law for years. The mere fact that, in some cases, reliable sources have used particular WikiLeaks documents that they believe they have been able to authenticate seems like weak justification indeed for treating WikiLeaks as reliable. If there are particular documents that it is appropriate to cite, they should be cited to the reliable sources discussing them, not to WikiLeaks. (In such a case, I would not object to a link to the document discussed, but the document itself should not be cited for anything not in the reliable source.) John M Baker (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning to option 3 or 4. Not totally sure yet which option is best, but two comments: 1) WP:USEBYOTHERS does not apply, for the same reason that we would not say that Donald Trump is a reliable source because he has been quoted by reliable news sources. Wikileaks material has certainly often been reported on, but (with the exception of collaborations where e.g. NYT and Guardian were able to themselves verify particular dumps) the reporting typically adds caveats. 2) This is probably too obvious to be worth saying, but the editorial material by Wikileaks itself 9as opposed to leaked material in their archives) should be treated with particular caution. For instance, its recent dumps of small batchs of highly redacted and by themselves confusing OPCW documents about the Douma chemical attack was accompanied by long editorial introductions explaining them which actually contained several errors as well as a very slanted interpretation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- To point 2): question (1) was not asking about the editorials that accompany the documents, only the documents themselves. What Assange says they might mean and the conclusions he says we can draw, given his strong political views, is WP:UNDUE, or, for some tastes, even WP:FRINGE. You can reformulate question 1 thus: Can we trust what WikiLeaks says are government documents to be genuine? As to point 1), I address it in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki It's cler that the question as posed here was about the documents, but when this RfC is closed, if Wikileaks is deemed reliable in any way it will be vital for the closing statement to be very clear that that decision refers to the documents in the archive and that what Wikileaks says in its own voice should not necessarily therefore be deemed reliable but treated as opinion generally is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that you separate the documents themselves from their interpretations by Assange/WikiLeaks staff while making summary judgment on reliability of the website (which you do), and also to warn other commenters that we shouldn't conflate these. Have a good day. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki It's cler that the question as posed here was about the documents, but when this RfC is closed, if Wikileaks is deemed reliable in any way it will be vital for the closing statement to be very clear that that decision refers to the documents in the archive and that what Wikileaks says in its own voice should not necessarily therefore be deemed reliable but treated as opinion generally is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- To point 2): question (1) was not asking about the editorials that accompany the documents, only the documents themselves. What Assange says they might mean and the conclusions he says we can draw, given his strong political views, is WP:UNDUE, or, for some tastes, even WP:FRINGE. You can reformulate question 1 thus: Can we trust what WikiLeaks says are government documents to be genuine? As to point 1), I address it in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 Wikileaks is essentially Project Veritas on a global scale...private individuals with no methods of fact-checking, accuracy, or verification, claiming to be The Ones Who Show You The Truth. IF actual reliable sourced have vetted a piece of info originating at Wikileaks and voice for its accuracy, then it is fine. But at that point, the question of citing Wikileaks itself is moot. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bellingcat can also be characterised as private individuals who claim to know the truth. Now they are considered reliable as they were extensively cited by other reliable sources. The traditional media don't have a monopoly on reliability. Alaexis¿question? 14:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- This assessment is inapt and grossly unfair to Wikileaks. Broadly speaking, if Project Veritas publishes something then you can be confident that it is false and intentionally misleading; the same is not true for WL. (I say this as a person who agrees about the conclusion.) --JBL (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 WP:PRIMARY. There is some editorial control on WikiLeaks' end and more by various newspapers that collaborate with it. Obviously, not all documents have been verified by WikiLeaks or journalists, so WP:USEBYOTHERS is not absolute. But the bottom line is that editorial control exists to the degree it is possible in this type of publishing. As argued above, WikiLeaks has never been shown to publish false documents, so this editorial control has been effective. To wit, reliable but WP:PRIMARY.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bad RFC - The RFC as presently constituted is not directed to a specific content issue. It is therefore impossible to give a decent answer. Wikileaks consists of a collection of primary sources of varying charactersitics and so the idea of rendering any kind of general view on its reliability is simply for the birds. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 Wiki leaks does no independent verifying or factchecking, so they really should not be used at all.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 Wikileaks verifies the authenticity of documents before releasing them, which accounts for sometimes lengthy delays between receiving and publishing them. There are no verified cases of any of the documents released being fraudulent. That is a higher standard than most reliable sources. That of course does not mean that that the information in the documents is necessarily accurate, since that depends on the original authors. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4 per Aquillion, JBchrch, and MjolnirPants. Wikileaks itself is a collection of raw primary source documents (raising serious WP:OR issues when used directly), and the organization itself has questionable reliability and processes. Any information from them should be cited though reliable journalistic sources (i.e. not-Wikileaks), which could be counted on to do their own fact checking. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1-2 Wikileaks is a reliable repository of authentic leaked government and business documents. Wikileaks has an extensive partnership with the best journalists in the world. The United States diplomatic cables leak for instance are genuine US government embassy reports. The usage of the different stored documents needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on policies concerning the usage of government and business sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. Wikileaks does verify the authenticity of documents it publishes and many documents it has published has since been acknoweldged as authentic.. However I personally feel that Wikileaks in itself should only be used in the absence of another, more mainstream and widely accepted source on the same matter and statements by Wikileaks should be attributed otherwise.RedAlert 007 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to this section from discussion by Alaexis¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
- Option 2 I can't think of a single case where a document released by wikileaks has been fabricated which rules out 3 and 4 for me, however due to the sensitive nature of the material they often release editors should be extra judicious in their use of the source and use RS analyzing the releases if possible. Additionally, attribution should always be required. BSMRD (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 It might be reliable on some cases, but it acts as an primary source, and therefore it should be cited with related reliable news sources if necessary. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 Julian Assange's controversial remarks about the Murder of Seth Rich [1] should disqualify Wikileaks from being used as a source for anything. It's unclear whether WL has any independent editorial control outside of Assange. Geogene (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1-2 I'm unware of Wikileaks of ever fabricating government documents and does its best to verify the authenticity of documents before it releases them, hence 1. But I can understand how it would be treated as a WP:PRIMARY where then I'd lean towards 2. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 or basically fine as long as used with attribution. I'm especially not seeing much justification for Option 4, which is presumably near-deprecation, as Nils Melzer of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture etc. (often cited as an expert/significant opinion) considered Assange to have 'never hacked, stolen or published false information, nor caused reputational harm through any personal misconduct'. The debates on reliability look politicised, as in most of the criticism comes from the countries that have something to lose from the leaks. And even then, there are still US outlets that would vouch for its authenticity. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1; qualified that Wikileaks is a publisher of information and "reliability" means that Wikileaks doesn't lie about or alter the contents of what they distribute and that they generally publish stolen primary sources. The fact a document has been stolen doesn't mean it's unreliable, but it means we should use extra care when citing it. Likewise when the documents they publish are primary sources. When Wikileaks doxxes people we shouldn't use it as a source. We shouldn't be giving it WP:UNDUE weight above other primary sources either. And the fact Wikileaks is reliable does not mean the documents they publish are actually reliable. If Wikileaks publishes a Chinese govt source talking about how the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists, that's not going to be a reliable source for the claim that the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists as the Chinese govt is unreliable there. I'd also qualify that stuff from the really early days of Wikileaks when they were actually a Wiki isn't reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Options 1, there have been numerous claims made here that Wikileaks do not have any "fact-checking", yet no backing up of this notion has been provided. Other people are raising issues about WP:UNDUE, which I do not believe are relevant because we are talking about the reliability of the source, not due weight. As for my take on the issue, I believe that Wikileaks is generally reliable. Wikileaks, their publisher and their journalists have won multiple journalistic awards and claim a "perfect in document authentication", which no one here has been able to disprove so far, despite many claims. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 3 If something in Wikileaks is good enough it would be reported in RS. Treating a repository of allegedly authentic stolen documents will only feed the rightgreatwrongers and conspiracy theorists. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 or 2, the Italian first class RS treat Wikileaks with great respect. I am not aware of any glaring cases of data falsification or anything of this kind.--Mhorg (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 3 maybe even Option 4, this isn't a question of whether Wikileaks is itself a reliable source. It's not a source to begin with but a repository of primary sources. Regardless of whether the material it publicises are authentic or not, on its own it's not usable. News organisations with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight might use them as a source but that does not mean we should too. They could be used as an additional citation alongside a news report which discusses its material although that might be pretty redundant. If they publicise something that isn't covered by any reputable news organisation then that material lacks both due weight for inclusion or an adequate filtering process. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. Wikileaks is reliable as a repository or republisher of primary sources. Whether those primary sources are themselves accurate is a different question, and needs to be assessed by individual case. It is very well established that Wikileaks is highly reliable as a source for the content of the primary source documents it republishes. In many cases, it would be used with attribution ("According to an internal US state department cable..."). Cambial foliage❧ 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 for the purposes of selecting one of these options, but I'm in full agreement with comments by Rhododendrites, Aquillion, JBchrch et al. that this is a misdirected RfC. We're asking whether Dropbox-with-an-agenda is reliable, which on face should be answered no. We should be waiting for these primary sources to be used by other independent news orgs with better resources for fact-checking, etc. The well-known concerns about Wikileaks being compromised only add to this. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)
- Yes, but not outside Option 2 I would be even more careful when citing opinions on subjects few people have idea about (that may significantly influence perception of the article and we will probably not hear the other side if the issue is contentious but local in nature). The source should be used, but particular caution must be exercised while citing it, except for non-controversial facts which can be cited as they are presented in the document. Better this kind of source than no source at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- It depends. Where coverage exists in a clearly reliable secondary source, this is obviously preferred, but where it doesn't (and mention is still WP:DUE) then the circumstances need to be evaluated individually - why is there no secondary source coverage? Is the material plausible? Is there any evidence the material is incorrect? These questions need to be evaluated based on the original source, the reliability or otherwise of Wikileaks will in most cases be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, in most cases There is a strong preference with Wikileaks for additional sources to establish weight and firmly anchor the article content in the published literature, and a must for anything controversial, but in some areas where English language sources are lacking (such as the domestic politics of Laos) it's not a violation of sourcing guidelines to use Wikileaks to fill in non-controversial facts. Spudlace (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously not. The question is self-defeating: by definition, if the information cannot be found in a reliable source, it should not be included on Wikipedia at all. Using unreliable sources is not an effective strategy to globalise wikipedia. In fact, it's even worse than having biases. JBchrch (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand where Question 2 is going, but basically I said what I think is the same thing in my original vote above: Wikileaks should ONLY be when vetted by actual reliable sources, should never be the first or only source for anything. --Jayron32 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The intent and context of the question was that Lao domestic politics (and their Kremlinology in particular) is a topic very scarcely, if at all, covered by RS, and Western RS in particular, so corroboration by RS would be not possible because the outlets simply don't cover the region, even when for Laos, the event (Party Congress) is important. Access to Lao media is also limited, as the Internet in the country is very poorly developed and this is a Communist country with few civil liberties. The question goes: should we make an exception in this case and cite WikiLeaks under some special conditions that differ from the answer in question 1 (which is a general answer) because of an objective lack of RS coverage which is caused by an event happening in an isolated country with little interest in its news? (This is the reason I have inserted the WP:BIAS link)
- This question should not be interpreted as whether to grant a waiver to cite any claim or fact asserted in a WikiLeaks cable and for which coverage in RS would be likely ample were the fact significant enough. This is what you answer in question 1, where you choose your default option to treat WikiLeaks; question 2 concerns a very specific situation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias does not lay out a “reasonable editor” standard in this regard, what do you mean by that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Treating this as a kind of a court deliberation where each editor (and voter) is a judge of sorts, it's something that would be called reasonable person in common law court proceedings. In this particular case, anyone with some knowledge of Laos as well as the way Communist parties, diplomacy and media function qualifies as a reasonable editor (which I assume everybody writing here is); in general, a person with a reasonable knowledge of subject matter discussed is one. I didn't want to write "consensus" because I can't write "consensus" if we are about to establish it here. Also, WP:BIAS is only meant to indicate here that the fact is significant but coverage by RS is scarce, because it's Laos after all, not USA, Western Europe, Russia, Middle East, China or even North Korea, which is rather frequently mentioned in the media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias does not lay out a “reasonable editor” standard in this regard, what do you mean by that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Claims that are not covered in RSes are not suitable for inclusion in this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with JBchrch, Jayron32, and ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Incidentally, "does your answer change" is a terrible question since the same answer has different substantive meanings depending on the person answering it. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Echoing Thryduulf. As for the "Is there any evidence the material is incorrect?" question — if RS say Wikileaks is boosting untruth in some way then would certainly weigh their view heavier than WL. --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Stop it. Just stop it. See also WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- If "a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject" then we should be even less inclined to use them as a source. If this question is implying that RS ignoring it should grant some kind of exception to allow us to use it, I wholeheartedly disagree. If there are no good sources covering something, we should not accept bad sources as a substitute to allow us to cover it, we should not cover it. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. My vote for Option 2 clearly states that I believe this should be taken into account, but they can still be cited in circumstances where an official government document/view on something is acceptable with a primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh No as per MP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, if more information cannot be found, the information from the Wikileaks document still needs to be attributed to the document in question, and Wikileaks would need to be mentioned as well, as the publisher. Contrary to some editors above, I do think that Wikileaks could be cited, even in a case where a journalist hasn't covered the document in question. In that case however, in-text attribution of the information both to Wikileaks and the document in question would be absolutely essential, since we're dealing with a primary source. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Trivially, tautologically no. NPOV
means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
No RS, no coverage. That might leave us "biased" in various ways, but as Jayron32 said, lowering our standards doesn't fix anything. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC) - No. It seems kind of weird that we are even talking about this. We go to considerable lengths to rely only upon reliable sources and to limit use of primary and tertiary sources. Then it's suggested that, specifically because we don't have any information as to reliability, we're going to turn to an unreliable repository of primary sources as citable information? That seems twisted. John M Baker (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. WP:DUE issues are a separate matter from the initial question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- No It will be a form of bias. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- No Lack of coverage in secondary sources merely means that the information in the documents was not noteworthy. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Wikileaks documents about events not covered by RS are the ones most likely to be unreliable, and the use of Wikileaks in this case would be unambiguously unacceptable WP:OR. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- What?, an RS, any RS is better than the conclusions of a "reasonable editor". They don't all have the same biases. This just verges on asking whether we should allow original research on Wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- This question is self defeating and irrelevant, I voted for option 2 in the first question, however if consensus finds that Wikileaks is not an RS then Wikipeadia policy is clear on this, no RS, no coverage on Wikipedia, no exceptions. If it fails WP:V then should not be on Wikipedia at all, period. RedAlert 007 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)
This is far too complex an RFC to be useful, FWIW. --Masem (t) 04:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually I thought of making it as useful as possible by having the first four questions considered in order to answer the fifth. Question 5 is the most important of those - comments for the first four are auxiliary and I did not intend them to carry as much weight as for the fifth (which is the reason voting for question 5 appears first). Moreover, all of these questions surfaced at least once in that discussion alone, not to mention previous dozen or so in the archives. Some seemed to assert that WikiLeaks have 100% legit documents; there have been questions about verifiability, potential weaknesses and usage in particular contexts. Alone these questions would be pretty useless and an RfC on these would be odd. Besides, my understanding of the RfC process is that every participant is sort of a juror, and IRL they are asked several questions at once for them to evaluate evidence and arguments on each of them (1-4) to deliver a verdict (question 5); what I only wanted is to separate each discussion so that it could be easier to parse through it and sum it up when an uninvolved user closes the RfC.
- I don't deny this is a difficult topic, but we would have to discuss it sooner or later. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the purpose of the auxiliary questions; they make me a bit uneasy in that they read like they're trying to dictate acceptable lines of argument or reasonings for the primary question. I would suggest removing them (and also sharply trimming the RFC just to ask what is currently question 5, with no further details beyond a link to the discussion that prompted this) - the primary question is what matters; allowing users to come up with and state their own reasoning for that is the entire purpose of an RFC. I don't think you intended to write a non-neutral RFC, but in general it's safest (and best) to stick to one easy, straightforward question. I would also omit the word "genuine" (it is begging the question), and just say something like
"Is WikiLeaks reliable for publication of government documents? This was prompted by this discussion."
--Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Question 2 is important. The RSP entry for Wikileaks mentions tampering and it gets hoisted as an argument every time there is a discussion on Wikileaks. Alaexis¿question? 06:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- After some evaluation of the arguments, I think that yes, I'll change it as Aquillion (in most points) proposed, I admit it was too clumsy. I also post the last diff of the expanded RfC for reference, as I believe considering all of these questions is important so that they could sort of guide your decision; but of course I did not mean to suggest to vote one particular way - you are free to express and argue your opinions whichever way you wish to.
- I will retain question 4, though, because that seems to be the question coming from that particular dispute. I believe answers to all the other questions may be incorporated into your justification, either in vote or discussion.
- @Alaexis: you may want to change the content of your vote and your vote, now that the auxiliary questions have gone, and only two are here in place. I, for instance, incorporated some arguments from these into my vote. You didn't vote for the second question (which was question 4), so I did not include your answer. @Thryduulf: I have copied your comment under questions 3-4 under question 2 after reformulation - the comment itself has not been altered.
- Sorry for the false start and all the mess it caused - I'll do better next time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is enough precedent to believe it's trustworthy, but there is no hard proof for it and is mostly circumstantial, so it doesn't fit the rules strictly. This is generally how leaks go unless the originator of the leaks (I don't mean the leaker) admits to its veracity and of course that is never going to happen. You need to take into account too that diplomatic cables are essentially correspondence and might have mistakes themselves, so if information contained there is later proven to be false or inaccurate, that doesn't need to be because of any tampering on WikiLeaks' part, as the creators of these can be responsible for such innacuracies on their own. WP:NOR applies, of course. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the purpose of the auxiliary questions; they make me a bit uneasy in that they read like they're trying to dictate acceptable lines of argument or reasonings for the primary question. I would suggest removing them (and also sharply trimming the RFC just to ask what is currently question 5, with no further details beyond a link to the discussion that prompted this) - the primary question is what matters; allowing users to come up with and state their own reasoning for that is the entire purpose of an RFC. I don't think you intended to write a non-neutral RFC, but in general it's safest (and best) to stick to one easy, straightforward question. I would also omit the word "genuine" (it is begging the question), and just say something like
- For Question 1, Options 1 and 2 are also not mutually exclusive. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying that documents are genuine, but additional considerations do apply (the documents themselves, while genuine, may express opinions, may be WP:PRIMARY, etc.). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 is meant to give full endorsement to the resource, on or close to the level of NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Associated Press, AFP etc., that you would cite without much reservations and doubts. Option 2 may be not mutually exclusive if you believe that the resource is generally reliable (option 1) but you'd still not use it because of some issues concerning bias (for example, just as we don't give full endorsement for political coverage on HuffPost but we consider it generally reliable otherwise); option 2 also encompasses cases when you believe that we should only cite WikiLeaks for some types of coverage and not others (e.g. reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, unreliable for the rest). That we should handle opinions and primary sources according to current Wikipedia policies is self-evident, so I don't believe it should be a factor in voting. That is at least the meaning I intended to put into the options. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- What does "genuine government documents” mean in question 1? I’m assuming that means published by wikipedia but authenticated by an independent reliable source which is not wikileaks like BBC, NYT, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that for Question 1, Option 1 is supposed to mean that documents published by WikiLeaks can be assumed to be genuine. However, this is not how I (or it seems anyone else) has interpreted the question. The problem is that even if WikiLeaks does a good job of validating documents (as I believe they do, based on their apparently spotless track record), additional considerations apply, because the documents themselves may be WP:PRIMARY, may contain opinions, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't precise enough, but that is what I meant here. Option 1 would mean that if you say this is a diplomatic cable and it was published on Wikileaks, you know it's genuine by virtue of being published on WikiLeaks, and thus WikiLeaks is (generally) reliable for publishing these documents word-for-word. Additional considerations apply should not refer to standard Wikipedia policy arguments, because everyone should follow the guidelines by default - this RfC is not about whether to follow guidelines or to change them (at most we can discuss which in this particular case have priority). Generally it is meant to restrict the usage of the resource to specific areas (which you mention in your vote, e.g. not in BLP or in uncontroversial settings only). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess I don’t understand why the question has “genuine” in it then, no matter which option you pick you are assuming that the document is genuine based on the question asked. Option 4 would still be under the presumption that the document is in fact genuine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The word "genuine" was included because there was (and is) a substantial share of editors who argued these documents are not genuine and/or impossible to verify whether they are genuine and therefore reasonable doubts could be raised on their authenticity, which is one of the main concerns raised in discussions on the topic. Contrary to your suggestion, the word "genuine" does not presuppose my attitude to these documents. Yes, you can believe the documents to be authentic but vote to declare the resource generally unreliable or deprecate it nevertheless, which seems what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants did; you can just as well believe the documents are not genuine and vote for option 3 or 4 based on that (and, if I were to vote for Option 4, odds are that I would mean exactly that). It's up to you to decide whether these arguments are convincing enough for you and argue them in the voting section and here.
- You are right, however, when saying that I assume the documents to be genuine until proven forgeries or at least when there is reasonable doubt as to whether they are indeed authentic. This is a matter of principle for me - just as I assume all editors do their job in good faith, so I do with journalists, writers, and scientists, just until I stumble upon glaring errors, logical fallacies or blatant lies. It is also my belief that so far the concerns about integrity of WikiLeaks mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia article as well as here are yet to materialise, so I don't think there should be reasonable doubts, at least for now. But again, if WikiLeaks is going to be caught for forging documents or being a conduit for forgeries on a massive scale, I will revise my opinion.
- Hope this helps. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The “you” there is general not a reference to you Szmenderowiecki. Specifically I’m the one trying to figure out how to vote on this. The question itself presumes the documents are genuine, we are asked to consider a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a genuine government document not a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a document which may or may not be genuine. It seems like it builds on a prerequisite, which if I look at the original format of the question appears to be because it did. It seems that as is we have at best a leading question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you struggle with your answer, you can remove the word "genuine". I did not write the question(s) to presuppose authenticity of the documents, because this is contentious in the first place. While it was indeed one of the leading questions in the previous version of RfC, after reformulation, I tried to strip it from its previous role (given two users have at once suggested the RfC needs rewriting) and tried to construe it as broadly as possible. In other words, do not automatically assume authenticity, just imagine you are presented with a reference which directs to a WikiLeaks cable, that's it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that removing the word genuine completely changes my answer, those are not comparable questions. In other words, what you’re saying here and the question that was originally asked don’t line up, they’re not the same question. “Genuine” does in fact require us to "automatically assume authenticity.” The current question does in fact presuppose the authenticity of the documents. Theres no way around that without re-writing the question, I’m sorry if you didn’t ask the question you meant to but we can’t really change that now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you struggle with your answer, you can remove the word "genuine". I did not write the question(s) to presuppose authenticity of the documents, because this is contentious in the first place. While it was indeed one of the leading questions in the previous version of RfC, after reformulation, I tried to strip it from its previous role (given two users have at once suggested the RfC needs rewriting) and tried to construe it as broadly as possible. In other words, do not automatically assume authenticity, just imagine you are presented with a reference which directs to a WikiLeaks cable, that's it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The “you” there is general not a reference to you Szmenderowiecki. Specifically I’m the one trying to figure out how to vote on this. The question itself presumes the documents are genuine, we are asked to consider a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a genuine government document not a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a document which may or may not be genuine. It seems like it builds on a prerequisite, which if I look at the original format of the question appears to be because it did. It seems that as is we have at best a leading question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess I don’t understand why the question has “genuine” in it then, no matter which option you pick you are assuming that the document is genuine based on the question asked. Option 4 would still be under the presumption that the document is in fact genuine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't precise enough, but that is what I meant here. Option 1 would mean that if you say this is a diplomatic cable and it was published on Wikileaks, you know it's genuine by virtue of being published on WikiLeaks, and thus WikiLeaks is (generally) reliable for publishing these documents word-for-word. Additional considerations apply should not refer to standard Wikipedia policy arguments, because everyone should follow the guidelines by default - this RfC is not about whether to follow guidelines or to change them (at most we can discuss which in this particular case have priority). Generally it is meant to restrict the usage of the resource to specific areas (which you mention in your vote, e.g. not in BLP or in uncontroversial settings only). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that for Question 1, Option 1 is supposed to mean that documents published by WikiLeaks can be assumed to be genuine. However, this is not how I (or it seems anyone else) has interpreted the question. The problem is that even if WikiLeaks does a good job of validating documents (as I believe they do, based on their apparently spotless track record), additional considerations apply, because the documents themselves may be WP:PRIMARY, may contain opinions, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, actually, I think it is rather simple. You may well disagree, but for me, the fact that this debate exists because editors were unable, or refused, to find any unambiguously reliable source that include the information, says it all. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @NonReproBlue, @Guy: Just to make sure - we are not evaluating reliability of Julian Assange and whether his views are WP:DUE and admissible (which may belong to the article about him but certainly not to this discussion), so any comments about what he thought of the documents and the conclusions he has drawn from the documents are not relevant. The fact that third-party bad-faith actors (and Assange himself) used the documents in an ugliest way possible, i.e. to create conspiracy theories, fake news and make unsubstantiated allegations doesn't mean that the documents themselves have been manipulated or doctored; even the fact Assange publicly lied about the source of the document does not mean the documents were not verified beforehand or not published unaltered. Actually, your statements that Assange was driven by his agenda and conclusions from the Mueller investigation (
Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.
, quoted from Julian Assange), prove the opposite - he knew the true source of the documents, he cooperated with Russian hackers, so there must have been at least some review before the documents were published, in this case by Assange himself. Now that the documents have been verified, the question stays whether they were altered, and by all indications they weren't, because nobody credibly suggested the documents themselves were fake.
- I agree that multiple security experts warned against using the documents at face value, but I again heard no such expert saying that this particular document was fabricated or altered (and they should be the ones who are closer to the tools to verify the information), so in my opinion, this is so far a theoretical possibility, which should be taken into account when citing the resource (if allowed to use) but should not serve as an excuse to blanket ban the documents, whatever their content.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, no, we are discussing whether stolen primary documents can be crowbarred into Wikipedia despite the general unreliability of Wikileaks. And the answer is: no. Sources need to be reliable, independent, and secondary. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- On what policy is this assertion based? It seems to contradict WP:PRIMARY which says that primary sources can be used in certain cases. Regarding the independence, biased sources are expressly allowed. Alaexis¿question? 07:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's your way to frame it. I don't want to "crowbar" documents despite consensus (which does not exist so far, otherwise there would be no RfC), I only politely ask if they are admissible, and if the consensus emerges the documents should not be cited, so be it. Contrary to your assertions that users supportive of using WikiLeaks are necessarily "Assangites" and insinuations they are acting in bad faith, they (we) are neither. I understand your opinion on WikiLeaks is that it is unreliable; the purpose of that comment, however, was to show that at least some parts of your argument are, in my opinion, flawed, and probably turn your attention to them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- This might be a good time to remind people that the New York Times also publishes "stolen primary documents" (more commonly known as "leaked documents"). In fact, one of the most famous episodes in the paper's history was the publication of a "stolen primary document", the Pentagon Papers. As far as Wikipedia WP:RS policy goes, whether or not a document was leaked is irrelevant. What we're discussing here is whether WikiLeaks validates the documents it publishes, and it appears that WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of doing so. Its major publications are widely considered genuine, and nobody here has yet provided any examples of WikiLeaks publishing fake documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Intentionally lying about your sources in order to push a conspiracy theory is the kind of behaviour that is absolutely disqualifying as an RS. They are not a reliable source. At very best they are a collection of possibly genuine, selectively released primary source documents. If reliable sources cover something they leak, we can cover what they say about it. Otherwise we shouldn't cover it at all, just like any other document of unknown provenance or authenticity. Without RS covering a document contained in a leak, it absolutely fails the standard of due weight. We cover things in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If reliable sources give it zero coverage, then that is the same proportion we give it. No information is "important" enough to justify including it when reliable sources don't cover it.NonReproBlue (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that undermines the credibility of Assange but not the authenticity of documents. No one says we can't correct the source if RS unanimously say the source is different. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, no, we are discussing whether stolen primary documents can be crowbarred into Wikipedia despite the general unreliability of Wikileaks. And the answer is: no. Sources need to be reliable, independent, and secondary. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, I believe editors participating in the discussion may find this table useful:
Courts/judicial bodies ruling on reliability/admissibility of WikiLeaks as evidence in their cases
|
---|
|
I conclude that a majority of courts makes at least some use of WikiLeaks in their rulings, but few explicitly allow such evidence to be entered. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that the courts would be considering the reliability and/or admissibility of the specific documents relevant to the case at hand, not the reliability and/or admissibility of documents from Wikileaks as a whole. It is possible for different documents made available by Wikileaks to be differently reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, some did. Special Tribunal of Lebanon and Court of Justice of the European Union have addressed the issue directly (whether it is admissible in general). And while indeed most of these rulings concerned particular applications and particular documents, the fact that a majority of the courts drew from the WikiLeaks cables while providing their reasoning to the judgment suggests that majority believes them to be authentic, and WikiLeaks reliable. Citing shoddy documents undermines the credibility of the court and is a very good case for appeal/rehearing, which the judges understand, so they must have evaluated their reliability, authenticity as well as conformance with current laws and bylaws concerning the procedure of admission of previously illegally obtained evidence before citing it or at least relying on it to issue the verdict.
- Of course, quality of material dumped on WikiLeaks may be variable, so it might be that other courts, given the same documents, could reach other conclusions, but that's the current picture. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- And so what? Courts also use unpublished oral testimonies as their main sources to decide cases. So can I use an unpublished oral testimony as a source on Wikipedia now? Obviously not. The judicial process and wikipedia are completely different processes, with diametrically different aims and methods. JBchrch (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- My point was not to equate Wikipedia to a judicial procedure. That said, just as the judiciary, we have to evaluate whether the evidence is reliable enough, verifiable and authentic to be admissible. In this way, Wikipedia and the courts are fairly similar. And anyway, if I can file a lawsuit and win it based on cables obtained on WikiLeaks, it speaks volumes about the quality of the resource; conversely, if the courts consistently declined to view my claims based on WikiLeaks revelations or if plaintiffs/defendants who relied on these consistently lost their lawsuits for non-technical reasons, it would be a good indicator not to use it on Wikipedia. Here, the record is slightly in favour of WikiLeaks - I could not find more papers or news concerning WikiLeaks admissibility, so I think that's the full picture as we have it now. Szmenderowiecki (talk)
- It's actually hard to provide a full answer to this comment because the reality is so much more complex then you try to portray it. So here are just two high level comments. First: As a matter of principle, courts accept everything into evidence: handwritten notes, UN reports, blood stained shirts, press releases by the US Department of State, used condoms, text messages, bags of trash... The fact that something was accepted into evidence indicates nothing about its reliability. Second: Most often, the question of admissibility is not related to the material reliability of the piece of evidence in question but to the question of whether it was illegally obtained. And often, you find yourself in the possession of a highly reliable piece of evidence, which was unfortunately illegally obtained (classic example: a hidden camera footage of a private meeting). So I reiterate my point: admissibility in court and WP:RS are completely unrelated. JBchrch (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- To the first point: I can't agree with you, because I have explicitly cited cases from Cambodia and Lebanon which did not allow the documents to be introduced into evidence because they had doubts over their integrity and reliability; on the other hand, CJEU and UK Supreme Court endorsed WikiLeaks, so no, it's not automatic and it's not everything.
- To the second point: All of the courts mentioned dealt with documents that were previously obtained against the law, and none of them dismissed the documents because they were illegally obtained some time before plaintiffs/defendants used them. Citing cases where Wikileaks documents were dismissed because they were illegal in the first place would be useless, because in these cases, reliability, veracity, authenticity etc. are not considered at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- First point: this is why I said as a matter of principle, i.e. there are exceptions.
- Second point: All admissibility decisions are useless, because the standards they apply—may they be illegality or patent unreliability (which is, for the record, a way lower standard than the one we apply here)—has nothing in common with the standards we are supposed to apply. JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- To the first point: sorry, haven't noticed these words. To the second, actually, if not in all, in most of the cases, the ruling itself was not specifically over whether to admit WikiLeaks but they mentioned it in a few paragraphs. Moreover, it seems that the outcome of most of the litigations mentioned hinged on whether WikiLeaks documents were admitted or not. In the UK case, it actually meant Chagos Islanders won against UK (because basically that was the main evidence of malfeasance and intent of the UK and US officials), so they must have investigated the document thoroughly. The reliance was not that large in Yukos v. Russia, Caratube Int'l Oil Company v. Kazakhstan and CJEU cases, but was still pretty substantial. The same can be said of cases where the WikiLeaks documents were dismissed as unreliable/impossible to verify their authenticity. I believe all of these cases are relevant; and your conclusions may be different based on the table - my, sort of, duty as OP of the RfC was to provide available evidence for community evaluation to make a better decision. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I still fail to see how any of this translates to Wikipedia-reliability. Courts have the tools, the time and the ressources to analyse documents of questionable origins and any other dubious stuff the parties usually throw at them. We don't have that. In fact, Wikipedia is specifically built around the idea that editors should not do that. If you need citations regarding these affairs, then you can cite the court case or, better yet, a secondary source about the ruling. JBchrch (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't say we should be engaging in WP:OR, as the policy says we shouldn't. What I say is that, from the resources I've dug out from Google on the subject on WL reliability/admissibility as evidence in courts, the majority either explicitly says it is or that it uses the documents to draft their opinions (and they must be impartial while doing it). Had the courts been unanimous in their rulings concerning reliability or at least unanimously used the resource to draft their rulings, I'd vote for option 1, but since it's only a majority, I opt for Option 2, and I specified that we should avoid drawing statements from WikiLeaks to Wikipedia if the matter is a subject of controversy, but for documents that are not (and are rather unlikely to cause it), i.e. for the category of documents that don't need OR to be determined faithful and authentic, I see no obstacles doing so.
- The court cases are cited for reference in the table, you may check the details for each court case if you want; I added some names so that people could search them. Also, you have seven secondary sources that interpret them (and other original cases); I believe it will be fine for your analysis should you need it.
- As an aside, I should note that international courts (and, apart from UK Supreme Courts, all of these are international), apply much stricter standards of admissibility than your local court you will normally sue anyone in, common law or civil law. Which is one of the reasons international courts have pre-trials and trials lasting several years. EU courts are largely civil-law ones, and they too seem to have a higher bar for admission of evidence than EU member state courts (unlike in US, where a lot of states copy federal guidance on admitting evidence) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I really want to WP:AGF here, but you make it harder and harder, honestly. Regarding the length of international procedures, I assume that you are confusing admissibility as a question of jurisdiction (i.e. is the court competent to rule on this matter?) and admissibility of evidence? I am not aware that admissibility of evidence takes this much energy at international courts. However, I know that admissibility as a matter of competence is always heavily challenged by the parties, and it is in fact the topic of the first big decision in international criminal law. Regarding admissibility of evidence by international criminal law, the relevant literature says the following, which completely contradicts what you said:
Stahn, Carsten (2019). A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 343.Regimes as to the admission of evidence differ. Common law systems often have strict technical rules on the admissibility of evidence. They are meant to exclude irrelevant evidence, safeguard the rights of the Defence and protect a jury from exposure to unreliable or unfairly prejudicial evidence. Inquisitorial systems have a more liberal regime. They place more weight on the ‘free evaluation of evidence’. All evidence is generally admitted, and then evaluated by judges. This flexible approach is reflected in international criminal procedures. Procedural instruments grant judges a wide degree of discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. The idea is that evidence should be weighed at trial, rather than precluded per se. This approach takes into account the difficult context of international criminal investi- gations, including limited access to documentary evidence and witnesses. It is increasingly important in light of the multiplication of fact-finding and evidence-gathering bodies, and the absence of a single set of procedural rules governing investigations and prosecutions. It makes the acceptance of material as evidence dependent on the judgment of those who receive it.
Cryer, Robert; et al. (2010). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press. p. 465.The approach to evidence at the Tribunals has been described as flexible, liberal and unhindered by technical rules found in national and particularly common law systems. Professional judges try both fact and law and there is no need to protect jurors from lay prejudice. The same is true for the ICC.
- JBchrch (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, these were more of my impressions from reading separate decisions about whether to admit documents into evidence or not, of which I'm not very much aware in common-law procedures and probably just a little in civil law; if scholars say admissibility is indeed a rather liberal procedure, I'm not here to dispute it :); though the fact the documents are frequently contested and the courts have separate decisions on each batch of evidence compensates somewhat for the laxity. My bad, it wasn't intentional. I am sure though that I don't mention admissibility as a matter of jurisdiction, because, from my reading, no court said it would not admit the documents into evidence because it couldn't rule on it, all that did rule did so on the merits. I wouldn't want cases on lack of jurisdiction anyway to be mentioned here because they don't rule on the contents of the resources.
- OK, let's even suppose we don't take admissibility too seriously. My point is that if the judges use the reasoning provided in cables in their rulings, and by your admission, the judges have the tools and time to verify if the evidence is reliable and authentic, that means they established that the source is good enough to be relied upon, even if they don't rule explicitly on admissiblity or reliability. The corollary also holds true that if a court explicitly dismisses WikiLeaks or has a long practice of not mentioning the (alleged) facts presented from the evidence in WikiLeaks (which can't be said from here because no court has a long enough history of deciding on WikiLeaks), it should make us suspicious to use it. I still find the balance favorable for WikiLeaks, even when excluding strictly admissibility questions: Supreme Court UK, SCSL, 3 rulings of international arbitration decision, CJEU (2 cases) vs. STL, ICTY, (probably) 1 international arbitration decision and ECCC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible ([2]), but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- What you say is true, but I'll repeat again, cases where WikiLeaks has been dismissed on procedural/technical grounds are not mentioned here, and in particular no court has ordered the evidence dismissed/admitted while applying the Vienna Convention; I did mention some cases where they just ruled them admissible but nothing beyond that, which JBchrch suggests we should also not take into consideration, and he might have a point if the evidence was admitted and no one made any specific remarks on the resource's quality.
- Btw, the resource you cite is mentioned as number 2 above the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible ([2]), but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I still fail to see how any of this translates to Wikipedia-reliability. Courts have the tools, the time and the ressources to analyse documents of questionable origins and any other dubious stuff the parties usually throw at them. We don't have that. In fact, Wikipedia is specifically built around the idea that editors should not do that. If you need citations regarding these affairs, then you can cite the court case or, better yet, a secondary source about the ruling. JBchrch (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- To the first point: sorry, haven't noticed these words. To the second, actually, if not in all, in most of the cases, the ruling itself was not specifically over whether to admit WikiLeaks but they mentioned it in a few paragraphs. Moreover, it seems that the outcome of most of the litigations mentioned hinged on whether WikiLeaks documents were admitted or not. In the UK case, it actually meant Chagos Islanders won against UK (because basically that was the main evidence of malfeasance and intent of the UK and US officials), so they must have investigated the document thoroughly. The reliance was not that large in Yukos v. Russia, Caratube Int'l Oil Company v. Kazakhstan and CJEU cases, but was still pretty substantial. The same can be said of cases where the WikiLeaks documents were dismissed as unreliable/impossible to verify their authenticity. I believe all of these cases are relevant; and your conclusions may be different based on the table - my, sort of, duty as OP of the RfC was to provide available evidence for community evaluation to make a better decision. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's actually hard to provide a full answer to this comment because the reality is so much more complex then you try to portray it. So here are just two high level comments. First: As a matter of principle, courts accept everything into evidence: handwritten notes, UN reports, blood stained shirts, press releases by the US Department of State, used condoms, text messages, bags of trash... The fact that something was accepted into evidence indicates nothing about its reliability. Second: Most often, the question of admissibility is not related to the material reliability of the piece of evidence in question but to the question of whether it was illegally obtained. And often, you find yourself in the possession of a highly reliable piece of evidence, which was unfortunately illegally obtained (classic example: a hidden camera footage of a private meeting). So I reiterate my point: admissibility in court and WP:RS are completely unrelated. JBchrch (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- My point was not to equate Wikipedia to a judicial procedure. That said, just as the judiciary, we have to evaluate whether the evidence is reliable enough, verifiable and authentic to be admissible. In this way, Wikipedia and the courts are fairly similar. And anyway, if I can file a lawsuit and win it based on cables obtained on WikiLeaks, it speaks volumes about the quality of the resource; conversely, if the courts consistently declined to view my claims based on WikiLeaks revelations or if plaintiffs/defendants who relied on these consistently lost their lawsuits for non-technical reasons, it would be a good indicator not to use it on Wikipedia. Here, the record is slightly in favour of WikiLeaks - I could not find more papers or news concerning WikiLeaks admissibility, so I think that's the full picture as we have it now. Szmenderowiecki (talk)
- The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the version of a document hosted on Wikileaks is a “true and accurate copy” of the original - or whether it has been tampered with.
- Eventually, the government will release the original document to the public, and at THAT point we can compare it to what is hosted on Wikileaks. IF there are no discrepancies, THEN we can cite the original and link to the version hosted on Wikileaks (as a “convenience link”). Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a selective application of an impossible standard of accuracy, in spite of no evidence of actual tampering. Also, they do have a verification process, as noted by Burrobert earlier [3]. Alaexis¿question? 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, no, the list of cases is not particularly helpful. Wikipedia is not a court. The question for Wikipedia is whether we should cite stolen copies of primary documents hosted on a website with a clear political agenda and considered, in our terms, of questionable reliability at best.
- As Wikipedia policy questions go, that's about as simple as you can get: No. Sources are supposed to meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary, and we must not give undue weight to things.
- If the fact is true and not contained in other sources, it is not significant.
- If it is true and contained in other sources, we use them instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1. I hope you read the explanation as to why I listed the court cases. I know Wikipedia is not a court, but it does share some principles with the court system, one of which is to exclude evidence that is likely to be unreliable, forged, or both. And the courts dealt with evidence that was clearly obtained against the US and other laws, and argued in favour of those using the documents and/or used the documents themselves in a majority of cases. Please stop arguing that the document is not admissible because it was stolen X years ago - it's now on public domain and only Wikipedia policies may bar us from using it, which we are to determine here.
- 2. No policy on Wikipedia says the source must be all of three (and yes, even if you author an otherwise brilliant essay, policy guidelines are more important than essays). It must be reliable, agreed, no exceptions (that's to be decided). WikiLeaks, unlike regular outlets like NYT, does not produce news themselves and is only a repository of documents, as JBChrch rightly noted, so independence principle does not apply here, and even if it did, bias is not something that disqualifies the resource, whatever your opinion on Trump is. Verifiability, on the other hand, does, which I believe can be inferred from a clean record when it comes to documents per se (not how others interpret them). It needn't be secondary, otherwise WP:PRIMARY would be redundant. WP:PRIMARY expressly says primary sources may be cited, but we should be cautious. On the other hand, there's almost unanimous consent that, faced with the choice to cite WL or secondary RS, we should cite the latter. We don't always have that luxury, however, which was the case in the disputed description of a Lao politician. It does not follow automatically that the fact is not significant. Most Europeans or Americans would say "whatever" if the Chinese built another dam on the Mekong, but for Laos that's important, and that should be our vantage point. That attitude is the reason we can't find the news, not because Laos itself is insignificant (even if it is small and poor). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Would wp:copy come into this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can we please have an extended confirmed requirement for opening one of these RfCs? There are lots of them, and it's not always worth settling on which shade of lousy a source is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley: To comment 1): There are four prongs of WP:USEBYOTHERS: 1. How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source, 2. whether they are used often. 3. whether the coverage is positive or negative, and 4/3a. whether RS release information "as is" or heavily comment on it and its veracity. Even if we assumed Donald Trump is a source (even though WP:USEBYOTHERS concerns other media outlets in general, not person's opinions, but so be it for the purposes of the argument), we just say he's largely unreliable, because while he is covered by RS extensively, the coverage about him personally is negative in the majority of RS (particularly since late 2020) and the majority also comments extensively on his claims to rectify them. In general, though, what Trump says has much more to do with WP:OPINION, or, as in the case of 2020 election, WP:FRINGE.
- Zaathras: I don't believe the comparison is correct. Project Veritas is known to repeatedly manipulate their videos which they purport are how it looks like IRL so that the impression from the dialogue is different from what you'd hear in full dialogue - there is no known instance the same happened with WikiLeaks's documents (redaction of which does not preclude authenticity). Then, unlike WikiLeaks, Project Veritas settled a libel lawsuit against an ACORN employee, in which the defendant admitted having created deceitful coverage, and that's only because common law allows settlements that they weren't indicted; WikiLeaks AFAIK was not subject to any. You also say they are not known to be fact-checking or verifying the documents, but sources submitted here so far indicate to the contrary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DoctorTexan: You may want to move your comment to the "Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)" section above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests.
Here you go. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- DoctorTexan, I've copied your vote to the survey section. If this wasn't your intention, please remove it from there or let me know and I'll revert myself. Alaexis¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- There has not been any question of the reliability of Wikileaks' documents from reputable observers. While some of the targets of Wikileaks have questioned the accuracy of the documents, none of them have provided any evidence.
- I would caution against using any primary source that has no coverage in secondary sources, since it raises problems with original research and weight. It requires original research to interpret primary sources and if information does not appear in secondary sources, it lacks weight.
- There was a similar RfC after Wikileaks released documents relating to the War in Iraq. You should provide a link.
- TFD (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes definitely agree with that view. The question of the reliability of the Wikileaks documents needs to be separated from the issue of when it is appropriate to use them. As with any primary document, we should not be introducing a Wikileaks document into an article without some good reason, e.g. when it has been covered by secondary sources. The process of choosing a particular document to cite, even if the document is presented without any interpretation, would generally involve original research. Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Is the Beacon a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?
The Beacon is an Irish opinion website that focuses on "Reporting on the Far-Right." (https://the-beacon.ie/). It is a pseudo-anonymous platform, started in 2019.
The Beacon: Presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan. A large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld. Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site. Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site. Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.
It's currently used on at least one article as a source to identify an organisation as being far-right, which is why I am seeking to find out if it should be considered a reliable source. I am unclear if the site actually has any staff at all or if it is effectively a personal blog. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- So, it's not being used a source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs, but is instead being used as one of several sources as a citation for describing an Irish website as 'far-right' - which is its specialist area. Fine as a source for that; it doesn't claim or purport to be an Irish/international news and/or current affairs site, so not reliable for those separate purposes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- A glance at the stories posted on the Beacon shows that it covers Irish and international news and/or current affairs. They may have the common thread of alleged links to the far-right, although a number of their stories, such as their piece on Israel's "white supremacy" and another piece on mental health supports for asylum seekers don't seem to fit neatly into that, but they still cover Irish/international news and/or current affairs. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- My point stands. Now let's hear from others, which is the point of the noticeboard. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reliability depends on usage. In this case, I'd already looked into the matter and the sourcing is solid. Perpetualgrasp should read WP:1AM and WP:FIXBIAS. WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:STICK are also essays which may be of some benefit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have significant concerns regarding its editorial practices, and the source looks rather questionable. The website does not assign names of authors to articles (at least in the vast majority of cases), lacks an apparent editorial policy, and self-describes as an entity
founded in August 2019 by a small group of writers, researchers, and activists.
Based off of its self-description, this appears to be a group blog; I don't think that the website could be described as a newspaper or magazine blog. As noted by WP:SPS,[a]nyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs...), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources
. Given that the site admits to being an activist-founded source and there isn't strong evidence of editorial oversight, the source is one that does not appear to be reliable for facts and it should certainly be avoided as a source for a contentious label. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC) - I think the site is fine for how it's being used at John McGuirk, which is why we're here. The Beacon clearly separates its articles into News, Analysis, Opinion, and Investigations sections, so it's not an "opinion website". In fact, the article in question is from their News section. It's absolutely a NEWSBLOG. Most articles do have named authors—by my count, ~62% of articles in the News, Analysis, and Investigations sections. Sure, some articles are credited to "The Beacon" but this isn't all that unusual. News agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters do that, too. The Beacon has pledged to adhere to a Journalists' Code of Conduct which suggests that their editorial process is fine. Now I wouldn't advocate using the site by itself for a controversial claim—especially about living persons—but this is a claim about the political leanings of a website that's also backed up by 2 other sources. It's also a claim that's within their extremely niche purview, "the far right in Ireland". Woodroar (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- On the John McGuirk point that was the initial cause of my query, but I think it's probably worth looking at it as a source more broadly now, as it may arise in the future.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Woodroar: When we look at news pieces and investigations (the factual content), that number drops a lot lower. With regards to news pieces (category) it doesn't look like there's a real effort to name the journalists who publish the news. With regards to the investigations page, there is one author that is named, "Bryan Wall". Again, there's really not that much evidence here that the content that the source labels as factual is thoroughly vetted or that there is a robust editorial process. It's also a biased source, owing to its activist nature, and
when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
A pledge to obey a code of conduct is good, but without evidence a structured editorial process I can't conclude that it has strong editorial control. If there's substantial use of the source by reliable sources for facts without comment, that might help to show reliability, but I earnestly can't find much at all along those lines. The source is also not a WP:NEWSBLOG, which would imply that the source is hosted as a blog by a newspaper, magazine, or some otherwise reputable news organization; WP:NEWSBLOG isn't a classification for standalone organizations as a whole.
- In general, if there are reliable sources that are making a particular claim, then it would be appropriate to cite them provided that the inclusion of that content is due. However, we generally shouldn't lump on a questionable source as a citation if there exist reliable sources making the same claim; it would be a best practice to just cite reliable sources for the claim. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since the website is new, it is difficult to find information on it. However, I found the following: it is mentioned by Michael Lanigan in Vice and[4] in TheJournal.ie[5] I would say therefore that it is probably reliable but so far we lack sufficient evidence. It will depend on the extent to which reliable sources such as news media and academic papers use it in future.
- Otherwise, I found the question prejudicial. We don't call major media "highly partisan" because it writes disparagingly of fascism and the far right. Similarly we don't ask if other niche media are reliable sources for topics outside their area of concentration. Who would ask for example if the Irish Chicken Farmers Monthly is a reliable source for a plane crash in China or an earthquake in Peru? Even if they reported on those events, they wouldn't be my go to source.
- TFD (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose the point there regarding their partisan nature is that a) they themselves say their team is partially comprised of activists, and b) if a major media source's entire output consisted of writing disparagingly of any political viewpoint I think it would be fair to class them as highly partisan. If being highly partisan, in relation to any particular political philosophy is good, bad, deserved, or undeserved, is a value judgement which I think is outside the scope of this discussion.
- On areas other than the far-right the Beacon have reported on immigration and foreign affairs, including on the Israeli Palestine conflict. Therefore I think it is of relevance if we also consider their reliability when discussing those news items. It seems the unanimous consensus is that they are not a reliable source on these areas, but that would, I think, give rise to further questions regarding their reliability in relation to their core, niche interests - a highly reliable site, which specialises in one area, is likely to be reliable when discussing items outside its core interests due to the standard of their journalism more generally. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow at all. I mean, it's an opinion, but that's all it is. It's not one I think most people would agree with. Just because they're not experts in - say - nuclear physics, the breeding cycle of the thylacine or the military campaigns of Alexander the Great - in no way prevents them from being considered reliable and/or experts on the far-right in Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the Beacon were to publish articles multiple articles on the military campaigns of Alexander the Great, that were factually incorrect or unreliable in some sense, then I think it would be perfectly fair to say the lack of factual rigour in those articles should be seen as a sign of the general level of journalistic standards within the blog as a whole. It is their choice what they write on. I don't think it follows 'at all' that a media source can be considered reliable on a particular topic, and unreliable on others, when they regular writes about others, without their general standards being considered. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are saying that because they concentrate on fascism and the far right they are highly partisan, even though they are saying exactly what major news media would say. I disagree. They would only be highly partisan if what they wrote differed from major media. Furthermore, writing exactly what major media would say does not make them unreliable. Do you not like how mainstream sources cover fascism and the far right? TFD (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm saying they're highly partisan because they themselves say they are partially comprised of activists on this topic. I don't really get what you're trying to say with the rest of your comment I'm afraid - their writing does differ from what is published in reputable media outlets. In the instance I gave above they're saying that a media source generally described in the Irish mainstream as right-wing or conservative, and which has never been called by a mainstream Irish media outlet as far-right, is far-right. If, for instance, the Irish Times or the Irish Independent had called Gript far-right we could argue their position represented the position of the mainstream media in Ireland, but that's not the case. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp, no outlet could possibly be nonpartisan and simultaneously not oppose political extremism like fascism and anarchism, because failing to oppose one of those extremes is, itself partisanship.
- The fact that this outlet is based on opposition to the politically extreme ideology which is in vogue right now cannot be used to argue that they're partisan with any credibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. Any outlet which takes a strongly antagonistic approach to a political ideology, to the extent that they arguably should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology, is highly partisan towards that ideology, be it fascism, communism, socialism or anything else. That partisanship may be justified, it may reflect dominant cultural norms, and it may be seen as the moral stance to take, but it doesn't change that the underlying approach is partisan.
- Regardless, this is moving us away from the core of this issue, which is a question of the reliability of a source which which is making a claim that has not be repeated anywhere in the Irish mainstream press, and which; presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan; a large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld; Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site; Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site; Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.
- Even were we to disregard the point regarding partisanship it would still leave us with the rest of the issues regarding the site, not least of which is that it could easily simply be a small group blog of uncertain authorship. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp,
to the extent that they should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology
So you're arguing that they're unreliable because you insist they're unreliable. I think we're done here; this sort of argumentation doesn't merit serious engagement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- That point was made in response to your argument above, that an outlet cannot be considered to be partisan if it opposes what it considers to be extreme ideologies, it is not a general comment on the Beacon. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp, so instead of using circular logic, you're now claiming you were tilting at a straw man? That's really not any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I responded to the point your comment made. If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would again point out that you have not commented on the other concerns of substance I brought up, but are instead focusing entirely on a point that seems to be related entirely to you own unorthodox definition of partisan. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp,
If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment.
I would note that the claim that my argument is poor because I pointed out that your argument didn't actually address it is a non-sequitur. We've gone from informal to formal fallacies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- Your comments are, either willfully or accidentally, derailing this conversation, which is meant to be about the reliability of the Beacon. I'd appreciate if you could refocus on that. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp, okay, how's this? Bastun, Woodroar, TFD and I all agree that it's being used properly for the disputed citation. You disagree. Mikehawk "has concerns" about their reliability, but TFD pointed out some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would directly address those concerns, and Mikehawk never opined that it's not usable here, just that it might be generally unreliable.
- So there you have it. We already have a consensus here, you just don't like what that consensus says.
- On top of that consensus, we also have two other sources whose reliability even you seem to accept, saying the same thing. Which then establishes that the consensus here is beyond reproach: it is not just the consensus of editors engaged with the subject, but a verifiable fact that this source is reliable for this use. Therefore, this thread can be closed.
- Alternatively.... You could continue to litigate this until someone decides you've been allows to continue long enough and points out to an admin how disruptive it is for you to continue to shop forums until you finally get the answer you want. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Better I will say. Not terribly relevant considering I originally started this question asking was it a reliable source for "Irish/international news and/or current affairs", as you can see in the section title, but better. I mentioned the reference in question to show it was now being used as a cited source, and we got derailed into talking about it as if that was the only issue here, but it's not the main concern - as you can see above on the list of potential issues.
- On your point regarding disruption, and relating to your earlier, I would say incorrect, accussation that I was edit-warring, I would point to the following statement on the Disruptive Editing page - "If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your comments are, either willfully or accidentally, derailing this conversation, which is meant to be about the reliability of the Beacon. I'd appreciate if you could refocus on that. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp,
- I responded to the point your comment made. If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would again point out that you have not commented on the other concerns of substance I brought up, but are instead focusing entirely on a point that seems to be related entirely to you own unorthodox definition of partisan. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp, so instead of using circular logic, you're now claiming you were tilting at a straw man? That's really not any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That point was made in response to your argument above, that an outlet cannot be considered to be partisan if it opposes what it considers to be extreme ideologies, it is not a general comment on the Beacon. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perpetualgrasp,
- I'm saying they're highly partisan because they themselves say they are partially comprised of activists on this topic. I don't really get what you're trying to say with the rest of your comment I'm afraid - their writing does differ from what is published in reputable media outlets. In the instance I gave above they're saying that a media source generally described in the Irish mainstream as right-wing or conservative, and which has never been called by a mainstream Irish media outlet as far-right, is far-right. If, for instance, the Irish Times or the Irish Independent had called Gript far-right we could argue their position represented the position of the mainstream media in Ireland, but that's not the case. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow at all. I mean, it's an opinion, but that's all it is. It's not one I think most people would agree with. Just because they're not experts in - say - nuclear physics, the breeding cycle of the thylacine or the military campaigns of Alexander the Great - in no way prevents them from being considered reliable and/or experts on the far-right in Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- See The header at the very top of this page which makes it clear that we must consider not just the source, but the way it's being used to come to a determination here before the next time you complain that an RSN discussion got "derailed" discussing the use a source was put to.
- Your complaints about my links to some of our behavioral guidelines makes it quite clear that you haven't read and internalized those guidelines, which would be much to your advantage to do. For example: I never accused you of vandalism. In fact, I was implying that your continued refusal to accept the answer you've gotten everywhere you've brought this up is tendentious editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- We are having a discussion, that entails a back and forth and people are free to engage as long as they see fit. I get that you disagree with my position in this case, as I disagree with yours, but to suggest that continuing to engage in an ongoing conversation should be considered tendentious editing is nonsense. I am responding to your comments as they are directed at me, if you wish me to stop commenting then all you have to do is stop yourself. This discussion is clearly coming to an end anyway, and it seems to have come down on the view that the Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- So unless you want to reply to this for a WP:LASTWORD, you've now agreed we're still at the point we were five days ago, which is the same as the first point made in response to your opening remarks here, seven days ago; there is a consensus that The Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Grand, so! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the conclusion here; has anybody provided evidence of a robust fact-checking or editorial process, or substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS? As far as I can tell, the former is lacking, and the responses to the latter don't appear to reflect substantial use for facts without comment. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that we don't even agree why we're here in the first place and so we're talking about different things.
- Are we discussing whether or not The Beacon should be considered generally unreliable or even deprecated as a source? Because as far as I know, it's only ever been used the one time on Wikipedia, in the article on John McGuirk. Nobody has pointed out any specific negative issues with their coverage, like claims they've made that turned out to be false—only a general lack of positive factors like information about their editorial process, use by others, named authors, etc. And that's fair criticism. I still maintain that plenty of reliable sources have the same or similar issues: sources are rarely entirely transparent about their editorial process, both the Associated Press and Reuters regularly publish articles without bylines, and so on. But that's your criteria, I get that.
- However, I don't think anyone is arguing for The Beacon in general, like to be used across Wikipedia. My argument is that The Beacon is fine in this context. They have editors, they have journalists, they adhere to a Code of Conduct, the claim being made falls within their scope of expertise, the claim isn't about a living person, and the claim isn't even particularly exceptional. (This is 1 of 3 sources making the same claim, after all.) It's not like this is some random person's LiveJournal being the sole source about some juicy piece of gossip. Our use of sources always depends on context. Even bottom-tier, deprecated sources might be appropriate for about-self claims, and top-tier, reliable sources might be inappropriate for, say, claims where they have a conflict of interest. I think The Beacon falls somewhere in the middle, but that should be sufficient for how we're using them in this specific case. Woodroar (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- What information do we have that this would be
within their scope of expertise
? I understand that they say that they're experts on the issue, but this is exactly the problem with WP:SPS, any motivated group can create a web page, self-publish a book, or claim expertise. They self-admit to being activists, which may well make them a WP:BIASED source, but I really don't think that the source adds anything in light of the problems we've discussed. Its reliability in turn affects other conversations on wiki, particularly how to label the political leans of the website that McGuirk runs. The question isn't whether or not the source says what other sources say (even unreliable sources like The Sun can say the same thing as The Times when reporting on everyday events), but it's a separate question altogether whether The Beacon is a reliable source that should be cited in its own right. Source reliability also impacts weight considerations within the article, and since we're discussing the source in the context of a BLP, we should apply additional scrutiny to the sources. - It's obvious to me that the reason that this conversation was started was the specific use of the source in John McGuirk, and I understand to discuss with a limited scope to that article, but I think there's some fruit in discussing the source's reliability more generally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- We know that's what they cover because of how sources describe The Beacon, positioning them as experts on the subject:
a website which monitors Irish far-right activity
according to Vice,a website which tracks and reports on the far-right in Ireland
according to TheJournal.ie,a website which reports on Ireland's far right
according to Independent.ie. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)- I see little to no evidence on its website that it's RS. I went back almost a year in the 'news' section and all articles were attributed to 'The Beacon'. Almost all in 'analysis' were by Bryan Wall, who (assuming it's him) describes himself on twitter as "Anarcho-Journalist. Founder of @thebeaconirl". No staff are mentioned. The website's statement that "It is dedicated to anti-racist and anti-fascist principles" shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that they are experts in those topics, any more than if I stated the same thing. I see a website that's probably run by one person who gets a few others to contribute an occasional opinion piece. Maybe I'm wrong in that, but we should have better evidence that this website is RS for anything before we use it for anything. EddieHugh (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Update... I didn't read Woodroar's recent comment immediately above. The first two sources quote Bryan Wall and mention the Beacon; maybe I need to subscribe to get the third one to work, because I don't see Wall or the website mentioned. This is still minimal evidence of it being RS (the sources quote him and mention the website, which he founded). EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Independent.ie source is indeed behind a paywall. I registered and found this code on their site for free trial access. Woodroar (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you paste the relevant paragraph here, if it's not too long? Does it also mention Wall, or just the website? EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, here's the full paragraph:
"It's not really about masks. That's just a convenient cover for recruitment and fundraising purposes. [They] attract people who aren't necessarily racists or members of the far right. So you end up with a crowd consisting of people who are probably vulnerable, scared, and simply want answers, alongside men who are members of the National Party and Generation Identity. And these people can then be radicalised and used as a source of funding, as foot soldiers, or both," according to Bryan Wall, who writes for The Beacon, a website which reports on Ireland's far right.
Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)- Thanks. So all three mention The Beacon in association with its founder. EddieHugh (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note to say that the FuJo piece, one of the three sources used on that John McGuirk article, which again was not meant to be the main topic of discussion here, has been amended to state that it is not saying Gript are far-right. It has been added to the bottom of the piece. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/ Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. So all three mention The Beacon in association with its founder. EddieHugh (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, here's the full paragraph:
- Thanks. Could you paste the relevant paragraph here, if it's not too long? Does it also mention Wall, or just the website? EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Independent.ie source is indeed behind a paywall. I registered and found this code on their site for free trial access. Woodroar (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- We know that's what they cover because of how sources describe The Beacon, positioning them as experts on the subject:
- What information do we have that this would be
- I don't think that's the conclusion here; has anybody provided evidence of a robust fact-checking or editorial process, or substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS? As far as I can tell, the former is lacking, and the responses to the latter don't appear to reflect substantial use for facts without comment. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- So unless you want to reply to this for a WP:LASTWORD, you've now agreed we're still at the point we were five days ago, which is the same as the first point made in response to your opening remarks here, seven days ago; there is a consensus that The Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Grand, so! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- We are having a discussion, that entails a back and forth and people are free to engage as long as they see fit. I get that you disagree with my position in this case, as I disagree with yours, but to suggest that continuing to engage in an ongoing conversation should be considered tendentious editing is nonsense. I am responding to your comments as they are directed at me, if you wish me to stop commenting then all you have to do is stop yourself. This discussion is clearly coming to an end anyway, and it seems to have come down on the view that the Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The subject of this discussion is the lead section of the John McGuirk article, the OP's account having been created for the specific purpose of removing this classification. The Beacon is one of three sources cited for the "far-right" claim. As a DCU graduate and member of the (first-generation) Irish expatriate community, I have my own personal issues with both the other two sources, on which issues I will not go into detail, but given these facts I'm already quite sceptical about whether a discussion of whether The Beacon "is reliable" should be given any attention at all, let alone the amount of attention it has been given so far in this thread. Even a conclusion that the source is unreliable and should be deprecated would not resolve the issue at hand, i.e., whether our article on McGuirk should call his website "far-right", since there are currently two other sources that, whatever our personal issues with them might be, do support the content in question and are probably considered "reliable" for this kind of information by the majority of Wikipedians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally, the relation to John McGuirk was only brought up as it was evidence the publication is being used as a source and therefore a discussion of its reliability as a source, more broadly, is justified . In relation to the SPA designation I believe it's unfair as, whilst I did create the account to change what as I saw as that particular inaccuracy, I have contributed, and hoped to continue contributing, to other topics at this point.
- I would also note that one of the other sources used here, the DCU one, has now been amended to say that the piece does not class Gript as being far-right.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- And you noticed that the very same day, too! And you have indeed contributed two edits to articles other than the John McGuirk one! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Anyway - given that you say above
My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally
, it should be noted that - as stated at the top of the page -This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Given that The Beacon is not being used as a general source, this whole question is moot, and has been nothing but a huge waste of time. I suggest this discussion is closed without further ado. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)- I think the changing of the DCU source does add another layer to this discussion. You were adamant that your read of the DCU source was right, and that it backed up the Beacon. As you were wrong about the DCU source, absolutely and resolutely, even as I explained to you why you were wrong, so perhaps that indicates that you are wrong about the Beacon as well.
- Beyond that Bastun, I seem to recall seeing a query that you yourself had opened asking if Gript should generally be classed as a reliable source - with you saying it should not be - based on basically the same situation that's happening here. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Anyway - given that you say above
- MPants at work, The Four Deuces, EddieHugh, Hijiri88 - you may be interested in the ongoing discussion here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
RfC: Tamil Centre for Human Rights
In edit 1026680246, the source Tamil Centre for Human Rights was provided by IP Address 84.209.141.236 as WP:RS in the Article Sri Lankan Civil War, to support the original edit 1006099297.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Tamil Centre for Human Rights
- Option 1. The source is generally reliable.
- Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
- Option 3. The source is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
- Option 4. The source is not reliable and editors should not cite it.
Thanks for your time. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. You may want to use Template:RfC so that people could see that you have posted an RfC. Other than that, I have nothing to say on the topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, it is an advocacy group but taken that into consideration, it's usable although for things such as casualty figures attribution is necessary. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Allow - the most desirable sources would be ones written by neutral third parties, e.g., some international organisations or whatever..with that said, if that cannot be done and all of the data must needs come from parties to the conflict, you cannot only include only sources from one side. Since what appears to be the vast bulk of references are directly from the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, the Tamil sources cannot be excluded simply because they lost the war (and therefore conflicts with the so-called "official" data, which is accorded its official status solely for the grace of having been the victor in a military conflict). if there are comflicting data, just give both versions, with attributions. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Spectrum Culture
Is Spectrum Culture considered a reliable source? There is currently a Spectrum Culture ref (this one) being heavily used on the article Everywhere at the End of Time, which I plan to improve to FA. The Wikipedia page of the publication doesn't have much but from what I searched, it seems to have a good reputation. It
- has an editorial staff and authors who have written for various publications used as sources on various Features articles (per quick insource:"[url].com" and incategory:"Featured articles" searches), including tinymixtapes.com, popmatters.com, and slantmagazine.com;
- is mentioned by Metacritic multiple times ([6] [7] [8]);
- is used in various good articles and in one featured article;
- has a podcast, which does not in itself indicate reliability but does indicate that the website has some audience.
Furthermore, according to its admitedly low-quality Wikipedia page, "Spectrum Culture's work has been featured on the official websites of various artists, films, and restaurants across the internet." It looks generally good to me; I have not found any reasonable reasons to doubt of its authenticity. This is mostly here exactly because of this though—I'd like to see if other people doubt its authenticity. Wetrorave (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's enough to consider it more reliable than unreliable, anyway. I've had limited involvement with SC as a source, but I was impressed by seeing a contributor like Kevin Korber, who's currently one of the site's assistant editors. He has written regularly for PopMatters (which is how I know the name) and Elmore Magazine; he was once reviews editor for the latter publication, apparently. So it might come down to the experience of individual writers on a case-by-case basis. JG66 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then the article I've mentioned would probably be reliable enough. The author, Holly Hazelwood, has been writing reviews on the website for four years now, and given that the editorial (which y'know, deals with fact-checking and stuff) has also written for other well-established sources, I think Spectrum Culture is ok for FA's "high-quality sources" requirement, and perhaps for inclusion at WP:RSP as reliable for info on music and film reviews. The author does have a political bias but I don't see how that would affect the review of an album about dementia. – Wetrorave (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh nevermind, I found more info regarding SC as reliable after simply looking at the refs of its Wikipedia page. For instance, the website's work
- has indeed "been featured on the official websites of various artists, films, and restaurants across the internet";
- "is also a featured reviewer on music aggregator sites Cloudspeakers.com and Any Decent Music".
- I'd say this is enough to ensure it is a high-quality publication, without considering the individual writers. Wetrorave (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh nevermind, I found more info regarding SC as reliable after simply looking at the refs of its Wikipedia page. For instance, the website's work
- If that is the case, then the article I've mentioned would probably be reliable enough. The author, Holly Hazelwood, has been writing reviews on the website for four years now, and given that the editorial (which y'know, deals with fact-checking and stuff) has also written for other well-established sources, I think Spectrum Culture is ok for FA's "high-quality sources" requirement, and perhaps for inclusion at WP:RSP as reliable for info on music and film reviews. The author does have a political bias but I don't see how that would affect the review of an album about dementia. – Wetrorave (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is an unreliable source. Primarily because I was unable to find any evidence of it being sourced by unambiguously RS sources. Secondarily (distantly), it has no physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes (it provides no address on its website and a Whois search shows it's registered via proxy). The reasons cited for it being reliable are irrelevant: (a) having a podcast does not indicate something has an audience and that's besides the point anyway; the Daily Mail has one of the biggest news audiences in the English-speaking world and we consider it not reliable, (b) the fact that a source is used in WP articles does not make it reliable since WP itself is not a reliable source, (c) names associated with well-known writers are not a demonstration of reliability as we are unable to verify the veracity of bylines; a source that has no physical persona could byline articles to Dan Rather without consequence. No WP editor is qualified to engage in original media analysis. Our only method to judge a source's reliability is whether other RS have determined it to be reliable. Since no other RS have seen fit to source its reporting we have no evidence of reliability. The lack of evidence of reliability means a source is unreliable. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. I agree with point (a).
I oppose to point (c) because we are able to verify the veracity of the writers and their previous work. To re-work my previous sentence (with different links): a"uthors who have written for various publications including David Harris who has written for tinymixtapes.com, Kevin Korber who has written for popmatters.com, and Jake Cole who has written for Slant Magazine."
- Understood. I agree with point (a).
- While looking through Cole's profile on both Spectrum Culture and Slant Magazine, I noticed the two photos looked nothing like each other and the two Twitter links led to different accounts. Some of the writers seem legit (e.g. Max Heilman who writes at Riff Magazine, Greg Hyde who writes at DIY Mag, and Mick Jacobs who writes at PopMatters). However, others like Jeffrey Davies have their profile description be simply a copy-and-paste of another, more well-known publication they write for (in the case of Davies, Pop Matters). So I think it might, well, come down to a case-by-case analysis of each writer.
- I am not sure about point (b). While yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the perennial sources listing is mostly based around consensus. I have specifically pointed out to the Good articles that feature SC as a source because, well, the fact that none of the reviewers indicated SC was unreliable did point towards some unspoken-of consensus that it is an ok source.
- In conclusion, I would now say SC is usable when few or no sources exist for a certain topic but depending on the individual writers, it may come across as reliable. And yes, that article by Holly Hazelwood probably isn't high-quality by any means. I'll look for ways to replace it with other more reliable sources. Wetrorave (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- "I would now say SC is usable when few or no sources exist for a certain topic So if this source claimed zebras have a written language based on the Amharic alphabet, it would be usable for that claim, since there is no "fully" reliable source that says they don't? If we consider a source so questionable as to be unusable in almost any circumstance, then by definition it's unreliable, not "reliable if there's nothing better". Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. To rework my sentence (again): "Reviews of Spectrum Culture can be used in an article as attributed opinion. Depending on the writer, reviews may be used for factual statements, but it should be checked whether that specific writer has also reviewed that certain piece of media in another more reliable source. SC should never be used as sources on articles about living people or for exceptional claims." Take Anthony Fantano for instance, someone whose WP:RSP status is listed as "No consensus"/"unclear"/"additional considerations apply". I would say that "additional considerations apply" is the status of SC. -- Wetrorave (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely disagree. If any source requires a 40-word caveat detailing all the instances in which it can't be used, my instinct is that it's unreliable. In any case, our only standard for reliability is whether reliable sources describe a thing as reliable or whether they describe a thing as unreliable. There appears to be no evidence of RS indicating this is RS. Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I've done extensive research now but the only indicator of any kind of remote notability for Spectrum Culture is that it is mentioned by reputable review aggregators Metacritic (multiple times there) and Rotten Tomatoes ([9]). And the only indicator of reliability is its staff, which does include some reputable writers but that does not make the webzine as a whole reliable. So reliable? A big, elongated maybe... depending on the writer's experience. High-quality? Definitely not. Wetrorave (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: Alright, I am again arguing in favor of SC. After checking through WP:ALBUMSOURCE and past discussions (specifically this one of the website Tiny Mix Tapes, I return my original position.
- "I was unable to find any evidence of it being sourced by unambiguously RS sources."
- After a look through a search on the News tab of Google (which I didn't check before), I see that SC is mentioned by several other websites. To link the staff/editorial/fact-checking policy/WP discussion of each website, followed by their mention of SC in the numbered link, this includes Looper [10] [11] [12] [13], The Reader [14] (part of the AAN), Nashville Scene [15] [16] [17], Film School Rejects [18] (WP discussion), IndieWire [19], The Desert Sun [20], Bounding Into Comics [21], MSN [22], and AutoStraddle [23]. None of them have necessarily called SC "reliable"/"accurate"/"reputable" but the fact that they mention Spectrum Culture this often indicates in itself that SC is a trusted source; I'm quite sure they wouldn't cite the Daily Mail.
- "it has no physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes"
We are in the middle of a pandemic, so there can be no physical presenceThe previous statement was a joke I was gonna make but yes, it does not have a physical presence. However, the founder resides in Portland.
- "names associated with well-known writers are not a demonstration of reliability as we are unable to verify the veracity of bylines"
- We are able to verify the veracity though. Specifically focusing on editorial staff (not contributors), David Harris' description ("after leaving an editor position at Tiny Mix Tapes, David Harris started Spectrum Culture in 2008") fits with his TMT history which shows he posted more prolifically before 2008; Kevin Korber has indeed written for PopMatters; and these are just two examples of authors who have written for other high-quality publications. If we count the whole staff who has written for reliable sources, the number goes way up.
- I would say this is enough to ensure SC is at the very least reliable, plus the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes links presented. Wetrorave (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- "the only indicator of any kind of remote notability" Notability is a different thing from reliability. Breitbart is notable. It is not reliable.
- "I see that SC is mentioned by several other websites." A RS merely acknowledging the existence of a source does not prove its reliability, it only proves it exists. Your citations are the former. The Daily Mail's existence is acknowledged by reliable sources. It is not reliable.
- "Kevin Korber" I don't know who that is other than a guy with 374 followers on Twitter. Did he win a Pulitzer? Did he used to write for the New York Times? Perhaps you can explain more about why this webzine's mere association with this person "Kevin Korber" makes it reliable.
- "the founder resides in Portland" I have no way of knowing that. Chetsford (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: Alright, I am again arguing in favor of SC. After checking through WP:ALBUMSOURCE and past discussions (specifically this one of the website Tiny Mix Tapes, I return my original position.
- Alright, I've done extensive research now but the only indicator of any kind of remote notability for Spectrum Culture is that it is mentioned by reputable review aggregators Metacritic (multiple times there) and Rotten Tomatoes ([9]). And the only indicator of reliability is its staff, which does include some reputable writers but that does not make the webzine as a whole reliable. So reliable? A big, elongated maybe... depending on the writer's experience. High-quality? Definitely not. Wetrorave (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely disagree. If any source requires a 40-word caveat detailing all the instances in which it can't be used, my instinct is that it's unreliable. In any case, our only standard for reliability is whether reliable sources describe a thing as reliable or whether they describe a thing as unreliable. There appears to be no evidence of RS indicating this is RS. Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. To rework my sentence (again): "Reviews of Spectrum Culture can be used in an article as attributed opinion. Depending on the writer, reviews may be used for factual statements, but it should be checked whether that specific writer has also reviewed that certain piece of media in another more reliable source. SC should never be used as sources on articles about living people or for exceptional claims." Take Anthony Fantano for instance, someone whose WP:RSP status is listed as "No consensus"/"unclear"/"additional considerations apply". I would say that "additional considerations apply" is the status of SC. -- Wetrorave (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- "I would now say SC is usable when few or no sources exist for a certain topic So if this source claimed zebras have a written language based on the Amharic alphabet, it would be usable for that claim, since there is no "fully" reliable source that says they don't? If we consider a source so questionable as to be unusable in almost any circumstance, then by definition it's unreliable, not "reliable if there's nothing better". Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- In conclusion, I would now say SC is usable when few or no sources exist for a certain topic but depending on the individual writers, it may come across as reliable. And yes, that article by Holly Hazelwood probably isn't high-quality by any means. I'll look for ways to replace it with other more reliable sources. Wetrorave (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Notability is a different thing from reliability. I am aware of that. But the two concepts have some correlation, even if at a very minimal level.
A RS merely acknowledging the existence of a source does not prove its reliability, it only proves it exists. In this case, it likely does. Something we have in common is that we've both been using the Daily Mail as an example of an unreliable source. But you see, one of the Daily Mail's most notable aspects is its controversial aspects. None of the RS have cited SC as specifically unreliable however, and its home page doesn't show anything that might come off as sensationalist. The sources presented mention SC as a source for featuring a particular point of view, and not as such a sensationalist newspaper as the Daily Mail. This thus indicates SC is reliable for, at the very least, establishing attributed opinions on WP. You may interpret this as "original media synthesis"; well, because it kind of is. But WP:OR specifically states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."
Did he [Kevin Korber] win a Pulitzer? Did he used to write for the New York Times?" Ok, perhaps only having Korber as a reliable writer does not indicate that the publication as a whole is reliable. However, three of the website's editorial staff, out of seven, are "Tomatometer-approved" (source). As seen here, the "Tomatometer" indicates "a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans." And I don't think winning a Pulitzer or writing for the NYT is required for a source to be reliable—to jokingly explain, if that was the case, some 80% of refs would be deprecated or something.
For example:
- David Harris, the founder of the website, "began writing professional film criticism for Tiny Mix Tapes in 2007, where [he] was the film editor, and the reliability of Tiny Mix Tapes is discussed in detail here;
- Josh Goller has "been reviewing film in various publications for about 10 years (local weekly print publications prior to Spectrum Culture). [He] also review[s] music for Slant Magazine, and [...] earned [an] MFA in Creative Writing (Fiction) from Pacific University in 2011. Slant's editorial received praise from the NYT, as well as Rotten Tomatoes;
- Pat Padua has written for The Washington Post, Washington City Paper, and DCist.
- Like the writers mentioned above, many other contributors have acceptable writing backgrounds.
This seems like a genuine reliable source for me. It boggles my mind that Spectrum Culture hasn't been discussed here before. Wetrorave (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
armyrecognition.com
Army Recognition (armyrecognition.com) hasn't been discussed here before. Is this article of theirs a reliable source for the quantity 110 in the statement "The equipment of the Bangladesh Army includes 110 of the Type 83 122 mm towed guns" in List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army?
I don't believe it is. The website's home page has a link for people to send them press releases. Their contact page lists a CEO who also has the title Chief Editor, another Chief Editor of the Press Team, and two Journalists (by title, I can't find any credentials or work history for them). The author of the article in question is anonymous. The website doesn't seem to be cited by news media, but has been cited by a small number of books from reputable publishers (about 5 in the 19 years the domain has been registered). Low use by others indicates that they are not generally considered subject matter experts with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
There is general agreement that the weapon is in service with the Bangladesh Army, but Wikipedia editors disagree about the number in inventory. The International Institute for Strategic Studies' The Military Balance (2021), which I believe is a much more reliable source, states that the quantity is 20.[1] This figure jibes with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's arms trade registers (another much more reliable source), which show that number ordered from China in 2003 and delivered in 2004.[2] --Worldbruce (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ International Institute for Strategic Studies (2021). "Chapter Six: Asia". The Military Balance. 120 (1): 244. doi:10.1080/04597222.2021.1868795.
ARTILLERY ... TOWED ... 122mm ... 20 Type-83;
- ^ "Trade-Register-1971-2020.rft". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
20 Type-83 122mm Towed gun (2003) 2004 20
- armyrecognition.com isn't a reliable source for the reasons noted above. It doesn't conduct any journalism or research, and much more reliable sources exist for its content. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, this source should be avoided. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Iraq was involved in Iran-Iraq war operations that it denies having a role in?
Can we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Iraq had some level of involvement in Operation Forty Stars, Operation Sunshine and Operation Eternal Light (all part of the Iran-Iraq war)? I believe yes because scholarly sources state that Iraq and the MEK were involved in all these operations. In response Idealigic has pointed to some sources that mention denials by the Iraqi government and the MEK of any Iraqi involvement in Operation Forty Stars (Iraq especially denies using chemical weapons in Operation Forty Stars but scholarly sources say Iraq used them in that operation). But IMO neither Baathist Iraq nor MEK (widely regarded as a cult) should not be considered as reliable as scholarly sources. While I'm ok with stating Iraqi denials, that should not prevent us from saying - in wikipedia's voice - that Iraq had a role in those battles. Dispute is here: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#June 7 break.
Scholarly sources that indicate Iraqi involvement
|
---|
|
VR talk 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The sources appear sufficiently reliable for this to be said in wiki voice. Alaexis¿question? 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent seems to be framing the debate in a distorted way. The reliability of these sources was never put into question, what was put into question is which version is more WP:DUE. Some sources mention that the NLA (MEK’s army) "allegedly received funding and military assistance from the Iraqi regime"[1], other sources mention MEK and Iraqi Culture and Information Minister, Latif Nusayyif Jasim denied that Iraq were never involved in these attacks,[2] other sources mention that Iraq was involved with the NLA in these attacks,[3] and other sources just mention the NLA in these attacks:
Scholarly sources
|
---|
Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 22. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x. Cohen, Ronen A. (2018-11-02). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014. doi:10.1080/00263206.2018.1478813. S2CID 149542445. Marguerite Waller (editor). Frontline Feminisms: Women, War, and Resistance (Gender, Culture and Global Politics). Routledge. p. 185. Margaret Sankey. Women and War in the 21st Century: A Country-by-Country Guide. ABC-CLIO. p. 117. "The Gulf: Fraternal Drubbing". Time magazine. Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463. Al-Hassan, Omar (1989). Strategic Survey of the Middle East. Brassey's. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-08-037703-2. Retrieved 17 October 2020. |
Most of the sources in this discussion look reliable, so it has never been a question of source reliability but a question of which version (or combination of versions) is more WP:DUE like I wrote in that talk page section (but VR didn't respond). Idealigic (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Svensson, Isak. Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars. University of Queensland Press.
- ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 22. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
The Mojahedin claimed that absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation, and Iraqi Culture and Information Minister, Latif Nusayyif Jasim, later denied that Iraq had deployed air units to help the NLA or had used chemical weapons to drive the Islamic Republic’s troops from Mehran.
- ^ Dilip Hiro. The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict. Routledge. p. 246.
- Thanks, now I understand the issue better. The only sources which explicitly deny the Iraqi involvement is the Iraqi government itself and MEK. The other sources you have provided describe the campaigns conducted by the NLA but do not say that they were not supported by Iraq. So from a policy point of view, there are several reliable sources saying that there was involvement against the denials by the Iraqi government and MEK (which are primary sources). In view of this, I think that we should say in wiki voice that there was involvement, but mention that both Iraq and MEK denied it.
- Also, just from the common sense point of view, the said operations were conducted in the middle of the Iraq-Iran War, so the claim that MEK somehow were able to mount a conventional offensive with armour and artillery without any Iraqi support strains credibility and would require high-quality sources explicitly saying it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Alaexis¿question? 07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input Alaexis and I agree with what you said. Can we also agree that the view that Iraq participated in these operations should be given more weight than the view that it didn't? WP:WEIGHT says
in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources
. Do you think its clear that one view has more reliable secondary sources supporting it while the other view is only supported by primary sources (as you correctly pointed out)?VR talk 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)- I think so. Please note that I haven't checked the article and so I'm not endorsing any particular version. Alaexis¿question? 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input Alaexis and I agree with what you said. Can we also agree that the view that Iraq participated in these operations should be given more weight than the view that it didn't? WP:WEIGHT says
Self-published claim is single source
In November 1988 he was inducted into the Sovereign Military Order of Malta at a ceremony at the Alhambra Palace in Spain[186][187][188] (this was part of the reasoning for his daughter's decision to include the honorific "Sir" on his headstone).[189]
.
The citations to Troupe, Carr and Gelbard all rely on the same origin [1] It is also, I believe, an exceptional claim as Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a Catholic religious order, the subject is neither of those things. The Talk page has been pretty lively. Discussion is unresolved.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I found an independent source close in time (23 Aug 1989) to the actual event. "In November of last year, Davis was knighted in Spain by the prestigious Order of Malta, an honor he shares with the likes of Frank Sinatra." Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also around the same time frame, his last interview Thanksgiving 1989 with Spin (magazine) (Q) SPIN: "[Noticing a small red medal on his sweater:] What’s this, Miles?" (A) Davis: "The Knights of Malta. They gave it to me". Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also wanted to add an independent observation from Dave Liebman, who attended Davis' funeral – They had gigantic pictures of him playing, of him receiving the medal from the Knights of Malta.... Source - Book: Miles Davis: The Complete Illustrated History, (page 208), Authors: Ron Carter, Clark Terry, Lenny White, Greg Tate, Ashley Kahn, Robin D. G. Kelley, Publisher: Voyageur Press. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Listenhand has no evidence or basis for their claim that The citations to Troupe, Carr and Gelbard all rely on the same origin
. That notion is simply fabricated out of thin air. The groundless suppositions of an apparently inexperienced editor are not worth discussing at length. Cambial foliage❧ 23:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thelisteninghand is misrepresenting the evidence. There is no self-published source; Miles Davis' autobiography was reliably published by a large house, and we have proven on the talk page that it has been indepedently reported by other biographers and magazines that are not slavishly quoting Davis. Thelisteninghand has not a shred of evidence for his conjectures, he is committing WP:SYNTH to cobble together a conspiracy theory of fakery and duplicity against Davis. Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- We are also going to call WP:FORUMSHOP here by Thelisteninghand, as, in regards to this dispute, he has been to the WP:TEAHOUSE (twice); we already posted an appeal to WP:NORN and the RFC is active, so we'd appreciate it if discussion were more centralized at the article talk page, where it belongs. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the New York Times [24]. JBchrch talk 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
References
How to decide on the best sources in this case?
There has been a disagreement over sourcing in the "controversies" section of the Pierre Kory Wiki article. Currently the section uses one article by the New York Times, and one article by APNews to discuss Pierre Kory's senate hearing. I feel that since actual senate hearings are involved, we should link the senate testimony, especially since we are directly quoting Kory in the section. I feel this is the best way to prevent his words from being taken out of context. I have been told that primary sources should not be used as wikipedia is mostly against them. While I looked up the policy, it seems that primary sources can be used, it is just up to editor judgement. Can someone please explain in this case why judgement might be against primary sources? (For the record, I feel that we should include all sources (AP News, NYT, and the senate transcripts)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a question for the reliable sources board. Nobody has disputed that the sources being cited are reliable. The question is whether the use to which they are being put is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood. Is there a place to discuss that? MsSMarie (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie
- there is a discussion already going on at Talk:Pierre Kory. The article has been raised at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Going around looking for new places to repeat exactly the same arguments achieves nothing useful since it fragments discussion and makes achieving consensus harder, and can end up looking like forum shopping. Give it time, and let others chip in. There is no deadline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I have not posted about the Pierre Kory article in any other place except on the talk page. I was not aware that it was already being discussed. MsSMarie (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie
Sperm Biology
I found this book called Sperm biology. I have cited it for sex, isogamy, anisogamy, and I’m planning on using it as a source to oogamy.
I came here to see if the source is reliable in your opinion and if the book still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a reason you think this book written by an academic expert and published by an academic publisher isn't reliable? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D well it’s a decade old and let’s just say biology does change.
The Liberty Herald
I'd like input on the reliability of The Liberty Herald. This article has been used in Nick Sarwark to source his losing to none of the above in a Libertarian Party of New Hampshire treasurer race:
On March 20, 2021, Sarwark was defeated by none of the above when running for treasurer of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. After walking out of the convention, Sarwark claimed on Twitter that he had "arrived at [the] convention with no intention of seeking a position in [the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire]."[1][2]
Sarwark has been widely mocked on social media for this. However, he appears to dispute this characterization, which the article does not mention. The article also contains some heavily biased claims, such as:
Sarwark left his post months ago tattered by the criticism of many in the party for his handling of numerous situations...
The Libertarian Party Mises Caucus is taking credit for this defeat as they made waves in the NHLP Convention by raising a ton of money for the state party and cementing their place as a force to be reckon with inside the LP.
However, the article is not presented as an opinion piece. I have not found any other sources to substantiate this information. I've also seen these kinds of extraordinary claims made in other Liberty Herald articles, such as this one, which declares that there was recently a "hostile takeover" of the NHLP by the national Libertarian Party, which is a position I'm sure the party would dispute. Again, the other side of the issue is not presented.
Can this publication be considered a reliable source for coverage of American politics? Do they have solid editorial and fact-checking standards? Apologies if BLPN is the more appropriate venue for the specific Sarwark claim, but I've seen this source used before and would like to get a more general assessment of its usability. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would say not reliable. According to their about page, their "team members" include two individuals--and one of them is the founder of the site (Bentley). I would be hesitant to call this an editorial team. Given that Bentely is the founder and the writer of the article, this is no different from a self-published source. There's no evidence that the articles go under any kind of editorial review. Their WP:USEBYOTHERS is scarce. This article from the Palladium-Item, refers to the Liberty Herald newspaper based in Indiana [25]. The Baltimore Post Examiner (which I guess is the successor to the The Baltimore Examiner) uses the Liberty Herald as a source for a quote. And Liberty Hearld is also referenced by Heavy.com. However, per WP:RSP, Heavy.com is basically an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, glad to run into you again, and thanks for your opinion :) ― Tartan357 Talk 00:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would say not reliable. According to their about page, their "team members" include two individuals--and one of them is the founder of the site (Bentley). I would be hesitant to call this an editorial team. Given that Bentely is the founder and the writer of the article, this is no different from a self-published source. There's no evidence that the articles go under any kind of editorial review. Their WP:USEBYOTHERS is scarce. This article from the Palladium-Item, refers to the Liberty Herald newspaper based in Indiana [25]. The Baltimore Post Examiner (which I guess is the successor to the The Baltimore Examiner) uses the Liberty Herald as a source for a quote. And Liberty Hearld is also referenced by Heavy.com. However, per WP:RSP, Heavy.com is basically an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Michael Shellenberger
The website of the publisher of one of his books quotes good things people said about it (but, for some inscrutable reason, no bad things people said about it). The Wikipedia article uses that website as a source. Is it a reliable one? I say no, because of WP:PROMO. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure if I will weigh in, but it would be useful if you provided the problematic statement and the source used. JBchrch talk 09:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Before publication the book received favourable reviews from the climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel, and from environmentalists such as Steve McCormick and Erle Ellis,[1] but reviews after publication were mixed.
- The point is: we have positive and negative statements by scientists, but the positive ones are all preselected by the publisher. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Apocalypse Never". Reviews. HarperCollins. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
- The article as a whole includes a selection of positive and negative quotes, some of which come from the same people (Shellenberger is a very polarising figure). Clearly one wouldnt just use quotes selected by the publisher, but to exclude quotes from Richard Rhodes, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt just because the publisher likes them seems an odd approach. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The usual approach would be to try to get those quotes from another, more reliable source, and if that fails, exclude the statement. We only have the website of the publisher as a source for those, which is a biased source whose purpose is selling the book. If you want positive statements so bad that you are willing to use a promotional source for them, and have no other choice, then it seems you are trying to achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- As discussed on the talk page, there's no doubt that these quotes are genuine. Indeed although Kerry Emanuel has subsequently caveated his remarks, he has specifically not withdrawn or denied them, stating that he has "no regrets about the endorsement" [26]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is just a trick to circumvent the requirement for reliable sources. As far as I know, nowhere in the rules is there a statement that you are allowed to use otherwise unreliable sources if what they say happens to be true
- We do not know the original context of those quotes. Maybe all those people had a lot of problems with the book and wrote them down, and the publisher found one positive sentence among them and put that one on the website. We know that the quote of one of them is not representative of his opinion - it was only the positive part of it. We do not know whether he also submitted the negative part to the publisher, who cut it from the quote, or if he just sent the positive part. Wikipedia cannot have a promotional site pre-filter information for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Hob Gadling. The quotes in question seem to have been solicited by the book publisher in order to advertise the book, and they come from former and frequent collaborators (Ellis, Steven Pinker, etc.) and only appear on the book's website/the author's website. If these quotes were from an independent, third-party source, then they would be up for inclusion no issue in much the same way the Wall Street Journal and the LA Review of Books reviews are included on the page. However, they are not--they are promotional, dust-jacket material. I think it only makes sense to include reviews and comments from sources independent of the publisher. The book has been out for about a year--there are enough responses to and reviews of the book to provide an overview of its reception outside of reviews solicited by the publisher from frequent collaborators. Further, none of the other books mentioned on the page (Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, An Ecomodernist Manifesto) include dust-jacket reviews. To include the reviews of the book solicited by the publisher is, I think, a violation of PROMOTION, esp. advertisement.
- This is particularly important on this page, as the page has had promotional issues since its creation because of Single-purpose account editing that has been rampant across Shellenberger's page and pages related to him (Ex. Ted Nordhaus, Breakthrough Institute) (See: Here, here, here, here, and here). Efforts have been made recently to clean up the promotional nature of the page, but those efforts were met with pushback and accusations that are clear on the page's TALK page and my own TALK page. -Hobomok (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Hobomok (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Hob Gadling. The quotes in question seem to have been solicited by the book publisher in order to advertise the book, and they come from former and frequent collaborators (Ellis, Steven Pinker, etc.) and only appear on the book's website/the author's website. If these quotes were from an independent, third-party source, then they would be up for inclusion no issue in much the same way the Wall Street Journal and the LA Review of Books reviews are included on the page. However, they are not--they are promotional, dust-jacket material. I think it only makes sense to include reviews and comments from sources independent of the publisher. The book has been out for about a year--there are enough responses to and reviews of the book to provide an overview of its reception outside of reviews solicited by the publisher from frequent collaborators. Further, none of the other books mentioned on the page (Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, An Ecomodernist Manifesto) include dust-jacket reviews. To include the reviews of the book solicited by the publisher is, I think, a violation of PROMOTION, esp. advertisement.
- The article as a whole includes a selection of positive and negative quotes, some of which come from the same people (Shellenberger is a very polarising figure). Clearly one wouldnt just use quotes selected by the publisher, but to exclude quotes from Richard Rhodes, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt just because the publisher likes them seems an odd approach. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
RFC: The Independent
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Closed early per the snowball clause. The original question was mal-formed for a reliable source RfC and the OP is the only voice against reliability. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of the reliability of The Independent?
Failed fact checks: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
--Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- This seems rather under-developed, and some of those fact checking sites don't even mention this newspaper. This example of the fact checks alsos makes me doubt the usefulness of 'fullfact.org'. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Based on this report it would be a giant leap to consider the newspaper as unreliable. If they get incorrect info, they will report incorrect. What is described in the links in not their own original work. The Banner talk 12:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- What a good point you have. Firestar464 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Whilst it can be a bit lefty at times, it usually seems to be fairly consistent and reliable with its reporting. I don't see any reason to depreciate it or find it unreliable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on the failed fact checks? (Do take Nick's point into account). Firestar464 (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The first one is not a "failed fact check", it's criticism of an article. The second one doesn't even mention The Independent, the third mentions them among several others and attributes the error to a third party, the fourth is -again- someone else's error, the fifth includes the BBC in the critique and acknowledges that it's not necessarily wrong, just based on "weak evidence" (it's speculation, presented as such) and the last one doesn't even mention The Independent, and can be argued is splitting hairs, in any case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment/Bad RfC. One by one: per WP:SCIRS we are generally discouraged to cite popular press for scientific facts, which is so because journalists often lack necessary skills to judge scientific matters or properly read the scientific papers, and per WP:BESTSOURCES if there is a newspaper describing a study, it would be better to link to a study. For a tl;dr description, this sketch says it all. Therefore we should not mistake the general reliability of The Independent for the reliability of scientific claims as read in The Independent. (Nick-D: Fullfact is a good fact-checker, it can be very well used).
- Now, here, they issue a correction. Link 67 does not mention The Independent at all (ITV is not affiliated with the Independent, or vice versa), neither does link 71. Link 68 does mention the Independent, but the focus of the factcheck are the words of the chief scientific officer and not the Independent (coverage has been reported faithfully). In link 69, the Independent has issued a correction for their misunderstanding. In link 70, the Independent explicitly says that: "However, the actual figure of the number of people who have died may never been known, as the underlying data acknowledges that it is unclear how many people drank adulterated alcohol for recreational purposes or as gastrointestinal “disinfectant” to prevent — or treat — COVID-19 infection", so basically the only good point the fact check makes is that they chose a lousy resource to establish # of deaths during pandemic due to misinformation (or probably they analyse points made by other resources), but again, choice and interpretation of scientific resources is not a strong point of MSM (or basically any non-scientific media). Only in link 66 did they not react to the report and it stayed.
- In any case, from the links provided, I can't say that the Independent significantly deviates in quality of scientific coverage from its competitors. Hell, WSJ has a consistently received negative marks for its climate coverage (which anyway is only a selection of their coverage), but it doesn't stop us considering it generally RS. Besides, the author clearly implies their answer by posting the fact checks the Independent has (supposedly) failed, which is by definition a bad RfC, as it must be neutral and not suggest any answers. The failed fact checks could be mentioned in the vote.
- As for the general reliability, which is the question here, I see no need to relitigate the WP:RSP description, as it faithfully represents the situation (I believe the Independent is still a good enough source to be cleared for usage, contrary to some concerns it might be inadequate since the Russian/Saudi takeover in 2010s). If the OP has nothing to add, I suggest closing the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally Reliable. None of the six
failed fact checks
appear, on inspection, to actually undermine the reliability of the source as a reputable news organization, just as MPants at work and Szmenderowiecki note. And, importantly, there's an enormous amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS for its general reporting over its ~45 year history. The news organization's reporting is also in over 62,000 articles on Wikipedia, which points towards an enormous implied community consensus that it's a well-accepted source for use in articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally Reliable per Szmenderowiecki, especially noting the preference for scientific papers as sources for scientific articles over the reporting of scientific papers in any newspaper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable, per MPants at work and Szmenderowiecki. Shouldn't it be snowball-closed? Alaexis¿question? 05:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable more so than the times for example.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- As always… It Depends… context matters. Generally, it is reliable, but that does not mean it is universally reliable. Like all news outlets, they may occasionally get something wrong. This is especially true with breaking news. Always look for follow up reports and corrections. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Looking through the initial post, most of these links have nothing to do with the independent. A little concerned about this, tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, as per Szmenederowiecki, The Banner, and Mikehawk10. Cambial foliage❧ 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, obviously, like any source, it will on occasion get things wrong, but it is clearly still a respected news organization that other reliable sources consider to be reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generally reliable as per all previous comments which point out that none of the examples provided are really examples of "failed factchecks". One important caveat however, which should be obvious but isn't always. Its opinion material is published under the heading "Independent Voices"[33] which should be treated with care and with attribution, as it is not fact-checked as carefully as news content, as per our policy on opinions. There is some material published here that is taken by some editors to be news reporting, e.g. some of Patrick Cockburn's columns,[34] or some of Robert Fisk's.[35] Where these are headed as e.g. "Middle East", they have been edited by the Middle East desk editors and therefore can be seen as reliable for factual claims, but where they are headed "Voices" they have been edited by opinion editors and so not reliable for factual claims. I know that's simply re-stating our basic policy, but I've seen lots of WP editors using these for factual claims without attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable As other editors pointed out, this is an unreliable list of factual inaccuracy in the paper. In any case, since news media report events as they happen and journalists rarely have unique qualifications in the areas they report, we expect some degree of inaccuracy, particularly when compared for with academic articles that take months to research, write and review. TFD (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
sources for a pornographic-video actress
At the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakota Skye (actress), Lugnuts (talk · contribs) found three sources for possible inclusion in the article at Dakota Skye (actress). Can I get some vetting for https://interviews.adultdvdtalk.com, https://www.xcritic.com, and https://fleshbot.com for use in a biographical article (for a recent decedant)? If they're on the up-and-up, I'll use them to try and meet the Heymann standard for the AFD discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Fourthords. To protect the innocent, just to note that all of the above links are NSFW. Unless, of course, you work in the adult film industry... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- None are reliable. Firstly because they are reviewing and interviewing the content they sell. They have a financial COI related to those artists/films which put them low on the trustworthiness scale. As well as not being a real indicator for notability. Are they notable, or do they just need to shift 5000 DVD's? Secondly even if we hypothetically looked past that, you could only use them for the most uncontentious information per BLP (She is still recently deceased enough for it to apply) as an interview is largely a primary source. How actually useful would they be? And going back to the first point, they wouldnt be quizzed on anything they might say that turns out not to be true because.... they are looking to make money off her. So no, not reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- 10-4; I'll mark them so, thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind however that 'reliability' is not the same as 'notability'. An AFD is about notability. You can have reliable sources that dont indicate notability, and unreliable sources that do. (In this case they dont for the above reasons however.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- 10-4; I'll mark them so, thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Is BlackCatholicMessenger.com a Reliable Source?
As far as I can tell, this website, though claiming it is a "news" site, is a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE. The author of the posts I have seen used as sources in Wikipedia articles is: "Nate Tinner-Williams is co-founder and editor of Black Catholic Messenger", and is also the Wikipedia editor who has been using this website as a source: User:Natemup. He OPENLY states on his userpage (through his links) and in one edit summary [here]: that he is the author of those posts. Also note the author list of the website shows Nate with 208 posts, and the next highest author with 7 posts; so I would call this HIS site.)
I have tried to explain that Wikipedia's policies regarding sources do not allow self-published sources, unless certain criteria are met, in my edits and reverts on Henriette DeLille - see article history.
From: WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
I was hoping other editors could offer their input. (pinging user Natemup)
- No - I have seen no evidence that this author has a proven reputation, or that the "news" site has any evidence of editorial oversight or been recognized for the quality of its work, and is anything more then a self-published blog that uses a newspaper-like theme: "World Times is a newspaper / magazine style highly content focus theme for ghost blogging platform. You can remove this text and add text you want. May be you can show small text about your site." (bottom left of website) ---Avatar317(talk) 22:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Natemup Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - Not sure if I'm actually allowed to vote, but there it is. Also, I have been interviewed in America (magazine), and BCM has been mentioned there and in the Philadelphia Inquirer. natemup (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Natemup, see WP:NOTVOTE; we don't vote here on Wikipedia, we follow policy, and I'm not sure what "being interviewed" and "blog was mentioned" have to do with independence, or a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that it is that it is an WP:SPS (in particular, a group blog). To be fair to Natemup, I think that they're attempting to make a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. I don't think one is there for the general case, but that they've been noted by The Congregation of Holy Cross and one of their articles has been republished by a diocesan Catholic paper. There's a minor mention in a news report from a Columbia University-affiliate, some mention of the site in Our Sunday Visitor, Review for Religious seems to point to Black Catholic Messenger as being reliable with regards to the biography of Harry Dorsey, S.S.J., and Tinner-Williams himself appears to have been published on the topic of African-American Catholicism by other University-affiliated projects. I personally would like to see more widespread use before I'd be willing to accept WP:USEBYOTHERS as a reason to classify it as reliable more broadly. In a very limited sense, it might be usable with attribution. I'm wondering if there might be something here along the lines of certain articles being considered "expert sources" on the topic, especially where other sources explicitly point to them as being such. This is a tightly limited case, granted, but I might think that WP:USEBYOTHERS could indicate that its coverage of, say, Harry Dorsey, S.S.J. would be reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that contribution. I wasn't even aware of all those appearances. I've added additional ones above. Also, what would be the technical difference between a group blog and a small nonprofit new site (which we claim to be, are registered as with the government, receive donations as, and are recognized by national and local publications as)? natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- A non-profit is certainly capable of running a blog; the two aren't mutually exclusive. There isn't a lot in policies and guidelines that defines what a "blog" is, but my general understanding is that a blog is a web source published by an individual or a group via a process that lacks meaningful editorial oversight. By "group blog" I mean to say that there is a group (the nonprofit) that runs the blog; it isn't a merely personal blog. If there was a robust editorial process and/or significant WP:USEBYOTHERS (such as in the case of SCOTUSblog), then the source would likely be considered reliable. Meaningful editorial oversight could typically be demonstrated by the existence of verification/fact-checking policies and a retraction policy (see this Washington Post link for their fact-checking and retraction policies). Demonstrating meaningful oversight would typically also require the existence of a structure for reviewing writings prior to their publication (which is part of why Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable, as they can publish their stories live with little-to-no oversight; Forbes staff writers, on the other hand, are subject to robust editorial oversight and are considered to be generally reliable for news reporting). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't mean merely that we're registered as a nonprofit, but as a nonprofit *news organization*. This is how we are recognized by other sources that mention us (some of which have been cited above). Also, while I would probably agree with you about what defines a legitimate news source, to what degree is that codified in Wikipedia policies such that BCM could be definitively deemed here as *not* a news source? We have an editor (myself, as noted in at least some of the sources mentioning us), but obviously it's hard to establish a policy (within BCM) about who edits the editor. In any case, it has also been shown above that we are used by other reliable sources to at least some extent. natemup (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. It's partly that according to the site (as of now-ish), the site's editor has made 217 of the <300 posts themselves, and it's not clear that there's editorial oversight on that content. In that case, it would fall under the self-published sources policy, which would render it only reliable inasmuch as the writer of that content is an expert source. And, to be considered an expert source, work in the relevant field has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Typically, this is taken to mean that the author has written something along the lines of peer-reviewed academic papers that have been published, but I'm unaware of that in this case. Even if the particular writer is an expert, an SPS can't be used in a biography of a living person and some care has to be used to ensure that it's due content.
- Candidly, the WP:USEBYOTHERS provides some evidence of a reputation for accuracy, but accuracy is only a part of reliability as understood by the community. I'm not sure use by others of this sort of scope is enough to get around the editorial process requirements that we have to consider a source generally reliable within its topic area, though if the site continues to see increasing use by others then this conversation should probably happen again so we can re-evaluate.
- Some material might be truthful but not produced through a reliable process that involves independent fact-checking (that is, independent of fact-checking conducted by the writer crafting the piece themselves), which is (I think) what we're mostly running into here. We also don't typically view official filings as a way to determine this stuff; a nonprofit registered as a news organization could be considered to be a blog or other self-published source under our standards absent an independent editorial process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't mean merely that we're registered as a nonprofit, but as a nonprofit *news organization*. This is how we are recognized by other sources that mention us (some of which have been cited above). Also, while I would probably agree with you about what defines a legitimate news source, to what degree is that codified in Wikipedia policies such that BCM could be definitively deemed here as *not* a news source? We have an editor (myself, as noted in at least some of the sources mentioning us), but obviously it's hard to establish a policy (within BCM) about who edits the editor. In any case, it has also been shown above that we are used by other reliable sources to at least some extent. natemup (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- A non-profit is certainly capable of running a blog; the two aren't mutually exclusive. There isn't a lot in policies and guidelines that defines what a "blog" is, but my general understanding is that a blog is a web source published by an individual or a group via a process that lacks meaningful editorial oversight. By "group blog" I mean to say that there is a group (the nonprofit) that runs the blog; it isn't a merely personal blog. If there was a robust editorial process and/or significant WP:USEBYOTHERS (such as in the case of SCOTUSblog), then the source would likely be considered reliable. Meaningful editorial oversight could typically be demonstrated by the existence of verification/fact-checking policies and a retraction policy (see this Washington Post link for their fact-checking and retraction policies). Demonstrating meaningful oversight would typically also require the existence of a structure for reviewing writings prior to their publication (which is part of why Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable, as they can publish their stories live with little-to-no oversight; Forbes staff writers, on the other hand, are subject to robust editorial oversight and are considered to be generally reliable for news reporting). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that contribution. I wasn't even aware of all those appearances. I've added additional ones above. Also, what would be the technical difference between a group blog and a small nonprofit new site (which we claim to be, are registered as with the government, receive donations as, and are recognized by national and local publications as)? natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- No - No evidence of an editorial structure, fact-checking processes, or a known reputation for accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sex differences
I found [this book] it’s called Sex Differences Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies.
I was thinking about using it as a source for sex but I’m not entirely sure about using it as a source on that article. Because the author is a psychologist. Or more specifically a evolutionary psychologist, so I’m not entirely sure if she would be a good source for an article relating to biology.
Also the book is 21 years old, so it may be outdated.CycoMa (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- What specifically in the article are you planning to use it for? It seems to be a textbook from 2000, and its self-description at the link says that it is
for courses in evolutionary and human biology, psychology, and sexuality and gender studies
. In general, I would have some worry that a 21-year-old book in a might be out of date on human biomedical information, but if it's for a definition of "sex" or something about biological sex that hasn't changed in the literature since then, then it's probably fine. I'm not an expert in the field, however, so I can't say the extent to which the field has changed since then. If you're using it to describe studies related to the article topic from up to the point of time of its publication, it would certainly be good to use.
- Also, just a general note, if you have a specific question regarding a specific addition to an article, don't be afraid to be bold and make the addition without seeking pre-clearance. Usually, if a source is contested, there's discussion on the article talk page before it floats over to here. If it's the addition winds up being uncontested, then it's probably fine to use, especially so for an article heavily seen by active editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Online event Misinformation or censorship: science reporting and social media Joint online event with the group Challenging Pseudoscience, at the Royal Institution
6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021.[36]. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
RFC — TheBlot
What do you think of the reliability of TheBlot? --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US. https://www.theblot.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey
(Website link)
I submit that theBlot should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:
1) According to the above Wikipedia page about Benjamin Way (in Summary and Career Sections):
“Since 2016 he has been facing a defamation suit stemming from statements in his website The Blot,[12][13] which he has used to attack journalists.”
The links: *https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/court-orders-online-tabloid-not-to-post-any-articles-about-former-obama-nominee-to-the-federal-cftc/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/lawprof-defamation-case/judge-lets-georgetown-law-professors-defamation-case-against-online-magazine-proceed-idUSL2N16B2BR * https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/
2) The website is proved to be used by Benjamin Wey as his personal retaliation and defamation tool (see the above sources from The Washington Post, Reuters and Bloomberg) and there cannot be considered as “reliable source” of information.
Here is the list of the people attacked by theBlot (journalist and politicians)
- Chris Brummer, a banking expert and Obama nominee for a governmental position
(See Reuters and Washington Post above)
- Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php
Source: Columbia Journalism Review
- John Carnes and Francine McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_McKenna
- Here is more information from the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Wey with all the sources verified in his Career Section:
Wey also publishes and writes extensively for the digital publication TheBlot (launched in 2013), where he describes himself as an "investigative reporter."[31][32] In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending.[33][34] In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech.[35] On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.”[36][37] In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime
- Hanna Bouveng (won defamation and sexual harrassment lawsuit). She is a former employee of Wey and was personally attacked by his tabloid (later the post was removed by the court’s order) after filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment: https://nypost.com/2016/04/08/intern-accepts-reduced-5-6m-payout-from-horndog-ceo/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2016/04/01/403993.htm https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a44618/hanna-bouveng/
The case of Hanna Bouveng is in particular worrying, to tell the least.
3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention.
I'd be glad to hear any opinion from the experienced editors here. --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @DrIlyaTsyrlov:, can you provide a link to the article or articles which are using The Blot as a source, in a way you object to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @DrIlyaTsyrlov: What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4000 bytes, this RfC is far too big for Legobot to handle; the resulting entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals consists of a heading only and the RfC will not be publicized via WP:FRS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: Good point, but easily fixed because it was already there, just not signed. I normally only post messages like that when no brief statement can be discerned at all - such as if that nine-word sentence had not been present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not Reliable' TheBlot is an obvious mouthpiece for Wey dressed up with some churnalistic content. It is not used in many articles (en
.wikipedia .org /w /index .php?search=insource%3Atheblot .com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) and sometimes it is not used poorly (example play review) but it is not a reliable source and anything where it is the only possible source is probably not NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The Ape that Understood the Universe
I found this book. I was thinking about using it as a source sex. But I’m not entirely sure it’s a good idea because it doesn’t list itself as a biology book but the writer is a evolutionary psychologist.
What do you guys think?CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I find no problems with it, also, as mentioned before, don't be afraid to be bold. Regards, Heart (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here’s the thing tho, some sources don’t belong on some articles. Sure the writer is technically a biologist himself. But, the book doesn’t label itself as a biology book.
- And the article on sex is exclusively a biology article.CycoMa (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of how the book labels itself, it still seems to possess relevant content under a heavily accomplished and likely peer-reviewed background from a reputable professor. I don't see any reason not to go for it. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ehhh, it's a popular science book that isn't peer reviewed. I wouldn't use it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's Cambridge University Press, so I'd say that's as good as it gets. Aren't those all peer-reviewed or of equivalent reliability? Still, given that sex is not really about humans and the author of this book mainly studies humans, it may be less than ideal. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a book published by a University of Nottingham psychology professor (with a research emphasis on evolutionary biology and sex differences) through a reputable university publisher. I don't have a copy of the book, but signs point toward this being a scholarly monograph, which is one of the better source categories that we have. It also appears to have received reviews which may be worth considering in terms of what it gets used for. I'm also seeing it in some peer-reviewed papers as a cited source, for what that is worth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The second review describes it as aimed at
laypersons
(albeiteducated
ones). I'd be wary of relying on a source that is at least semi-popularized when more formal academic literature is surely available. My university library is only able to access the latter two sources linked above at the moment; Panov et al. (2020) is kind of kooky. (I don't know if it's like this for all subjects, but for physics and mathematics, the peer-review standards for volumes in Springer book series are in practice lower than they are for journal articles. Reviewers have to approve a book proposal before the book can happen, but the content of the book doesn't always get careful attention.) Beaver and Wright (2019) is only a passing mention. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The second review describes it as aimed at
Are Buzz Plus News and The Asahi Shimbun reliable source for a BLP
The article is Kozo Iizuka. Both sources are used to discuss the Japanese Wikipedia. and the Asahi Shimbun is used at least 4 times. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller:, I don't know about Buzz Plus but Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's oldest and largest newspapers. It's an equivalent of, say, Chicago Tribune or similar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Concur with Eggishorn that Asahi Shimbun is a Japanese newspaper of record and a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Asahi Shimbun is the #2 of the big Japanese newspapers, and is well respected in most areas. It sometimes adheres a little too close to government lines, and can be a little anti-American (especially anti-American forces in Japan) but it doesn't have a particular reputation for falsehoods or sensationalisation (outside of the US Forces in Japan issue.) But should be perfectly fine for a BLP. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, looking again I agree. But I can't see Buzz Plus as reliable. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Asahi Shimbun is the #2 of the big Japanese newspapers, and is well respected in most areas. It sometimes adheres a little too close to government lines, and can be a little anti-American (especially anti-American forces in Japan) but it doesn't have a particular reputation for falsehoods or sensationalisation (outside of the US Forces in Japan issue.) But should be perfectly fine for a BLP. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Question about references used in a BLP draft
Hello all, I'm attempting to help a new editor clean up a draft they have created for an Australian scientist. Most of the references are way too close to the subject, press releases from their university, etc. But there were two links I wasn't sure about, would love a second opinion as I'm not familiar with Australian sites at all.
Article: Draft:Vincent Candrawinata (note I have a revision in progress that removes basically all of the other references as not being RS)
Unsure what I should say about content, I'm trying to establish if these links are good enough to even start establishing notability. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The last 2 mIght be OK for background information and establishing notability, but not for any medical claims. Less sure about the first one, who are they, and do they have any link with him?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unsure if they have any relation to them or not. I'm mostly coming in cold from a help request from IRC. The editor says they don't have a COI here, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. First link seems to be a supplement trade publication or a supplement peddling org, unsure to be honest. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- That was my take as well, hence why I am unsure that they are an RS for anything they may well sell or market. I think it would be best not to use them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seeing this query, I did a reasonable search and boldly added inline citations for ABC, Daily Telegraph, and Better Homes & Gardens. The drafter might be able to use these sources better than I did. At least two of those should be enough for a good start on GNG. BusterD (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- That was my take as well, hence why I am unsure that they are an RS for anything they may well sell or market. I think it would be best not to use them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unsure if they have any relation to them or not. I'm mostly coming in cold from a help request from IRC. The editor says they don't have a COI here, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. First link seems to be a supplement trade publication or a supplement peddling org, unsure to be honest. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Should GB News be "depreciated"?
Although this brand new UK TV News channel is a properly regulated entity, the same can be said about the Daily Mail and other shitty British sources, so I think we can safely ignore that. All indications are, and this seems confirmed by their initial output (in just twenty minutes I personally witnessed them getting the roles of two guests wrong, causing their first contribution to be a correction/complaint), this is going to be a TV version of the Daily Mail. They will basically be selecting and ramping up certain hot button right wing triggering stories, not for their news value, but their commercial value. In other words, pushing a strident right wing world view is baked right into the business model, which doesn't make it very usable by the neutral Wikipedia. As with the Daily Mail, it cannot even be said that their high profile contributors (basically Andrew Neil) can be trusted when it comes to, say, the contents of interviews, not when they are divorced from their usual editorial oversight (i.e. the BBC). It should probably be killed before it can even take a foothold here. James Tiverton (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Given that it has only been on the air for a few days, I think this is premature. Per gbnews.uk
we have a whopping 0 citations to GB News outside the GB News article. That said, give it six months to a year, then we can have a real discussion on its reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious what it is even after just a few days, just watch it, and you will see. Why wait six months, when God knows how many times it will have been used as a citation here by then? This will be used to support everything that Wikipedia has been able to keep out of important British politics articles, by excluding the Mail. Everything from immigrants steal our jobs to the Labour Party want to nationalise your potatoes. Pleb worthy junk. Not usable for an encyclopedia. James Tiverton (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- A week is a long time in 24 hour TV news. That's hundreds of stories in a paper like the Daily Mail. How long does it usually take you to figure out the commercial model of an obviously partisan source? And Wikipedia bans such sources all the time. You think people seriously checked a representative amount of content from, say, the similar TV channel, RT News? Just as that is a vehicle for Russian state propaganda, something which is obvious from watching it for a day, this channel is obviously a vehicle for the dark forces that brought us Brexit etc. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The term is "deprecated." Please find sources to support your view, User:James Tiverton. If the issues are as egregious as you report, begin accumulating critique in RS so that when this discussion is appropriate, you can make a better case than "just look at it yourself and you'll agree with me" (which is the definition of original synthesis). BusterD (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did any one do that for the Daily Mail? Not that I heard. This process is about canvassing the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and they can use whatever they like (including their eyeballs) to make up their own minds. You might be thinking of the rule against Wikipedia editors putting their own thoughts into an actual article. That is obviously disallowed. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I appreciate your fresh eyes on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail has been telling lies in public for many years so we have source material upon which to build a case for deprecation. I point out this massive and contentious discussion in 2017, another huge confirming discussion in 2019 and the more recent discussion about the DM headline claiming it was reliable in 2020. I'm going to link WP:Original synthesis so you can see the rules concerning using our own eyeballs for anything except sourcing, imaging, and keyboarding. This policy applies
in every aspect of the encyclopedia, andcertainly on a noticeboard where the subject matter itself is about WP:Reliable sources, which I've also linked. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)- Are you winding me up or what? After failng to spot any source material being given by the first five or so people in that first discussion, I decided to stop reading, since the point seems proven. And I similarly decided to stop reading the Original synthesis policy after I noticed, very early on, that it says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" If you have any concrete proof that deprecating a source isn't supposed to feature Wikipedia editors just giving their opinions, and basing that on whatever they choose (evidence if they wish, no evidence if they do not wish), may I see it in a clearer format than this? Because I think you're trying to pull a fast one here. James Tiverton (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- @James Tiverton: There are other potentially biased sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Times which are considered reliable on WP:Perennial sources. Even Fox News is considered reliable there for non-political news. Reliability isn't necessarily based on the outlet's political leanings, but rather its commitments to fact-checking and providing accurate information. Since GB News is pretty new, we simply don't really know how well it does on that yet. If/when reliable fact checking websites criticise the accuracy of GB's info, we can consider labelling it unreliable or deprecating. For now, we simply don't know enough about its accuracy and fact-checking to label it reliable or unreliable. IronManCap (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you winding me up or what? After failng to spot any source material being given by the first five or so people in that first discussion, I decided to stop reading, since the point seems proven. And I similarly decided to stop reading the Original synthesis policy after I noticed, very early on, that it says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" If you have any concrete proof that deprecating a source isn't supposed to feature Wikipedia editors just giving their opinions, and basing that on whatever they choose (evidence if they wish, no evidence if they do not wish), may I see it in a clearer format than this? Because I think you're trying to pull a fast one here. James Tiverton (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I appreciate your fresh eyes on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail has been telling lies in public for many years so we have source material upon which to build a case for deprecation. I point out this massive and contentious discussion in 2017, another huge confirming discussion in 2019 and the more recent discussion about the DM headline claiming it was reliable in 2020. I'm going to link WP:Original synthesis so you can see the rules concerning using our own eyeballs for anything except sourcing, imaging, and keyboarding. This policy applies
- Did any one do that for the Daily Mail? Not that I heard. This process is about canvassing the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and they can use whatever they like (including their eyeballs) to make up their own minds. You might be thinking of the rule against Wikipedia editors putting their own thoughts into an actual article. That is obviously disallowed. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What fact checkers have proved Fox News is inaccurate for politics? None that I can recall. What they tend to do, is merely prove their output is the result of bias (such as having not mentioned a pertinent fact). This is not a problem in mainstream sources, where the purpose of the exercise doesn't include pretending inconvenient facts just don't exist. There is no point waiting, anyone with eyeballs can see what GB News is (and not for nothing did they choose to emulate the Fox News format). Britain doesn't really do fact checking anyway, since we have a pretty robust legal/regulatory system against printing outright lies. In America, any Fox News anchor is legally allowed to say the sky is green, call that a news report, and nobody can do anything about it. Not even the Daily Mail is allowed to actually say the sky is green. Nor is GB News. But if they want you to think that, if that suited the right wing agenda, you can guarantee they will find a way to present that view in a way that gets past the UK regulatory system. No need to wait to see what is already obvious. James Tiverton (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It's too early to determine if the source is reliable. As such, the default position is that it is not reliable until proved otherwise, which should be fine. The chairman, Andrew Neil, was editor of the Sunday Times for over a decade and worked for the BBC for 25 years, even having his own show. He absolutely has the capability of producing reliable news programming. (Whether or not he does so is another matter.) I don't think we should ban sources because they have a right-wing editorial policy. CNN had Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as anchors, while PBS has had Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan as regular contributors. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is filled with wacky right wing conspiracy theorism. TFD (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Premature - It took us YEARS of discussion before we deprecated the Daily Mail (and that is still a controversial decision)… we can at least wait a few months to properly examine GB. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Premature They have an editorial charter and it doesn't appear that people are... saying it's unreliable. I'm seeing at least some reporting from reputable sources that seem to have a relatively optimistic outlook regarding its ability to cover regional news. And, it's got veteran reporters and people with editorial experience. But I don't think that we're ripe for this conversation in a perennial sense as of now. Even if it is a source with a stated political lean, it can still be reliable if it has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and a significant level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Time will tell. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is premature to ascribe any level of reliability or unreliability to GB News. Reliable sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, unreliable sources have a reputation for the opposite but GB News is too new to have established any reputation. It is almost certainly going to be a biased and/or partisan source, but that is independent of reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
RFC: Scientific journals versus news reports on the origin of COVID-19
The current sourcing situation on the origin of COVID-19 is curious. As ably described at WP:NOLABLEAK, scientific journals agree that it is a Zoonosis. Older news reports also tend to be dismissive of the Lab Leak Hypothesis, though some of these older reports have since been corrected. However, recent news reports generally describe a "battle" over the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Various versions of this hypothesis exist. All involve release of a virus from a laboratory.
This discussion is difficult. One reason is that it touches multiple areas of policy. People differ on whether or not it is a purely scientific question, whether or not various actors have conflicts of interest, whether or not WP:MEDRS applies, and more. No single Wikipedia forum is a perfect fit. In light of the situation,
- How should Wikipedia describe the origin of COVID-19?
- Option 1 It should follow the academic journals.
- Option 2 It should follow first-rate news reports.
- Option 3 It should describe both, i.e. "Academic journals generally support the Zoonosis Hypothesis, while recent news reports say scientists are divided."
Responders should feel free to improve the formatting of this RFC question and to add other options to the above list. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Survey (Origin of COVID-19)
- Bad RFC. This isn't the noticeboard to have a discussion on the content of a specific article, or to propose general content solutions for articles. Option 3 seems to be doing that by proxy; the discussion should be on the relevant article pages rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. On top of that, the 3 options are unnecessarily reductive; there are arguments (including an OPEN RFC on WP:BMI, for example) that have a lot of discussion regarding the different reliability of the two for different components of the various origin hypotheses. It's best to wait until the RfC at WP:BMI is resolved before we open a discussion on sourcing here; there's a lot of good discussion at that page about the application of WP:MEDRS to pandemic origins (more broadly), but to make an RfC while there is another one ongoing that would heavily influence the scope of our analyses here seems to be procedurally imprudent. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Other users are invited to take a better shot at asking the right questions. As I said, the discussion is difficult. I think the discussion needs to be had. I am open to better ways of starting it. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- This RFC fundamentally assumes (and is a loaded question which the user cannot answer without assuming) that academic journals and news sources are both equally reliable - which they aren't. Our policies already cover this - if academic sources (such as textbooks, articles, etc) say one thing, and the "news" says another, we follow the more reliable sources. This is disruptive and laughable to say that news is as reliable and noteworthy as academic sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd look at it a bit differently. Wikipedia assumes that the journals are better. I'm asking if we still feel that way. Or at least that was my intent. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion (Origin of COVID-19)
The following is shamelessly stolen from WP:NOLABLEAK. If one limits oneself to peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, it remains valid:
Peer reviewed publications agree that COVID-19 is a zoonosis
|
---|
Anyone who knows how to get the sources inside of the collapse should feel free to do so.
Le infezioni in medicina (Italian), September 1, 2020[2]
Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 1, 2021[3]
World Health Organization, February 9, 2021[4]
Reviews in Medical Virology, February 14, 2021[5]
Infection, Genetics and Evolution, March 18, 2021[6] |
And portions of the following are shamelessly stolen from [40].
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)
Deutsche Welle alternative language quality.
Although dw.com is generally regarded as reliable source, I think the alternative language version of the site should be used with care. https://m.dw.com/bn/ For example here it's mostly interactive sentences slides.[42], [43], [44] The articles do not fully conform to standard spelling convention used by most Bengali nespaper and sites and is more of transliteration based on 'that's about right'. This one doesn't even use spaces [45]. Here they say ঝটিতি instead of ঝটিকা ,
The reporting isn't wrong but mostly meta, and not up to general standard. --Greatder (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (2020-05-19). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
- ^ Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (2020-09-01). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565.
- ^ Adil, Md Tanveer; Rahman, Rumana; Whitelaw, Douglas; Jain, Vigyan; Al-Taan, Omer; Rashid, Farhan; Munasinghe, Aruna; Jambulingam, Periyathambi (1 February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138386. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 32788312. S2CID 221124011.
- ^ "COVID-19 Virtual Press conference transcript - 9 February 2021". www.who.int. Retrieved 2021-02-13.
- ^ Hakim, Mohamad S. (2021-02-14). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1099-1654. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
- ^ Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.