Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Archives

Published by subject - relevant to notability?

I'd like to take issue with one of the criteria for use of sources written by the article subject. I'm working on Michael Ignatieff, and there's an editor there who has been calling alot of basic facts into question - including the existence of Mr. Ignatieff's spouse, and other basic biographical details. These facts are best available in the biography at Ignatieff's website (he is an elected official), and yet we face the criterion: "relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation" These basic biographical details are not controversial, but nor are they inherently relevant to his notability. And yet we cannot reasonably exclude the man's biography from consideration as a source. Might we change the policy wording here? -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly his own web site is a reliable source for this sort of information. To pretend otherwise is sophistry. This page is intended as a guideline, not a straitjacket. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholehartedly agree. So what is the value in this statement at all? -Joshuapaquin 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy says he six foot tall and prefers peas over string beans, well, big deal. Take his word for it. On rare occassion there could possibly be some quibble regarding a controversial datum. "Where was he at 8 PM on Wed, 2001" or something. In those sorts of situations, then cited sources are important, but for general interest, human interest things, an elected offical's site reflects the degree of responsibility he means to serve his job with. Certainly, for general interest information the man's website is plenty good enough. Were he a criminal, publishing from a jail cell, perhaps different standards would be applicable. But a man going for election? His website is reasonably good information. Terryeo 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivial attributions should be treated trivially, that is they don't require iron sources. A resume is a sufficient source for "worked at company x", but it's not a sufficient source for "was abducted by aliens and became the Emperor of Xenu". For that you should cite the Washington Post article. Wjhonson 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Long Standing

Long standing doesn't mean correct. I made a valid point for changing that text. Though it should be noted that people do inflate credentials and lie about such material from time to time. This sentence is formed in such a way to give the impression that everyone inflates credentials all the time. This is not a proper impression to give.--Crossmr 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "Long Standing" argument is moot: the text was introduced 04:22, 15 August 2006 (less than an hour before Crossmr tried to change it).
• I'd propose something like: "not contentious, such as basic biographical information, or that a person holds a certain opinion. Note that people may exaggerate or be too modest about their own involvement in certain facts or opinions." --Francis Schonken 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd noted the short standing and reverted to Crossmr's version before I saw this talk page thread, sorry. Both Crossmr's wording and Francis's suggestion are a lot better than casting aspersions about lying. -- JimR 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr's version implies even more lying than my version. Stirling Newberry 11:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All I said was that information of a self-published nature should be looked at critically, as in you should evaluate it before blindly accepting it. The previous implied everyone who self-published something was a liar.--Crossmr 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the tone of Francis' statement, but think it needs to be worded more simply. But I confess I'm not sure how to do that. Terryeo 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

AHBL.ORG

Is AHBL considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to answer that without knowing the context of how you wish to use it... In general terms, just looking at the site, I would say it is reliable ... at least as a primary source on the organization itself and what it claims. It really does depends on what you are trying to say in the article. To be on the safe side, I would make sure to attribute statements in the article text (by saying "According to the web site AHBL.org...") as well as simply adding a citation... ie, make it clear who is making any claims you wish to include. Blueboar 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The website is a business' website. The business maintains 2 offices, tells of its affiliations, how long it has been in business, etc. I would say, therefore, the quality of the website included the elements of attribution, legal responsibility and so on that would allow it to be used as a secondary source of information in an article. Terryeo 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for negative material on a biography of a living person: Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Does repitition make something reliable?

Here is an interesting situation. An editor wishes to include a convinience link to a controvercial document. He has difficulty finding a reliable source that hosts the document (We know that you can not include a convenience link pointing to an unreliable web site). But what if there are multiple unreliable sites that host the same document... can they be cited together? In other words, while each site is unreliable if taken alone, do they become reliable if cited as a group? My inclination is no... since they all could be copying from the same original unreliable source. Comments? Blueboar 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My stance would be NO. I have spent a little time searching through unusual phrases of such a documentation. I found about half a dozen personal websites with the same rendition of a piece of information. In some, attribution was given to the source. In others, attribution was not given to the source. My guess is that such people communicate on google groups or newsgroups and find themselves thinking the same thoughts. Then several personal websites suddenly use exactly the same piece of information to reproduce the information. And too, it is not uncommon to see a document transmitted via a google group which is encoded and of a length which would at least lead to the suspicion that people are using a single source and popularizing a single document.

reliable?

would this be considered a reliable source? http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/

it was written by someone that "was there" and is probably the most detailed source on berkeley, california 1970's politics available.

Justforasecond 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting read. It is published and verifiable (my opinion). However it would appear to be a personal webpage. The bottom of the page says, Questions, Complaints, Corrections, Suggestions, or Comments? E-mail me at: davidmundstock@msn.com. An article about "davidmundstock@msn.com" could use that information but an article about Berkley could not. Because "personal websites can not be used as secondary sources". (my opinion). Terryeo 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The author is a relatively well known local character in Berkeley. It could certainly be cited as "according to David Mundstock". It has been linked to by The Berkeley Historical Society and other work by the same author has been linked to bey commercial sites as About.com. There are personal web sites and personal web sites. Check who has linked to a web site to determine the level of credibility. Sites without links from reliable sources, are probably not reliable enough to be used. Sites with lots of reliable citations, probably have met the test of reliabilty, because they are treated as reliable. Note that use by wikipedia and its mirrors wouldn't count, but use by publications certainly would. Stirling Newberry 04:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Note: Web links are a subjective assessment of merit or interest. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by the Berkeley Historical Society. Links are updated or added frequently. Send comments, corrections, or suggestions for additional links to Web editor Nelly Coplan." That would imply that they might not look at each link they add that thoroughly. On the other hand, it might just be a disclaimer to cover them if they make a mistake. Being linked to from a few other reliable/respected websites would help. Saying "according to David Mundstock" would help, but there is still the concern of whether or not he is in fact David Mundstock. But hopefully, if the real David Mundstock was an expert on Berkeley, but was not the creator of the website, he would notice and tell the Berkeley Historical Society. (Pseudonyms are okay - stealing someone else's name isn't.) WP:RS#Self-published_sources discusses this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

I am not sure if anyone here is familiar with this topic, but I thought it worth asking... would anyone consider anti-masonic author Stephen Knight to be a reliable source for statements about Freemasonry? His ideas on the subject are speculative at best, but they are published, and did make quite a stir when they first came out. Blueboar 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, attribution is needed, as in "According to Stephen Knight, this and that", but it would not be acceptable if the edit attempts to make an assertion of fact about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he has published books, his words fulfill WP:V and therefore yes. However, NPOV would require a single author's publication to be presented as much less than the broad, generally held point of view in regards to the subject. Terryeo 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was WP:V that caused me to ask about this... specificly:

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.

Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."

As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.

Knight's reliability is definitely dubious (he makes all sorts of bizzar and erroneous allegations without listing any sources of his own or backup to say how he arrived at his conclusions... ie poor fact-checking). I tend to agree with Jossi's interpretation here. Blueboar 13:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent literature as a reliable source

Obtaining a patent requires a long and expensive examination process. Further, there is no point in patenting anything that doesn't work and there are all sort of legal penalties enforcing veracity in patent applications. All these make the published patent literature a pretty reliable source. Certainly at least as reliable as the published scientific literature. Also, many commmercially viable developments appear in the patent literature long befor the scinetific or popular literature. I suggest patents be incorporated formally as "Reliable sources". Pproctor 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me, but I can come to you in order to translate them? heh. Terryeo 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though some junk slips through the examination process, the process is certainly as rigorous, or more so, that many publications that would be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. However, I'd much rather rely on an article in Science than a patent. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with this as long as the texts (and possibly images) of such patents are verifiable, as in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Patents are essentially privately composed documents that undergo a huge amount of scrutiny and editing (similar to peer review) before they are approved by a government official and published. Although some junk does get through, most patents are reliable. --Coolcaesar 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, someone from a pretty large international electronics company (no names here) admitted to me that with his semiconductor technology, it's pretty easy to get a patent because it's sufficient to show they might work, not that they actually do work reliably in application. Basically, if it looks like it works a couple of times, you can patent it. There's scores of patents that rot in drawers because while they establish proof of principle, they don't really show that it would make sense to use the patented technology. So no, I would definitely not say that patents are as reliable as scientific literature. As reliable as SOME scientific literature, sure. But I recommended rejection of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal myself because the method didn't live up to the promises of the author with positive results not crossing the threshold he established himself and significant controls missing. With parts of the results, he might have submitted a patent application, but for a scientific publication, I didn't find the method to be publishable in this shape -and the second reviewer agreed with me and the manuscript was consequentially rejected. --OliverH 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I am having a debate at Catholicism and Freemasonry. It relates to the section entitled "Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry" that says:

• A number of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges, although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Churches that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include:

This is followed by a long bullet point list of various denominations. This in itself is not the problem... the problem is in the verification. In quite a few cases, the citations are to articles and websites that have no connection to the denomination they are being used to support. For example, the Church of England is listed, but the citation is to the website of an Australian evangelical Church that quotes a statement from the C of E out of context. The debate is this: Can an article or website tied to Church X be used as verification to say that Church Y says something about Freemasonry. My contention is that in this case you should either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. The other editor says the citations are OK. Comments? Please pop over to the article, take a look at the section, take a look at the sources and comment. Blueboar 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with your contention: either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Or if you can't quote official church policy, at least find a reasonably distanced and neutral statement about that church, not one from another denomination or religion, or other source that has a fair likelihood of being biased against denomination X. --Svartalf 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

H2G2?

Does H2G2's Edited Guide count as a wiki for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet? Could use some clarification on that. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources as secondary sources

This section of the project page actually means what it says? I'm running into people saying, "its only a guideline" and citing personal websites as secondary sources, anyway. I hope it also means all the information on the site, such as "reposited" newspaper articles, hand typed replications of court documents, etc. Terryeo 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that it is only a guideline... but it is also a guideline that is a central component of a Rule (WP:V). This means that WP:RS may be ignored if all editors working on an article feel that ignoring it is in the best interest of the article... but it should not be ingnored if the editors do not agree. As for information on a Self-published source... This actually gets back to the "Convinience Link" issue. If feel that if the host site is unreliable, then the information hosted on it is unreliable as well. I would never trust a hand typed replica of a court document, etc. In our modern electronic society, one can obtain a verified PDF version from most courts' websites. Blueboar 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has an interesting problem, which probably should be addressed, either here or (eventually) by ArbCom. Roughly summarized, the Scientology/Dianetics articles are unusually likely to use documents posted on blogs and websites as sources. The Scientology editors often call these links "convenience links," but I don't think there's a formal section of any policy or guideline dealing with them.

The documents are generally either scans or purported "transcriptions" of one of several varieties of documents:

1. Purported Church of Scientology internal documents. (My initial instinct is that these docs don't meet either WP:RS or WP:V - the COS won't confirm that they're authentic, so all we know is that a self published website alleges them to be actual COS documents)
2. Court documents, principally posted by aggrieved ex-COS members from their personal lawsuits with the COS. (My instinct is that these documents are probably ok, if the original court documents would be verifiable, even with difficulty. However, if the Court files are sealed, I would say no, as in Case 1 above)
3. Newspaper articles. (If properly cited, I would say these are ok, at least until some tries to verify them and fails).

Terryeo, if I could make some suggestions:

1. Is it possible for you to catalogue several examples of the sources you have problems with on one of your subpages?
2. After that, I would recommend the course you're taking now - get input on the policy pages and through dispute resolution.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections Terryeo 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "Terryeo has an interesting problem ... (eventually) by ArbCom": One of the possibilities would be asking to re-open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo:

• That ArbCom case considered evidence regarding the removal of references to personal websites. That evidence contained statements like "Terryeo appears to be arguing that anything hosted on a "personal website" should not be cited (...)", see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons;
• That evidence was retained in the "Findings of fact": Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Terryeo has removed references;
• But the arbitrators did not take a specific decision regarding which level of reliability of a source would be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for quite a good understanding and statement of the situation, it must have taken some time to figure out. Here is my subpage link in response. User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections Terryeo 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is not the only article where this issue pops up. It arises (in different forms perhaps) on a number of articles that deal with controvercial topics. Editors with a particular POV want to "prove" that POV, and will go skipping through the internet looking for "evidence" without really annalyzing the reliability of the sources that provide the "evidence". I think we need to work up a section of the guideline that specificly discusses what is an acceptable "Convenience Link" and what is not. I would suggest something along the line of what I said above... "If the host site is deemed unreliable, then the information hosted on it should be deemed unreliable as well. One must link to a reliable source even as a convenience." Blueboar 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If Terryeo's concern about "personal websites" as sources is going to be arbitrated, I think we must acknowledge that the situation with regard to reliable sources of information about Scientology is highly unusual, if not unique. (This should give pause about using this example to set global policy--"tough cases make bad law," as the saying goes.) The issue with the Scientology articles isn't a simple matter of biased editors resorting to low-quality internet sources that confirm their bias. The Scientology organization's secrecy, their reputation for litigiousness and legal threats directed at church critics (including journalists and their publishers), and their well-documented record of harassment of their perceived "enemies" has a chilling effect on the publication of scholarly research about Scientology (see, for example, one scholar's thoughts on the reasons Scientology has been the subject of so little academic study). This may help to account for the fact that a disproportionate amount of the available documentary material about Scientology (much of which contradicts the Church of Scientology's official versions of their history) is archived and published on privately held websites. BTfromLA 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution is needed here - the situation isn't quite as simple as Terryeo claims. There certainly are some sourcing problems with Scientology articles, and some of those articles are quite badly written. However, the solution to this is to get more editors involved, not to pick fights with a small number people with whom Terryeo already has a number of disputes. The Scientology articles are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, of which many experienced editors are members. Terryeo hasn't made any use of this to raise awareness of issues that need to be resolved, nor has he tried to make use of dispute resolution processes such as RfCs on articles. I suggest that he should try to get more editors (and especially more outside editors) involved using existing article improvement mechanisms, rather than trying to rewrite WP:RS. -- ChrisO 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of those sources, point to ChrisO (Chris Owen's) personal essays. For example, User:ChrisO posts to newsgroups, his words are archived and then editors cite his words and reference to the newgroup archive. Sure anyone can see the simplicity of removing Google groups references when used as secondary sources in articles? For example, last week, User:ChrisO removed such a cite. This week we have [1], quoting User:ChrisO's posting on Scientology's Secret War Against Psychiatry at [2] which appears as reference number [80] in the list of Scientology references. Certainly that is simple enough, is it not? And then there is the next layer, the layer just above google groups references. The layer of personal websites, stating personal opinion and being referenced. My subpage, User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections#Scientology lists those 11 direct violations of WP:RS. Certainly the complexity of these kinds of references are not beyond the ken of the common editor ! Terryeo 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly the kind of lie-by-implication that makes you such a frustrating editor to deal with. For the record, I don't believe my own essays should be cited in Wikipedia articles. But you're implying here that I've been adding such citations to articles, which is plainly not the case. Where such citations have been included, that's the work of other editors, not myself. Is that completely clear? -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say "this week", Terryeo, are you by any chance talking about the edit you recently waved around claiming that it was your big smoking gun which showed how right you are to be continually accusing other editors of breaches of policy? You know, that edit from over a year ago? I'm just curious because I can't think why you would be describing that edit as happening "this week" but then again, there are a lot of edits you make where I can't imagine how you get the idea to describe them as you do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, and because User:ChrisO suggests additional editors, the issue I am raising is not ecclesiastical, but are issues addressed and defined by WP:V and WP:RS. Issues about the quality of sourced information, issues of how secondary sources may be cited, issues about personal POV creeping into the articles via newsgroups, blogs and personal webpages. These are simple issues which any editor can confront. One looks at a cited sources and determines its quality. This is not about the validity of information coming from a source, but about the quality of the source of information used. Terryeo 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's about both (and please don't use Scientology jargon like "confront"; we're not Scientologists and it'll only cause confusion). WP:NPOV's undue weight clause applies as well as WP:V and WP:RS. It's also worth noting that these policies apply to both sides, which I'm not sure you've fully understood. One of the things that led to an RFAr being brought against you was the way that you regularly deleted sourced material that contradicted the Scientology line and replaced it with unsourced Scientology-friendly blurb. When you make contributions to talk pages you routinely make unsourced claims (e.g. [3]), which doesn't help anybody. Since the arbitration case, instead of suggesting new content for articles, all you've been doing for the last few months is sitting on talk pages sniping at other users and using policy pages as part of your campaign. I think you're getting very, very close to violating the terms of your probation. -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not ecclesiastical, the issue has never been ecclesiastical, the issue couldn't possibly become ecclesiastical because the issue revolves around removing poor references from otherwise fine articles. Specifically, the removal of personal webiste opinion, per WP:RS, the removal of newsgroup archives quoted as secondary sources, the removal of hand typed "duplications" of offical court documents which present no attribution for their duplication, and the like. If we are to have good articles, the over-cited, (80 + references) of Scientology (3 of which are in a foreign language), must be improved. This is not special knowledge, this is not an ecclesiastical issue. Terryeo 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that we not turn this into the talk page for the Scientology articles... if you two wish to argue, take it elsewhere. Here is my take on the situation ... I took a look at some of the Scientology articles, and Terryeo has a point... there are unreliable sources being used. Quite a few of them. I would also agree with ChrisO that this does apply to both sides of your POV squabble. I don't have any authority to inforce anything, I would be willing to go through the articles with both sides, and point to those citations that I think run afoul of WP:RS. This way you have a completely neutral view of what should be removed (or re-referenced) and what can stay. Blueboar 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do, editors don't always listen to me when I point out the most obvious situation where personal opinion, even google groups are quoted from and cited as references. Here's a dozen or so which I spell out in the Scientology [4] Terryeo 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that unreliable sources are being used, but I'll also point out (despite Terryeo's baseless innuendo) that I don't link to my own writings and I do insist on reliable sources being used. The real issue here is that a small number of other editors are in conflict with Terryeo for POV reasons and that he in turn is seeking to use these policy pages to get ammunition for his side of the argument. It's very noticable that he isn't bothering to use dispute resolution processes, contacting other participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology or inviting outside editors to contribute. This policy page and others have become proxies for his attempt to widen the editing disputes in which he's been involved for the last eight months. This debate needs to move off this policy discussion page and onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, where it should have been in the first place. If you want to get involved, please do - it would be a relief to have a sane neutral participant! -- ChrisO 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that this editing difference doesn't actually exist, Mr. Owen. [5] User:ChrisO cites [6]. That is an archived newsgroup posting created by Chris Owen. User:ChrisO has previously stated his identity while commenting about his own developed, personal website, Narconon exposed. Terryeo 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't guarentee sane ... but I will guarentee neutral :>)

OK, I will see if I can help. See you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology Blueboar 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for "Personal website"

At what point does a website change from being a personal website to an organizational website? In this case I am talking about "Personal Ministry" and "Church" websites. Does the website of a "church" consisting of five people and a minister count as a "Personal" site (which would not be reliable under WP:RS), or is it an "Organizational" site (which is somewhat reliable, at least as to statements of the Church's own beliefs)? And where do you draw the line between these two categories? How big does a Church have to be to have its website be "organizational"? This is the site that raises the question... It looks to be a small evangelical church, but we are not sure how big it is and thus how WP:RS relates to citing something said on the website. Blueboar 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to set a number, you would always have arguement and exceptions. I'm not sure there is an easy answer for this one. --Crossmr 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that in situations where the size or importance of the organization is not clear from its own site, the safer route would be to exclude the organization from Wikipedia until other verifiable sources become available. For example, if a charismatic minister fresh out of theology school founded his own church, which then became a megachurch within five years, and started getting extensive press coverage, then we could cite the press coverage to show that the new church is important and notable. But we need to avoid relying solely on the Web sites of very small organizations as the primary source about them, or else Wikipedia will become Cultipedia! --Coolcaesar 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Which makes sense, but we also have to avoid assuming bad faith about people and setting up a standard that implies that everyone is lying about themselves and no one is to be trusted. Unless an organization or individual has a history of misleading people or making false statements, we probably shouldn't just assume the information they provide is unreliable.--Crossmr 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Often mentioned here on the discussion page, but never spelled out explicity on the article page are the elements which would graduate a website from "unreliable" to "reliable". Since all websites may be considered published (I think) and verifiable (I think) then the last remaining element would be "Reliable" (I think). If the Guideline could present the elements which together compose reliable, it could be useful. "Legal responsibility" would be one. "Fact checking by experts" might be another. "A motiviation toward being reliable" (such as Ford Motor Company serving their stockholders) yet another. Terryeo 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact checking by experts sounds good, but what procedures are used for fact checking and do these procedures ensure that the purported facts are true? What criteria would establish expertise? What criteria would comprise legal responsibility? A motivation toward being reliable is very dicey: Corporations have been known to mislead stockholders, so Terryeo's example is shaky.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If my statement communicates something to you, then by all means come up with an example which is never "shaky". I will continue to maintain that corporations, generally, mean to inform their stockholders rather than to mislead their stockholders. When they mislead their stockholders they become subject to applicable laws which punish the people involved in the crime. That action is unlawful. Rather than to suspect every corperation of unlawful conduct and thus eliminate altogether every corperation from being used as a source of information because they are "shaky" because in the past a handful have been proven to have broken the law and misled their stockholders, I am suggesting normal, good faith. Thus, I suggest that Ford Motor Company has a motivation to serve their stockholders, presenting good information on their site. [7] Terryeo 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites are published, personal websites are verifiable. But, the information on personal websites might change at the whim of the owner. Still, if a personal website is attributable, it would make a difference. Without the quality of attribution, on a personal website, I would argue that a piece of information can not be considered reliable. If we can hammer the qualities that together create "reliable", perhaps we can make a more substantial guideline. Terryeo 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is TheocracyWatch a reliable source?

(The following was deleted... I don't know why, but it is usually considered bad form to delete from talk pages so I have put it back Blueboar 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) )

Would TheocracyWatch be considered a reliable source for use as an objective descriptor about it's opponents under Wikipedia rules? I would like to know if it would be appropriate to treat its opinions as facts even when there is an intro such as "According to TheocracyWatch, John Smith is linked to movement x." However, on its webpage no concrete links are established about John Smith except for his friends are members of movement x. Such a link in my opinion would be guilt by association Here's my example in a discussion that I've been having. [5]

The author calls Paul Weyricha Dominionist, but never provides evidence to back up that assertion. TheocracyWatch never really defines what a Dominionist is in the article, although it usually refers to a fringe group of Christian Reconstructionists. Unlike User:CBerlet who eloquently points out there are different factions of the Christian Right.

The problem is this Mr. Weyrich is a Melkite Catholic who believes in Eastern Orthodox theology, and Ms. Yurica never shows where Mr. Weyrich has espoused Reconstructionist thought in the article. Saying he's a Dominionist is a bit like saying someone is a Communist without concrete evidence the person is such. Nor does she, unlike Chip Berlet, distinguish betweent he various factions of the Christian Right. --146.145.70.200 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, PravKnight, why not edit under your nick? Could it be because of the RfC? •Jim62sch• 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources"

Normally, I am skeptical about any site that calls itself "___ watch" as they tend to be extremely unreliable and are often operated by one or two people with a POV agenda. I am not so sure in this case, however. The site says:

• TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University.

which gives it some degree of credibility. It lists those who participate on the site (most "Watch" sites are run anonomously). You can read more about it here. Looking at the site, I would say they are baised, and so should be treated with skepticism... but that does not mean the site is automatically an unreliable source. Any statement from it should certainly be attributed, and I would probably want independant confirmation of anything the site claimed. My take... it should be treated as a primary source to back the fact that TheocracyWatch makes a claim, but not as a secondary source to "prove" a claim that they make. Blueboar 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not even academic in tone, and I'm shocked that Cornell gives this lady money. In my opinion it's just like a university signing up with PETA or the John Birch Society on the other extreme.

What about the fact a known preponderance of Ivy League faculty are left-leaning? --146.145.70.200 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what about it? It's natural that the educated will tend to be progressive, given that greater enlightenment tends to banish the fear that breeds conservativism. Grace Note 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

None of which has any relevance on whether the site is reliable as a source or not. Remember, Wikipedia tries to be NPOV... even extreme views are presented if they are notable and come from reliable sources. Without looking at them, I would guess that the official websites of PETA or the John Birch Society are both biased, but reliable sources as well. As with TheologyWatch, I would call them both reliable PRIMARY sources (ie you can use them for attributed statements of their oppinion on things, but not for statements of unattributed fact). Blueboar 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously a special interest site with a specific point of view which it hopes to disseminate widely. It has attribution, people's names and a brief history are spelled out, email contact is possible. The individuals (including a lawyer) listed have some credibility, they are known-about people, from all apperearences. Their reputations in day-to-day life include their allience with the website's organization. Myself, I don't see any reason the site could not be considered reliable with the single exception that it is a vanity or special interest site. Terryeo 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Review request

On United Kingdom Special Forces I requested a citation for the structure of the Special Air Service Regiment, ie one regular regiment and two territorial regiments. This has been presented as a reference, although it doesnt actually satisfy the citation request it does state the two TA regiments, elsewhere on the site it highlights the regular regiment so overall the site answers the question although the reader has to do some work. That's about the only accurate bit on the page and whilst I realise that WP requires verifiability, not accuracy, I'm loathe to accept it. It strikes me that there is no independent refereeing of the content, particularly that which is inherently unverifiable in any case, being Special Forces related. TIA.ALR 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if SOC.com can be called reliable... I can find no indication of who runs the site, so it probably sould be considered a "personal website". Do we know if it is run by an expert in the field, or just by some fan of weapons and special ops? If the site gets a significant portion of other facts wrong, I would say you should err on the side of it being unreliable. If it is simply a matter of difference of oppinion in interpreting accepted facts, then you might allow it, but with attribution. Blueboar 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it looks like a partisan website. So you could cite it for a) information about itself (if you were writing about SpecialOperations.com) or b) the opinions on the website (stated with attribution as opinions, not facts). If there was something significant on there, you could state it with attribution, but if it's really worth writing about, a more reliable source will probably have done so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The website offers up 2 email addresses, one to webmaster of that site and another to an individual. You might email both and ask them about their source of information, that might lead you to the citation you seek. Terryeo 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That would help - of course there's the question of writing the email in the way least likely to offend them. ("Wikipedia doesn't consider your site a reliable source, could you tell us where you got X information?" isn't very nice. "I'm a researcher, and I was interested in X that you mentioned on your website, and I was wondering if you could tell me where you got that information so I could learn more," sounds better.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On Primary sources...

(NB:This gets quite long, but for the clarity of future readers, please make any comments at the end)
Over on WP:NOR, there has been a quite heated debate over the use of primary sources. In attempt to be definative about the matter, I wrote quite a long post on the matter. What follows are my thoughts on the use of primary sources, and an attempt to define how a primary source can and cannot be used:

---

There is often some confusion over what the primary source for a subject is. For example, when referencing a song, I have seen people attempting to use YouTube as a reference. However this is not the correct reference - the recording of the song itself that is depicted in the sample is the reference. If a politician makes a speach, it is the speach that is the reference, not the politician (although the speach is a work by the politician). The original painting is the reference for the painting, not a photograph of it. However the photograph of the painting is a reference for the photographic work of the photographer.

This confusion continues into the realm of secondary sources. here, however, it gets more difficult as we have to consider the purpose that a reference is being used for. For example, let us return to that photograph of a painting. it certainly does class as a secondary source for the existance of the painting - for the photographer has documented it. However it may not be used as a secondary source for the evaluation of the painting, as the photograph makes no attempt to do this. It is interesting to note that when an expert evaluates something, they become a secondary source on something, but also a primary source for their evaluation.

Finally, come come onto the crux of the matter. In my opinion, based on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOT (the intent of, rather):

• Primary sources may be used for referencing:
  1. That a statement was made or something does exist within the reference. For example, that...
     • ...a book contains a character
     • ...a recipe contains an ingredient
     • ...within a speech, a politican said the quote "Education, Education, Education"
  2. That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis and is entirely non-contentious. This must be something that can be determined through casual observation. For example, that...
     • ...A painting contains the colour blue (this is not definate existance, as colour is to an exent subjective)
     • ...A note was hit within a song (this requires identification of the note, but in clear cases there is no debate over this)
     • ...A person within a photograph has red hair
     • ...Within a song, the chorus is sung significantly louder than the verses
     • ...A politican said "Education" many times within a speech
     • ...A politican said "Education" more than "Healthcare", when it is casually observable that only a single refernce to "healthcare" was made in a speach about school reforms.
  3. With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
• Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
  1. That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis, but there is any reasonable doubt over the observation. For example, that...
     • ...A note was hit within a song, but it is unclear which of two notes it is
     • ...A person in a photograph has black hair, but they could just as easily have dark brown or purple hair
     • ...A shape within an abstract painting represents a house (by definition in this case, the shape is abstract)
     • ...A person within a video is running slowly rather than jogging
  2. That a non-trival count of something exists within a reference. By non-trivial, I refer to both the ease of counting and the number to count. For example...
     • ...A politican said "Education" exactly 12 times within a speech. Given that a speach normally features more than just a single word, it is hard to casually count the use of a specific word (due to the separation between instances), making this non-trivial.
     • ...Noting that a painting has 11 hot-air ballons depicted is reasonable, however if the number was significantly higher it would not be (as counting would then become non-trivial)
  3. That any element within a work is, on a non-trivial level, bigger, quieter, higher, than any other element within the work. Such a non-trvial statement implies a prolonged analysis quite different from allowable casual observation. For example, that...
     • ...The highest note reached within a recording of a song was E6. This implies a comparison between all the notes within a song, which is clearly a major undertaking
     • ...Within a painting, the hot-air ballon 5cm from the left hand edge and 37cm down from the top is the smallest. If a short description cannot be used to locate something, there is a strong possibility that it was a non-trivial venture to find it and it is not casually observable
     • ...A speaker said "Education" more than "Healthcare" witin a speech about education and healthcare reforms (hence featuring both words regularly)
  4. That a narative is predominantly of a certain type. For example, that...
     • ...A character in a book is 'surly' or 'brash', but no third-person description of the character exists describing them as this.

---

At this point, I ran out of steam, and hence decided to stop. The key idea with the above is to allow trivial observation of primary sources to be used as a reference. Whilst this is not ideal, it is often the case that trivial details, such as the a note reached by a singer or the colour of someone's hair, are not actually explicitly detailed by a secondary source, as they consider these things to be implicit within the primary source. LinaMishima 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lina take a breath ;). In general I agree with you on the notions of "observation not analysis" and on the notions of "trivial / non-trivial". However I vehemently object (after coffee) with your statement that a direct observation must be "non-contentious". If a primary source says "Bush is a wimp" then we can certainly quote that source wherever appropriate, for example on Bush's own page, the author's page, the source's page, a page about what this source thought of various presidents, etc. To attempt to restrict primary source quotations to only what is non-contentious, is to neuter them. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. Wjhonson 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Lisa's guidelines forbid that. If you could find the primary source, you could say "Bob Dole once remarked that 'Phil Graham is like a cockroach. You can step on him and step on him, but you just can't squish him'", but you couldn't say "Phil Graham is like a cockroach <ref>Bob Dole, Observations on Phil Graham, 08-18-96</ref>." TheronJ 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By non-contentious, I did not mean the material being observed but rather the observation itself. No-one can argue that if a politian insults someone on the record, that they have insulted someone. However where an observation can be reasonably questioned, such as if the speech was mumbled, this cannot be used as a reference. Finding a sensible wording for this is hard. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, what constitutes trivial analysis depends on the form of the primary source. If it is on-line text, it is trivial to count how many times a word or phrase occurs. --Gerry Ashton 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated processing would create a new secondary reference, which should instead be used. Trivial should really mean what can be casually done by a human with little thought. But yes, a good point non-the-less. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lina it's a slippery slope to say that if someone "reasonably questions" a primary source on an issue that they view as "contentious" that that is enough to disqualify it from being used here. I think that the standard to use here is more regarding the *who* who is speaking, rather than the *what* they say. Wjhonson 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I agree that what they said is what they said, but I truly think Lina was trying to get at the issue of preventing contentious things from being said. It is the content of the quote that is contentious. Wikeditors are always prevented from expressing their own point-of-view so that is a non-starter. So without that, there is no reason to limit contentious quotes. Wjhonson 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that people are repeatedly failing to understand my point. Contentious material have never been an issue, and nothing I have written says otherwise. Contention over what is or is not contained within the material is a problem, however. the first is with respect to the material itself, the second is with respect to the observation of the material. Take, for example, the image on the right. It is clearly not Contentious material (unless you have a question over the existance of cats). However in observing the image, I could say that it depicts a cat stretching. Another person may contest this, and suggest the cat is play-fighting. Clearly, the issue of what is depicted is Contentious, whilst the content is not. Does this help you understand? LinaMishima 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But that point isn't relevant. You, the wikeditor cannot state "this is a funny cat" or "this is a pretty cat" or any other evaluation of the cat. You could state "here is a picture of a cat". Any opinion, evaluation, etc by a wikeditor is invalid for wikinclusion. That is why I failed to see your point. I believe you are suggesting that we can post our own opinions or observations into the articles and that's just not so. We report what other primary and secondary sources have stated, and we can make simple inferences, but we cannot make judgements of the material in our own words. We can however summarize judgemental works of others, "He claimed to be a very important person, however John Brown, noted psychologist, stated in his own work that 'this man is loony'". In this example, I am not added any of my own opinion or evaluation, I am stating what the primary and secondary sources state themselves. Wjhonson 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appeared to me to be the point you were arguing. In most cases, what you say is entirely and utterly correct. However go up and read the examples for can-1 and not-3 again. These examples attempt to deal with the case of trivial knowledge within the source that secondary commentator may often assume as known facts, and hence a secondary reference for these does not exist. An example of this can be easily formed. The following word is blue: Word. As long as I've got the hex code correct, this is obviously the case, and I'm sure all observers would agree this is a fact, not an observation - even though we have had to observe this and determine ourselves if the colour matches the definition of 'blue'. The following word is red: Word. This statement, however, will probably be contested, since magenta, as most people refer to this hue as, is often seen as pink or purple, not red. Obviously, this is a trivial problem when html is involved, as you can get the hex code and answer it that way. But for books, paintings, photographs, etc this is a valid point. Much like hair or eye colour. I am currently involved in a debate over sourcing for a catagory, and although it turns out notes themselves are not an applicable means to test for inclusion, editors have been wanting to reference the note a singer reaches within a recording. However finding a reference for this is next to impossible, as secondary sources consider notes to be an obvious and un-notable aspect on the whole. Due to the human nature of most secondary sources, there will always be things that they choose to not cover as they are firm enough in their conviction that everybody knows it. LinaMishima 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go ever further however. If a primary work says "George Bush is purple" then all we can quote is "George Bush is purple". If we are summarizing a work, and therefore using some of our own words, we have to be as non-judgemental as possible in how the summary goes. So if a work says "Cats are the spawn of Satan" we can't necessary say the work is "anti-Cat", we can say however that it claims that "Cats are children of Satan" since "spawn" and "children" are reasonable synonyms in this context. But at any rate I was only, ever, referring to QUOTING a primary source exactly with quotation marks. I was never referring to what you are, that is, an evaluation of something contained in a source. So for example you say we can't say that a cat is smaller than a dog unless we quote "a cat is smaller than a dog" (John Brown, "Cats", p 12) which is how I personally would do it. If the source says "the typical cat is 14 inches at the shoulder" then I would quote that exactly without paraphrasing or summarizing or altering. Wjhonson 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we quote too much, we cross over into the realm of copyright violations. Sourcing is good, but unless its a freely-licensed work compatible with the GFDL, we do need to be vaguely original. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are using a non-fiction work we can quote 500 to 1000 words with no copyright problems. the issue is: do we damage the sale value of the quoted work. That is unlikely (unless--unless it is a brand-new newsworthy story.) Rjensen 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text. Also, it's my understanding of fair use that it's generally more fair use if you provide your own commentary (especially for some types of images). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen that exact quotes never violate copyright fair use (up to 500 words say), and I don't see any value in the phrase "more fair". When in doubt, quote exactly. When challenged, quote exactly. Instead of getting in an edit war about whether cats are smaller than dogs, quote your source, with a citation and be done with it. The other side can then quote their source with a citation. If they can't provide a citation then the sourced side has the more useable information. Wjhonson 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a limitted number of quotes, but if we fill an article with quotes because we are afraid to paraphrase or summarize, we could raise questions about copyright. I guess I'm not really sure which Rjensen is suggesting. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"streetpress"

Especially with regards to pop culture (certainly, music and bands) is street press acceptable source for citing? Obviously - it would have to be more than a press release from the band in question and it would have to be reasonably independant from the subject of the article (ie, no quoting utter fancruft articles, nor articles written by the sister of the lead singer). Garrie 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of "streetpress" and links to them, please ? Terryeo 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I dropped off the conversation there, Real Life. Um, I think I was after a more general answer? I don't think much street press has that great a web presence. But in any rate I don't go where it is distributed very often - I was after some other opinions on where to get band reviews so I could inform people trying to improve article related to bands when they are trying to meet WP:BAND.

My question relates to the criterion

• • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

I think a local example is called "The Drum Media" [8]. The thing about "street press" is it's free so the copy is all paid for by advertisements ... so I'm not sure how independant they are. But most of the ads in this one at least are for venues, and products, generally not for the bands. But I guess in some cases, industry pays for the reporter to ... travel, stay in hotels, eat, buy tools of the trade.... so they may or may not be independant enough to be a reliable source. Hence, my question.

Remember: This is a topic I am disinterested in. I won't be fighting for the cause I just want to know how to advise others.Garrie 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about reference format and verifiablity in other languages

I have a dispute at Lousewies van der Laan with user:Electionworld about proper referencing. See here for the diff [9]. See here User_talk:Electionworld#Please_do_not_remove_references for the discussion What is the best way of referencing? Andries 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be gladd to hear opinions. Electionworld Talk? 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, point one, you should cut the whole section. Who gives a shit that she's a vegetarian or what her husband's called? Does it have any bearing on her politics?

Point two, this level of sourcing is a bit much. You don't do it elsewhere in the article. You could provide sources on talk rather than in the article. But it's not wrong. So you boys can have a damned good fight over this if you're not willing to indulge in a bit of common sense because, as so often on Wikipedia, you are both right. Grace Note 07:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Electionworld Talk? 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but I just came across the same issue: If sources in non-English languages are given, is it official policy that they must include a translation as well?

And what happens to verifiability if a source is in some fairly rare language that you can't even send through a machine translation? --Frescard 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

unrecorded radio talk shows

The "Notes and References" of R2-45, at number [7] provides a Convenience link to [10]. That webpage sources a google group message and provides a link to it, [11]. At the very bottom of that webpage appears the referenced text, On a Vancouver radio show this past March.... The article's edit was made by in June 2006 and its edit summary says: User:Raymond Hill: (added cite to a scan of The Auditor #37, added statements by church representatives) That appears at this editing difference. A review of the referenced website, xenu-directory.net, leads to an invitation by Raymond Hill himself to email "povmec@xenu-directory.net" on the website's home page. I have commented on this sort of reference many times in Scientology talk pages. Would editors here be so kind as to comment on this reference? Terryeo 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out something fairly obvious which so far no one has addressed: This is not just "a Google Groups message", it is very specifically a Google Groups message which reprints an article from a major Canadian newsmagazine, MacLean's, and provides the original title of the article, the author of the article, and the month and year of the article. This means that Terryeo's section header is, I would say, actively deceptive: there is no issue here regarding the reliability of "unrecorded radio talk shows", because an unrecorded radio talk show is not being used as a source. An article from a major newsmagazine -- i.e., something that would quite definitely be a reliable source if we were working from a hard copy of the magazine -- is the source, and the only question is whether the reproduction we have of that source is an accurate reproduction. In short, Terryeo is trying to dress up a nitpick as a major issue by leaving out important facts, which is by no means an aberration for him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have pointed out that you have good confidence that the information extant on Google Group Messages is of quality sufficent for Wikipedia. Thank you for stating your opinion ! Unfortunately, at this time, our editor concensus disagrees with your confidence. WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet states: Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources and Posts means messages which contain reprints from major Canadian magazines. Terryeo 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for you! You have managed to acknowledge that, contrary to your chosen section header, the issue here has absolutely nothing to do with "unrecorded radio talk shows"! You are, of course, still trying to obscure the fact that the actual source of the information is a major Canadian newsmagazine and that the only question is whether we are dealing with an accurate reproduction of the article in question -- but, then again, one would expect nothing else from the same editor who saw a reference that pointed to an article reprinted from the New York Times complete with title, month, day and year, and instead of correctly describing it as a reproduction from the NYT which could easily be, and should be, checked for accuracy, instead made alarming-sounding innuendos about "It surrounds itself with "Associated Press" and other, reputable sounding terms but the actual information appeared in a GOOGLE GROUP !" (wow, deja vu!) and demanded "That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed."[12] What conclusions do you suggest can be drawn from the fact that given the name of the newspaper, the date on which the article appeared, and the name of the article (in other words, a complete citation) you said not "Let's check the accuracy of this citation" but "It must be removed."? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a few suggestions -

1. Antaeus, Terryeo, it sounds like you guys could agree on the description of the problem: The R2-45 article contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to transcribe (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[13]
2. Terry, you're absolutely right to seek comment if you have doubts, but if I could make a suggestion, if you want to discuss a change to the WP:RS guideline, maybe you could describe the proposed change more clearly. On the other hand, if you have a question about whether the R2-45 should include the cite given the existing RS guideline, I think it would be most helpful to post some requests for comment at Wikipedia:Third_opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.
3. As to the underlying question, I don't think the fact that the radio show is unrecorded is relevant - if the Maclean's article is verifiable and reliable, then the quote was presumable factual, and it gets in under "verifiability, not truth."

Thanks, TheronJ 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the exact reference for R2-45 can be found in the original Creation of Human Ability. Miscavige's entourage may have edited it out in the most recent printing, but it is definitely in the original. I think Hubbard stated it as a joke, but many folks don't think it is joke-worthy. If there is no accessible transcript or recording of the radio program, then it does not meet WP:V. --Fahrenheit451 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For the radio show, assuming I understand correctly (that the editor used the google group message for information about the radio), I don't think you could attribute/cite the radio show directly. Instead, you would have to cite the google group. Since the google group isn't a reliable/reputable, in line attribution would be required (e.g. According to a posting on a google group, XXX was said by X on the radio.) That makes a rather weak statement (a lot of readers would think "According to to a posting on a google group? Then I won't believe it."), and therefore probably shouldn't be included unless is has significance to the article.

Also, the format of the convenience link in the citation does not make it completely clear that the editor used the original reference from the LA Times instead of the xenu.com site. Assuming they did look at the LA times, I would reccomend rewriting the citation to make it clear.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. It is so easy to overlook: 1. Raymond Hill goes to Google Groups, finds a message he likes and posts it on his personal website. Then, 2. User:Raymond Hill comes here to Wikipedia and quotes the message he has just archived from Google Groups in a Wikipedia article and cites his personal website, thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see? While this is but one example of such archived Google Group messages, there are others in the articles. Terryeo 12:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about Raymond Hill's motives are inappropriate, speculative and a personal attack, and are in violation of your post-arbitration probation. Please withdraw them. -- ChrisO 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I understand you may question my motivation. Should I have linked directly to the Google group ARS directly? Maybe. Maybe I shouldn't have linked the article at all in retrospect. Paradoxically, by not linking to a transcribed version of the Maclean's article, it would seem the reference would have been less disputed. Well, consider that I am transparent enough to have included a link where I got the article. But really here is what happened: since its inception, I have collected lots of material from ARS which I personally consider trustworthy. So when I found this Maclean's article (while trying to find more information about former scientologist Nan Mclean), it was not exceptional that I decided to web it.
Then, seeing that it contained an interesting reference to the R2-45 process, I went to wikipedia to see if it was used in the article. It was not, and decided to include it (by the way, along with your request of the time that R2-45 was considered a joke according to many spokepersons from the Church of Scientology.) My motivation was to add useful information to the article. Consider I have nothing to sell. Consider the R2-45 article was improved (do you dispute this?)
And about your primary concern: the radio show is mentioned in the Maclean's article, which is what is cited, therefore it is a valid cite. The actual spokeperson on the tape is even namely identified in Nan Mclean's affidavit which mentions this tape.
In any event, I am constantly trying to find first hand material, and have had some successes in doing so. This particular Maclean's article is something I'm trying to get my hands on. Raymond Hill 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me permission to question your motivation. I refuse to question your motivation, your motivation is completely clear to me and is not the motivation which User:ChrisO states that I perceive your motivation to be. I have stated that you have placed a google group message on your personal website and then have cited that message here, editing a Wikipedia article to reference that message on your personal website as a secondary source within an article. I have not commented on your motivations. A discussion of motivations would be appropriate to an individual's talk page (I believe). A discussion about WP:RS, appropriate to this page. Terryeo 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear, Terryeo, that you were questioning Raymond's motivation, or otherwise there was absolutely no reason at all to insert the gratuitous "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" in your account of Raymond's actions. If I wrote "Terryeo posts frequently to 'Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources', thus increasing his edit count, you see?" I doubt that you or anyone else would accept the flimsy claim of "I just commented on the result of Terry's frequent posting, not commenting on the motivation of Terry's frequent posting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on the result of User:Raymond Hill's editing, but I have not commented on the motivation which Raymond Hill makes his edits with. However, if you argue that when Raymond Hill archives a Google Group message and then edits Wikipedia, citing his personal website archive, that Raymond Hill can not expect any reader to visit his website to read the message which he archived, then I could follow your statement in regard to Raymond Hill's motivation. No, I don't comment and I don't mention Raymond Hill's motivation. Terryeo 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The innuendo in your comment was clear enough, otherwise why refer to "increasing his personal website traffic"? Once again, you're doing little but poison the atmosphere on the Scientology articles. I consider this a clear violation of your parole. -- ChrisO 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't agree that we should not air the issue of archived newsgroups being used as secondary sources. Nor, should go unmentioned that owners of personal websites post to google groups and use those same messages themselves as secondary sources in these articles. Nor should it go unmentioned that individuals whom publish their personal POV widely at xenu.net, solitary trees, and other personal websites and anti-scientology newgroups and even win compititions for their anti-Scientology essays, also use those very same opinions as secondary sources here on Wikipedia. You say that I am implying or using induendo. Sorry about that. When stating the simple facts as simply as possible in these sorts of emotionally laden areas, some editors are going to read some implication beyond the stated word. Sorry about that. My comment does not include Raymond Hill's motivation but speaks of the results of Raymond Hill's editing. Terryeo 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume that any error on User:Raymond Hill's part had to do with a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, but that he meant well. However, the fact that he added the source in question, and that on his own site, he cites the google group, not the LA Times, I would say it is reasonable to assume that this is an indirect source, not a convenience link. Therefore, the citation format should state the google group or xenu.net as the publisher, with credit given to the LA Times as being the original publisher. Of course, google groups and xenu.net are not considered reliable / reputable publishers (except under certain strict conditions, e.g. as primary sources for information about themselves or their opinions). (Also, to ChrisO - I was under the impression that "parole" did not prevent editors from commenting on talk pages. See WP:PROB.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I too assume User:Raymond Hill edits in good faith, and like the rest of us, might make a small mistake from time to time. Re: "parole", I was specifically enjoined not to edit Scientology articles, further statement included, "may make appropriate comments on talk pages". From time to time I supply a reference because I've a somewhat full collection of Scientology books and lectures. Terryeo 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent him from commenting on talk pages, but Terryeo is specifically prohibited from making personal attacks and causing disruption on articles and talk pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Remedies. I should note that he has repeatedly broken his parole (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans) and is two blocks away from a year-long ban. Regrettably, he's chosen to take an relentlessly tiresome and negative approach towards editing - instead of saying e.g. "this source doesn't meet WP:RS, I suggest you replace it with X", he's chosen to go from talk page to talk page to complain about individual editors, make personal attacks, engage in internecine feuds and so on. ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO's actual actions included 1. Going to my User page and telling me that I should retract the information I presented about User:Raymond Hill. As I said, I can not retract Raymond's editing. 2. Going to the arbitration secretrary's (Tony's) User page and telling him how I was engaging in a "personal attack". 3. Going to the administrator's notice board and presenting that I had made a personal attack on User:Raymond Hill (just above). The result of all the of this, ChrisO's refusal to talk to me directly, wasting Tony's userpage space and the administrator's notice board space (requiring the attention of 2 administrators) and finally, posting here, has been effort and attention by several otherwise busy people and all because he mis-perceived my statements. I in no way personally attacked. I stated the situation as simply as possible with no reference to motivation, no implication of an intent to deceive or to otherwise interrupt or show bad faith. So, hey, ChrisO makes a HUGE DEAL of it. But that does not make Raymond Hill's edit right. His edit still references a Google Group Message that he posted to his personal website and then cited into a Wikipedia article. Terryeo 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not to say that there aren't problems with the Scientology-related articles - clearly there are - but he hasn't bothered to go through any of the stages of dispute resolution, he hasn't solicited community input through RfCs etc, and he's extensively disrupted Wikipedia policy pages in discussions that quite honestly don't belong there. He has a peculiar and very narrow view of what constitutes a reliable source, and has made numerous complaints which are just a waste of time - see e.g. Talk:Scientology and psychiatry#The eighth reference, where he complains about a reference to an article on the online version of the German news magazine Der Spiegel on the grounds that "It contains advertisements" (sic). This sort of stupidity has been going on now for eight months. Please don't fall into the trap of letting him waste your time. -- ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO has been rather careful not to address me. He has only stated a small part of the difficulty with "the eight reference", an article from Salon.com which runs blogs, an archived article by one Katharine Mieszkowski, without clear indication of where it was published, what its circulation was, etc. There was more to my statement than merely, "the page has advertisements". As a small note, no one else sees a personal attack in my presentation of User:Raymond Hill's edit which cites his own website. In fact, User:ChrisO, your Personal Research, as manifested in Newsgroups is cited much too often in these articles. At the time of this posting this newsgroup message which User:ChrisO created 1998/10/13 and is archived at [14] is cited as reference [81] in the Scientology#_note-81. Yeah, there are problems and one of them is User:ChrisO's personal research creeping into articles via newgroup and personal website references. Terryeo 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To correct the false information you are spreading, Terryeo, the article in Der Spiegel did not appear "without clear indication of where it was published"; as anyone can see for themselves the article has a very clear notice stating "This article has been provided by Salon.com as part of a special agreement with SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL. In return, our colleagues in San Francisco will publish selected articles from Der Spiegel on their Web site at: Salon.com". Yes, indeed, there was more to your statement than merely, "the page has advertisements", but "the page has advertisements" was the true part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks have two components - the intention of the person making them, and the perception of the person receiving them. Many times, a person may perceive a personal attack directed at them, while the person making the "personal attack" may not have meant it as such. Rather than quibbling over who is right on such a subjective matter, I think it is better for the person accused of making the personal attack to either a) apologize or b) clarify how they meant it / didn't mean it, and for the person who felt hurt to forgive. In this case, User:Raymond Hill doesnt' seem to have said anything, and Terryeo has done b.

While Terryeo may be somewhat deletionist regarding bad references, and hold references to featured article quality standards even in areas (like Scientology) where it is apparently difficult to do so, any disagreements we may have do not mean that Terryeo does not have the best interest of Wikipedia (as he/she sees it) at heart. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I must point out that I've seen nothing that indicates that Raymond Hill is aware that Terryeo is here making accusations about Raymond trying to exploit Wikipedia to drive up his web traffic. I'm dubious enough about the idea that a personal attack (from someone who had to be put on a personal attack parole) can be concluded not to be a personal attack if the target chooses not to respond to it, but in this case we don't even know that Raymond has had the opportunity.

As for whether Terryeo has the best interest of Wikipedia at heart, I would like to point out an incident referenced further up in this section, in which Terryeo is presented with a reference that claims to be a reproduction of an article from the New York Times of July 17, 1989. Is there any newspaper for which it would be easier to check a citation than the Times? And yet, instead of making the reasonable request that someone check the original article -- Terryeo demands that it be removed. I find it very hard to believe that someone who, when faced with just about the easiest possible citation to verify, tries to get it removed instead, has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Terryeo is deletionist for any references that don't support his POV. Prior to his banning from editing Scientology-related articles he had no compunction about repeatedly adding slabs of unsourced material. He has consistently advocated an ultra-strict approach to critical references while being very lax about pro-Scientology references. Frankly, in my judgment he's using the references issue as a means of purging anything that doesn't fit his POV. If he's really acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, you would expect him to approach the matter even-handedly, wouldn't you? -- ChrisO 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quibble. I point out a bad citation. A google messages archived on a personal website. I point out the message was archived by the very person who edited to include the messages' information as a secondary source in a wikipedia article. I point out the inclusion of the editor Raymond Hill's reference which points to his own, personal website, will tend to increase his personal website's web traffic. What happens? User:ChrisO does not understand I have made a statement, instead he sees an implication of personal attack. Too Bad. I stated the situation as simple and as directly as I could. Everyone makes some mistakes sometimes. I'm all for letting go of the issue when the actual situation is understood because that is how we can work toward a better Wikipedai. This idea of preventing editors who do not agree with ChrisO, Feldspar and Hill's point of view from presenting their mistakes is beyond silly. ChrisO's archived newgroups messages sprinkle the articles, Feldspar creates more aticles than anyone working in the Scientolgy Series. I did not make a personal attack. I said nothing about Raymond Hill's motivation. I stated the situation as simply as it could be stated. Can we acknowledge that User:Raymond Hill made a mistake, the User:ChrisO misread my statement above made a mistake himself, judging my statement to be a personal attack and notifiying other (besides himself) administrators? In any event my comment (and I make mistakes too) is about a reliable source of information, not about personal attack and past mistakes. I would prefer that newgroup messages NEVER be used as secondary or intermidiary sources of information, they are just too unreliable. Terryeo 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, so I should get right on stripping 90% of the information out of Babylon 5 articles? Phil Sandifer 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Feldspar creates more aticles than anyone working in the Scientolgy Series." Care to back up that statement, Terryeo? Go ahead, try. Why don't you just take a big old count and tell us all the staggering number of articles I have created. Well? C'mon, go ahead! Tell us all! You thought it important enough to bring it to everyone's attention; now show that you weren't just making random accusations. So go on; present us all with the full staggering list of all the many Scientology articles I've created. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Accurate observations ChrisO. It is also interesting that Terryeo is now promoting the citation of Laurie Hamilton's comments from experts.com, which is in essence a collection of single topic personal websites, for the Scientology article.--Fahrenheit451 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to accusations on talk pages that I have made mis-statements, I have linked on talk pages within my posts in reply. I have linked to Hamilton's answers to similar questions. This action is a defensive action on my part because people who are unfamilar with the knowledge comprising the subject have accused me of what I'll gently call, "mis-statement". This was not a promational action, this was a defensive action. Terryeo 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Farenheit451, I don't think that last charge is true--Terryeo likes the way Laurie Hamilton explains some ideas about Scientology, and he cites her in the context of talk page discussions about those ideas, but I don't think he has ever proposed her about.com posts as reliable sources to be cited in articles. However, I heartily second your endorsement of the observations of ChrisO. This topic--where Terryeo implies that an editor was using "unrecorded radio talk shows" as reliable sources when nothing remotely like that pertains to the situation in question--is typical of the misleading nonsense that Terryeo has been salting the Scientology articles with on virtually a daily basis for the better part of a year now, leading to countless wasted hours of confusion and haggling. BTfromLA 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make sense on the comments above, attempting to understand what is this all about. Seems that editors that have ongoing content disputes elsewhere, and have done so for a while, come here to air their differences with the expectation that non-involved editors can make sense of it and comment. Not easy... So, this is what I have undertood: Some editors are using convenience links to user groups postings, to what seems to be descriptions of possible reliable sources such as newsprint articles, transcripts of radio recordings, etc. The policy in this regard is quite clear: USENET, user groups, discussion forums, etc., are not reliable sources. So, citing these user groups and linking to them is not kosher, even if what they describe may be reliable sources. What can be done is to cite the original source, after it is verified that it indeed exists. I would not consider the fact that it has been posted in a user group, to be sufficient proof of compliance with WP:V, because a non-reliable source is just that: a source that does not have sufficient credibility due to lack of editorial oversight, for example, to be used a a source about anything beyond the user group itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY. That is the issue, thank you ! Terryeo 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have subsectioned because Jossi has stated the issue cleanly, in a way everyone can understand. The one citation I mention above is only one of many such citations through the Scientology articles. Information from newsgroups is archived. Call them messages, call them duplicates of articles that appear elsewhere, unrecorded talk shows, etc. Then those are cited. You see above how strongly people react. People say, "oh, WP:RS is just a guideline" and often stronger language is used to discourage any mention about the reliability of source. But Jossi has expressed the issue very well. Terryeo 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have de-subsectioned because it is still the same conversation, and a single person's judgement that "the issue" has been reached is not consensus, especially when that same single person was the one who started the conversation under the knowingly inaccurate section header "unrecorded radio talk shows". There almost seems an unseemly haste on some people's parts to assign a quick identity to "the issue", perhaps to prevent anyone from asking whether what is to be done about an imperfect reference is also part of "the issue". Last time I checked, "it doesn't have to be perfect" was still a part of Wikipedia policy, yet certain people would have us believe that no matter how easy it would be to check an imperfect reference and thus make it a perfect reference, instead "It must be removed." If the operating philosophy of Wikipedia has been changed from "find a way to improve on what other people have done" to "find some way to invalidate and destroy what other people have done" then I think that deserves at least as much close, careful attention as whether a reproduction of a newsmagazine article was a 100% perfect reproduction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus... there is one problem with your concept... WP:RS clearly says: "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible." (bolding mine). Thus, hasty or not, there is nothing wrong with removing material that is supported by an unreliable source. If an editor wants to include the information, he or she can add it back again later ... with a reliable citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

Well, I follow your logic, Blueboar, but the problem is that by that interpretation of the guidelines and policies, every argument that can be made for completely disallowing the use of such article reproductions points even more strongly towards disallowing any information, cited or not, sourced or not, from any anonymous editor. Consider the following two scenarios:

a) The anonymous editor at 127.0.0.1 inserts information into a Wikipedia article which he claims is supported by the text of the article "Fear and Loathing in Sutton: The McLean family's fight to escape Scientology", written by John Saunders, published in the June 1974 issue of Maclean's.

b) The anonymous editor at 127.0.0.1 transcribes what he claims is the entire text of the article "Fear and Loathing in Sutton: The McLean family's fight to escape Scientology", written by John Saunders, published in the June 1974 issue of Maclean's to a newsgroup. From there, another editor inserts information into a Wikipedia article which is supported by 127.0.0.1's transcription.

Obviously, it is the first scenario that provides far more room for error and malfeasance. As opposed to the second scenario, where we only have to trust that the anonymous editor managed to do a word-for-word transcription successfully enough so as not to change the sense of the text, the first scenario demands that we trust the anonymous editor's ability to follow the text and their ability to correctly interpret it and not draw inferences that it doesn't support. Clearly, if our goal is to absolutely forbid any sort of editing behavior that could possibly lead to poor information in the article, both of these scenarios are completely unacceptable.

Yet the first scenario is explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policy; suggestions that editing in fact should be limited to registered users only have all been shot down. The spirit behind the policy is clearly to balance the need to get good information into the articles against the risk of letting bad information in. I think it is in keeping with that spirit of policy to state that when we have a checkable citation, and an article transcription to refer to which an anonymous editor claims is faithful to the letter of the original, then we follow the same policy we follow for the more risky situation when we have a checkable citation, but we have no text to refer to at all and are instead trusting an anonymous editor's assertion that if we did read the letter of the original text, we would agree that the material asserted to derive from it does indeed capture the spirit, rather than the much easier letter, of the original. To do otherwise is to strain at the gnat while swallowing the elephant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Feldspar, when a person does not understand what Mr. Hubbard was talking about when he publically talked about R2-45, that the person would want to read all the inflammatorily stated news about it, I can not possibly present such silly news because the underlying statement which Mr. Hubbard made has not been understood. The newsgroup posting states, What is R2-45? It's long been rumored among ex-Scientologists to mean shooting. You see, rumored ? Of what use is rumor to a reader who has not understood what Mr. Hubbard was talking about? Of what use is it to direct the reader's attention to newgroup rumor when the reader has not understood that Mr. Hubbard was speaking of the usefulness of exteriorization. This is the sort of content issue which we can avoid if WP:RS is implemented instead of being resisted. Terryeo 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Terryeo, you seem to have slipped off-topic? You're clearly talking about something different from the rest of us; the rest of us are talking about an article from a major newsmagazine, not about a "newsgroup rumor". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ summary and $0.02 on unrecorded radio talk shows

Summary of problem: Terryeo wants to know whether a citation in the R2-45 article meets WP:RS. That citation (shown as footnote 4 of this version[15]) contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to be a transcription of (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[16].

My humble opinions:

1. Contrary to Terryeo's opinion, I don't see that the fact that the quote is from a radio show is relevant. Maclean's is certainly a reliable and verifiable source. If this statement were sourced solely to Maclean's by someone who had verified the article in the actual magazine (or through a reliable source like Lexis/Nexis), the fact that the radio show is unidentified would not be a problem.
2. The remaining issue is whether the "convenience link" is permissible. The relevant section of the WP:CITE guideline is unclear on this issue. Although the section is absolutely clear that the webpage must be a reliable source if the editor hasn't verified the original document, it's less clear about whether the source may be included for convenience if the editor has verified the article.
3. Therefore, assuming that Raymond Hill, the editor who added this cite, actually verified the Maclean's article, this cite could be fixed, at most, by removing the "convenience cite," and even that requirement is arguable. If no editor has checked the actual Maclean's article, then the cite is unverified and should go.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, at least say that you do not support the idea that an editor can create and maintain a personal website, place information on it which he believes will be attractive to Wikipedia and then come here to Wikipedia and cite information from his personal website as a secondary source (or intermediary source) within Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As user groups are not reliable source, the way to resolve this is not to link to that user group as TheronJ described it. Just add a reference to the magazine article, date of publication, etc. so that it can be available to be verified by our readers. Convenience links have to cross a cerain threshold of reliability, and I would argue that user groups, USENET, or discussion forums do not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and would love to see every single USENET citation removed where it is used as a "repositiory" or an "archived copy". For one thing, WP:RS actually says so. For another, as I read WP:V it implies so. Yet the Scientology series is full of USENET citations as secondary or intermediate sorts of sources. Some guy in LA, he sees an article in the LA Times and types it into a google group. Then some guy in Denmark picks it out of the google group and archives it on his website. Then the information gets cited from the Denmark personal website. And when I point out WP:RS editors say, "oh it is just a guideline". I don't know how to get WP:RS implemented. Terryeo 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oh is just a guideline" is not an valid excuse. I am not familiar with the Scientology articles, but I would be concerned with any article that is using many convenience links to unreliable sources. As expressed before, citing the original source is more than sufficient for WP:V, and unless the convenience link is hosted on a reliable source, it shoud not be used. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that TheronJ summarized the issue very well. The question is whether and under what circumstances the convenience link to a transcription (or scanned copy) of an article (originally published by a reliable source) on a personal website is acceptible. As far as I can see, this is an unresolved issue--some editors, like Blueboar, take a very strict line that basically argues against any convenience links: if I understand him (?) correctly, in his view, one would link directly to the original source (e.g., the New York Times own website) or you have no link. Others, including me, think that a more liberal view toward convenience links is called for (at which point I want to underline the fact that, by definition, the convenience link is NOT the original source that is being cited as a reference, but a reproduction of all or relevant parts of the cited source material ). As to Terryeo's accounts of the editorial discussions at the Scientology articles--well, as the present example shows, Terryeo is hardly a reliable source in these matters. At issue is a convenience link to a transcription of a MacLean's article on a personal website which archives news articles about Scientology. The transcription had been previously posted on a google group. Terryeo presented this as if google group accounts of unrecorded radio talk shows were being used as a reliable source. BTfromLA 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BT, my view on this is strict... but not as strict as you make out. I feel that convenience links are fine, as long as they come from a reliable source. Yes, that severely limits what can be used, but I am not arguing against all convenience links. Here is the problem (and why I do take such a strict stance...

Like Terryeo, I edit on a somewhat controvercial topic... in my case it is articles that deal with Freemasonry. When it comes to the "anti" POV, much of the available material is to be found on the internet. Unfortunately, a favorite tactic on these "Anti" sites is to either misquote something or to quote it out of context. Another is to repeat (as fact) statements which have been proven to have originated as part of a hoax. More to the point, I have repeatedly seen supposedly "authentic reproductions" of original documents that (when you compare them against the originals, which are often NOT available on the internet for easy reference) turn out to have been altered, with words or even entire paragraphs added or removed that completely change the meaning of the passage. These then get copied onto other "anti" websites... and soon there are hundreds of copies of a bogus documents floating around out there. In short, you frequently can not trust the "convenience" link to be an accurate representation of the original.

What I am getting at is that Terryeo's complaints about the misuse and abuse of "convenience" links at the Scientolgy articles is not unique ... this issue crops up on a quite number of articles that deal with controvercial topics. I have even seen situations where one side swears that a linked copy has been checked against the original and is accurate... while the other side swears that, to the contrary, they have checked it against the original and it is NOT accurate.

By requiring that even a "convenience" link points to a reliable source you can, at least, be sure that an independant and relatively trustworthy source agrees that the copy accurately represents the original. Blueboar 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, at the moment time doesn't permit me a full response to your comments--in brief, my view is that if there is a reasonable suspicion that the linked-to info is distorted, as in the cases you describe, that is definitely grounds to disallow those links, and perhaps even to adopt an especially proscriptive policy with regard to specific topics where this is clearly a problem. Obviously, we don't want to direct people to information that we know is fabricated or otherwise misrepresents our sources. But I don't agree that policy should be extended to a blanket prohibition on all sources on all topics because of the mere possibility that the info could be distorted, even while every indication is that the vast majority of such links are accurate and useful to our readers. BTfromLA 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The User Talk show existed, obviously its content and not the live talk show is referenced. The reproducibility of the talk show is controlled by some unknown, unattributable, not traceable individual. That person was one of a group of people who do that. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. In this case I'm pretty sure we could agree the individual is pushing an agenda. If I misled anyone, I didn't mean to. I did state that the webpage sources a google group. Terryeo 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Res Ipsa Loquitur. BTfromLA 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Res Ipsa Loquitur, is exactly my point. The problem is that in some controverial articles, editors are adding convenience links to non-reliable sources that contain additional information that may be not neutral. In these cases, we should err on the side of caution, and directly reference the original source, without a convenience link to an unreliable source, as we cannot presume or assume accuracy. Think of the reader.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Creeping POV: An additional reason we should err on the side of caution is that a personal webpage might be modified at any moment by its owner. Recently, convenience links are showing up with a "zinger" presented before the information of the link's convenience. The website owner puts his "zinger" in as an introduction to a newspaper article in R2-45's citation 2 before presenting the text of the newspaper article cited. Terryeo 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that harrowing primal scene when "the website owner puts his 'zinger' in." From all appearances, the quote from Hubbard that precedes the main text of the article (I'm guessing that is the introjected zinger you have in mind) was 'zinged' by the authors or editors of the original published article. In other words, that's part of the article--nothing was added by the website. Another article by the same authors published the previous day seems to be in exactly the same format, with a different Hubbard quote atop it. To be absolutely sure this is the case, you can go through the microfiche at your local library, or you can pay $4 to the LA Times and download an official copy online. I'm saving my $4, but if you believe that what you've said is true--as opposed to your fantasy or hallucination--it might be worth it to you. I will certainly apologize if it turns out I am mistaken. I trust you will do likewise for wasting our time with baseless charges about zingers, if I am correct. BTfromLA 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, are you advocating for allowing the indiscriminate use of convenience links to non-reliable websites (non-reliable as per WP's guidelines)? We need to think of the reader. A reader expects that he/she will find reliable information supported by reliable sources in WP articles. We cannot guarantee that reliability if we link to personal websites, blogs, USENET or user groups. I am sure you understand that. Do you? (Also, we all would appreciate if you can avoid making comments about what you think about editors, and keep this discussion free from these type of comments. If you have a personal dispute with a user, you may want to take it elsewere. It will be appreciated.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi: No, I am not advocating indiscriminate use of conveninience links. I am advocating , though, that the editors of individual articles should be allowed some latitude to descriminate about which sites include reliable copies of all or the relevant part of the cited sources, extending to reliable copies that are housed on sites that might not themselves be deemed "reliable sources" for the articles, because they are hosted online by individuals as opposed to corporate entities. I am indeed thinking of our readers, and I think that linking to more complete sources of information (as opposed to merely footnoting the sources) is one of the strengths of the online encyclopedia, while it is also a gateway to the wilds of the internet. I think that readers understand that the linked-to sites are not Wikipedia, that, while Wikipedia can try to link to reliable sources. we can never be responsible for off-site content, because we have no control over it. (Actually, I think it would be a nice idea to introduce a color-code into the wikipedia code, such that links leading offsite are all flagged by a particular color--green, say--so that readers would immediately be clued to the fact that clicking the link will take them away from Wikipedia.) In other words, we cannot guarantee the reliablity of ANY linked-to sites, so if guaranteed reliabilty is the standard, all external links must go. As a reader of Wikipedia. I think the benefits of linking to rich sources of specific information about a topic far outweigh the dangers of being misled by the occasional bogus, hacked or irresponsible site. And, again, I'm not for being indiscriminate... if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that a site is fishy, that's enough to disinclude it, and I would expect much stricter vetting to emerge in subject areas that actually have a problem with unreliable convenince links. But I think this problem is rare--Blueboar's account of altered freemasonry documents is the only case I've heard of it happening. Terryeo charges that a particular Scientology-related convenience link was misrepresented above, though I am skeptical that he has grounds for that charge (which can fairly easily be adjudicated). Have you run into lots of forged or altered documents linked to Wikipedia footnotes? Bottom line: I think editors working toward accurate, readable articles should be allowed as much latitude as possible in executing their task, and the blanket "thou shalt nots' should be kept to a minimum. BTfromLA 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Rules and regulations are not there to fortfeit the good judgement of editors, but we need to be cautious. I am not familiar with the Scientology articles, but I would argue that linking to a white supremacist website to provide a convenience link for an article on Judaism, for example, would be highly innaproriate. So, yes, good judgement of editors needs to be present. And if there is a dispute about a specific convenience link that cannot be resolved, there is always WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(Undented) That's what I once thought too, BT. Unfortunately it doesn't work. If it would require that I trudge through the article to produce more instances of editors citing thier own personal webpages, their own, personal newgroup posts, citing a personal website owner's personal reasearch I'm willing to do so. But I'm sure you have seen it too. A citiation points to a "document" which was hand typed into a newsgroup and picked up by a personal website owner, put on his webiste with a "zinger" or out - of - context quotation that puts bias on the 'document'. As Wikipedia gets larger I believe we will need more flat out "don't do this" kind of rules. Unfortunately even with flat out rules, editors simply defy them and refuse to discuss their underlying policy. editors defy WP:RS. Terryeo 07:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you willing to do the research needed to confirm the validity of your charge that the LATimes article you mention above has been modified by that website with a "zinger"? (If I'm guessing correctly, since you don't spell it out, you mean the quotation from Hubbard that appears above the byline.) If it turns out that you are right--that the quote was added such that it appears to have been part of the original, that would be the first time I've ever encoutered such a thing. This is one of my objections to this whole line of argument, at least the version that has been going on for months in the Scientology articles. Overwhelmingly, the argument consists of scare stories about the corruption that could possibly occur, while the actual information presented in scores of transcribed articles and court documents hasn't yielded even one example of a significantly distorted document being linked to an article. Where I have seen what I think you would call "zingers" (again, it would be helpful if you could give examples) is when materials are fair use excerpts in context, which means that there will be some text surrounding the relevant quotation. This is a slightly different question than the use of "pure" transcriptions, calling for more judgement. It seems to me if the relevant source material is accurately and clearly presented, such that the reader isn't confused about which is the quote and which isn't, a convenience link of that type can sometimes work. My concern is about clear and useful access to the cited material; I don't have any fear about wikipedians occassionally glimpsing a partisan site when they leave Wikipedia, this is already common practice with external links. (I do think that it would be a good idea to label such convenience links--"quoted on a partisan website," "quoted in an essay by Joe Shmoe," or something). Self-citation, which is at least unsavory, is a separate question. BTfromLA 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out again, that "personal websites" are not inherently unreliable sources. There are personal websites that are reliable sources. Wjhonson 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...only if the person is a widely recognized expert on the subject, or the article is about the author of that personal website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One more opinion on the Maclean's cite

To recap: Terryeo object to a citation in the R2-45 article onWP:RS grounds. That citation (shown as footnote 4 of this version[17]) contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to be a transcription of (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show.[18]. By posting today, the original poster, Raymond Hill, says that he hasn't read the original Maclean's article, but is looking for it. That raises a couple more thoughts:

1. Technically, WP:CITE states that editors should not include citations to materials based on non-RS materials, such as a google groups posting. Still, that's far from the worst offense in the scientology pages, and it's hard to see the harm in giving Raymond some time to find the original.
2. The bigger concern is that the "convenience cite" is an apparent copyright violation, and I can't believe I didn't think about it sooner. It is helpful to readers to be able to read the original article, and I'm sure the link is in good faith, but Wikipedia doesn't link to cites that post copyrighted material without authorization. Raymond, I don't question your good faith, but it looks like best practice would be to take out the "convenience cite."
3. Assuming I'm right, the policy of not linking to potentially infringing copies of copyrighted works might kill most of the "convenience cite" issues. Does anyone want to take a crack at writing a "convenience cite" paragraph for WP:RS, or want me to write one up for discussion?

Thanks, TheronJ 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The faulty reference was removed a few hours ago, right after I posted my answer here. Raymond Hill 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, now can we write a "convenience cite" paragraph and get on with production ? Terryeo 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Proposed wording below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenience links

When using convenience links, note that external sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works as a conveninece link, is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Note that the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right.

On second thoughts, after reading the above wording, I came to realize that if we just keep it to "the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right", that on its own will take care of the copyright issue, as a reliable source would not be one in which we should find copyvios.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That wording makes sense to me Terryeo 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that you three believe the convenience link host must meet the same reliable source guidelines as the original source, but I'm not convinced that a broad consensus has been reached on that point--are you? I'd say the first two sentences about copyright are fine, but the third one--which, applied literally, would dramatically alter established practice on wikipedia--needs to be singled out for consideration by the largest possible group of editors before being placed on the page. BTfromLA 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Self Published Sources

The self-published sources section makes no sense what so ever. Before the present a large number of publications were "self-published" - for example Bach' "Art of the Fugue". By the defintions offered here bastardized pirated versions of the Art of the Fugue would be regarded as secondary sources, where as Bach's own plates would not be (self-published vanity press!). Examples of this problem continue all the way up to the present, where original sources are "self-published" and inaccurate assertions are made in the "respectable" press. Consider that under the standards presented here "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" counts as a reliable source, where as John Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam don't.

In short, this section is geared to weeding out say millions of web sites, and creates a reverse problem - it weeds out huge amounts of reliable data which just happens not to have gone through the corporate publishing mill. A recent example is proposed proof of Poincare's Conjecture - self published on the internet.

The current language an open invitation to abuse. Self-published sources have the credibility of the people publishing them - no more, but also no less. If person X has a website that says he's married, we should not "look at this with a critical eye" and demand to see the public records looked up.

Stirling Newberry 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that one of the sentences in the self-published sources section is "In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources." So if other (reliable) sources have commented favorably on a self-published source, the self-published source becomes reliable. Also, if a work that was originally self-published is reprinted by a reputable publishing house (such as Dover) it is then reliable. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh out loud here, Dover often publishes editions which are not reliable, because those are the ones which are available in the public domain. You've made my point for me - passing through "official" hands does not necessarily improve reliability. The language present is sweeping, over generalized and just plain foolish. I can appreciate wanting to keep out the millions and millions of little web sites out there, but the current guidelines neither include all good material nor exclude all bad material. Stirling Newberry 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then where do you get half of your info Stirling? Many of your sources are not reliable either, or you just place information into this encyclopedia which, to put it in a nice way, could be construed as "Original Research." Please, if a publishing house is not reliable, should we consider some history blog that you read your latest tidbit from? T Turner 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are dispute resolution processes if you don't like the sourcing. Stuffing my text message box with threatening text messages on my private phone number with a fraudulent call back number isn't on the approved list last I checked.Stirling Newberry 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, notable self published work can be cited... as a primary source. Bach's original plates would be eminently citable in this fashion. The same would be said for Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam. The key is a) the notablility of the primary source (both Bach and Kerry would count as being notable, and b) attribution to the primary source (if citing the original, one should mention that in the article).

Yes, we prefer secondary sources, for exactly the reasons Gerry points to above... but that does not mean we can never cite to a primary sources if appropriate. Blueboar 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Stirling has a point,

• However, (small remark), Kunst der Fuge is a bad example: essentially *published* by the composer's sons, with a lot of trouble to establish what was exactly composed by Bach, and what was added/modified by these sons. Use any of the Clavier-Übung tomes or the Musikalisches Opfer, that would make a better example for what Stirling wants to illustrate.
• Also note that in the current Wikipedia system, "Verifiability" is to a certain extent a "notability" selection mechanism, which makes part of the thresholds imposed on the "reliability" of sources *unnatural* to say the least, and anyway far from academic. I supported Stirling's efforts recently to make reliability of sources less of a black-and-white picture (less of an on/off switch between reliable or not - favoured by some wikipedians), and rather a set of recommendations on how to discern more reliable sources from less reliable sources.
• The current on/off approach between reliable or not (coupled to notable or not) has several disadvantages:
  • it doesn't keep out trivia, and will increasingly be less appropriate to keep trivia out (see Lousewies van der Laan, and its recent history if you don't believe me: yes it was printed, and now translated in Wikipedia that she declared "The double helix is the structure of the human DNA", which is quoting trivia's trivia in the article about a politician - but it was published in a "respectable" newspaper);
  • it promotes laziness not to dig to the original source when quoting (for instance stopping at the New York Times when trying to find out whether Grisha Perelman would accept a million dollar prize: two sources that actually quoted what Perelman said on the subject contradicted what the New York Times had published as fact - and the NYT would according to the current WP:RS certainly excell the other two sources on wholesale "respectability". See last paragraphs of Poincaré conjecture#21st century);

So yes, I support Stirling in his endeavours to make this somewhat more appropriate. But I want to make clear that some of this is solidified in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (in the three sections about dubious and self-published sources in that policy, that IMHO have no doing in a non-negotiable policy, but should be moved to WP:RS for appropriate updating at guideline level).

@Blueboar: note that WP:V currently identifies *all* self-published sources as unreliable (or at least "of dubious reliability"), and states that such sources *can not be used in an article outside the article on the source* as explained in a prior discussion at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Verifiability. That's again the downside of the on/off approach: some sources are declared exempt of a reliability assessment (an academic would assess the reliability of *any* source), while other categories of sources are in Wikipedia's current on/off approach lumped together as unreliable with rather arbitrary selection criteria. I'm happy to announce that many Wikipedia articles thank their quality to not following these "unmovable" policy prescriptions to the letter. --Francis Schonken 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, that's not technically correct. WP:V explicitly contemplates that, in some limited cases, self-published sources may be used in articles about their subject matter. TheronJ 13:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said is technically correct. WP:V does not use the terminology you claim, "articles about their subject matter" - it says "articles about themselves." It definitely wants to exclude that someone who is notable for writing on a certain subject matter would be quoted in the article on that subject, if this analysis is exclusively self-published (while that would be "also" of dubious reliability). Don't go bending what is actually written in the policy. I tried to rewrite that policy so that it would reflect what you try to quote, but was unsuccessful. --Francis Schonken 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that WP:V permits use of self published sources in at least two situations. (1) Self-published sources by acknowledged experts may, in some cases, be used regarding their subject matter (so you might be able to use Stephen Hawking's blog for information on physics), and (2) self published sources, whether or not published by experts, may be used in articles about themselves (so you could use Wil Wheaton's blog for information about Wil Wheaton, and you could have done so even before Wil Wheaton was published on the subject of himself). TheronJ 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't say you have an agenda, I only say that re. your point (1) you're misunderstanding, and consequently misrepresenting, the actual content of WP:V, WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) has: "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." So no, you can't quote Stephen Hawking's blog in an article on a physics subject, unless the information you want to quote has been previously published by a reliable third-party publication (so outside Hawking's blog - and why would you quote the blog then?)

I'm not making this up, really not, there has been quite some discussion about this on the WP:V's talk page. Any attempt to reformulate this in the way you want to understand this has thus far been thwarted. --Francis Schonken 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that section differently; I took it to mean that if a person's expertise in a field had been established by publishing in a reliable third-party publication, other self-published work in the same field by that expert could be included in Wikipedia. I've seen both reading on talk pages before, which suggests the section is badly worded. --Gerry Ashton 15:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, @Gerry) Also don't forget that in WP:V, notwithstanding the content of WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper), *all* self-published sources are lumped together in the *sources of dubious reliability*:

"[...] self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability [...]" (from WP:V#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves)

...and...

"[...] sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." (from WP:V#Sources of dubious reliability)

So, if Hawking, as a person, has any reliability derived from other content published by reliable third-party sources, the content that is only published on his website *could only be mentioned in the Stephen Hawking article* according WP:V.

Re. "the section is badly worded" - all the more surprising that word for word all these instructions were authored by one and the same person. But I don't want to revive the unpleasant situations I had to go through for finding that out in an attempt to come to a more coherent language in the WP:V policy. --Francis Schonken 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things need to be worked out several times before they "stick" Stirling Newberry 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I interpret the section as Gerry Ashton. In some fields much of the literature is self-published. I think it's common sense that the self-published work of a recognized expert in a field can be cited as a source in the encyclopedia. I would say even a relevant PhD thesis by someone with no prior journal articles can be cited, as the PhD itself constitutes a recognition of expertise. Most of us can't keep up on the nuances of phrasing in policy and guideline pages. If the current policy phrasing is being used to disallow such references, and many people think they are legit, what can we do to get the policy wording changed? Gimmetrow 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problem with wording lies on the other end of the reliability stick. S. Hawking is well known. His words (my opinion) are probably reliable words which he would repeat, anywhere they appear. But "well known expert" is a phrase that gets applied by anti-Scientology editors to include Heldal-Lund who publishes Clambake.org, the anti-Scientology site. They read the wording to mean our articles can include anything found on his site because he is a well known critic and therefore a well knwon expert. Terryeo 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of good discussion above. Let me be more specific about what I am looking for:

1. Recognition that by volume virtually all self-published material on the internet is not reliable and should only be cited as a POV, and then only with some indication that the particular expression of that POV is widespread. The current guideline goes much too far. I can certainly see why a blanket ban is appealing, since it closes the door on attempts to lawyer in bad sources. 2. Recognition that there exists a class of self-published material that should be regarded at higher level of reliability. It should still almost always be cited as "X says..." but is reliable enough that qualifications about its reliablity wouldn't be needed, the way one might qualify a POV assertion which is common, but generally known to be false. 3. A set of guidelines for determining which self-published works are more reliable, and how to rank them on a scale of reliability. I would suggest that points made above - for example, the individual publishing being a notable expert in their field, would be appropriate, as would independent corroboration - the way proofs are reviewed by others, even if not published in a journal. Corroboration, reputation at risk and review seem to me to be the best guidelines. The more people of different POVs have reviewed something, the stronger the reliability of the assertions made. While publication and so on might invite scrutiny, often assertions which are beneath notice don't even get debunked in the literature until much later. Consider creationism, many of the best sources are self-published web pages, because the assertions in creationism fall so far beneath scientific notice that it would be difficult to get a peer reviewed article publish specifically debunking an assertion which is obviously false on its face. 4. Avoiding over reliance on the "someone spent money to publish it" heuristic - since there is a huge volume of complete nonsense in the dead tree press as well, much of it stated as if it were non-controversial fact. Stirling Newberry 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see a guideline which would help an editor determine which works are more reliable. I would envision a Scale of Reliability. I believe the bottom most factor would be "good use of language" (with the possibility that a mistake is possible) and the second, "attributability". "Someone spent money to publish it" does have some applicability to reliable but there are other qualities, too. Terryeo 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeezus. This is just common sense. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone posts something on their blog, no one oversees it, no one checks it, they can write anything they like. If someone is published by a big publishing co., they are at least edited by a team of several professionals. The stuff about Bach is a total red herring, unless you are going to have a bicker about what music was or was not in a particular work. Grace Note 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't entirely correct. Material on web sites goes through varying degrees of approval, with corporate and campaign web sites - which are self-published material - often having layers of approval. Also material that is on major blogs, particularly those connected with established outlets - is often reviewed by other bloggers and other experts. This gives it a notability that is higher than what posted on use groups. Weblogs vary from self-published and unreviewed - through carefully run through an editorial process. The blanket "dead tree good/electronic bad" isn't really supportable, particularly given how much of wikipedia is compiled by googling. In a sense, claims on web sites are easier for other editors to check, because the assertions are freely available, where as many published papers are on pay basis and could not be checked without spending money on lexis/nexis, MUSE or other service - sometimes $15 US per article.

The point about Bach is not a red herring, original sources often do not met the blanket ban which is in these guidelines. The guidelines as presented 1. Don't represent consensus 2. Don't represent reality. I realize that there is a vast pool of disinformation that editors often see being pushed for inclusion, including usenet - and that any policy guideline would have to continue to keep out the huge pool of trash. However, there are babies being thrown out with the bath water here, and a better written policy should be capable of admitting reliable sources that just happen to be electronically published or self-published. Stirling Newberry 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I said blog. If you're going to cavil with me pointlessly, at least read what I wrote. "material that is on major blogs" is not reviewed by other bloggers and other experts. That's bullshit. I can't think of any "major blogs" that have any level of editorial oversight. Name one.

Hotline. When I ran the truth out blog everything went through the editorial board. ALL federal campaign weblogs are vetted by the communication director. The American Prospect blog posts go through editors. Blogs attached to news media are often checked at least as well as say Associated Press articles - which are routinely cited without a quibble. You clearly have never worked in blogging, so I will cut you some slack. I have, and I can tell you that the editorial control ranges from less than zero, to worries about credibility - which is a kind of control of reliability - to editorial vetting. Stirling Newberry 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotline? What is that? Your "major" and mine seem to differ a bit. Truth Out would be a special case; I'll grant you that political blogs are sometimes given minimal oversight, although of course that makes them only as authoritative as whoever is on the editorial board, which in many cases is no one particularly special. Federal campaign weblogs are not major blogs. News media blogs are not checked as well as articles: you've clearly never worked for a newspaper. They are looked over by a website editor if you're lucky. In all three cases, these would only be sources for the opinions of the blogger, which the policy allows. They would not be good sources for anything else. Where I will agree with you though is that our emphasis on newspaper articles is way too strong. This is for two reasons, I think: some editors' belief that newspapers are good sources because they work or have worked for newspapers and not paying enough heed to the truth that while big newspapers generally check facts carefully, small ones mostly don't. An article in the NYT will have had rather more scrutiny than one in the Brisbane Courier-Mail (and yes, AP articles can often get without anyone's really looking at them carefully). I also agree with you that the webophobia that drives this policy is rather misplaced. The problem is that whereas Nutter website is probably a good source for the views of Nutter, or some arcane area in which Nutter is a player, or something similar, it is not a good source for the population of China or the mass of a proton. But people take being allowed as a source as an absolute: if it's allowed for x, it's allowed for y, z and everything else.Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotline is a blog run by the Washington Post. This is what I am getting at - you don't seem to know much about the catagory of sources that you are broad based attacking. Stirling Newberry 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The point about Bach is a red herring because Bach is not a source about Bach. You missed the point entirely. Don't worry though. You seem to be enjoying yourself fine without worrying about what the point was, so don't let being way off stop you. Grace Note 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? As usual, when someone talks shit, and you say "that was shit", they make out that it's some monstrous insult to have it pointed out they talked shit. It's not a personal attack to have what you've said contested. If you really think it is, you need some to acquire thicker skin or talk less shit. Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And to answer the objection you are raising, I will answer with an example. Some time ago there was an edit war over "sonata". One editor threw in that classical sonatas had four movements. I pulled out my Haydn edition and listed the number of movements of the works labelled sonata. Original manuscripts are relevant here, because many works labelled "sonata" in later editions were not labelled "sonata" by Haydn. In the dispute later (editted by others after Haydn's death without his approval) would count, where as Haydn's self published versions of his own works would not count. The current blanket prohibition is, I repeat, absurd, simply because it is aimed at current garbage web sites, and blots out content which is accurate because it is the source about which we are writing entries. There is a large difference between a rant on someone's live journal, and a quote.

Need a current example? Senator Inoyue gave an interview where he withdrew his support for Joe Lieberman. Where was it published? On a blog. Who confirmed it with a follow up call to the comm director of the Senator's washington office? A blogger. The current prohibition against electronic sources is simply not in line with current practice, nor is the blanket condemnation of self-published sources in line with the practice during many periods of time which we deal with. This doesn't change the fact that 99.9999% of self published material on the web is of dubious notability and reliability - but there are some very large exceptions which should be codified. Stirling Newberry 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Haydn example is a good one because it clearly shows that you are wrong. Haydn wrote as many sonatas as others say he wrote because his view of what is, what is not a sonata does not necessarily win the day. Haydn's original ms is only a source for saying that he thought he wrote x sonatas, not for saying that he actually did write x. Can you see that? Grace Note 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Haydn personally paid for the publication of the actual pieces of paper that Stirling Newberry consulted when he looked into the meaning of sonata, because if not, it wasn't really self-published. --Gerry Ashton 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it is just common sense. Unfortunately not every editor completely gets it. Newsgroups (a step down or up, I'm not sure which) are frequently archived and cited. It is just common sense, but editors do it and then claim that WP:V doesn't apply for some convoluted reason. Terryeo 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From my experience the most common justification for including an unreliable source under WP:V is to "Verify that the claim is made". This seems to be a favorite of those citing internet postings of unsubstantiated conspiracy claims. Thankfully, the rules and guidelines make it clear that this appoach is not a valid justification. Blueboar 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. I think that in general the editors who want looser sourcing rules want it because they want to include more bollocks, and, even though the printed world has plenty of bollocks, for tons of plain nonsense, you really need to mine the web. Don't get me wrong. I like articles about nonsense (more than most, I think) but there's a real problem when we allow the nonsense to be our source for stuff that is not bollocks or when we include the nonsense in articles that are about something more substantial and then say "yeahbut this utter bollocks was cited in some newsgroup so I have a source".Grace Note 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want it so that we don't have to delete every article on webcomics and half of the ones on popular culture... Phil Sandifer 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry has an excellent point: a blanket ban on electronic sources that lack corporate funding is simply too blunt an instrument to serve Wikipedia's purposes, and I suspect this will become increasingly evident as more information is transmitted and archived on the internet. If you want to deal with this seriously, the guidelines need to be more nuanced and flexible. You could try to author ornate legalistic policies that attempt to anticipate the breadth of source-related questions that will come up in the vast range of subjects that wikipedia addresses. I think it would be preferable for the policies and guidelines to focus on clarifying a few principals about the sort of articles we want--and allow the editors to interpret those principals in light of the particular subjects about which they are writing. BTfromLA 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He would have an excellent point if a/ that was his point and b/ there was such a ban. We do not want guidelines that are too "nuanced" for the reason I just gave: the nuances become loopholes for bollocks-peddlers to squeeze through, and serious editors find themselves bogged down in disputes that common sense should be able to cut through but they are stuck in an "it's the policy" quagmire.Grace Note 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Grace is right. We want surprisingly simple, blunt nuances such as "the threshold of inclusion is verifiability". We want phases which will communiate with editors who have learned English as a second language. We don't want subtle, we want blunt, undeniable phrases. If phrases grasp attention, if they are easy to remember, that's even better. Terryeo 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. What we want is a general statement of principles, and a bunch of smart editors who can figure out who a bollocks-peddler is and shoot them. Phil Sandifer 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus the shooting, I agree with Phil Sandifer. If the guidelines are a principals rather than rules, "it's the policy" won't prevail. Ultimately, there is no method to guard against specific examples of irresponsible editing except the vigilence of other editors (augmented by the dispute resolution process if concensus fails to persuade to ne'er-do-wells). BTfromLA 03:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I do not agree is because experience has shown that some editors will take an "it is a principal, not a rule set in stone" and run with it, citing newgroups messages as secondary sources. Were every editor able to understand and apply the policies, there would be no need for these sorts of guidelines. Every editor does not and we can not expect them too. We require some bottom line rules which can be quoted to those well meaning editors who do not fully understand how to implement Wikipedia Policy. Terryeo 08:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're just saying that because you're a bollocks-peddler. Phil Sandifer 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sonata examples

• All of Mozart's piano sonatas are in three movements. I expect Wikipedia to be not wishy-washy about that, and do away with the myth that all sonatas are in four movements. Based on whatever sources, but the list of Mozart sonatas would work as good as any other type of source to demonstrate that.
• Schubert had this thing that he created some ambiguity about calling some of his multi-movement piano works "sonata", and others, without much of a formal distinction "Fantaisie" ("fantasy"). I expect Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about that, and signal both Schubert's original designation, and the later interpretation in music history. E.g. the Wanderer Fantasy kept its name as fantasy following Schubert, while the Fantaisie D.894, has been named and numbered as a sonata, from the first time people started numbering Schubert's piano sonatas. All this is neatly explained at List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Piano solo. The sources for this are as well Schubert's music (this goes without saying), as the later editions of this music.
• Domenico Scarlatti's famous series of sonatas are mostly in one movement, and were grouped under the name essercizi ("exercises") by the composer. History decided otherwise, and called them all sonata (including all the one-movement ones). Again, I'd like Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about this, and mention both Scarlatti's original designations (based on his own descriptions - manuscript or not - and editions), and the "reception history" that changed the common practice regarding the naming. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bach examples

Again here I'd rather take for instance the Musical Offering as an example than the Art of the Fugue. In the Musical Offering Bach wrote "Ascendenteque Modulationis ascendat Gloria Regis". I expect Wikipedia to translate that ("may the king's glory rise like the ascending modulation"), and then also explain that this is a musical riddle, for which musicians have found diverse solutions. For what Bach wrote himself (the riddle), of course Bach's own publication is the ultimate source (and yes, he paid for this publication himself, it is a "self-publication" from whatever angle one looks at it - he didn't submit his riddles for "peer review" or whatever prior to publication); for the (possible) solutions of the riddle: Bach didn't provide any afaik, all solutions exclusively come from secondary sources. This clearly demonstrates that, in this case, both have their function: the self-published source can't be done away with (I want to be able to check always what *exactly* Bach wrote, and whether that wasn't deformed in secondary sources, by translation or otherwise - if facsimiles of Bach's original publication exist I don't want these to be "re-doctored" or transformed in any way as the result of a "peer review" or whatever, I want to see *exactly* what Bach self-published); AND I want to learn about the enigmatic nature of Bach's words, and the possible solutions of that enigma, for which *exclusively* secondary sources exist. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

Could the guideline state whether fan sites could be used as sources in articles or not? CG 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "fan sites" (perhaps you could give an example?) ... they may already be covered under "Self published sources" such as personal websites, blogs newsgroups postings, etc. Blueboar 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction is rather vague about this. However, I guess my personal opinion would be that it would depend on the fan site, and what you were using it for. For opinions (not facts), you could probably use any of them with attribution. For hard facts, the primary source (the media) would probably be just fine, but WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources places restrictions on the use of primary sources. So for any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, you would need to find a secondary source. Beyond the primary source (the media), you would probably have to choose from official sites / publications (the producers or broadcasters or whoever) and fan sites / critical reviews. The official sites are fairly reliable, but may offer limitted information (like leaving out the ending with teasers), and are even more biased than the fan sites because they are trying to sell you the material. Fan sites may be of varying quality - they are less reliable than the official sites, but may offer more material and be slightly less biased. You should look for fan sites run by more fans rather than fewer (or worst yet, just one). Avoid fan sites, or areas of fan sites, that let just anyone add information without going through the editing process (although polls are okay, if you attribute them properly). Having good relations with the producers/recorders/actors/singers/whoever is also a plus (e.g. if they get their own interviews). In short, fan sites are not the most reliable references, but since there really isn't that great a selection of references for media topics, you should try to evaluate them relatively. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition

==Convenience Links==

"Convenience links" are links used in citations that point to a web page hosting a transcription or copy of the document or statement being cited (often used when the original is not available on the web). To ensure that the copies being linked are accurate to the original, a convenience link must be hosted on a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right.

• Discussion:

We have gone round and round on this issue for a while in other discussions... I thought I would post a suggested wording and see what the current concensus is. My feeling is that this is needed. I have seen far too many cases when the copy that is being linked is NOT actually a true copy of the original. Sometimes the webpage owner will only post part of the original document (omitting sections that do not support his or her personal POV); Sometimes the webpage owner adds commentary that distorts the meaning of the original; And in the most agreegious examples, sometimes the copy has actually been altered, with key words or phrases added or removed so that it says something completely different than what the original said. In short, there are far too many unreliable copies of documents out there. This is especially true on websites dealing with controviercial issues, such as those dealing with religious or political topics, where people have strong opinions.

As an encyclopedia, we have a duty to present accurate information to our readers. The only way to be absolutely sure that a transcription or copy is accurate is to check it against the original. This is not always easy. It would be nice if every editor took the time to do this prior to posting a "convinience link" ... unfortunately, this is rarely the case. What ever the reason, and it ranges from laziness to outright POV pushing, too many editors simply find what they want to cite by searching on the web ... and post it without bothering to check rhe copy against the original.

By requiring that a transcription or copy be hosted on a site that is considered reliable, we can at least make the assumption that it is accurate. More to the point, we can not make that assumption with a link to an unreliable source. Blueboar 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Such sources lessen our reliability. This manifests most where personal webistes are responsive to the POV of Wikipedia editors. Soon there will be many unreliable, even unattributable websites "archiving" newsgroup messages which will be cited as secondary sources. The web is responsive to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is responsive to the web. Terryeo 12:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose in most cases this seems excessively skeptical. Andries 19:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We should be skeptical if we care about our readers ability to trust the material in our articles. Not supporting this addtion, with whatever caveats we may want to add, is irresponsible. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be skeptical, but I continue to hold the opinion that in most cases this is excessively skeptical. It takes a lot of time and effort for the average webmaster to selectively distort a media article from a reputable source. Andries 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the only issue, as discussed in the threads above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I may miss something, but what are the other issues? Andries 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other problems include:

1. The addition of POV commentary before or after the purported source
2. Selective citing
3. Citing out of context
4. By linking to such site, we are implicitly saying to our readers "That is a reliable website", when we cannot be certain of that

All those are exploits that we should frown upon. Wikipedia is on the internet, but it attempts to be a collection of reliable and verifiable material, not an indiscriminate collection of links to non-reliable sites such as personal websites, blogs, USENET, User groups, and discussion forums. That only detracts from our project, and it is not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. so what if this is clearly distinguished then I see no problem

ad 2. If this is a copy or even a long quote then this seems unlikely. And even checking the original source will not rule out out-of-context citations

ad 3. same as 2

ad 4. No, we are only using it as a reference for a statement.

Andries 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC) amended 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 1. From my experience, all too frequently the addition of POV commentary is NOT clearly distiguishable from the original texts.

That specific problem would be an appropriate thing to warn against in the guidelines. A confusing convenience link is not convenient. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 2. In this case, we are really talking about sites that selectively copy a short paragraph, disregarding the surounding paragraphs that put the statement being selectively copied into context. This can completely change the meaning of the original author intended. For example, where the original author comments upon something a third person says, some web sites will quote it as a statement of the original author and not the third party.

Again, if something is being misrepresented, it doesn't belong. But fair use quotations of less than a complete document shouldn't be ruled out--we do that every time we quote anything directly. Seems like the sort of decisions editors need to make on a case-by-case basis. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 3: Even when the convenience link contains lenghty quotations there are times when to gain a proper understanding of the meaning in the original, one must read several paragraphs to understand the context of what is being said (for some scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries, when writing styles were more ornate, one might have to read for a few pages before getting to the point). By citing to the original, or to a reliable copy a reader has a chance to see the citation in context. If you cite to an unreliable copy (hosted on an unreliable site), one can not.

So you'd ban all convenience links to book sources that don't reproduce the entire book? BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: 4. I disagree... we are referencing the original statement or document, and providing a link to what is supposed to be an accurate copy. Our readers rely on us to reference to accurate information. If the copy is inaccurate, we are either not doing our job as editors, or we are participating in a fraud. The only way to be relatively sure that the copy is accurate is to link to a reliable source. Blueboar 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It really seems you want to do away with outside links altogether. As a reader, I find them very valuable, and to my knowledge I have never run into a seriously distorted representation of the source (e.g., the sort of edits and alteraions you are talking about), though I have seen a few where the cited material is a quote embedded in an essay in a fashion that makes it a bit hard to find. I don't think I've seen any--certainly not many--where the distinction between source material and webmaker's commentary was unclear, either. I would agree that should be guarded against. But tossing out the vast majority of links to referenced material seems way too proscriptive: a classic "baby with the bath water" situation. BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside... Would this proposed addition be more acceptable if it were specificly directed to articles on controvercial subjects? Blueboar 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not more acceptible to me. But it might be, if it was directed to a specific group of articles where this seems to be a major problem. Freemasonry, apparently. Are there any others? BTfromLA 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From my recent experience:

• Pseudoscience
• Objectivism
• Israel-related topics
• Islam-related topics
• Scientology
• Mathematics: issues related to the Clay Institute's millenium prizes (Poincaré conjecture,...)
• Biographies of people from Antiquity (e.g. Pontius Pilate's wife, several of the Juliae Caesares,...)
• Western classical music (see above on this page: "Sonata form", Bach's self-publications)
• ...and ...and ...

No, IMHO, the distinction in this context between "articles on controversial subjects" and other articles is untenable. Careful assessment of sources, and what they are used for, on a case-by-case basis (for which WP:RS should provide better help than it does currently) is the way forward, and not hacksaw kind of approaches which are often inspired by people taking stances in one or more of the discussion areas mentioned above. --Francis Schonken 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. I agree with your analysis of the situation. Please clarify, though: are the areas you mentioned simply sites of dispute about sources, or are they places where forged or significantly distorted versions of source materials have actually been linked to articles? BTfromLA 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them disputes about sources. Come to think of it I can't recall any website I've run across that pretended to quote, and then gave a significantly distorted quote. Summaries (or translations) may be a bit more troublesome, but over-all (and I do quite some fact-checking in this sense) no reason to proclaim a general "ban" on websites that say they are quoting other sources (usually that's rather a sign of quality). --Francis Schonken 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I fully agree. Serious or highly selective out-of-context quoting is exceptional. I have never encountered it. But if there is good reason for suspicion (which seems to be the case for some websites related to Freemasonry and Scientology) then this may become mandatory for those subjects, but only for these subject. Not allowing copies of reputable sources to improve articles will be a serious impediment to improving articles. Andries 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. My rationale is spelled out at some length earlier on this page, in the discussion thread "TheronJ summary and $0.02 on unrecorded radio talk show." BTfromLA 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - this page needs to be opened up, not closed further. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to present your arguments? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've argued against the excessive restrictions this page sets up for months. Phil Sandifer 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you summarize them? This is not a poll, but a discussion. I would like to understand your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many articles, including many featured articles, by nature of their topic rely on sources that do not meet this standard of reliability. Articles like Spoo, for example, depend almost entirely on Usenet sources quoted on personal websites. We need to get more intelligent and flexible in our evaluation of sources - not less. Phil Sandifer 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That article deserves a {{cleanup}} tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t •@ 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's a featured article. Phil Sandifer 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The problem here is that people are spinning "reliable source" as an all-or-nothing concept: either it is a source reliable enough for everything or it is a source not reliable enough for anything. This just leads to absurd and ultimately damaging inconsistency. An example: A politician from a particular party may be a reliable source when he's talking about his own party's platform, and unreliable when he's talking about what proportion of the country supports his party's platform. We have no difficulty at all recognizing that the "reliability" of this source is not an objective and fixed property of the source, but dependent on what we are relying on them for.

And yet here we have a proposal which would utterly blur a distinction far greater than that we just examined. Who are the people that you would trust to give you a knowledgeable and dispassionate overview of the stem-cell debate? Who are the people that you would trust to simply retype a newspaper article on the stem-cell debate without making changes to the text? Are we really proposing to enact a policy which would treat these groups as identical -- anyone not a "reliable source" for the harder task not a "reliable source" for the other?

And this is in addition to the absurdity that I pointed out elsewhere on this page, which is inherent in this proposal: namely, we will let a person we do not know except by IP address add material to an article and say "sure, this information I'm adding is well-supported! Trust me when I say it is supported by this particular text which I am giving a citation to." Anyone who wants to remove that information has to show some reason to question it. Yet some people are actually proposing -- in seriousness -- that if the person says, "In addition to the citation, here is the complete text which I am asserting supports the material being added," any editor can simply say "Nope, sorry, even though I have absolutely no indication that any such thing has happened, you might have accidentally misplaced a comma which in turn changed the entire meaning of the text, so even though we have exactly the same ability to check the accuracy of your citation, it's being removed. Sorry, we simply can't trust you to the same degree that we would trust someone who just says 'Yeah, it's in there, go and look it up for yourself.'" -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. Either a website is responsible or it is irresponsible and it is up to a concensus of editors to judge the site. If a website is irresponsible then none of it should be used as a secondary source. Quite right. However the reasoning which would disinclude an obviously responsible website for a misplaced comma is misleading because it implies such a website could be disincluded by any editor. That is not the situation. This is particularly vexing in the Scientology articles and I'll give you an example. Dave Touretzky and our own Chris Owen (on a personal website) are cited in this article to this personal website which talks about "three principles of study" whereas the primary source states a single principle of study. These sorts of slight misrepresentations creep constantly into the Scientology articles via unreliable personal websites, including personal websites which are contributed to by wikipedia administrators. If we simply disinclude such unreliable sites (especially personal and obviously partisan sites) we will have a better Encyclopedia. Terryeo 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this discussion a bit disengenous or at best naïve. The potential for abuse is too wide and obvious, and failing to accept that fact will only result in an Encyclopedia that is unreliable. If at all, WP:RS needs to be more tight, rather than not, in particular on articles which discuss controversial issues. If that is not possible as it may cast to wide a restriction, we will have to relay on editors' good judgement about specific cases and pursue dispute resolution when consensus is not achievable by involved editors. A royal waste of time, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I expect you will soon be making a proposal to ban all edits by anonymous users? As already noted, there is far more opportunity for error and malfeasance in letting editors say "If you looked up this text, you'd find that it matches the material I derived from it" than in letting them say "If you looked up this text, you'd find that my transcription does not change the text." The potential for abuse in putting any trust at all in editors that aren't extensively screened is too wide and obvious -- and yet it's been an operating principle of Wikipedia since the beginning, and probably why Wikipedia succeeded where Nupedia failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I think a local consensus of well-meaning editors can evaluate sources more accurately than a global consensus across all topics and disciplines could ever hope to. Phil Sandifer 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jossi's position would extend not only to banning anonymous editors, but to ending the project as a Wiki. The sort of guaranteed reliability Jossi says we should offer doesn't ever fully exist, but it is best approximated by strict vetting of everything that is introduced into the encyclopedia. A staff of expert writers, closely supervised by a group of highly skilled editors, backed up by a large staff of competent fact checkers and proofreaders would seem to be the best approach. Better that it be in a fixed form, too, like print. But, obviously, this does not describe the Wikipedia project. While Jossi is accusing other editors here of being "disingenous," "irresponsible," and "naive," I would submit that if there is a naive viewpoint being expressed here, it is Jossi's unwillingness to accept that there is a measure of unreliablity built into the very premise of this project. BTfromLA 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I see nothing to be gained by this proposal that could also produce a worsening elsewhere.--Fahrenheit451 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines can never fully replace good judgment and common sense in assessing sources. Andries 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose to treating this issue in a poll/vote-like format - I agree with Andries and many others commenting above, that the proposal is a step in the wrong direction. --Francis Schonken 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As long as at least on editor checked the original source, I don't think it matters if the hosting website is a reliable source. (Because, in that case, the convenience link is not a source, just a convenience link.) However, if no editor checked the original source, then I while I agree that if the non-original version is not hosted on a reliable website it should not be considered to meet WP:RS, I think this should be called an "indirect source" or an "intermediate source", not a "convenience link", in order to distinguish between situations where the original source was checked, and situations where the original source was not checked. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you forgetting WP:V? This is just a guideline provided to give some common sense direction. But WP:V can be used to enforce the need to have a source that is verifiable. So, If an editor sees a source hosted in a non-reliable website, such as a partisan website attempted to be used as a secondary source, the editor will be in his/her right to challenge it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A convenience link is not the source. The host of the convenience link is not the publisher being cited. The standards of WP:V are met (or not), regardless of whether a link is present. BTfromLA 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if the dubious website hosting the purported source, is the only place in which that material is available, then WP:V fails, as readers will not be able to ascertain if the purported source is verifiable or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you can argue that the citation fails to meet WP:V. That's the rule now--it doesn't require a sweeping ban on convenience links. BTfromLA 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fairly reasonable, but it's also not the only case this proposed addition to policy covers. For instance, it would be ludicrous to say that the only place an article from the July 17, 1989 New York Times is available is on a personal website, or that it cannot be ascertained whether a citation to a named article in that Times issue is verifiable or not. It's hardly common sense to demand that such a citation must be removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus is exactly right--I hope my comment did not suggest otherwise. Just to be clear: if the only place where source appears is on an unreliable online site, that probably fails to meet WP:V. But if it is simply the only online transcription of a document from a reliable source that would be accessible through library archives, say, then there is no problem with WP:V. BTfromLA 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per many of the reasons above, but mainly because it's just wiki-lawyering. I appreciate we all want these things written down somewhere after we've argued about it for the fiftieth time, but at some point we've got to remember that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a set of rules to write an encyclopedia by. You know, part of me would support a policy which saw all policies reverted to their first instance on an annual basis, like a spring clean. The basic premise of Wikipedia is that information can't be biased and it can't be original research. Verifiability is the tool to achieve that, not the goal in and of itself. The golden thread is that if you can't get a consensus that the information is of value, it doesn't belong. Let's not lose that under a blanket of rules. Steve block Talk 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is fairly obvious that the consensus is against this idea... so let me bring up my next question: How does one deal with so called convenience links that point to unreliable copies ... (ie links to sites that claim to be presenting a true copy of an original but that, when checked against the original, are not true copies)? And who's responcibility is it to ensure that the copy is accurate to the original? Blueboar 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If the original has been checked and it's significantly different from the copy (i.e., more than a reasonable number of typos, or a mistake which changes the meaning) then obviously it's not a good convenience link. As for whose responsibility it is to ensure that a copy is accurate to the original... I'd say the same as to whose responsibility it is to make sure grammar and spelling are correct, which is to say that we always like it when it can be the original editor, but we don't discourage the exact sort of cooperation and collaboration that Wikipedia is built on by decreeing that it can be no one but that editor. I have a related question, though: how can we mark a copy that has been checked against the original, so that we don't have large amounts of editor time being wasted re-checking such things, or even worse, hasty removals based on jumped-to conclusions. That's not a theoretical objection: I have in fact had the experience of seeing a quote in an article that looked as if it was typo'ed, getting the original book it was cited from, checking the citation, correcting the typos in the quote -- and then watching that entire paragraph be removed by an editor who claimed to believe that, since there was a website he considered unreliable which happened to reprint that chapter of the book, obviously no one had checked the original. Note that he didn't ask whether the copy had been checked; he simply assumed that it had not been and that therefore he had the right to remove the material in question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It all boils down to compliance with WP:V. It it is not verifiable, it is not verifiable, period. If the source is a respected publication, there must be more than one location online, so you can bypass a partisan website with an agenda to advocate a specific POV. If the source is not easily available, that is a different story and needs to be studied in a case by case basis, although in most circumstances, it will certainly fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi wrote: "If the source is a respected publication, there must be more than one location online..." Huh? This is far from true, and in many case where documents are reproduced several places online, all are hosted on "fan," or "partisan" or "special-interest" web sites that might not meet the same test of reliabilty that the original publication did. Most respected publications do not archive their entire contents online, some respected publications are now defunct and have no online presence, libraries do not usually archive such things online, most books are not reprinted online, etc. BTfromLA 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say convenience link, are you referring to something like [19]? Personally I think archive.org is okay in general for linking to say a page that may have mysteriously disappeared but originally provided a credible source for information. Unless there is some evidence you can tamper with that kind of archive?--Crossmr 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, this discussion is about links to sites that show the contents of all or part of a cited reference from a reliable source. Say, for example, the cited source is a 1957 article from The Princeton Journal of Throat-Clearing, a peer-reviewed academic publication which is no longer in print. However, somebody has scanned or transcribed the article to their webpage about throat clearing, uvulanews.com. A link to that transcription is a "convenience link": a convenient way for web-surfing readers to find out more about the subject. The consensus here seems to be that the hosts of such links need not be subject to the identical "reliable source" guidelines that allows us to accept the article from the academic journal. BTfromLA 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You fail to see the problems related to partisan sites that add commentary (pro or con) after or before the copied material, or that are of dubious intentions. I have seen editors copying these scans to geocities, Blogger or other free homepage sites, in order to bypass partisan sites with an ax to grind. The result: convenience links that are completely impossible to verify. I would argue that in those cases, a convenience link is not any longer convenient, rather a liability as it pertains to the reliability of our articles. So the issue boils down to specific cases, mostly related to controversial topics, and the obvious exploit of some users adding links to their websites with the purpose of trying to garner reputation by getting linked from Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Has any of this suspected alteration of documents actually happened, or is this a case of WP:BEANS? Phil Sandifer 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, of course. I've seen examples of propagandistic sources modifying sources, and have wanted to use sources but been unable because they were hosted on inherently unreliable sites. For example, when I was helping write the Rudolf Vrba article, I would very much like to have used David Irving's website on him (http:-//www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/liars/Vrba/), but couldn't because Irving is untrustworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)