Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 24

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 24 is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Verifiability (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 23 Archive 24 30 >>

Contents

Fee-based source citations

In the section on citing sources with examples, there should be something said about whether a citation, which is only available as a fee-based online subscription is appropriate. For example, there are now online "publications" which have no free physical counterpart. The New York Times you can read freely at a library, so providing a link to the fee-service of it would be appropriate to me as you can also get it freely in physical form in some way (provided the citation specifies the date, page, etc). However there are websites who publish entirely online, for which you must pay to view, and have no free counterpart. We should address this area. Wjhonson (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What specifically do you feel needs to be addressed? I see two possible issues and I'll give you my perspective on each, but I think this discussion belongs elsewhere:
  1. Their actual use: I see no problem with this use. Just because something isn't publicly available without a fee does not mean it isn't verifiable. As a matter of fact, you may need to go to a far away land and read an ancient manuscript to verify something on Wikipedia, but it is still verifiable. Furthermore, citations do not need web links, so links to pay sites are simply links that you need to pay to access (your choice). But, if we are talking about reliability, I suggest we head over to the WP:RS talk page and have this discussion there...
  2. Format of the citation: There is no set standard, per se, for citation use, so specifying that should be talked about on the WP:CITE talk page. If you want some sort of warning that the link is to a pay cite, then you may need to visit the {{citation}} template talk page.
...well, my thoughts on the subject anyway. — BQZip01 — talk 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wjhonson, could you provide a few examples? I'm not aware of a fee-based source that would be considered a reliable source that is not available in libraries free of charge. Vassyana (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
BQZip01, an unpublished ancient manuscript (what you describe) would generally not be considered a reasonably verifiable source. Extremely rare sources or otherwise exceedingly difficult to verify sources are rejected in practice, as far as I have seen. Very often, people state that the source is not reasonably verifiable. However, people also (correctly IMO) assert that such a rare and/or obscure source is counter to NPOV, since our purpose is to summarize the general body of published material, not to gather together obscure and extreme minority references. Vassyana (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Everything has a cost. Going to a library (near or far depending upon the material) costs you time/money and the library probably paid for the material (whether paid for by charity or you). Libraries do get some donations which they or volunteers have to process into their collection. What matters is whether the information is verifiable, not whether a specific person can get it without payment. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly SEWilco. Thank you. As for obscure texts, it all depends on what you are referring to. The actual print of the Magna Carta would be an interesting thing to add if drafts were found. Getting ahold of these to check would be exceedingly difficult, but not impossible. If you want to say, the draft of the Magna Carta said XYZ and have pictures as proof on some pay website, that's fine by me. Saying that it is what was originally intended is not acceptable. In short, it all depends on how it is used. — BQZip01 — talk 07:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, how the material is used does matter. I stumbled upon an image of Bradford's history of the Plymouth colony (Image:Of Plimoth Plantation First 1900.jpg) which is older than the state's image, but I used it merely as a better illustration for the article. The image shows the document has a different title than our Of Plymouth Plantation article, but I'm not using the image as a source. I will be writing a paragraph about the various names given to the document, but the source will be the text of the book (actually two books) rather than the image. Such an image could be supporting material, but photographic evidence is not required, we only require that the source of information be provided. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, I see 'verifiable' as meaning that some reasonable sub-set of Wikipedia editors/readers, who are not members of some restricted group, can access and read the source. Fee-based on-line sources are like books and periodicals, someone has to pay for them. If the fee-based services, books or periodicals are available in at least some major city/university libraries, then they are presumably accessible to enough otherwise un-related Wikipedians to be acceptable as sources (whether the sources are reliable is another consideration, independent of the question of accessibility). Payment of a reasonable fee for access to an on-line resource is comparable to buying a book to use as a source on Wikipedia (which I have done several times). There will always be marginal examples to debate, but I think the general rule should be: if the on-line resource is available free to visitors in a number of major city and university libraries, and the fee for access to individual articles is comparable to the price of books and/or hard-copy periodicals, then such sources are acceptable if they otherwise meet the criteria for reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The specific reference is to a website called http://www.stirnet.com This site is being used as a reliable source, that is, it is being cited inline to support certain statements. The site purports to base it's own individual reconstructions upon underlying sources which themselves are generally available. However the problem is, that unless you pay to access their reconstruction pages, you cannot know what statements are there made, nor can you know what sources were used to make those statements. And so using this site, to support any statements here, is not verifiable in the sense you all above are supporting. That is, you *cannot* go to a library anywhere in the world and view what the site is saying or not saying and therefore you cannot verify the link, or the statement, as coming from this source. It's not merely a question of whether the web site adequately represents the underlying primary source, the question is, can we allow support from a site, which we cannot independently verify in any way, except by paying them? I say no. If an editor, who HAS paid, is willing to cite the underlying freely-available source and perhaps *in conjunction* that they got it from this pay site, I'd support that, but it's a bit long-winded isn't it? Wjhonson (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish two issues here: accessibility and reliability. All secondary and tertiary sources are presenting material from other sources that has been selected, edited, rewritten and/or analyzed. We don't require that all of the prior sources used in a cited source be accessible to the Wikipedia reader. The material that stirnet is using for its reconstructions is probably from primary sources, which we couldn't cite in WP. The issue with stirnet is whether it is a reliable source. I think that is debatable, but having access to the sources used in their reconstructions would not necessarily make the site 'reliable'. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been raised somewhere before, probably WP:AN or WP:ANI, unless areference is to an entirely free website, there is always some sort of fee, be it the time to go to the library, buy a book or whatever. There is no requirement that all references be immediately checkable by all users, or we would be restricted to websites that do not charge. I would suspect that a number of members of Wikipedia would maintain a subscription (either on their own account or via a library of whatever sort or their place of work) to the particular site you are questioning - try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies and there is somewhere (the name escapes me for the moment) a project or page whose sole purpose is to allow you to request verification of subscription sources. If after exhausting all avenues of enquiry no-one can be found to verify it, may be there would be an argument for deleting the reference, but the mere fact that it is a subscription site is not sufficent. Pay sites should not be listed in an "External links" section, but links being used as references are specifically exempted from WP:EL. David Underdown (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange is the project I was thinking about above. David Underdown (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly stirnet does not cite primary material. It's citation are all to secondary works, such as compiled visitations, Burke's Commoners, or The Complete Peerage, etc. Secondly, the distinction David is trying to drawn is not-wikistandard. We are all in agreement that a person could go to a library with a work, or a public source with a work and consult it. The problem with stirnet is that there is *no* alternative to paying them. None. Zero. Zilch. It doesn't exist anywhere. The only way to get at their information is to pay them. I believe that violates the free nature of our work. Free does not mean, always and everywhere free. It means sometimes and somewhere free. Stirnet is nowhere and notime free. Wjhonson (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The problem with stirnet is that there is *no* alternative to paying them. None. Zero. Zilch. It doesn't exist anywhere. The only way to get at their information is to pay them. I believe that violates the free nature of our work. Free does not mean, always and everywhere free. It means sometimes and somewhere free." I'd be interested where you get that opinion from Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Near as I can tell, it is your opinion exclusively. Your opinions notwithstanding, Wikipedia is still free even if the sources are not. This is standard for many academic/professional publications. — BQZip01 — talk 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are studiously avoiding the point. Verifiability requires the ability to verify the source material. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating new commercial opportunities for some website, we are not here to drive dollars to some website. A website whose data can only be viewed by paying them, i.e. which has no free counterpart is not part of our mission. Wjhonson (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As several people have noted, accessing information often costs money. Until very recently, the New York Times online archives were available online only to paying customers. There were plenty of Wikipedia articles with NYT citations, where the link was to an article behind the paid firewall. Theoretically, you could have verified those articles for free in a library, but I suspect that very few Wikipedians could have reached such a library without incurring travel costs. No one ever suggested that the fee-based nature of the source had anything to do with the reliability of the New York Times.
So, in my view, if a source is reliable, the fact that you need to pay for access to it is irrelevant. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can see, not one person agrees with your basic stance, that a fee only service is automatically a non-starter for use in referencing. Unless or until you can get a consensus for this stance, please stop removing references from Gore Baronets, if you have removed other refrenes from other articles, I think you should replace them there as well. David Underdown (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me play devils advocate and throw in something like scientific journals. Personal subscriptions to these are easily close to $1000/year, and while libraries can get reduced rates, the cost is prohibitive enough that outside of university libraries (which are not publicly accessible), most community-based libraries aren't going to spring for that information. Articles can be obtained on the web but for cost ($12-25 or so for an item, depending). Do we prevent such sources being used since they are not "freely available"? Of course, counter to this is that I can verify freely that such the article does exist and likely can also check the abstract to make sure the material is relevant to the WP article in question; other on-line services do not have this feature (you may have to be a paying member even to search). --MASEM 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the particular case of Stirnet, if you click on the links, you can see the article for a couple of seconds, and it is then replaced by something saying you need to log in (or at least that was my experience earlier), so you can indeed at least check the relevance. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Legal citations often end up pointing at commercial legal databases which are available only to subscribers. Should a Wikipedia article not include a citation which can be used to find information, even if to a fee-based service such as Westlaw (using West American Digest System citation) or formerly-for-fee New York Times archives? The NYT citations have become more useful after the fee was removed, and the Wall Street Journal might soon be doing the same...should WSJ archive links be forbidden because there presently is a fee? I think stirnet is OK. The above description is that it provides descriptions without citations, with citations available upon paying a fee; I view this as being similar to providing free abstracts. But what is important is that verifiable sources are available even if for a fee. Actually, in the case of some information such as who is a child of whom, that is a simple fact for which no interpretation is needed and a primary source document should be acceptable as well. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If the content happens to be on a fee-required web site should not be relevant. I searched for the words "stratigraphic abnormality" and got links to SpringerLink, Blackwell Synergy, and Elsevier. I might be able to touch one document within 2 hours and two of them within 24 hours at costs of $7 and $400; I don't know if I can find the third document except through the online service. Such commercial publication sites could easily create online fee-based services with some investment (risk) of their reputation (whether they would be profitable is irrelevant to this discussion). The fee should not be an issue for citation, all we require is that the information be verifiable. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Which I think agrees with the point I make above: as long as the existence of an article and a summary of what it is about can be verified for "free" (searching for it is not something that is charged by the providing service), though the article itself may be behind a monetary barrier, it is still a usable source; one of course must assume good faith that the editor that included that source has access to the text of the source and thus can summarize as needed for the purposes of the article. This would then disclude services that prevent you from even searching its archives unless you pay for a subscription or the like. --MASEM 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is *no* free alternative to the site mentioned. NONE. None at all. No free alternative. Can we all understand this point please? All of the examples above are moot because each one of them *does* have a free alternative. In this case however this is NO free alternative. Can someone address this point exactly? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But even for sites where there may be a "free" alternative, there is a cost in verifying it, that's why most of us don't seem to see this as an insurmountable barrier. Personally, I have previously paid for a reprint of a journal article which I intend to use as a reference (the article writing has got a bit stalled, see User:David Underdown/Last Night of the Proms). In the particular case taht prompted all this, for £5 you get 7 days access to the sight, which would be more than sufficient (I'd have thought) to verify all places the site may be used in Wikipedia. Even if an equivalent free source were available in e.g. my local library, it wold cost me £1.80 to get there and back, and or a reasonable amount of time. Free in the Wikipedia ense means that the information is free to be re-used once we have it here, not that there is no cost in placing that infomration here. David Underdown (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is disagreeing that there is a cost to exist. You have to eat, so there's a basic cost just for you to be here. That's moot. We do not, have not, and will most likely not, be in a position to support a fee-based site like stirnet. It's just not gonna happen. If or when stirnet decides to post it's source list independently of it's compiled pedigrees, in such a fashion that the specific cited sources *per pedigree* can be consulted without fee, then I'd change my mind. Any editor who already *has* access to stirnet can stop being lazy and post the detailed citations *to* the underlying sources using stirnet as an overlying source if they choose which would be fine as well, including the lazy-link to stirnet. I'd have no problem with that either. However, the problem lies in simply posting a link to a stirnet pedigree, without any other indication of how to retrieve the information for-free. For free does not mean *absolutely free* it means relatively free. That is, you have to drive, you have to eat, you have to breathe and wear clothes and take a bath, but you can get it from the library. Library equals free. Every thinking person agrees with me ;) Wjhonson (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia creates free content, there has never been an obligation that we only cite free content. We prefer citations to free content, as they are generally more useful, but if all available sources are fee-based, then that is what we are going to have to cite. There is nothing wrong with referencing fee-based sites when neccesary. Dragons flight (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that, from a policy perspective, there is no categorical objection to sources that are hidden behind a fee-based firewall. You are raising some additional questions, essentially, "How do we know it's reliable if we can't see the source for ourselves?" Those are probably questions that cannot be resolved on this talk page to your satisfaction. Marc Shepherd (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried asking the person who originally added the citations if they could give more detail (there's no guarantee that they still have the article watched)? Equally, if they could not themselves immediately verify the original sources, then they should not list that as their source because they cannot gurantee that the information is actually there. Indeed, if you look closely at the site FAQs, there is a fee free option - if you make "a meaningful contribution to the site" you can be granted a free subscription period. David Underdown (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a little much to ask our editors to contribute work to a fee-based subscription service just for the priviledge of verifying it's sources. Don't you think?Wjhonson (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive doubt cast on self-publication

From the policy page:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

This seems to be understood as claiming that books and sites that are not self-published are considered more reliable than those which are. But the standard used by commercial publishers, in deciding what works to publish, is not one of truth or verifiability.

The distinction between a self-published book and a conventionally published book is that in the latter case, the publisher has invested money in the publication, under the belief that it will turn a profit on the sales of the book. The publisher's choice does represent a decision independent from the author's about the quality of the work -- but the quality thus judged is profitability, not honesty or accuracy.

From Wikipedia's perspective, the profit of publishers is a remarkably arbitrary criterion on which to judge whether a work is worth using as a reference. In the days when print publication was the only option, this would not have been such a big deal -- but today, when Web-based publication is a large fraction of all "publication", it is a huge big deal.

Consider the following ways that a work might be published today:

  1. The author writes a book or article and it is accepted for conventional publication because the publisher thinks they can make a profit selling it.
  2. The author becomes a paid contributor to a large profitable advertising-funded Web site, such as About.com or Salon.com, and the work is published there.
  3. The author publishes the work him- or herself on his or her own advertising-funded Web site, such as BadAstronomy.com.
  4. The author submits the work to a non-profit edited Web site, such as TalkOrigins.org, which publishes it.
  5. The author publishes the work on their own non-profit Web site.
  6. The author publishes the work on other electronic media, such as a regularly posted FAQ document on a Usenet newsgroup.
  7. The author releases the work as open-source content and it is republished by many people, both for-profit and not, as with the documentation that accompanies an open-source project such as OpenBSD or the Linux kernel.

In which of these cases do we really think that the method of publication has all that much to do with the reliability or verifiability of the work? The only case, it seems to me, where publication definitely has something to do with verifiability is a totally different one: peer-reviewed publications, where the decision to publish is based not on profit but on review of the work by independent experts in the field.

Other than that specific case, I do not think that we are on solid ground discriminating against self-published works. It's possible that we want to get at the idea of factual review of a work; but this is entirely separate from the business model (or lack thereof) under which the work is published. --FOo (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

the point is that a publisher has a reputation--how much of one depends upon the publisher,and therefore has some degree of editorial control over the material. In the case of a major academic or society publish,they have a great deal of control--for books and journals, almost always serious formal peer reviewing. For a commercial publisher, they have at least fact checking--the reliability and the quality depends on he publisher.For fiction even, they have a certain established reputation for quality or at least public interest. self-publishing normally has none of these-the entire responsibility is upon the author. But you are right that the details matter: not all peer-reviewed journals are of equal quality, and some websites maintain a high reputation. But it remains a good general rule. In particular, for published books in conventional formats, self-published does tend to mean unreliable. DGG (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be saying a few different things at once. First off, I completely agree with you regarding peer-reviewed academic publication. In peer-reviewed journals, "publication" is not just about getting your words in front of a market; it's about having experts in the field vet those words for both truthfulness and importance. There are huge, obvious reasons that we should prefer peer-reviewed sources over ones that are not so.
I don't see a very large problem over self-published printed works, simply because there really aren't that many of them; not very much work is being excluded by excluding them. Among works on the Internet, it is a much bigger issue, since there is so very much work out there. And there are (as I tried to outline above) so many styles of online publication.
The policy, as written, gives the impression that self-publication trumps all other measures of a source's reliability, rendering it categorically unusable regardless of all other qualities. This is just plain nuts when dealing with online publications, where there are just so many high-quality ones that also happen to be (for some definition of the word) self-published. Allowing (the absence of) a publisher's business model to trump the actual quality of the work or the author's expertise just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.
Why am I bothering to raise this issue? In discussion around two somewhat controversial subjects on Wikipedia (namely, evolution and Scientology) and to a lesser extent in some other fields dealing with science and pseudoscience, I've seen claims of "self-publication" used to attack sources that are otherwise high-quality and reputable but which disagree with someone's POV. One of the examples, I mentioned above: the TalkOrigins.org site, a truly remarkable collection of articles about evolution -- but neither an academic publication nor a commercial one with a publisher's business model behind it. But articles like this one and that one are well-written, well-sourced, and just plain high-quality articles that we should not be afraid to reference.
But with the current "self-publication" policy, all a person who disagrees with them needs to do is to argue that it is "self-published" and that is supposed to suddenly trump any other concern? I don't buy it. That isn't how we actually do operate in dealing with online sources, and it isn't how we should operate, either. --FOo (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if the person who disagrees cannot delete on this basis, you now have a dispute on the factuality of the source, and assuming that the SPS is the only source available, which it likely is, how can that dispute be resolved? (I hope it's okay to insert here, my apologies, if not)Slofstra (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a useful filter. Most publishers in fact apply more considerations to accepting a book for publication that just potential profit. Self-financed publication, book or web site, is a sign that no established publisher sees enough merit in the work. Publishing-house financed publication does not guarantee quality, but there is a better chance that such books are reliable than for self-publication. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I entirely agree with FOo. The statement that self-published sources are "largely unacceptable as sources" is amazingly narrow-minded and myopic. It is especially remarkable to find it here, a new-media encyclopedia that is collectively self-published. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You need to look at the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes, material is self-published because no traditional publisher would find it profitable. Today, there are avenues for publication that simply didn't exist a generation ago. The fact that the author paid the freight himself does not categorically make the work unreliable. Instead, one must look to other indicia of unreliability, such as the absence of footnotes or citations, remarkable claims that fly in the face of known consensus, lack of citations of that work in other sources, etc.
One must also consider what other sources are available. A topic like The Holocaust is copiously documented in traditional peer-reviewed publications. The topic is also a well known lightning rod for crackpots and revisionist historians. It's doubtful that a self-published source is our best source for anything worth saying on that subject.
But a self-published biography of a second-tier nineteenth century opera singer might indeed be the best current source of information about that singer. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this. If the biography has not been peer reviewed or passed muster by a publishing house it may not be credible. OTOH, if the biography has properly cited it's primary sources, then I should think those primary sources (letters, journals, diaries) could be used to cite the info brought into wikipedia, as long as the subject passed WP:NOT. I'm tentatively suggesting a strategy here which would allow an SPS to be used and still follow wiki policies. I may not be correct as the question has been of concern to me, and the policies contain conflicting stmts on primary sources. Slofstra (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not disagree if used this way. I am thinking more of several types of material I often deal with: Self published fiction, which is asserted for notability--and except for the very rare case of a documented best seller, we should ordinarily reject entirely--and yes, there have been exception historically. Second, the use of such sources in alternative medicine and similar topics, where we should also reject them entirely, unless they are cited in accepted reliable sources. Third:the publications of an institution about itself--which again is not evidence for notability , though it is for uncontroversial details.
alternative scholarship in developing fields where such sources are the best or the only ones is another matter, and we should accept it--provided it is possible to show that the author is actually recognized as an authority. 08:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding self-published fiction, you're talking about notability, whereas the issue here is whether a work can be used as a verifiable reference. On the matter of alternative medicine, I have to agree with you that there are going to be plenty of bad sources that are self-published ... but also that there are plenty of bad sources that are commercially published, too. The representation of tiny fringe views is dealt with by our undue weight rules.
Again, my concern is that if an editor identifies a source which is otherwise good -- that is, it is informative, relevant, represents expertise in the subject matter -- we should not disqualify it as a source merely because it's self-published. --FOo (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion! I think the time has come to take blogs seriously, tho identifying which ones will never be easy. One I've cited and will continue to cite is ScienceBlogs. These are serious people, mostly scientists, who can establish a blog there only on invitation from the community (presently 65 bloggers). Of course, most entries there cite the articles and studies they are discussing, but often the educated interpretation (and criticism) found in such entries is much more informative than the cited article(s) itself. Another type of online publishing is, for example, PLoS ONE, "An interactive open-access journal for the communication of all peer-reviewed scientific and medical research". These types of publishing are fast becoming very important and ought not be ignored. --Hordaland (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even for ScienceBlogs I would encourage some caution. Some of their blogs come from experts who do a very good job of communicating the established science. Others, such as the "denialism blog", get heavily used to advance the authors' pet cause, and suffer many of the problems of third-party verfication that plague other self-published sources. (In the denialism case, the authors apply a concept of "denialism" that is defined by the authors' own non-peer review manuscripts, and at times it has much broader scope than the way other scientists might use the same terminology.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Blogs are sources for what notable bloggers say; some kinds of blogs can also offer original factual reporting, which can be useful in articles about natural disasters or war zones or whatever. It isn't clear that they are any more biased than many "mainstream" news sources. But there is as much variability in blogs as there is in (say) TV shows; some are entertainment, some are news, some are opinion, and some are a mix among these.
But the larger issue is that it's just ridiculous to exclude a whole class of sources based on their business model rather than on anything having to do with their practices, the expertise of their writers, their own use of reliable sources, or any other measures of their credibility. --FOo (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive facts tags?

I inserted numerous {{facts|date=December 2007}} tags on the Red Line (MBTA) article, and another editor reverted them, with a comment in the main page's history "That seems a bit excessive. Perhaps you were looking for the article's "talk" page? Reverting.)"; the other editor does not appear to have made any effort to improve my edit, simply removing it completely without adding any note to the talk page. What is the best way of dealing with this? JNW2 (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a general sense that drive-by tagging of an article is not terribly useful, and it comes across as a little bit rude. If you have specific concerns about an article, it is usually more productive to express them on the talk page rather than to spew "numerous" tags across the article. --FOo (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, alternately, use a single {{Unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} at the top of the article, which goes the same point across with less... Invasiveness. Grandmasterka 11:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to stand up for the opposing position that adding fact tags for uncited material is improving Wikipedia and is usually appropriate, and that removing them rather than adding cites is quite rude, inappropriate, and is failing to improve Wikipedia. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding citations for uncited material is improving Wikipedia; adding appropriate tags to encourage this is one of the ways of doing so; adding tags for multiple sentence of parts of sentences in a single paragraph over the same issue is usually more irritating than helpful. The particular tags related to documenting the probably noncontroversial dates of opening of various branches and introduction of various services. This could have been better handled with one or two tags, explained on the talk page. It's not as if the article has major problems with these issues. DGG (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that drive-by tagging is not productive, and does not reflect well on the taggers. A strategically placed fact tag or two should suffice if there are facts that really need citations. An overall tag in the references section (or on top if the problem is really serious) is better than a scattering of unsightly fact tags. Anything more than that is overkill. Remember that Wikipedia is here to serve the readers' education needs, not the editors' ego needs. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, WP:SOFIXIT yourself. If you can't, discuss it on the talk page. But by all means be objectively constructive, rather than subjectively critical. Dhaluza (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

There has been a debate going on at WT:SPOILER on whether primary sources are permitted are permitted on Wikipedia, particularly when writing descriptive plot summaries or whether primary sources can't be used on Wikipedia at all and everything must be from a reliable, third-party published source. The reason for the conflict is that under WP:NOR, primary sources are permitted so long as they are used to make descriptive statements that do no include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. But a group of editors are claiming that this policy, and WP:RS guideline, forbids the use of primary sources. The reason for this debate is that some editors see this as a way to avoid the "spoiler issue" altogether by removing the plot summaries from articles, since almost all plot summaries are based on their primary source. --Farix (Talk) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not forbid the use of primary sources, neither does WP:RS.
Removing plot summaries from articles for a non-existing ban on primary sources, would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In answer to these concerns, this is a policy debate, not a call to action. No one will be editing articles based on this yet. It's just a policy/guideline discussion. The OP here gave an out-of-context and inaccurately concise summary, as he not only disagrees with the proponents but feels the debate at WT:SPOILER is occurring in the wrong place and should be brought here, taking it upon himself to do so. If you have something to say I invite you to join the debate at WT:SPOILER, which I recommend as it's been quite lively :) Equazcion •✗/C • 15:21, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Actually Equazcion, that what I described above is exactly what you and Guy have been saying, which is that because plot summaries are written from primary sources, they fail WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't believe me, take a look at Guy's latest statement at WT:SPOILER.[1] --Farix (Talk) 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you shouldn't rely on yourself to accurately represent the arguments of others, especially when you disagree with those arguments. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:35, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Someone (not necessarily Guy in the discussion thread TF linked to) is making a "classic" mistake:
  • For establishing notability, one needs secondary sources. Yes, absolutely, no way around that. A film without any reliable secondary sources discussing it should not have an article in Wikipedia. And as a consequence, no plot summary in an article about that film.
  • Once notability has been established, the article on *any* topic would be a sound mix of references to primary and secondary sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah we've been through that, Guy is aware of that issue and his argument is well beyond it. If you haven't read through the complete discussion there I'd suggest you do so, and probably respond there to Guy directly so he can address your concerns with his argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, Guy seems to be stuck in a rut. His last post at WT:SPOILER said, "Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn form reliable independent secondary sources." This statement cannot be true, because current policy permits the use of primary sources (in certain circumstances). So either Guy has forgotten what the existing policies say. Or he is describing, not what "Wikipedia is...," but what he would like it to be. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Francis, that isn't right. We have many biographies that establish notability entirely through newspaper articles that report on some current event. These are primary sources by any definition of the term. The change to WP:N to talk about secondary sources is fairly recent, and I think people just didn't think it through. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(@ Equazcion:) Well, no, Guy is defending an alternative reading of core content policies, which is not covered by the text in these policies (ironically, he's making an "interpretive" summary of policy and guideline pages).
TF seems to be correct in pointing out that policy talk pages are the correct places to talk about policy interpretation.
Compare also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#JzG (just pointing to a somewhat related discussion I was involved in) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps what is really needed is that a more explicit statement that primary sources, such as works of fiction, are permitted as sources. Most of Guy's and Equazcion's arguments stem from that these types of primary sources are not explicitly permitted by WP:V or WP:RS, then they are not permitted at all even though such sources is in wide use across Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Re. "Perhaps [...] a more explicit statement that primary sources, such as works of fiction, are permitted as sources." - no, imho that would be a wrong approach. Every source turns into a primary source in its own article. The same applies to History of Western Philosophy, which is generally a secondary source (maybe a tertiary source), but should be treated with "primary source" caution in its own article. And, if there are no secondary sources about that book, it should not have a separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(@ Carl:) Seems you got your PSTS (primary, secondary and tertiary sources) definitions somewhat mixed up.
Further, "biographies that establish notability entirely through newspaper articles that report on some current event" are on their way out per WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event.
Not sure what point you try to make. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of articles like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann that are sourced entirely from primary sources. It simply isn't accurate to say that we require secondary sources in all articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Holiday girl abducted, police say", BBC News (2007-05-05). Retrieved on 2007-05-14.  (second footnote in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article) is a secondary source. Still not sure what you're trying to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A news article by BBC news is not a secondary source under any of the several definitions of secondary source that I have seen go around on WP. A secondary source would be a published biography or (and this is already stretching it) a news analysis written with the benefit of hindsight. My point is that the claim we require secondary sources in our articles is simply incorrect. We are quite content with primary sources in the guis eof newspaper articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, no, and I have no clue where you got the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, in order not to keep you all too long in suspense, here's what I wrote:
[...]
Wikipedia is a tertiary source 
Wikipedia summarizes descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources, and/or bases such summaries on tertiary sources. Wikipedia illustrates such summaries and descriptions with material that is as close as possible to the primary source(s) on the described topic.
Illustrations can enhance the quality of Wikipedia articles 
Relevant illustrations in the form of direct quotes, images, plot summaries, sound files and other media are used to enhance the over-all quality of a Wikipedia article.
Illustrations and primary source material should not overshadow content based on secondary and tertiary sources 
If a Wikipedia article is mainly composed of images, direct quotes, and/or other types of illustrations or primary source material, then at least some of this material should be moved to sister projects like Wikiquote, Wikisource, Commons, or such material should be given a less prominent place in the Wikipedia article, or some of this material should be removed from the article, or more content based on secondary or tertiary sources should be added to the article, or the article should be merged with the article on a related topic, etc., depending on circumstances. The reason for this limitation regarding illustrations and primary source material is that doing otherwise would turn individual Wikipedia articles in primary or secondary sources. This is partly a style recommendation, but also a no original research requirement.
[...]
(source: WP:WITS)
This is part of what I proposed as a replacement for WP:PSTS (the primary/secondary/tertiary sources section of WP:NOR), in order to end a lot of these disputes that are not really about anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Instead of trying to summarize what Guy is saying and throw your interpretations of it back and forth at each other, it might be more productive to go argue on the page where the discussion is occurring, so that he can respond himself and tell you what he actually means. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be better to discuss policy interpretation on a policy talk page? Note that my post above was not about interpeting what JzG said or didn't say. It's what I say, in an attempt to stop endless fragmented discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't necessarily a matter of policy interpretation. We're discussing an idea to address the spoiler issue. If you want to stop fragmented discussion you'll want to go to where the original discussion is taking place, rather than participating in this fragment. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:19, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
You are not really "addressing" the spoiler issue, you are burning bridges by making a change in how a policy is interpreted. That's like fixing a roof leak by burning the house down. --Farix (Talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Or curing a hangnail by amputating the whole leg. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources are absolutely permitted (but should be used with caution per NOR), especially when writing descriptive plot summaries of works of fiction. As long as the summary is purely discriptive, and does not include analysis or interpretation of the plot, the work itself is in fact the best source for verification. Wikipedia is filled with articles on TV shows, books, movies and other works of fiction and almost all of them cite to the work itself (either directly or tacitly) for verification of the plot summary.
That said, I can understand why the issue is a concern. The typical "plot summary" section does not actually summarize the plot at all... far too often it is simply a re-telling of the entire plot. Too many of our articles on fictional works include plot summaries that are overly detailed... to the point where they go into minutia about the plot. A good summary gives a broad view of the work's plot and not a chapter by chapter account of the plot. However, this is a problem with writing, and not a problem with sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't be discussing this minor detail issue here. It's not the job of the sewage-plant construction people to help a house fix its toilet. And that's especially true for people who ask to have the design of the whole plant changed to enable them to avoid having to fix it themselves. It's just not our sh--. Sorry. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing what I said at WP:SPOIL before it became fragmented and moved to the appropriate place, I oppose changing wikipedia's policy on spoilers, and I also oppose instituting (or clarifying) requirements for secondary sources and plot summaries. I agree with Blueboar and Shirahadasha, as above. I don't think changing it adds anything to WP, other than making it far more difficult to contribute and properly edit. I see no problems from the current setup, which allows multiple editors to work on a plot summary through primary sources and thus establishes an on-page, verifiable consensus through editing. Rather than driving people away who don't want the plot of a movie spoiled for them, I think Wikipedia exists to be able to provide as much verifiable information as possible, and our readers know that and expect it. As Blueboar said, we could always do it better, but I think that's no reason to blow up the entire system. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do need to disagree somewhat with this post above:

  • For establishing notability, one needs secondary sources. Yes, absolutely, no way around that.

Actually secondary sources are not an absolute requirement for Notability. This was discussed at length at WT:N and the consensus that resulted on WP:N described the need for secondary sources as strongly as possible while stopping short of making it an absolute requirement. For one thing, we do not have a precise or stable definition of what a primary or secondary source is. Also there are known exceptions, for example, articles on populated places. So in general secondary sources are needed, but it is not absolute. Dhaluza (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not absolute, in the same way nothing on Wikipedia is absolute. However as far as what the rule is, the Notability policy as it is currently worded is the rule, meaning that secondary sources are required to establish notability. What happens on the talk page doesn't mean the policy has changed, unless that discussion results in an edit to the policy page. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:45, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
First, WP:N is a guideline, which is not the same as a policy or rule. Second, it does not say that secondary sources are required to establish notability. This is not an oversight. There was an attempt in the not to distant past to edit that guideline to make secondary sources and absolute requirement for Notability, which started an extended edit war, and the final compromise was to strongly favor, but not require secondary sources. Dhaluza (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence that is a bit much "in your face"

The reliable sources section includes the following sentence:

"Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly."

I think this sentence should be removed. Even if you accept that policies take precedence over guidelines (and the linked page is more nuanced than that in my opinion - it does not use the word "precedence,") we do not put this sort of "creepy" instuction on policy pages: there is no equivalent sentence on WP:V referring to WP:N, for example. Does anyone take strong exception to removing this sentence? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that WP:RS is essentially a sub-page of WP:V (explaining what WP:V means when it says we have to use reliable sources)... there should not be any inconsistency between this page and WP:RS. However, it is an unfortunate fact that sometimes such inconsistency does happen. When it does, we should encourage editors to raise the issue on both pages, so that the inconsistency can be discussed and corrected. I would expect that 99 times out of 100, this will result in updating RS to match V... but there will be occational times when V will have to be updated to match a strong consusus at RS.
Perhaps we should say something more along the lines of "This policy is further explained in the guideline: WP:RS. Editors should be careful to make sure that there is no inconsistency between the two pages. Should you notice an inconsistency, please raise the issue on the talk pages at both locations." ... a similar statement should be placed on WP:RS directing people here. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, BB. Your language is superior to a delete. I'll wait a day or so for other input, and then will make the change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this is a better approach. Consensus is reached through discussion, not precedence. I have noticed a lot of this sort of authoritarian approach to policies WP:CREEPing up lately, contrary to the original spirit of the wiki. We should be on the lookout for this sort of thing, and question it when we find it. Dhaluza (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

moved the following discussion from below

US, re your recent edit, V is the policy, and RS has to be consistent with it, not the other way round. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
SV, I raised it above, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Sentence that is a bit much "in your face", and I thought BB's language was a big improvement. I think we should direct people to raise the issue on talk pages, since I think we all agree that it makes sense to do so - one person acting unilaterally on their perception of "inconsistency" may not make be the best outcome (edit wars, etc.). Can you suggest alternate language rather than a revert? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To explain... I have seen at least two rounds of RS being edited so it no longer is consistent with WP:V. In both cases it took a lot of time and effort to bring it back in line. I would prefer to scrap RS completely, and deal with the reliability issue in V... but as long as we are going to have a seperate guideline, I would like the active editors at V to keep tabs on it. My suggested language that people to raise the issue of any inconsistency at both locations is so more WP:V editors will become awair that there is an inconsistency and fix it. SV is correct in saying that WP:V is the policy, and 99 times out of 100 (and probably more often than that) when there is an inconsistency it is RS that needs to be ammended to match WP:V. However, I also leave open the remote possibility that someone in the future may come up with an issue at RS that was not thought of and addressed in V. They would have to make an extraordinarily good argument in favor of changing V to match RS... but it could potentially happen. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we did once, and that was with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

I have a general question about this policy. Does it apply to images? I mean, do images have to be published by a reliable source per WP:V?

If WP:V doesn't apply to images, is there any policy that does? If not, does this mean that anyone can produce an image and make a claim regarding it? What if there are conflicting claims?Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR for the primary exception clause regarding use of images. Additionally, please assume good faith regarding such uploads, in general. If someone makes an extraordinary claim with an image, i.e. This photo claims Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11!!!, then it needs to be backed up accordingly. Basically, just accept an image unless it can be proven to be false/misleading. Please realize that captions for said pictures are another matter altogether. Is there a specific image you have in mind? — BQZip01 — talk 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

My view is that this section needs to be seriously reviewed, and for a number of reasons. University presses have, for some decades been in dire financial straits and have as a result been publishing all kinds of works, some highly questionable, and others a disgrace. Marxists, even communists, have their 'works' published by some university presses. As for this quaint phrase (which I take to be American) "peer-reviewed", does that mean that if you can locate half a dozen fellow-travellers of any reasonable note who will speak highly of your essay/book/whatever that it is somehow not only good but equivalent to the Holy Bible as a source? I'm sorry but that won't do. Reviews are two-a-penny.

In addition, many great scholars prior to the Second World War were forced to self-publish for the simple reason that the subjects they were writing about were so specialised that commercial publishers would not entertain them. As WP:reliable sources currently stands all these tens of thousands of expert publications appear excluded. That cannot be right.

Since about 1950 many biographies and even history books by so-called celebrities or notorious historians are so obviously published for their sensational value rather than academic content. It seems ludicrous to narrow the orbit of publishers of some books, whilst millions of other trashy books fall into that orbit because they have been published by mainstream publishers.

For me at least a reliable source is ideally a book and one that can be found in the National Libraries or which can be called up by your local library from the national repositories. That then covers all the categories I have discussed, above, good and bad. It is absolutely crucial that we don't fall into the censorship trap whereby Wikipedia starts defining, via their jargon, authorised and non-authorised authors. That is heading down the Nazis/Soviet road. David Lauder (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I agree with many of your points, but it's hard to see how to change things. There are a number of editors who set a great deal of store by the fact that a book was published by a university press and was "peer-reviewed," even though as you say, a lot of nonsense is published that way. However, what we do at Wikipedia is report what's being published by sources that other people trust, and people do still trust university presses.
Perhaps you could write a footnote about the pre-WWII scholarship that had to be self-published? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I fear you misunderstand what I have written. At the moment the manner in which WP:Reliable sources is phrased it is actually very narrow. This can be used, like so many other WP guidelines, adversely. It needs to be more broadly-based. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
RS is not really an active page, David. The policy page is WP:V, though it makes virtually the same points. I'm not sure what you mean by "narrow." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
SV, I dispute your assertion that WP:RS is not an active page (perhaps you were thinking of WP:ATT?) WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, but it is very much active (and in fact WP:V refers to it repeatedly - I don't know how that policy can work without the guideline). What is next, your asserting that Wikipedia:Notability is not an active page? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not active because it doesn't say anything. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We've gotten a bit distracted from David Lauder's original point. And I do agree with David that the current policy and guideline (whichever version of it) overstates the reliability of "peer-reviewed" material, and unreasonably denigrates other kinds of sources that are often just as reliable.

I've felt for a long time that WP:V and WP:RS should more broadly discuss the various factors that tend to indicate reliability (or the lack thereof), rather than implying rather simplistically (as they now do) that "peer reviewed = good" and "all others = not so good". Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marc, the reason for that is that a group of editors arrived at this page a few months ago and tried to force the policy to say that only peer-reviewed material was acceptable in certain articles (science, history, medicine). They caused a tremendous fuss about it, and although we managed to avoid them stating that only peer-reviewed sources were acceptable, they nevertheless managed to stress the value of peer-reviewed material. I agree that it's not a good idea, but I'd be hesitant to destabilize the page again, and it's hard to come up with a description of "reliability" that everyone would accept. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I said at the opening of this discussion. "Peer-reviewed" in my opinion is a meaningless expression. Reliability in science and medicine is generally self-evident (but just look at the number of scientists and doctors who scorn each other!). History is far more contentious (see David Irving). At the moment we have a scenario whereby valid and highly respected historians of many centuries are being dumped by modernists and nationalist-leaning editors who naturally support each other. Therefore their "peer-reviewed" books become "reviewed by fellow travellers and so it is good/better than anyone else". I have no objection to the alternate opinions of the various historians being displayed. If in those explanations it is clear that one is wrong, so be it. But the road we are progressing down is supporting bias and WP:reliable sources is being cited. A broader publication base is required, as I said above. Whether or not this has been discussed before or not, it again needs (constant?) reviewing. I thought continuing concensus was a Wikipedia foundation stone? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

All processes have weaknesses, but the process of sending articles anonymously to anonymous reviewers, which is what happens during a standard peer-review, ensures a degree of evaluation which lay-contributors to Wikipedia will be hard-pressed to match. Obviously journals with "Marxism" or "psycho-analysis" in their titles are likely to have reviewers who are likely to accept particular paradigm but such approaches still are regarded as acceotable within sociology or similar subjects. Certainly I would regard peer-reviewed journals as more respactable and more reliable than the introductions to translations of books published in the early 20th century, as you were favouring over at Houston Stewart Chamberlain at its talk page unless you are using those as primary sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has had very considerable involvement in publishing I feel bound to say I have never ever heard of sending proofs anonymously to anonymous reviewers. All the publications I have worked with have sent proofs knowingly to selected reviewers. You cited my concerns re Chamberlain: yes, when an introduction to a book is written by someone who has clearly read the work concerned and is someone who is reliable and notable I see that as equating to what is loosely called here "peer-review" and I am sorry you don't. The whole problem with authors over the last forty or so years is that many of them and, more to the point, many of their disciples, carry an arrogance and superiority complex over all those previous historians who worked just as hard as they purport to have done which is mind-boggling. Last but not least, where Modern History is concerned, we have counless authors writing from the perspective of the year in which they write and with that mentality. Thats why we need wider sources than this "peer-review" jingoistic business which clearly is deliberately narrowing the field. What then of newspapers and TV as sources. Are they "peer-reviewed"? Hardly. They are largely sensational stories written by journalists. Some sort of graphic inconsistancy here. All I am calling for here is balance. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have become an editor here, of late mostly because I have been the victim of what I will call a peer review cabal by very famous scientists (I am a scientist as well, less known). This is a group of university professors trying to outright steal my invented technology and publishing broadly lies that it was predated by a scientist, long dead who only generally discussed an actual implementation of the technology but never devised it nor never really enabled it within his writings in the least. By many of them publishing together in unison of the same lies, all of them direct competitors they have successfully convinced the scientific community that credit should be given to the long dead scientist and that I should be shunned as they go about infringing it (using all this for cover). They have as well began to treat this scientist like god of the technology and have used all his terminology in the extensive writings about my technology, deliberately supplanting my terminology with the dead scientist's as they describe their various infringing projects of my technology at various prestigious universities about. There are a large number of universities who would lose out if the truth were known as they now have extensive projects upon the technology and have organized this meticulously to the letter.
The reason I take this up here is I noticed that discussion on the reliability of "peer review" was had. One should also consider corruption of such and ferret out and bust any peer review that is a conspiratorial act of scientific misconduct, it would seem. As these guys are very good at this I would submit to you seasoned editors herein an invitation to bust this huge rat's nest of deceit and have the truth be known, as difficult as that might be to extrapolate. By the way, this is very important technology and none of these crooks have managed to properly develop it and after failing themselves have made public statements as to the inviability of the technology even though it has long been proven otherwise by my very many prototypes. An example of these public attacks and mechinations can be seen in the primary principle's book here, devised for the sole purpose of deceit and containing nothing but generalities:[2]
Also note that they have surpassed the legal limit in the number of words used for fair use of a copyrighted material and are thus infringing (in addition to commiting libel). I feel that work should be banned from Wikipedia and seek consensus of that here). Fraberj (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I wonder who first introduced this "peer-reviewed" term to Wikipedia? In real terms in means a review by fellow collegues. If you were under peer pressure at school it would be pressure from those around you. Therefore this terminology is clearly flawed as it dramatically narrows source material to that accepted by cabals of others. It is much harder to go back before the Second World War or 1900 and trace other writers of the same Ilk, and then to see if they had any comment on others alive at the same time. Such an exercise is time consuming, to say the least. So that leaves us with contempory sources and their reviews. How very cosy. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as that; see the article on it at Peer review. Also, not all sources in Wikipedia have to be peer-reviewed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
David has expressed the view that works of history written in 2007 or 1997 or 1987 should be given much the same weight, or perhaps less, than those written in 1907 or 1897 or 1887. Were the ideas advanced in works of a century past still the view of modern historians, those views would be recapitulated in modern surveys. The question therefore is, should views which were advanced by historians long ago, but which are no longer supported, be included. If current practice on Wikipedia is any guide, probably not.
David's comment here is perhaps relevant: "I would believe both Joseph Bain and Anderson before I'd believe someone called Fiona Watson (whoever she is)". If that makes sense to others, it makes none to me. What Dr Watson did to offend David, apart perhaps from disagreeing with his family's stories about themselves, is not immediately obvious. Why her name should disqualify her views is equally unclear. Modern studies disagree with many of David's beliefs about the past, but that's neither here nor there. We're here to regurgitate what academics write. If what they write now conflicts with older views then we might mention that views have changed, but no more than that is necessary or desirable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Angus misses the point entirely. Firstly, at the time I wrote that comment I had no idea who Fiona Watson is, but I still disagree with her on the subject I was speaking about. Angus previously sneered at me for saying Malcolm Canmore had spent 14 years at the English Court as though it were crap or my invention and he or those writers he prefers knew better, but David Donald Murison, MA., BA., writing in The Scottish Tradition, edited by Professor G. W. S. Barrow, cites it and has no problem with it (p.71). Angus also sneers at "family stories", in this case many of them confirmed by people such as Sir Thomas Dick Lauder universally regarded as a substantive scholar and author. But Angus fails to understand that in medicine, science, and history, the scholars often disagree with each other and sometimes violently. With science and medicine it is different as things are constantly moving on. This is not necessarily always the case with history. But like the other subjects there will always be those who wish to reinvestigate and reinterpret history and, indeed, to denounce older scholars. That is their (and their disciples) right in a free society, but it is not their right to have it written in stone, the publications of all those scholars before them burnt and the New Bible written by them. Such rigidity and using Wikipedia guidelines to enforce it should not be permitted. As I have constantly said, by all means cite the latest opinions, especially where new evidence has been uncovered which leads to certainties, but don't dismiss the hundreds if not thousands of historians and great scholars who have gone before us. History is not science and medicine, and there is far more POV. Thats why balance is required. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's sneering? I have no idea what professional historians feel about their predecessors, but I'd think it would be on the lines of Newton's comment about standing on the shoulders of giants. The fact that you can hardly scratch the surface of Insular medieval history without relying on books written long before WWII should be sufficient proof of that. The rest of your comments stand in no need of commentary from me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It is important to stick to the subject of this page instead of making highly personal attacks. Too many people on Wikipedia fall foul of WP:OWN citing narrow guidelines. I am attempting here to broaden sources without avoiding scholarship. David Lauder (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to know whether a source should be used

Hello. There's a been an ongoing dispute at Talk: Super Smash Bros. Melee about the relevance of a gaming forum to SSBM in relation to gaming tournaments. Sources have came to light today from MLG—a gaming tournament website. However, the writer of the sources—who's trying to assert Smashboards's notability—is a actually an administrator at Smashboards. This obviously makes him biased, but does it invalidate the source? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it does. If it's that important, then there should be another source for the information; or, at least, editors vouching for it who have no personal connection. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There are other authors who have written about the competitive Smash community and mentioned Smashboards, including other authors from MLG, Nintendo Power, and other eSports websites. All of the authors who have ever written anything about competitive Smash (including Nintendo Power authors) have accounts on Smashboards because Smashboards is where the majority of competitive players inhabit. To not have an account there and write about the community would be poor journalism. Ashnards assertion of bias should have no effect on the validity of a source, especially when the articles were written for, paid for, edited, and published by MLG. MLG is a major source on competitive gaming as it is the largest gaming league in the USA, Ashnard has agreed that MLG is an authority, yet he selectively discredits my articles for my affiliation with Smashboards, an affiliation that if I lacked I would have no right to write about competitive Smash. People don't call into question the validity of a historian who is a republican writing about the importance/history/term of president Clinton. There is suspicion of bias based solely on my membership at a website, but there is no proof of bias. As an author I feel I must defend my work. I agree that me pushing for Smashboards inclusion in the tournament section of the SSBM wiki would be biased, however I'm not the person pushing, I'm merely supplying the people who were pushing for it with sources so they can back up their assertion, yet when I presented my work and others as sources Ashnard discredited them based solely on bias with no proof. Alphazealot (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you're pulling the "I need to be a member to report accurately" card. To use the analogies that you love so much, it's like saying that a journalist must be a member of a particular football club to truly report on that club. As for the Clinton analogy, no open Republican should be used as source if that source is trying to certify the relevance of Clinton accurately. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be a member regardless because I am an avid fan of SSBM and Smashboards is the largest message board dedicated solely to the game. A republican writing about Clinton would be no more or less biased than a democrat writing about Clinton, which is why its assumed authors who have an expertise in a certain field write about that field with as little bias as possible. Are you saying that historians have no political parties and have never voted, which is why they write without bias? Absurd. A journalist should go to whatever lengths are necessary to accurately report on something. In the case of Smash, you either go through Smashboards or through MLG, eventually at the end of the day you'll be associated and have dealt with people from both (as evidenced in numerous articles I have linked to you).Alphazealot (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No. There is a difference between voting for a political party and being an active member in its functions. By the way, why defend your position as a journalist as if I'm attacking it? I'm just questioning your position as an author of a source to verify a particular assertion. But you just don't seem to understand. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Private communication

Is it fair to say that <ref>Private communication, 2007</ref> is not an acceptable Wikipedia reference under any circumstances? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. See WP:NOR too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplifying the convoluted wording

I've taken a stab at copy-editing the policy for understandability - mainly the lead and where it links to for further explanation. If I've changed the meaning or context please let me know. The Transhumanist (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanist, you're editing months old wording that has been quoted thousands of times. Citations for "quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" is as central as wording gets. That doesn't make it perfect. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed. But you can't just shoot first on this policy. Non-trivial changes are reverted first at core policy, and questions asked later.
I'm honestly sorry we just went to three reverts, but I was surprised. Marskell (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I changed the lead and top section to this (though I used level 2 headings instead of level 3):


The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: readers should be able to check each fact on Wikipedia against a reliable source. Editors should cite a reliable source for material they add to the encyclopedia - unsourced claims may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Removal of unsourced claims

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{