What is the guideline on using op-ed articles (in "blog" form or not) as secondary sources? As primary? Specifically, I'm wondering if it's acceptable to cite opinion pages to support facts in a Wikipedia article, except in restating the opinion. (which only seems acceptable in certain articles) If this is acceptable, why? --70.142.40.34 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
One needs to distinguish between the statements "Ann Coulter is a conservative" and "Ann Coulter says she is a conservative". Her oped is only a good source for the second statement. Grace Note 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The convenience link may be from an unreliable source, but so long as the editor (at the unreliable source) used the actual, original source, it is the reliablility of that source which matters, not the reliability of the convenience link. Wikipedia readers must have confidence that such links present the original information in the manner the original author intended it be published, per WP:V. I can not agree to that statement because it says, "Wikipedia need not supply reputable publications. Instead, Wikipedia editors are to insure convenience links are accurate." The problem would be this. A personal website might be 100 per cent accurate when checked by a Wikipedia editor, but might become zero per cent accurate the next minute. We simply can not depend on personal websites to provide convenience links of reputable quality. A website owner might or might not maintain a high standard. We would be foolish to depend on such an etheral reliability. Our editing standards are spelled out by WP:V, not by how proven or unproven a particular website is about maintaining the accuracy of reposited, secondary material on their site. Terryeo 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) To put it another way, a convenience link on an unreliable source is, itself, unreliable. period. Terryeo 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For me (but that's only my personal opinion), it would be acceptable to include
It is expected, however, that this convenience link is available on a website that is considered a reliable source.
(that is the sentence that Armedblowfish commented out), if additionally something in the following vein was added:
If the convenience link points to a source of a less reliable stature than the original source, that can however not be invoked as a reason to remove the reference, while this could be interpreted as "removing references for POV reasons"[1]
--Francis Schonken 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The burden to provide a verifiable source is on the editor adding the material, not on the one removing it (see WP:V). I would argue that a non-reliable source is unreliable for the reasons stated in the guideline. This includes all and anything that they opine, summarize, extract, transcribe, etc if there are grounds to doubt the reliability of such summary, transcription, etc. In the ArbCom case below, all what was needed is to verify the validity of the 1957 book; and if that was verified, a direct cite to the ISBN number of the book, including a short quotation as a footnote would have been sufficient for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Right now, we are in a situation where, in practice, many editors do not seem to accept the WP:V policy, or the WP:CITE and WP:RS guidelines. Editors think that references are not needed because "Come on, we are talking about Cheesesteaks, for crying out loud, not National Defense Policy! Its FUN to have the table in..." (Talk:Cheesesteak) or "no citation is needed because this fact is not in serious dispute," or "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On the wall states that Penn was founded and founded by the Anglican Church of England. Go there and read it" (12:35, 28 May 2006 68.80.254.34 Ivy League) or "No other college article has citations for its list of notable alumni, so you're just picking on this one because you have some kind of issue with my college," or "I'll remove the unreferenced template, as there really isn't any way to verify most of the information currently in the article." (deleted edit, 06:40, 2 July 2006, to Talk:Eon8.
Let's not get too picky about references.
I'd much rather see a dubious reference than no reference. It shows that the editor took five minutes to do some basic fact-checking rather than relying on memory. It shows that the material genuinely belongs in Wikipedia, rather than being an exercise in editorial ego (I am such an expert that I know stuff that has never been published).
I'd really like to see that, um, some editors of popular culture topics who give me the impression of being young and inexperienced, are encouraged to cite sources, any sources, and given positive reinforcement for doing so.
It is relatively likely that when a web source directly quotes e.g. a book that the quote is accurate. Sure, it may be selective. It may be out of context, maybe. If it does not give a page reference there may be difficulty locating it in the actual book. And I must say that between Google Books and www.a9.com the ease of finding a direct reference are getting better all the time.
Still, a "convenience link" is better than what we have on 90% of the facts in Wikipedia now, which is no source at all.
Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that "convenience links" are legitimate and reasonable. A link to an online copy of an article is a convenient version of a reference to a printed article which may be difficult to find. The location of the copy does not provide the reliability - the original source does. Except in cases of the linked site that are extremist or
clearly untrustworthy, I think that convenience links should be allowed. -Will Beback 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
e caveat that it will need to be agreed by consensus of involved editors about the reliability of that link, the context in which the source is presented, and other factors. If the source is widely available in public libraries, I would argue that we should err on the side of caution and list just a short cite, the book title, author and ISBN number, rather than link to a transcription that may be innacurate, or in an obviously partisan website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Earlier on this page I raised the issue of Affidavits. Several hand typed duplications of affidavits (personal sworn statements) appeared in articles. The typed HTML documents have no indication of validity and the HTML appears on personal websites. HTML hand typed copies of past newspaper articles are also appearing on the same personal websites. We can not ask a reader to have confidence in this kind of "reposited" information. Personal websites do not necessarily honor copyrights, and do not necessarily honor the creator of an affidavit, not the writer of a newspaper article. A user can have no more confidence in a "reposited" piece of information on a personal website than they have in the owner of the website. Some readers might take the website owner's word as the word of God, while others will be completely confident the website owner is incapable of rubbing two vowels together. I don't believe Wikipedia should drag its toes in the mud, so to speak. Let us insist on good quality information by insisting on good reputable sources of information. Better no information than possibly false information! Terryeo 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton 16:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The section WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet states that "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Understanding that the rationale behind this is the inability to ascertain who posted the material, any thoughts on modifying this section to clarify that usenet group FAQs are acceptable as a primary or secondary source when discussing that particular community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainktainer (talk • contribs)
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Present content of the section:
Some comments:
In short, I think that characteristics like "author identity", "editorial oversight", "third-party fact-checking" and "stability of the source data" are good criteria when trying to distinguish more reliable from less reliable sources. But I object to a black-and-white picture that supposes that some sources (bulletin boards, blogs and wikis) always lack these characteristics completely, while other sources (like reputable newspapers) are described as never failing these criteria in any respect. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia's quality if in WP:RS we can't give the picture a bit more nuance than that, I think. --Francis Schonken 08:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded the section slightly to reflect a little more flexible view of the sources. They should not be used in most situations, but when illustrating, say, a Usenet phenomenon, it is ludicrous to say that Usenet cannot be used as a source. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if this comment connects to Olivers and Eskogs last remarks (I think it does), but I wanted to say that in my opinion both WP:V and WP:RS have moved to a sort of limbo not really giving the helpful tools they could easily give for the assessment of the reliability of the sources on which Wikipedia should depend. When coming here looking for help on how to assess the reliability of sources, one is immersed in an elaborate discussion of often ill-defined complex concepts, that in the end appear not to be helpful at all, while ultimately narrowed down to an inability to cope with on-line sources, and a relative over-estimation of printed sources: no, not all "facts" presented in sources published by reputable publishers have been checked by third parties, nor would it be necessary or reasonable to expect or assume that.
So, what to do next? I don't know... maybe support Kim Bruning who is currently pointing out that the current "freezing" of the content of WP:V is in contradiction with Wikipedia:No binding decisions (...official policy), see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#No binding decisions --Francis Schonken 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to check. Where would the world famous Tannenbaum-Torvalds debate fall? (including any and all consequences of that dabate?) ;-) Kim Bruning 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
(sorry for 8 other "ref"'s showing up in the list below, only the -currently- No. 9 relates to the #Convenience Links, definition section --Francis Schonken 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC))
Well Yeah, I did that. That was some time ago and I understood my mistake when it was pointed out to me. One of the elements which caused me confusion at that time, and which still is not clearly spelled out has to do with Convenience Links, which is why I am attempting to get some clarification in the area. Writing articles about religion is really no different than any other topic if the quality of the sources of information which can be used is made plain and clear. WP:RS does not even define Convenience Link at this moment. Some clarification is needed, I believe. Pointing out my past difficulty doesn't resolve future problems, but points out the need for clarification, don't you think? Terryeo 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr Zak, you restored the link to the odd template, which says "please verify the credibility of this source." What would that involve exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin - {{Verify credibility}} is a template you can use to mark a specific source as being of questionable reliability, in the hope that another editor will check its reliability, and if necessary, replace it with a better source or remove the information. Thus it made sense to put it in the "See also" section of WP:RS. But whatever. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, I linked "actual" to Epistemology, because Epistemology is the study of actuality and how we know about it. Unfortunately, the word "actuality" links to Modal logic, which also studies actuality, but not quite in the same sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Epistemology" is a field of philosophy. I understand Rjensen's remark as that this linking of "actual" to a philosophy-related article is not useful.
Further, as I pointed out several times: the Epistemology article does in no way clarify the term "actual", the term "actual" is nor defined, nor explained on the "Epistemology" page, so the [[Epistemology|actual]] piped link is deceptive while clicking the link does not lead to an article where the reader is helped to understand the term (s)he is clicking. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
So, apart from Terryeo's personal attack (for which he should in fact get blocked since he is under "permanent personal attack parole",[5] I've notified him about that several days ago,[6] and for me his "No" answer[7] is not sufficient), everyone seems OK with my argument not to mix in philosophy in the "actual" piped link. Or did I miss something? --Francis Schonken 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
To say of a [[Sentence (linguistics) | sentence]] or [[proposition]] that it is [[truth | true]] is to say that it refers to a fact.
Francis, please don't take this the wrong way, but we link other articles mostly to give readers a fun way to navigate around the encyclopaedia (because it's a hypertext), not as a means of creating some sort of definitional structure. You can argue whether there's much benefit to linking these words, but arguing about whether the links are appropriate in a definitional sense is usually a waste of time and effort. Also, I think the reason Slim couldn't respond to your "analysis" was that it was not sufficiently coherent. Would you mind restating it in simple terms and we can have a go at it? Grace Note 05:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ontology has one basic question: "What actually exists?"
Anyone having a problem that I proceed with the last of these proposed solutions? --Francis Schonken 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)\
Feel free to modify the following to bring it closer to consensus.
Mallia, Joseph (1998-03-03). "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon". Boston Herald: pg. 018. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help) Also see a website reproduction of this article from Holysmoke.org, an anti-scientology website (retrieved on 2006-07-10).
{{cite journal}}
|pages=
|date=
|month=
|coauthors=
should be used instead of
Mallia, Joseph (1998-03-03). "INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Scientology reaches into schools through Narconon". Boston Herald: pg. 018. Retrieved 2006-07-10. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
If the convenience link is of particularly low quality, it may be helpful to include a unbiased note of that in the citation, such as "from a personal website", or "from a partisan website", etc. This will encourage the reader to take the convenience link with a grain of salt. Questions to ask when determining the quality of the convenience link include: does the convenince link go beyond copyright laws, does the convenience link attribute the information to the original author, is the convenience link an accurate reproduction, have signatures and dates been reproduced on the convenince webpage, are authorizations of reproductions within the original, reproduced on the convenince link so that an earlier author in the chain is recognized, is the publisher reputable, and other questions of authenticity.
I have created a section about how an editor should create a convenience link at WP:CITE. I used the above example which recognizes the original source of information, and presents an online convenient reproduction. The reasoning was, while we might define the term here, WP:CITE is the guideline of how to Cite, so I put the whole thing there. Terryeo 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
With your new proposal we'd have to remove all images retrieved from NASA (see {{PD-USGov-NASA}})... not a good idea. Generally NASA images from space used in Wikipedia are: (1) only web-published; (2) not-copyrighted; (3) impossible for most earthlings to check... unless you'd own a sattelite or can fly around with a shuttle of course; (4) self-published by a big state-owned organisation, nonetheless: self-published.
Further, you propose to add something to the "definition" section, and you forget to add the essential thing: a definition of what you mean by convenience link. http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf is as much (or as less) a "source" as ISBN 0740721909 - Offering the questionable opinion that a convenience link is not a "source" is not even a definition of the concept "convenience link".
For the WP:RS guideline the quintessential question regarding sources is how reliable they are. Denying the *existence* of a range of sources is simply avoiding the question of their reliability. Not helpful for the wikipedia editor that comes to this guideline hoping to find help for assessing the reliability of sources. --Francis Schonken 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick check, is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ a reliable source for information concerning members of the board? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The first reason previously given is simply ridiculous. Everything a researcher collects and publishes is going to be *new* otherwise they wouldn't publish it. So this reason effectively eliminates the entire category from consideration. There are many people who are professional and publish websites as their main vehicle for publication. That is the brave, new world. I'm sure that disregarding all such sites is not the intention of this section. It should be toned-down, not made so egregious. Wjhonson 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like this occurs in a WP article: According to the column "Blog Corner" in QQQ Magazine, blogger X said "Bush is ...." and blogger Y said "Bush is ..." . Does this violate WP:RS even though QQQ is a reliable (if partisan) magazine? Precis 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I followed your advice, quoting a blog at The Israel Lobby at time 23:13 14 July, 2006 Precis 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't agree. Precis 08:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the July 14 passage as it stands, since the phrase in quotes was reproduced in Harper's Magazine:
Precis 14:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar's analysis is problematic on several counts. First BB suggests that if Silverstein's blog in Harper's were republished in the PRINT version of Harper's, it would be OK. But I see no evidence that the print version of Harper's is subject to any more editorial scrutiny than the online version. Hence I question BB's assertion that Silverstein's blog in Harper's is not allowable under WP:RS. Next BB says "As you have it, you are quoting AbuKhalil but citing Silverstein. A double no-no." To be more precise, I am citing S and quoting S's quotation of A. That point is obvious to the reader who checks Harper's. BB is suggesting that it be made obvious for readers who do not check Harper's as well, and I take no issue with that. Precis 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi's remark I view as irrelevant, since an editor's blog on Harper's is not the same as a personal webpage or a personal blog. Established magazines are unlikely to risk their reputations by being lax on editorial oversight (either on printed or online versions). BB's claim that a printed Harper's blog is an acceptable source, whereas an online Harper's blog is not, seems arbitrary indeed. I see no evidence of that being current WP doctrine. I take no issue with BB's claim that we must make it explicit that S is quoting a quotation of A. Precis 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Harper's blog is a compendium of political interviews, political analysis, and breaking political news stories put together by editor Ken Silverstein. How can one judge whether or not this "reflects Harper's publication as a whole"? There is a more practical question: Who has the burden of proof in showing that Harper's blog meets the standards of Harper's as a whole? In my opinion, a WP editor is entitled to assume that Harper's blog is reliable, and an antagonist has the burden of proof of showing unreliability. My reasoning is that it is unlikely that an established magazine would jeopardize its reputation by lowering its standards for selected content published by its staff (either in print or online). Precis 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion about blogs as sources. The guideline currently states "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." (emphasis added). I simply want to point out that blog is a relatively new term, and in this guideline seems to refer to a website where the blog author adds comments frome time to time with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. If we were to come across some website that called itself a blog, but actually had editorial supervision and fact-checking, it would not be a blog for purposes of this guideline, and could be used as a source. Gerry Ashton 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This sentence in the second paragraph of the article is kind of hard to understand:
"It is the responsibility of the person seeking for content to be included to provide references."
Could someone fix it, or delete it? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure what the sentence is trying to say. -- Zeno Izen 01:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people - Is one book which asserts a historian's own personal interpretation of historical documents a sufficient source to list someone as LGBT, when no other source is known to share that view? Bearcat 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (copied here by Francis Schonken)
I think this is good:
However this has sometimes been use in support of the robotic removal of common knowledge from articles. For instance the words "faggot" and "dyke" were removed from List of sexual slurs because no reference was provided, despite those being common words that are defined in every good dictionary and known (almost) universally.
I don't think we would need to make a big change to deprecate this kind of treatment. It seems to me that the problem in the case I've cited is that the editor performing the removal knew the terms but removed them anyway on principle. But if a claimed fact isn't common knowledge there will be one person who doesn't know it. So it seems reasonable to me that we should discourage people from such robotic removal by saying:
I am essentially being accussed of making up sources for my article on Kittie May Ellis. I think this falls under Assume Good Faith. A few other editors find my sources obscure and unavailable. I don't believe the burden of proof is on me, to prove that a source like History of Western Washington, 1889 exists. Sourcing a statment means providing a source. This sort of regressive argument is pointless and I feel violates AGF. Some admins even feel that other editors *questioning* RS is enough to delete. I feel this is overstrong. Questioning a source is not the same as presenting evidence that a source is unreliable. An editor opinion, based on vapor, that a source is unreliable is not sufficient to determine reliability. Only the published, source statement of an RS about another source should be used in a case where the reliability is questionable. Your thoughts? Wjhonson 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
could be replaced by
Precis 08:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The suggestions above are tenable, but I'd like to make counterarguments anyway.
A few guidelines should probably be added to this page regarding these situations. I would recommend the following. -- Beland 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be made clear that there is an intermediate step between reporting something as a fact and not reporting it at all - reporting with attribution.
For example, many scientific theories reported in Wikipedia have the benefit of scientific consensus; these can be reported as accepted facts. But sometimes certain scientific studies are published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals, but have not yet been (or never will be) reproduced. In a case like this, it is inappropriate to simply report the findings of a study as if it were true. Instead, an article should read something like, "A controlled study of X published in Y in 1954 found that ___[1]".
It is important to check for professional criticism of the study; if it has been deemed faulty by scientific peers, it should not be included (unless it is notable for other reasons, such as being important to the history of the field - right or wrong - or because it was the source of a lot of controversy). If the debate over the underlying facts is still unsettled, this should be noted, and any competing studies included as well.
Someone previously asked on this talk page for guidance about what to do if there are multiple reliable sources, and they disagree. ("Inconceivable!"[1]) It could be reported, with weasel words that "sources disagree", and that "some say X[1]" and "some say Y[2]". But it's probably better to say in the text, "Author A says X[1] but Committee B says Y.[2]"
I've heard that the standard that the reputable New York Times uses here is that claims supported by two independent sources may be reported as fact, but claims supported by only one source should be reported with attribution. Obviously, their journalists and fact checkers also use their editorial judgement about which claims (however many people are making them) belong in print, for reasons of credibility, liability, information content, and relevance. It will be a long time before all the claims made in Wikipedia can be supported by two independent sources, but it is probably a good idea to report with attribution if someone tries and fails to find multiple sources for a given claim. If there is only one source in the entire universe for a given claim, then readers will have to trust that source if they are going to trust the information. -- Beland 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The census cannot be used as a source? I would like to hear some comments on that claim. Wjhonson 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Undent. This is unclear. When exactly can the census be used on wikipedia and when can't it? If I'm using the census data to verify a statement made in another source I can use it? Or can't use it? And if I can't use it in that way, then when exactly can I use it? Wjhonson 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Xoloz did you not delete this article. And in your message to me you stated that secondary sources should be used, not primary, and furthermore that replication of a primary source is not considered secondary. However on the project page it states that a transcript by a court stenographer is acceptable. So in the same way, a transcript of a census is also acceptable. Is it not? How do these two cases differ?Wjhonson 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
And again you stated that I should get more secondary sources. Every source I cited is in-fact an acceptable source based on my reading of this project page. It fairly clear that published government documents are acceptable sources for wikinclusion. Wjhonson 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Xoloz now outdoes his last statement with this one "and in my judgment also, your article does not contain a single reliable secondary source". One of my main sources is a newspaper the Snohomish Tribune. According to Xoloz this fails WP:RS. Wjhonson 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it at all. Xoloz is the one saying it. And further on the Project page WP:RS it states that a "journalist report who actually witnessed the event" is a primary source. That would imply that the report of a journalist who did not witness the event must be secondary, right? Or is that sort of report simply unreliable? Wjhonson 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed the definition of "published" at 01:05, 22 July 2006. I do think a definition is needed, but it should not be circular. Precis 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I do like T's Latin phrase "present to the public view", but I propose appending "in accessible form". For example, videotapes available in libraries may be considered published, while live TV shows and public speeches per se are not (since they are inaccessible the next day). Precis 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably we're dealing with two separate threshold requirements:
Some examples:
--Francis Schonken 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is an online definition of "publish":[10] and the first two apply: [v] prepare and issue for public distribution or sale; "publish a magazine or newspaper" [v] have (one's written work) issued for publication; "How many books did Georges Simenon write?"; "She published 25 books during her long career" One should look closer and ask, "Who is the intended public of the work?" Examples could be "the english-speaking world" "those residing in and around Boulder, Colorado". Here is a link to the definition of public:[11] The first two definitions are nouns and apply: [n] a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public" [n] people in general considered as a whole; "he is a hero in the eyes of the public" The first definition listed here of public is what I am refering to. --Fahrenheit451 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you have referenced the article on Publishing which I have never edited. If you meant I deleted that definition from that article, your statement is a false accusation. If you meant that I reverted YOUR edit, which is Not the result of discussion, but rather your POV, yes I did, and that is my prerogative as a Wikipedia editor. Whichever way you intended this, it still comes across to me as a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I took a stab at this on the main page. Precis 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a start.--Fahrenheit451 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the article in the definition "public" from the to a to show that publications can be targeted to groups sharing a common characteristic; for example, if a publication is english language only, it is intended for an english-speaking public.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it up a bit, and added some bits from this discussion. I don't feel its helpful to link to Published because that article *only* discusses *print* and its not the wikipedefinition at any rate. What we are making here is a definition for wikipedia. As has been noted by myself, the editors at wikisource do *not* agree with the definition in this discussion, nor with the wikiarticle pointed to, so its not a universally agreed-upon definition. If a link is necessary, it should go to WP:Published and all of this talk should be ported there for reference. Wjhonson 18:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the language I had, discuss what's wrong with it Please note the following terms:
Broadcast means widely distributed to one or more publics, so it would be publication.--Fahrenheit451 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the advantage of any of the tweaks proposed. The current wording is pretty good as is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As it currently is, I think it should work. --Fahrenheit451 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please continue here, the edit history is getting large. Wjhonson 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, that is not true and your example does not make sense. There are publications for bicyclists, muzzle loaders, speakers of latin, etc. that are specialized, and these are still publications. Each of these groups are a public. It is interesting to me that you use the emotionally charged example of the KKK, rather than a group such as the United Auto Workers, which publishes a monthly magazine to its membership. The "public" is a WHO, it is a group of people who share a common interest. In that sense the english idiom, "the public" really means "a public" as there is really no generality "the public".--Fahrenheit451 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important for definitions to be succinct, like in a dictionary. I'm not opposed to a long list of examples of what is considered a published source and what is not, but the list should be in a separate section, not among the definitions. I'd make the same point about lists exemplifying what sources are considered reliable and what are not. Precis 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we separate the notion of "published" from the notion of "verifiability". An example would be a piece for brass ensemble written by a Renaissance composer, that was published in the late 16th century, but only a fragment of the piece exists. Some historical notes may describe the piece and the various ensembles across Europe that performed it, but what remains cannot verify the content of the piece.--Fahrenheit451 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, I would ask the question in regards verifiability, is there some source that one can go to and access the data in question? A non-published document in a public library is such an example. What if there is a magazine written in Gujarati? Only readers of that language can verify statements in that magazine. If it is not translated into English, we have no means of verification, even though the magazine is published. The intended public is the group that shares the common interest of speaking Gujarati.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm posting here to request additional comments from you all at this link[12]. I feel that myself and the anon have an impenetrable barrier and perhaps other voices are needed. Thanks. Wjhonson 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This keeps on turning up on my watchlist with some person or other reverting it and claiming to be right to do so. It being an important page, and there quite obviously being a disagreement over it, and there equally obviously being little probability that people might actually not revert, I've protected it whilst you thrash out what way around which should be.
I'm not routinely involved over here, so some other admin should probably unprotect in a few days time. -Splash - tk 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like some input about quoting "fringe" opinions. The policy now states that such opinions "may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities, although editors should proceed with caution. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources."
As fringe/extremist opinion is mentioned: Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Aryan Nations, British Socialist Workers Party.
Regards, Huldra 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't use the word "fringe" once. "fringe" and "extremist" are not synonyms. E.g. nazism is "extremist" (always was), it wasn't "fringe" 70 years ago in Germany.
"Fringe opinion" is rather synonym with "tiny minority view". In this sense fringe opinions are dealt with in WP:NPOV#Undue weight:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
On the other hand, "extremist opinions" that are not "fringe" are reported upon in Wikipedia. Only, for example, we don't see a neo-nazist website as the most reliable source on nazism. There are enough reliable sources outside such "extremist" website that can be used as a source for a wikipedia article on nazism. --Francis Schonken 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all for your replies. I still would like some more "clear cut" rules, but I don´t know if that is available? Francis Schonken is quite right in saying that WP:RS doesn't use the word "fringe", instead it use the words "widely acknowledged extremist views", which is probably much better. I think the groups/people I mentioned above all come under that description? I note that if you look at e.g. LaRouche_Movement#Current_villains, and then look at the articles about the differnt people ("the villains"), then none of these articles have included any critisism by LaRouche_Movement (even if they have included critisism by many others). (And I´m not suggesting that it should be included). What I´m conserned about is different standards. Take the example of David Duke: is his opinions more reliable/noteworthy, than say, Lyndon LaRouche? I would have said no, but still, I see Duke´s opinions quoted in other articles as beeing "noteworthy". Is he? (An example: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) Regards, Huldra 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The current definition says: For the purposes of Wikipedia, a published source is a source that makes information accessible to a public. For example, an available transcript, recording, or film of a live television interview is a published source, but the live broadcast itself is not considered published (because it is inaccessible). The following complaints about this definition have been made.
(unindent) Blueboar wrote "while not all published material is reliable, all reliable material is published.". I don't agree with the second clause, for example, I'll bet the CIA has some very reliable information that is not published. Perhaps it would be better, though longer, to say that while not all published material is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, all information suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is published. Gerry Ashton 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
BB is correct that no single definition can be specific for every situation. But BB's idea to eliminate the concept of accessibility from the definition altogether contravenes current Wikipedia policy at WP:V, which says that any reader should be able to check a citation. Let's look at BB's proposed alternative definition. To me, "published" means: anything transcribed or recorded in some form that is intended for public consumption. This is problematic. Let's say a world-famous composer from Nepal composes a new type of music, tres avant garde. He hopes to make money by selling the sheet music, but nobody likes it and he receives nothing but rejections. BB seems to be saying that the sheet music is still a published work because it was INTENDED for public consumption. It is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to travel to Nepal to check facts stated about this music. Now if the music were placed on the internet, then I would consider it published, because now it is ACCESSIBLE. Precis 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
<<< I would argue that this conversation is not necessary. This is a guideline of Wikipedia and we cannot expect that every single term used is defined in a way that covers all gaps. There is no policy or guideline that will supplant the common sense and good judgement of editors. Let's leave some space for a robust debate when editing articles, rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
oar|Blueboar]] 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page.
A quick observation about the last three comments of BB, GA, and T. Counterproposals are a constructive way of seeking consensus. In this case, the counterproposals involve ISSUING to the public. Hence it looks like in the end you've come around to the idea that accessibility is part of the definition after all. I think it is also constructive to come up with a list of examples of what are considered published sources (if the list is not included in the definitions section): unreleased recordings, live speeches, websites with very limited access, etc. I frankly doubt consensus will be reached, however. In the spirit of Jossi's remarks, this will be my last word on the subject here. Precis 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The course transcripts you are refering to ARE published, but limited in distribution. The cofs literature prior to the formation of the csi never claimed it was "unpublished". Problem is, once you publish something, you cannot unpublish something. The only person defining "published" as "published to the public" is you. If distribution is not targeted to a named or posted individual, a distributed work is published. I think you are confusing a private routing with a publication of limited distribution. They are two different bodies of data. There is no such thing as publishing to "everyone". That is absurd. Please think it through. When one publishes, you are targeted a group with a shared interest. For example, I have written several magazine articles. They were written in English, which limits the readership immediately. That is NOT EVERYONE. Also, please stop assuming what I believe. I recall you recently deleted a posting by ChrisO from your discussion page for allegedly assuming he knew what you thought about something. No double standards please, Terryeo. My concern is that we get the correct definition of "public". The article before it is of less importance.--Fahrenheit451 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The idea of "publish", I think, needs to be defined but should not be presented as a constrained, narrow idea which and need include ideas of reliable sources, verifiability, or how solid and stable a publication is. This very basic idea, if defined cleanly, will let us present the additional ideas which WP:RS must address, present those ideas in easy to understand ways. Terryeo 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the vicious, bloodthirsty debate between 'a' or 'the' public, perhaps I can offer a solution. How about if we say that publish means to distribute to A public. But, available must be to THE public. Wrote a little song about it, here's how it go....
Let's say that GM sends a magazine to their retirees, this is A public. In that magazine a spokesperson for GM states: "We are considering cutting retiree health benfits by 2 percent". If that magazine is then stocked in the stacks at the Dallas Public Library and cited from that location, you can prove that although it was published to A public, it is now available to THE public. I think we can really solve this back-and-forth by this sort of reasoning. What do you all say? Wjhonson 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I think this scenario is not a simple one: Will there be a public announcement that this document is available at this library? And if it is written only in english, then it is available only to english-speaking public. So, there is A public it was published to, english-speaking GM retirees, and now it is being made available to all english-speaking people who can access, directly or indirectly, the Dallas Public Library.--Fahrenheit451 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
That's a darn good definition, but a little awkward for our purposes? Could we parse it to:
"Publication" is the transfer of ownership of copies of a work to the general public by sale or other means. Terryeo 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a particular link that keeps showing up in the Freemasonry articles called FreemasonryWatch.org. The editors there (including me) have been treating it as an unreliable source due to its heavy reliance on conspiracy theories, and reverting it on sight. We've gotten the idea that it was officially ruled as unusable somewhere -- is there a list somewhere? If not, should there be?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper."
What if there are 1. a freely available article in a foreign-language newspaper and 2. an article in an English-language newspaper which requires payment to view? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not willing to be a dupe for a prankster who claims he is properly citing some expensive online service. If there were independent editors to corroborate the claim, that's a different story. Precis 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Onward! Please continue in this new section. PS someone want to Archive this page? It's getting monstrous. I have gone through the entire discussion (I believe) and summarized on this white board here. Please review my whiteboard and then post your comments back here. I think we're close to a consensus on publish... I really do... I may be myopic though. Wjhonson 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I advise you to be civil and assume good faith. I have presented the defintions of "public" which are NOT my own. "Public" is a group of people who share a common interest. You seem to be distorting what I have presented and I object to that. I am giving you one warning. --Fahrenheit451 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed Terryeo's definition of "published" because it contains a few clear flaws:
--Davidstrauss 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.
The issue is that "published" needs to be suffixed by " by a reliable source". There is no point in trying to describe what "published" means, outside of the context of reliables sources, and verifiability. When we say "published by a reliable source that can be verified", we have all the definition we need. It does not matter where, why and how it was published: whatever it is, it needs to be such by a reliable source and verifiably so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned that in debating the definitions of "Published" and "Accessible" we may forget other criteria that should be included (and defined?) as sub-requirements for a citation to be considered "Reliable". Surely a reliable source is more than simply one that is published and accessible? "Attributable" (ie, we have to know who published the statement) comes to mind. I am sure there are others. Perhaps we should make a list of these sub-requirements so we don't forget them when we are done with the more contentious topics. Blueboar 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Instead of arguing over what is "published," we should consider the real goal: reliability (the topic of this page). We keep talking about "published" when we're really seeking "current, authenticatable, and trustworthy." It's easy to confuse this with "published," as publication often is synonymous with that the three criteria.
To take a card from my experience in computer authentication protocols, we need to know a few things to ensure information reliability:
To make a factual statement, all parts of the chain must be satisfied. This idea is derived from Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic. I suggest we adopt it instead of arguing about what constitutes "published." This standard would also include "accessibility" as part of #2.
What we agree are accessible, published, trustworthy sources indisputably meet these criteria. --Davidstrauss 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this idea in. I've argued that "accessibility/availability" of a source is not so much a "reliability" requirement, as that it is a wikipedia:verifiability requirement. It's impossible to bring WP:V in practice if a source is *exclusively* available/accessible to the person adding content to Wikipedia and using that source as reference.
Likewise, I'd like to argue now that whatever requirements regarding the reliability of sources we describe, sources need always to be *published*, because of several reasons, but *unavoidably* also because of avoidance of original research.
If Wikipedia would be the first *publisher* of information not yet *published* elsewhere, that's a clear break of Wikipedia:No original research. --Francis Schonken 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
TV news shows used to go and mention blogs and sometimes cite information from that blog. Where does the information from a blog fall then when a TV news show mentions it? Anomo 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia frequently refers to "reliable published sources". For the purposes of Wikipedia, this means "trustworthy sources of information made accessible to the public." Yes, there are extreme examples of sources that push the envelope of reliability or of accessibility, but this definition captures the spirit of what Wikipedia requires of a source. Precis 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the purpose of this guideline:
If it's the latter, I can understand the objection to removing the "published" requirement. If it's the former, "published" is irrelevant. --Davidstrauss 20:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me spell something out. There is a vast sea of information. It is divided into two oceans. One ocean of information has been issued to individuals.
The consensus is clearly that we should include "published" in the WP:RS requirements. Thus, we need a consensus definition. I don't consider "I know published when I see it" to be workable.
My suggested definition: "An item is 'published' if it has been prepared for publicly accessible distribution. Public access at a fee is still public access."
I've modified only one part of the American Heritage Dictionary definition. I've removed "for sale" because selling something is distributing it. Furthermore, many archived items are prepared for "sale" to other archives. Including such items would be against the consensus here about what "published" is supposed to mean.
I hope this brings WT:RS closer to a viable definition. --Davidstrauss 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User:Fahrenheit451 would have us consider every information ever created as copyable information was published to a pubic and thence, is a perfectly good piece of information to use as a secondary source if only he is able to prove the bonafieds, the reliability, the reputability and, lastly, the verifiability (however torterously complex). This simply won't work, it is not the meaning of the word WP:NPOV uses when it says, All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. Some examples might clarify.
I've been re-reading the exchange between Terryo and Jossi. It seems they both agree that the hypothetical CIA information is neither published nor verifiable. But in the case of the supposed Church of Scientology documents, I think they might be talking about different things. Since I know next to nothing about the Church of Scientology and the documents in question, let me make up an example.
The hypothetical X Church has a fairly good reputation, and many editors would consider it to be a reliable source. It distributes some information to the general public and other information to members only. In particular, document Y was distributed to members only, but somehow a purported copy of document Y showed up on a personal website W of unknown reliability.
A quote from document Y shows up in a WP article, with a citation to W. I remove it. The placing editor puts it back, this time with a citation to the version distributed by X Church. I remove it again, saying the source is not verifiable. The placing editor puts it back yet again, saying that the Church X document is published by a reliable publisher, which is the critera in WP:V. Furthermore, I can verify it either by joining the X Church, or by finding another WP editor, or a neighbor who belongs to X Church, and asking them to verify it. My feeling is that the word publish in WP:V excludes privately distributed material, but some other editors obviously disagree with my interpretation. --Gerry Ashton 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The following passage appears in the NY Sun [14]:
A description of Pete McCloskey's views should not be supported by the NYS quote "I came...", because the NYS admitted that it took the quote from the (highly unreliable) website of IHR. Precis 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel this section is necessary to refine the view that the government is both an author and a publisher of various material, and to discuss the distinctions that need to be drawn and when and which of, that material may be cited and how. Wjhonson 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We are having a RFC debate at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry over whether some sources are reliable or not... there are two issues:
Please pop over to the page and comment. Blueboar 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK... first, thank you to those of you who have popped over and commented on the above RFC. I have a question that tangentially relates, perhaps you can advise me....
Another citation used to back the "In the Kadosh degree they trample tiaras" statement (see above) is the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia (CE). Now, this is normally a very reliable source (at least it is reliable for stating what the official Catholic view of things was in 1918). However, in this case there is a problem. Here is what the CE says:
Now, I checked the CE, and it does indeed say all of this. So the underlying statement: that there is an allegation that Masons trample papal tiaras is verified... for it is clear that the Catholic Encyclopedia says so.
However, the numbers in the CE article being cited refer to foot notes in the CE... citing Albert Pike as the author of the material in quotation marks, listing volume and page (but not listing the book). This is where we run into trouble. The volume references do not match up to any known volumes of his work. And to make matters worse I have checked every book written by Albert Pike and can not find the words that the CE attibutes to him anywhere. I can only assume that the CE has incorrectly cited Pike. As far as I know, however, I am the first to spot this... at least I can not find any reputable source that points this error out.
So what am I to do?... I don't think I can challenge the citation on WP:RS grounds ... even if the CE has its facts wrong, it is clear that the CE does make the allegation that tiaras are trampled in the Kadosh Degree. Can I point out that the CE is wrong in attributing the words in quotes to Pike? Or would that be Original Research? And if I can, how? In short, how do you discuss an obvious error in a citation when there is an absence of reliable sources pointing out the error. Your advice is appreciated. Blueboar 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
