Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Latest comment: 7 hours ago by Voorts in topic SPS prohibition on using experts in BLPs
Learn more about this page
    view · edit
    Frequently asked questions
    Questions
    Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?
    At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
    Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
    No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
    Do sources have to be in English?
    No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:Translators available.
    I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?
    No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
    I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?
    Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
    Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?
    No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
    Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
    No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
    What if the source is biased?
    Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
    Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?
    No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
    Are reliable sources required to name the author?
    No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
    Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?
    No. Wikipedia editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Wikipedia article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
    Does anyone read the sources?
    Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

    Other people

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    User:Bob K31416, about this: "Other people" means not counting the editor who put that material in the article in the first place. (I don't object to its removal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WP:NEWSBLOG

    edit
    Latest comment: 30 days ago42 comments4 people in discussion

    Should this section cover Liveblogging? Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I assume that it does, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Aren't they two different things? Blog hosted by newsorg, Liveblog by same newsorg
    where the first is what I assume is meant by newsblog and the second is live reporting of news, two different things, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In both cases, it's still bona fide journalists posting things on their newspaper's website without going through the full editorial process. Live blogging presumably has more of an element of Breaking news, so it's not identical, but it's still the same kind of thing as far as we're concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    OK, I will set about adding that, because we are all the time adding NYT, WAPO, NBC, BBC, etc, liveblogging as if they were normal RS. If that's not the case, needs to be flagged up so there is a point of reference specifically.
    Btw, its not bona fide journalists in the first case, that's anyone at all, which might include one or two bona fide journalists but the hosting newsorg explicitly disowns them as their POV. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me?
    I don't think we need to say anything specifically about this in this policy. Generally, I recommend avoiding adding something like this to the policy unless we have experienced at least two disputes over this question that were significant, independent of each other, and actually difficult for the community to resolve. That would mean something that goes beyond "Gee, I wish someone else replaced these weak primary sources with better ones" and into disputes that usually end in no consensus, or need long discussions with many editors to reach a consensus. Have you seen any such disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, I have seen one and given Horse Eye's Back comment below, that's two. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me? Did you not look at the link I gave, click on "Apply for a blog". Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, including this convo, it's three. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, I noticed that the non-liveblog has an "Apply for a blog" link. I do not understand why the non-liveblog page is supposed to tell us anything about what happens on the liveblog page. Every single name on the liveblog page is the newspaper's own staff.
    • Nothing on this page is a content dispute. So you've seen one dispute. Would you please post a link to it?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reply
    No. I keep saying that when a blog of any kind is (a) on the newspaper's website and (b) written by the newspaper's own journalists, then it is already covered by NEWSBLOG, and we do not need to add any WP:CREEPY text to NEWSBLOG to say "BTW, this also includes liveblogs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    K, I don't agree with your interpretation here. You are making the equation live news reporting by qualified journalists = a blog. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That is not a fair or accurate representation of what I have written. There are multiple types of live news reporting by qualified journalists. There is the old 'CNN model' of "it's news because I can stand in front of it with a portable television camera rolling", which is live news but not a blog. There is traditional breaking news, in which television shows get interrupted for an announcement. There is also the traditional Newspaper extra, which is as close to live news reporting as paper-based publication allows. But when a webpage actually says 'liveblog' on it, and the contents of the page are the sorts of content one would expect after reading a dictionary definition of liveblogging, or from reading our article Liveblogging, then yes, you're right, I do happen to call that a liveblog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "liveblog" is just a buzzword, some say blog others don't (like the BBC example below). But they are the same regardless. Live reporting of news, "breaking" for all practical purposes, so subject to WP:RECENT. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that one should not exclude news blogs solely because the marketing department picked a different buzzword, just like one should not classify a source like Science-Based Medicine, or press releases from corporations, as being a blog merely because the IT departments chose to use a type of blogging software for the publishing process. But in the case of Times of Israel, both the facts and the label align, and it appears to be obvious to everyone that their professional liveblog falls under NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe another example will clarify, do you assert that https://www.bbc.com/live is a blog? Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I assert that it is covered by NEWSBLOG. It is a type of "online column" which "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and Wikipedia editors should "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    K, so what is your objection to writing that up so it is clear? Because that is certainly not clear to me at the moment and I think it would not be clear to a lot of people. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My objection is:
    You have not demonstrated that there is an actual, significant need for a clarification.
    AFAICT all the editors in this discussion agree that the Times of Israel's liveblog contents are covered by NEWSBLOG. You have shown zero evidence that anyone in the world disagrees with the three of us.
    Therefore I ask, again: Please give us links to discussions in which editors say things like "No way, dude, everybody knows a liveblog is totally not covered by NEWSBLOG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why is Al-Jazeera green? (and there other discussions leading up to this one). Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You have linked to a discussion that says Al-Jazeera's liveblog should be treated under NEWSBLOG. Where is the discussion in which editors can't decide whether a newspaper's liveblog counts as a NEWSBLOG? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To avoid going around in circles, I have added a clarification to WP:NEWSBLOG. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have reverted it. Your clarification contained a factual error. Also, it's redundant to WP:RSAGE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reverted, I clicked on column which is what you referred to above and copied the sentence from there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Where exactly in WP:PRIMARY does it say that breaking news is a type of column? Because that's what you wrote: "breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources (columns)". That means that that breaking news are written by columnists. This not true, and it is not in PRIMARY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It says Reply
    What you wrote is a factual error. Regardless what you intended, what you actually wrote is that breaking news is a column. This is false, and you need to remove this factual error from the policy.
    Consensus is really important in policy editing, and re-reverting your own additions in, over direct opposition, is a bad idea. The usual standard for major policies is no edit warring at all: if your change gets reverted, you should not revert back within minutes.
    In terms of consensus, here's where we stand:
    • We do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence from the other policy and into this policy. You have not even attempted to explain why this particular sentence needs to be in multiple policies. Is there something defective about the other policy, so if you quote it in a discussion, people tell you that it's not a True™ policy and so doesn't matter?
    • We additionally do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence into this particular section. The accurate parts of this sentence apply to far more than just NEWSBLOG, so why should it be minimized and relegated to this sub-section?
    I suggest that you self-revert immediately, at least until you have one other editor explicitly agreeing that this duplication should be an exception to the policy that policies should not be redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If we agree it's just the two of us, I will go with WP:3PO Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing There have been confusion around this and it seems to have contributed to an arbitration case dispute found in the link below. Personally I think a news liveblog is different from what Wikipedia defined in the NEWSBLOG section. Maybe need to clarify that a news liveblog is not the same thing, or if it is a similar concept that should be under the NEWSBLOG section. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Peleio Aquiles Wafflefrites (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Does it really, @Wafflefrites? I see comments from three different editors there:
    • @Selfstudier (the editor who started this discussion) asserting that live blogs on news websites aren't WP:NEWSBLOGS.
    • XDanielx pointing out that WP:ALJAZEERA at WP:RSP explicitly names the Al-Jazeera liveblog as falling under NEWSBLOG. (RSP says "Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs".)
    • Red-tailed hawk, in the admin section, saying it's okay that someone "tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance", which indicates that liveblogs fall under NEWSBLOG.
    Nobody here, or anywhere else, has suggested that liveblogs from news sites are exempt from the rule in NEWSBLOG that editors can only "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
    BTW, I looked through all 13 of the discussions about Al-Jazeera linked in RSP, including the one in which you asked whether their live blog falls under NEWSBLOG, and were told that it does. I did not notice a single comment suggesting that it's exempt from NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing I actually agree with Selfstudier that blog columns hosted by news sources are not the same as liveblogs, which is rolling text. Maybe “rolling text” should be added for clarification? Wafflefrites (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn’t seem controversial to me to add a few additional words for clarification: “Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns or rolling text they call blogs.”
    Columns are not the same as rolling text. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not all blog posts in an ordinary news blog are technically columns, either, but we seem to be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing What about ““Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs.”? Wafflefrites (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The original problem was basically that this policy says "Hey, WP:BLOGS are bad, so don't cite them", and then an editor says, "Okay, so these things written by actual bona fide journalists and published by an actual bona fide newspaper that they call a blog are bad sources?" And they're not bad sources, so we tried to say "Well, okay, personal blogs are still bad, but things 'they call blogs' aren't True™ blogs within the meaning of this policy. They're, um, we'll call them WP:NEWSBLOGS. News blogs are okay."
    Our potential sources include "pages, columns and rolling text" that are called blogs, and "pages, columns and rolling text" that are not called blogs, and so long as they're written by a journalist and published by a newspaper, we don't really care either what it is (e.g., a column or not) or what they call it (e.g., a blog or not): it's not a banned source. We do want editors to treat them like primary sources, but we don't want editors to get hung up on the specific language. This is trying to communicate a general principle, which needs to be generalized. This is not trying to provide an exact or exhaustive list of all the things that the media's various marketing teams have attempted in their ongoing effort to get people to read the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the explanation. I got it, a personal blog is an unreliable source that should not be used, but a news organization’s publishing of “blogs” published by its employees or contractors is more a situation where a better source might be needed. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, exactly, plus it's also a situation in which you need to consider WP:DUE (is this an opinion or point of view? If so, is it worth including in this particular article?) and WP:BALASP (just because a journalist posted something – even if it's strictly factual – about the color of the politician's clothes doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to say what color clothes they were wearing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't they are distinct things, a live blog is equivilent to a twitter feed not a news blog. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have tagged the sentence I find lacks clarity and gave the reasons for that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So, @Selfstudier, your reasons are:
    • you don't like the word columns (as in Columnists) linking to WP:PRIMARY, which has a footnote naming "columns" as a type of primary source, and
    • you are concerned that not all sources are labeled with the exact word blog.
    Are these your actual and only questions, or are there others? I'm asking because I have noticed that they don't actually have any overlap with your original question, which does not mention columns at all and is entirely about something that actually is labeled as a blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You know the old saw, never assume. Anyhow, no time for this sort of pettifogging, so bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WP:EXCEPTIONAL

    edit
    Latest comment: 19 days ago8 comments7 people in discussion

    Reply

    Reply
    I'd support a change to "sourcing". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's a restatement of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but modified to fit Wikipedia reliance on sources. I'd support the change to 'sourcing' as it makes it clearer what is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have made this change. I doubt that anyone will object, but if someone reverts it, we can discuss it further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That makes sense to me. We just need multiple good, well-known, sources, not borderline or sketchy ones that barely squeeze by as RS for ordinary claims. Many ordinary claims are so uncontroversial we only need one RS. This is a different animal, so we need several (3 or more(?)) to confirm the claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think the number needed is going to depend on the subject and the nature of the claim in question. One unimpeachable source is better than three ordinary ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Looks good. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WP:VNOT

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 days ago27 comments11 people in discussion

    Under what circumstances does WP:VNOT permit us to exclude information from articles? The context to this is that some editors have been arguing that VNOT can override WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, enabling us to exclude views and aspects that are significant as assessed by their prominence in reliable sources.

    My interpretation is that all VNOT does is say that verifiability alone is not reason to include information; reasons based in other policies also need to be provided, and if those reasons are provided then VNOT cannot be used as a rebuttal to those reasons.

    I interpret it this way because WP:VNOT says Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and WP:CONSENSUS says consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Together these would appear to mean that including or excluding information isn't based on editor opinion, but based on whether other policies support its inclusion or exclusion.

    In addition, I believe that interpreting it otherwise would legitimize WP:POVPUSHING; it would empower editors to exclude views and aspects that they disagree with, even when those views and aspects are significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I interpret VNOT as primarily an admonition against indiscriminate collection of information. Our mission is to write precise summaries of topics, which can mean a few thousand words to cover a subject that entire shelves of libraries are devoted to. VNOT is not intended as an excuse to violate policies like NPOV, but it can be taken as advice that endlessly adding more and more may not be the best way to achieve balance. Finally, taking "editor opinion" out of "consensus building" is wishful thinking since "policy based" arguments can be written for or against all but the most clearcut positions. Zerotalk 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since Reply
    Thanks for the context. @ScottishFinnishRadish, your RFC at NPOVN has 399 comments and is a quarter million bytes long – and we're only six days into it. Would you mind splitting it off to a separate page (e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier)? The best time to do that would have been about five and a half days ago, but the second-best time is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's a good idea, so I've done so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    On the basic question - it doesn't. It only says that verification alone is not a reason for inclusion, reminds editors to build consensus, and that those seeking to include information should seek that consensus. It doesn't say anything on removing content on the basis of VNOT. Content still needs to be disputed for a valid reason, which VNOT is not -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Although verification alone doesn't require inclusion, there still has to be a valid policy reason for exclusion. VNOT alone is not a valid policy reason for exclusion. Others policy reasons may apply, but I would suggest looking to NPOV instead. (You can't blank the main page and demand that other editors build consensus before putting it back, you would need a valid policy reason for blanking it in the first place). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since WP:Consensus is policy, reaching a consensus to exclude is itself a valid policy reason to exclude. While discussion of other policies can certainly help a consensus to form, consensus can form due to non-policy based arguments. It doesn’t happen often, but when it happens it is still a valid consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with that, but if it's not based on policy then ity also not based on VNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I mostly agree with that, with the exception that NPOV cannot be overridden by consensus, and thus any consensus which does override NPOV is invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The difficulty (or one of them at least) is that NPOV is subject to interpretation and consensus as well, it’s not just a question of verifiability. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yup… consensus is HOW we determine whether something is NPOV (and whether omitting that something would violate NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    +1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've been wondering if that whole "non-negotiable" quote in NPOV needs a re-write or an explanation. The contents of the NPOV policy are subject to negotiation; whether and how a given article complies with NPOV is subject to negotiation. The only thing that you can't decide is to write a non-neutral article on purpose. We ban editors from deciding that (a) replacing Suicide methods with an admonition to please seek help would be non-neutral because it wouldn't be a neutral description of the subject but (b) we're going to do it anyway. We do not ban editors from deciding that an article on that subject is neutral if it describes the subject in the context of suicide prevention, and non-neutral if it doesn't mention suicide prevention efforts repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Another ONUS debate (in VNOT clothes for a change). Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Can't say I'm a fan on VNOT as a shortcut as it's to close to WP:NOT, which is a separate thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Regarding the wp:verifiability aspect could make it clearer and solve a lot of problems by stating the structural reality simply:Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    In other words, a necessary but not sufficient condition. Donald Albury 18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What you said is 100% true (and included in what I wrote) but the way that I wrote it adds to that......emphasizing that it is not a reason/argument for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Right, there is a finger on the scales in that direction, intentionally it appears. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I still think that "necessary but not sufficient" is clearer. "Verifiability is not a reason for inclusion" is not immediately clear.
    Another clearer option would be "Just because you can verify it doesn't mean that it belongs in the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Those are both good. I think mine goes a bit further in a needed area (emphasizing that verifiability is not an argument for inclusion) both IMO both of your ideas are good to include. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    North, you suggested your preferred wording when we first created this section of the policy… and you suggest it again every time we discuss this section of policy.
    I know some people will say that the horse is dead by now… but do beat it a few more times, just to make sure. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WP:VNOT is basically the policy that says that we're an enclyclopedia as distinct from other types of information and content and in addition specifies and forbids some of the more egregious misuses. In some areas an article or content may so-explicitly violate it that it singlehandedly excludes that article or content. In other areas which are not as clear-cut it doesn't singlehandedly exclude the article or material but it influences discussions such as content or wp:notability discussions/decisions. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I once started an essay listing the several cases when something may be left out of the article even if there are sources for it, at User:Cambalachero/Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. So far it's just a draft essay, and I'm currently busy with editing drives, but you can use it as a starting point to propose ideas and sections. Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Sounds like it would need a set of books rather than an essay. If something meets the wp:verifiability test, then inclusion/exclusion get based on lots of things.....starting with degree of WP:Relevance, NPOV considerations, usefulness, enclyclopedicness and informativeness of the material to start. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I think the problem likely arises in the beginning of the policy because even with the 'you must consult the other policies' at the end of the intro, it seems hyped on, you need one good source (and this is how you determine one good source) to add an article or to an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    SPS prohibition on using experts in BLPs

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 hours ago36 comments13 people in discussion

    I saw this part of SPS cited in a deletion discussion recently: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I can't come up with a good rationale for this rule. If someone is a professional researcher, writer, or expert who is presumably relied upon by non-SPS reliable sources, why shouldn't we be allowed to use that author's writings in BLPs? voorts (talk/contributions) 06:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hm, not immediately obvious why WP:BLPSPS has that restriction given that it is permitted (expert opinion) for ordinary articles, overabundance of caution for blps? Perhaps it's more difficult to assess "expert" in such cases. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I suggest that this should be only for "contentious material", which is a phrase that is poorly defined but present in the policy already. Zerotalk 11:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Experts are as prone to petty human emotions as anyone else. Opening the door to permit anything one person posts on social media about another person to be allowed in BLPs is a recipe for disaster. Just because a person is an expert (in something) or a professional writer doesn't mean that what they self-publish about another person is significant or even accurate. Self-publishing means there are no other gatekeepers. Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree. I can see that the phrase "even if the author is an expert" has been around since 2010 but I can't see what trouble it's caused. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    At minimum, SPS must be presented with in text attribution, as opinion and not as fact presented in wikivoice. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's really the short of it here, which is why the third-party bit is included. An SPS even from an expert shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice for BLP content as an independent secondary source, etc. If it's going to be included, it would need attribution, which isn't very different than if SPS sources are used in cases of WP:PARITY either in science subjects. Functionally, such a source would be treated as part of a dispute or close to the subject as a non-independent source, so it would have to be used much more carefully (even moreso in BLPs).
    In practice, if a world renowned cod expert called BLP X a confirmed cod-licker on their blog, it could be included (assuming editors found it WP:DUE) with attribution. If it was more widely reported in non-SPS sources, there's at least the option for not needing in-text for attribution (and more likely DUE for inclusion anyways). It's really just a general caution about using Wikipedia's voice related to BLPs and setting a higher bar for when it is used in part due to legal considerations. KoA (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are the legal considerations defamation? If so, in many jurisdictions, there's no added protection from relying on a newspaper vs. a SPS expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I can't really speak to specifics on the legal side, but there's probably a weighting that occurs when it comes to lawsuits of repeating what's in newspapers vs. a personal website when it comes to determining defamation. The key thing is that the degree of care in using Wikipedia's voice increases substantially across the source types. KoA (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To clarify, I'm not discussing social media posts. The source I'm imagining is an independent website by an expert, who perhaps hires a freelance editor/copy-editor to review their work, where said website is cited by mainstream publications for factual information. For example, say a journalist leaves traditional media and starts a website in a niche industry, interviewing people in that industry and conducting independent, unbiased research and writing. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For example, if a journalist leaves traditional media and starts an online trade magazine? When the trade rag has developed enough that there's a formal editing/review process, then it'll no longer be "self-published" in our model, and it will become acceptable. While it's still just one guy, who is operating without the safety net of a mandatory second pair of eyes between him and the next round of "Newspaper Typos You Won’t Believe Were Printed", it's not okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just an FYI: my understanding has always been that the expert SPS exclusion applies to BLP material, not to BLP articles. Most BLP articles contain information that is not BLP material. (I haven't read the whole discussion, so this might already have been expressed above.)
    Also, in the context of a deletion discussion, my understanding has been that SPS material never contributes to article notability, even if the source is independent of the article's subject. That is a separate question from whether the source can be cited in an article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "about living people" implies that we are talking about material about living people. The only "expert" about a living person is themselves. We should continue to not accept self-published biographical information from third-parties. 146.115.179.2 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. Is the living person, or the university, more expert about whether the person actually graduated? Is the living person, or the person's mother, more expert on the question of what color their first birthday cake was? We accept the living person as an expert on their current lived experience (e.g., "I am gay") but not on other questions (e.g., "I am not a crook"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    None of the bad scenarios mentioned so far would occur if expert SPS were only excluded for "contentious material". Also, I see here one of the most persistent wikimyths in action: the belief that publishers fact-check the things that they publish. This is only true to a very limited extent, even for academic publishers. Zerotalk 03:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I didn't notice anyone mentioning fact checking. I, at least, am only interested whether the author is the only person who gets a say in whether the document gets shared with the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reliability is all that has been discussed in this section so far. If another eye doesn't improve reliability, it is irrelevant to reliability. Zerotalk 07:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We believe that "another eye" does improve reliability. That's why the criteria for identifying reliable sources include things such as:
    • a reputation for fact-checking – fact checking is "another eye".
    • published by a reputable publisher instead of self-published by the author – the publisher is "another eye".
    • uses editorial oversight or peer review processes – the editor is "another eye".
    The idea of preferring sources with "another eye" is fundamental to our concept of a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Of course, the more eyes the better but still, an SPS written by a subject matter expert is ordinarily considered as RS (subject to the usual, extraordinary claims, due weight, etc). But if we want to make that more difficult for blps, I wouldn't object to that, per se. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My interptetation of this situation has been that our P&Gs specifically make the principle, "don't include self-published material one person says about another person" to override the principle, "recognized experts can be used as reliable sources even when self-published".
    Though, as I say, I believe this applies to BLP material wherever it is found, and also that biographical articles contain non-BLP (mostly factual) material. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In actual use isn't "contentious material" a meaningless platitude because its only knowable after the fact? Its only contentious if someone contests it... And if someone in the future is going to contest it then it was contentious all along even if it was impossible to know that. I can say right now that I challege all BLP material added to the site from this moment onwards, now all BLP material is contentious and we're back to square one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think it's more usual to say that it's not actually contentious until someone contests it, or until you have a reasonable belief that it will be (or should be) contested. Consider what happens if we write "Alice Expert is an independent scholar of expertise", and then she gets hired by Big University. Someone might (should!) contest the material, regardless of whether it's already cited, because it's now out of date. That doesn't mean that it was contentious in the past. It only became contentious when someone contested it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Then what is the difference in meaning you get by adding "contentious material"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is this a question for @Zero0000, who suggested adding those words to WP:SPS or WP:BLPSPS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You replied to a response to Zero0000. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I wouldn't have suggested "contentious" if this wasn't a concept already in the policy (7 times, in fact). I don't agree that something is only contentious if someone contests it, though that is an important case. In the case of information about a person, I would consider anything negative to be contentious. If an expert SPS says "X faked their qualifications", I would disallow it and require a published source. My position is that only innocuous material self-published by an expert on the subject should be allowed. If there is a better way to do that than adding "contentious", I'd probably agree to it. Zerotalk 02:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In a world in which innocent comments like "I ran into your spouse at the restaurant last night" precipitates divorces, it's hard to know what's truly innocuous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There are a hundred places in policy where editorial judgement is required, and plenty of opportunities for boundary cases that need discussion. This example is no different. If we forbad everything that might possibly go awry, there would be precious few things still permitted. Zerotalk 08:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The concept in policy when it comes to BLP is agnositic about the character of the information itself... "X faked their qualifications" and "X did not fake their qualifications" are equally contentious as the concept stands in policy. But that is clearly not what you are suggesting... You are suggesting a defintion of contentious in which negative information is given more scrutiny than positive information which would run afoul of WP:NPOV and much of the rest of the alphabet soup... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    NOTE: I have placed a brief notification of this discussion at WT:BLP. Rotary Engine talk 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    "Contentious" material on BLP's usually doesn't involve contention about the veracity of the material, it's usually about one of these:

    1. Applying a value laden term or adjective to the subject of the BLP
    2. Including or excluding positive-impression or negative-impression material about the subject where the veracity of the material is not disputed by anybody

    IMO the discussed standard should be (and usually is) strictly applied for #1 and for negative-impression material under #2 North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    In my experience, the inclusion of positive-impression material to which 2. should be applied is one of the largest contributors to NPOV violations in BLPs. I'd like to see *that* applied more strictly. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well my #2 is for material "where the veracity of the material is not disputed by anybody" Were you referring to that type of material? North8000 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I suppose that 'factual puffery' would fall into that category (e.g., calling someone a philanthropist instead of calling them a donor or supporter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    First, don’t we need to establish that the “expert exemption” of SPS actually applies? The policy says that for it to apply the source must be: “… produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” OK… let’s apply this to a BLP… say the subject is Ima Blowhard, a Congressman from Iowa who is notable for his controversial stance on agricultural subsidies. What exactly is the subject-matter and relevant field in this context? To be an “expert”, does the SPS author need to be a previously published biographer? Does he need to be published in the field of political science? The history of Iowa? The economics of agricultural subsidies? Does he need to have published material about Congressman Blowhard himself? Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It depends on what aspect of the congressman that the SME is writing about. If the SME is writing about the congressman's agricultural policy, an agriculturalist. If the SME is writing about the congressman's campaign, an expert in political science or a journalist on the campaign beat. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Reddit as source

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 hours ago10 comments7 people in discussion

    Section "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" has reddit as an acceptable source for subjects providing information about themselves. Unlike Facebook or Instagram, Reddit user accounts are unverified, so how do we know who a reddit user is claiming to be? Jay 💬 06:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Well, I imagine one has to be a bit more careful. It seems unproblematic to me that an individual could state what their username is elsewhere, where they are otherwise verified. Remsense诉 06:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think that facebook accounts are always verified. Alaexis¿question? 06:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If the subject linked to their Reddit account from a verified account on another platform, then it should be ok. It's an extra step, but uses of such sources should be double checked for authenticity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I assume this is referring to verified AMAs or something similar. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reddit was added without discussion I can find in January 2016. Special:Diff/699080407 .I did find an archive where User:Masem seems tohave thought it shouldn't be used.[1] but no real discussion. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's only a list of examples (Reply
    What makes Reddit acceptable? Doug Weller talk 14:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If it's used for an ABOUTSELF statement or from a subject matter expert who has previously been published in other reliables sources (SPS), and only if the poster can be reliably verified. The point is not whether Reddit is acceptable, but that it is no different from any other self published source. There would be limits, BLPSPS obviously, statements may need to be attributed, and DUE/BALASP also apply (but that last one is not a verification issues). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm with Voorts above. This line feels an awful lot like it was added in reaction to the increasing popularity of Reddit AmAs at r/IAmA, which have attracted media attention in their own right. Those do have (effectively) verified accounts participating, as the subreddit's moderators verify things behind the scenes and participants have to publicly post photographic proof. (Also, just imagine the verifiable media and legal firestorm if they got it wrong. I'm not aware of a single such case.) All that said, with some work editors could probably find confirmation on other verified social media accounts, e.g. Bill Gates. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&oldid=1239037157"