Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Do reliable sources have to be informed of their use in a Wikipedia article?

Do reliable sources have to be informed of their use in a Wikipedia article? Howie Marx (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would/should they be? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn`t know if we needed their permission or not to include them as a reliable source in an article ....I can`t think of any reason why they would object to this ... surely it`s good for them too? (as long as it`s factual)

Do you think they should be informed Headbomb? Howie Marx (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No they don't need to be informed, and their objections wouldn't matter if they had any. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

ok thx Howie Marx (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability and Time

How much does time factor into the reliability of sources and the accuracy of information? For example, say an article has multiple sources - enough to pass WP:N and WP:V. However, although the sources are regarded as reliable - as in Generally or Marginally - the info from them may be outdated. Perhaps the article was of an older topic that was notable but wasn't created until after a long time has passed. Yet, the only evidence that proves such info is out of date comes from primary and/or potentially unreliable sources. Since the site requires that articles are based on secondary sources, what would an editor do in this situation? Is it better to leave the article intact until a new reliable secondary source is found? Or should the article be updated with current information, even if that info is from dubious sourcing (or even none at all)? I was under the impression that WP:VNT and WP:NTEMP applies, but is it concerning to leave it even if no other sources ever emerge? Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To me, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is prescient: a source becomes primary when the context in which it was written has been sufficiently diverged from by "our own", that it no longer suffices to transparently verify claims and communicate information to the reader. That is, if the reader attempted to make deductions while intuitively applying the understanding of the world presently around them onto the text, they would get crucial facts wrong. A primary source requires an additional layer of interpretation and expertise between it and transparent, verifiable claims we can cite. Remsense ‥ 论 22:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: I guess we'll have to find out when it happens? It seems like it would depend entirely on what the article is specifically about. Remsense ‥ 论 22:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I think I get your point, but just to clarify: unless the info is inherently obvious, most of the time the info from primary sources needs analysis and expertise before we can use it on Wikipedia? And such analysis can generally only be done through a reliable secondary source? That's my line of thinking too. I believe that when it comes to the ease of spreading misinformation online, secondary reliable sources should definitely be used to combat that. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also for a specific example, my impetus to discuss this was based on Smosh Games. The article became a redirect ten years ago due to a lack of notability. Recently I uncovered multiple sources found since then that proved notability per WP:WEB. However, there was recent contention regarding the info in the article, namely whether much of it was inaccurate because it was outdated - due to the ten years since the AfD. While I believed in sustained notability, another editor claimed its inaccuracy, and continuously added info attempting to update it, without verifying that the info came from secondary sources. I objected to that due to failing WP:V and WP:OR among other MOS guidelines. Needless to say it's a messy debate. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance, inaccuracy gets solved with the [Edit] button, not the delete button. If an old source says "500 members" or "revenue of $2 million", and that's alleged to be inaccurate due to being out of date, then copyedit it to say "500 members in 1965" or "revenue of $2 million in the 2015–2016 fiscal year". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for your advice. I did keep in mind MOS:REALTIME and MOS:DATED when I rewrote the page, trying to say "In year X, they did Y" as much as I could. But I guess it still wasn't enough anyways. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Dubious

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

---

What should be done to overhaul the {{dubious}} template? Literally every time I've seen it on an article, there is zero discussion on the talk page about what may be dubious in the article. I discussed this on the talk page a while back, but the discussion just went around in circles and fizzled out. Should a drive be done to remove drive-by instances of this tag where no discernible discussion exists? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also asked at WP:VPM and at WT:V… Please don’t ask the same question at three venues. Consolidate the discussions. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold edit on WP:AGEMATTERS

In the passage With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) are can be less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. I have changed the underlined portion.

The main reason for this is ancient primary sources (Plutarch, Livy, Sallust, Cicero, Polybius, Thucydides, etc). They are in fact older and closer to historical events. They are not also necessarily more reliable. The transmission chains for these sources are complicated both in terms of how they were written (see eg Quellenforschung) and how they were copied to the present (eg emendation). For counterexample, it is now relatively common to question descriptions given in, say, Livy on the basis of alternate versions in Dio, even though Dio is later than Livy; similar issues pop up in emendation, where the "earliest" version of a manuscript is not necessarily the one which is accepted. A E Housman in a rather old review, and very fun to read in a base way, a few times aimed his (extremely sharp) skills of invective at that exact assumption.

I noticed this while doing some edits to an essay of mine (User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics) which also explains why ancient primary sources are problematic. Anyway, I thought the statement rather broad and weakened it. Ifly6 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ifly6, what do you think about deleting the whole paragraph?

[Text: "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) can be less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt."]

Even if I think it's 100% true, I'm not sure that tells editors anything actionable. It's kind of a long-winded way of saying "Better sources are better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to deleting the paragraph. Ifly6 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers

I was recently reading the Wikiedu subject-specific guide on reliable sourcing, in preparation for training students in a history class on how to complete their Wikipedia assignment. The subject-specific guideline says to avoid using "most newspaper articles from the period you're writing about" (page 2) as sources, because they are considered a primary source. I was surprised to read that, but on reflection, it makes sense. I was wondering if that would merit mentioning on this page. How old does a newspaper article have to be to count as a primary source rather than a secondary source? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See #Bold edit on WP:AGEMATTERS (above). —Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU), you might find WP:PRIMARYNEWS useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of "primary" and "secondary" is contextual. For intro undergrad students, it's probably best to just say that newspapers are entirely primary, or if not now, they will be within a few months. The more nuanced approach is that there are different types of newspaper articles, and different types of content in a newspaper article, and the context in which one uses such content also determines its suitability for whatever parameters of sourcing you have.

I'll use examples from the freely accessible BBC today: in "Telegram CEO Durov says his arrest 'misguided'", the line "the BBC learned last week that Telegram has refused to join international programmes ..." would be primary source material, as it is the BBC's original reporting from that series of articles. The quotations in the article are taken from Durov's Telegram post, which considering that the BBC and others would verify that account and statement, makes this a secondary source for that statement around this time of publication. However, after some months, it may no longer as important that Durov said something at this specific day, but rather what he said, in which case a line that cites this article for that information would use it as a primary source. Finally, the factual statements about Telegram and Durov's bio at the end will probably be considered citable as a secondary source for many years (although since the source of that information is not given, it is the worst kind of secondary source). And hopefully I've conveyed that the context in which it is cited matters. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the analysis by @SamuelRiv. The bit about "it was copied, which makes this a secondary source" is WP:LINKSINACHAIN. What makes (some or all of) a source be secondary is the addition of original thinking to prior publications. If the BBC not only repeated the original quotation but added, e.g., something about the implications of this quotation, the analysis of what the quotation reveals about how the arrest is affecting him, how the BBC believes this compares to a similar case, etc., then it would be a secondary source. Merely repeating what someone else said is still primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, independent thought is necessary, but independent content is not necessary to define a secondary source. (And again, one shouldn't try to find some rigid definitions outside of the usage context.) Before a reputable newspaper reprints, in an article, what is claimed to be an statement from someone else, it verifies the statement. That makes it a secondary source for that statement. If they republished it indiscriminately, or at face value without any other reporting on the topic, then it would not be secondary. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have read that newspapers no longer attempt to verify most statements. Fact checking is expensive. In particular, if the story says "The Daily Newspaper has reported that...", then I think we can assume that the original is being taken at face value. This is not bad; professional journalism is a small world, and its members are better suited for identifying who's trustworthy and who's not than Wikipedia editors are.

But all of this is a tangent: Fact checking produces a reliable source, not a secondary one. This would be a secondary source:

"News reports are conflicting. The Daily Newspaper quotes the mayor as saying 'Aliens are invading!', and The Weekly Standard quotes the police chief as saying 'It's all a big hoax'."

This example is secondary because they are comparing different reports. That would be secondary even if it were on a self-published blog, written by a non-expert, with no reputation for fact-checking or any of the other qualities we value. You couldn't use such a source because it would be totally unreliable, but Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good, and it would be secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't use the term 'fact-checking' (as in the editorial procedure for each story). I say verifying as in independently verifying the reporting of a news outlet before re-reporting their content. That may mean some combination of fact-checking, interviewing the original journalist and editor, cross-checking with one's own sources, or some other process. The point is that we believe that a major news outlet generally does this (and they may outline their procedures publicly). SamuelRiv (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think this actually happens? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It is the definition of an WP:RS; if you believe an individual source is failing to do that, you should raise an objection on talk or take it to WP:RSN if the problem is systematic. If you believe all sources are failing to do that then there's nothing to be done; Wikipedia, by its nature, assumes that RSes exist. (Keep in mind that of course even the best RS will sometimes have some failures - that's very different from asserting that they have no fact-checking process at all!) --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There's also the theory of accountability. Even if an outlet does not actively check every fact on every article, or even the majority of facts, if its reputation and financial stability hinge on its resistance to the scandal of major inaccuracy (if indeed major inaccuracy would be scandalous to that outlet, which is pretty much a requirement for RS here), then one can have some degree of confidence in the passive processes that would also serve rigor and accuracy in an institution.

Because resources are finite in every institution (even in some golden age of X), one always has to in practice give some faith to passive forces. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Appropriate"

"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

What is intended by distinguishing appropriateness from being reliable for a statement being made? Is it referring to WP:UNDUE, or is it elaborating evaluating whether a source is reliable for a statement being made?

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This statement is about whether the source is appropriate for the content (e.g., reliable), not about whether the content is appropriate for the Wikipedia article (e.g., UNDUE). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We've never really needed a definition of Wikipedia:Appropriate. Until last year or so, I don't remember anyone even asking about it. I recently expanded Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Secondary" does not mean "good" to provide a bit of an explanation.

I think it's easier to understand that some sources are obviously inappropriate than to define appropriate directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is referring to being reliable for the statement, how is it not a tautology? I'm just not sure what it's adding. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"E.g." means "For example". It does not mean "A complete list of all factors". An unreliable source would obviously be inappropriate, so I give it as an example of one way in which a source could be inappropriate. If you would like others, then see the examples in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE that I linked above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, this is just not communicated in the quoted text at the top. If a source being reliable for a statement was entailed in "appropriate" as you give in your e.g. example, then it would be sufficient to just say the source is appropriate and omit the first half of the sentence. I think rewording the last part "and is [otherwise] an appropriate source for that content" would clear this up, especially with the link to WP:NOTGOODSOURCE embedded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think that "appropriate", in this context, is a catchall for the sorts of things detailed in the reliability in specific contexts section and our more specific contextual content policies like WP:BLP, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and so on. The one thing that isn't spelled out, which perhaps should be, is that sources with relevant expertise are generally preferred over ones that lack it, but that isn't necessarily a requirement outside of WP:MEDRS, and other factors can complicate things - a news article written by someone with no expertise can still summarize the opinions of experts in ways that we can cover in the article voice, after all; whereas an academic paper may represent a single study whose results are outside of the mainstream. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  An example differentiating “reliable” from “appropriate” … Suppose Joe TikTok writes in his social media: “Today was my 21st birthday, and I was enjoying it until a bunch of Anti-(cause) protestors stormed the restaurant and…” followed by a long rant on how he now hates Anti-(cause) protestors.

  That social media post can be considered ABOUTSELF reliable for verifying his birthday, but I would argue that the rest of the content makes it inappropriate to use for that purpose. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest Blueboar, I've never encountered this before, it's very interesting to hear. To my eyes, it's not at all a natural reading from "appropriate". And I probably would have considered it appropriate. Even if it's not written verbatim in policy it's good to know.

Aquillion, I see WP:BLP, WP:EXCEPTIONAL etc as all entailed in the first half of the sentence. For instance, would you say a source failing BLP is still reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article? I can see how it could apply to generally preferring expertise, albeit not to MEDRS, per the same justification as my prior BLP example. I am lightly bludgeoning this and it's not gaining traction, so I might leave it there, thanks for weighing in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Context

Roger 8 Roger, I think the start of WP:RSCONTEXT should be two paragraphs, like this:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Meaning of these sentences: The DSM-5 might be an excellent source in theory – scholarly reference work, heavily cited by other sources, etc. – but it is absolutely unreliable if you're trying to support a sentence that says "Oppenheimer (film) won the Academy Award for Best Picture". OTOH, for that same sentence, a self-published, non-independent social media post from the Academic Award's official social media channel is okay.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see also Wikipedia:Citing sources § Inline citations and Wikipedia:Inline citation).

Meaning of these sentences (or at least the first one): If you want to know what's usually a desirable characteristic in a source, then here are some qualities we value in general.

The usual rule for a paragraph is that you should have one main idea per paragraph, and this is clearly two different ideas. Ergo, it should be two different paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead doesn't say what reliable source means

Compare with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you propose the lead to say? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps "Reliable sources have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. They are published, often independently from their subject." It's also troubling that the "page in a nutshell" doesn't reference reliability. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I've had a think to try to sum up the spirit of the guideline: "A reliable source is a source (four meanings in WP:SOURCE) that is just as willing to turn its critical attention inwardly as outwardly." I also think there is an implication that by doing this, they will necessarily be recognized for it which is the foundation for "reputation". This definition has a bias towards the source as a publisher/creator as described in WP:SOURCE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to begin with a definition, then AFAICT the actual definition is:

• "A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept for supporting a given bit of material in a Wikipedia article."

You have probably noticed the absence of words like reputation, fact-checking, accuracy, independence, etc. That's because those aren't actually required. We cite self-published, self-serving, inaccurate, unchecked, non-independent sources from known liars all the time. See also {{cite press release}} and {{cite tweet}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The first part makes some sense, although I would appreciate some clarification on the second part. If every source is reliable for something, the second sentence of this page "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is redundant. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence is incomplete. It probably ought to say "If no Wikipedia:Independent reliable sources can be found..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed the exclusion of independent was intentional. There does seem to be a distinction between sources reliable for verifying the content they express (wikivoice), and sources reliable for verifying that such a source expressed content (requiring attribution). I'll add in the "independent", although it does seem a bit like a non-sequitur. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be in the lead at all, but if it's going to be there, it should match WP:NOT, which says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" and WP:V, which says "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure it should be in the lede either. I tried to express this by labelling it a non-sequitur.

If I were to read the lede to find out what constitutes a reliable source for a statement, I would learn it's what experienced editors thinks verifies it. This is really useless, I would have no idea how to apply this guideline, which is surely the first consideration in reading a guideline. Defer to experienced editors, who apparently deferred to experienced editors, who... Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's useless, but I agree that it isn't immediately actionable. It tells you what a RS actually is. What you need after that is some way to determine whether the source you're looking at is likely to be RS.

This could be addressed in a second sentence, perhaps along these lines:

"Editors generally prefer sources that have a professional publication structure with editorial independence or peer review, have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or issuing corrections, are published by an established publishing house (e.g., businesses regularly publishing newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books), and are independent of the subject. Reliable sources must directly support the content and be appropriate for the supported content."

It's that last bit ("appropriate") that throws over the preceding sentence. If a BLP is accused of a crime, and posts "I'm innocent! These charges are false!" on social media, then that's a source with no professional publication structure, no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no reputable publishing house, and no independence from the subject. But it's 100% appropriate for the article to contain this information, and 100% reliable for the statement "He denied the charges on social media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, the rest of the page explains in detail what qualities are (and aren't) seen in sources that are usually accepted, so I'm not sure that duplicating that information in the lead is necessarily the best choice. Perhaps it would be better to say something like "This guideline describes the characteristics of sources that are generally preferred by editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This ridiculous situation is a product of us not distinguishing reliable for verifying the content of a source, and reliable for verifying the existence of a source. I understand that there is some complexity with DUE on this front (SME may fall into the latter category given what we can verify is that an expert is saying this but not that it is something we can put in wikivoice), but the current approach, where we try to bundle it into "appropriate" is insufficient.

Small note, we should try to keep comments such as "But it's 100% appropriate for the article to contain this information" out of the convo to keep the streams from getting crossed with WEIGHT. probably too aspirational, and my comments may be read as doing this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea isn't "duplicating" information, but summarizing it. The lede of NPOV could say "An article's content can be said to conform to a NPOV if experienced editors accept it as appropriate to include" but this doesn't explain what it is as representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" does. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, since I doubt that the sentence should be in this guideline at all, I don't really mind you removing the word 'independent', but I did want to make sure you understood the context. As a result of your edit, we have

• WP:NOT saying that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources",
• WP:V saying that "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", and
• WP:RS implying that non-independent sources aren't all that important.

If we have to have this sentence at all, I'd rather have this sourcing guideline match the core content policies. If, on the other hand, you're thinking about the fact that NPROF thinks independent sources are unimportant, then I suggest that the place to fix that is in the policies rather than on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that several SNGs can be satisfied without (what some editors consider to be) fully independent sources, not just NPROF.

Fundamentally, I think the actual policy problem is that the degree of independence that should allow a source to be used to establish the notability of a subject is poorly-defined and easily weaponized. So it seems to me that no academic is notable based on their own self-published statements, but a legitimate claim to notability can be based on reliable statements from universities and learned societies (to satisfy NPROF criteria).

An author or artist can't be notable based on their own self-published statements, either, but a legitimate claim to CREATIVE notability can be based on reliable statements from the committee granting a major award.

In a way, I think the older "third-party" language more clearly supported these claims to notability, whereas many editors will now argue that employers and award grantors are "not independent enough" for their own reliable claims to count for notability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, an employer is not independent of the employee they tout, though an award granter (usually) is independent of the winner (though not of their award).

I agree that there might be a problem, but I think that if we're going to have this sentence in this guideline at all, it should match what the policies say.

How do you feel about removing this as unnecessary for the purposes of this guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This may be a controversial opinion, but I think an institutional employer with a decent reputation is a reliable source for the employment history and job titles of an employee, which is what NPROF requires in some cases. No "tout"ing necessary. Under those circumstances, I don't think a more purely independent source is "better" than the employer for establishing that kind of SNG notability.

Similarly, I have most certainty seen enthusiastic arguments that an announcement by an award grantor of a grantee is not independent of the grantee (presumably for reasons of "touting") and therefore does that such sources do not contribute to notabiiity under CREATIVE (even though the latter does not actually require independent sourcing, only reliable sourcing).

I would also point out again that "third party", which is what NOT says now and what WP:V said until 2020, seems slightly less amenable to weaponization in this way than does "independent", for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that employers are usually "reliable" for the kinds of things they publish about their employees, but they're never "independent".

Wikipedia:Third-party sources redirects to Wikipedia:Independent sources, and has for years. There is a distinction – see Wikipedia:Independent sources#Third-party versus independent – but the distinction is not observed in Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If we do not remove this sentence, can we add independent, and then have a follow-up sentence or footnote saying "independent sources are not required to meet some SNGs" or the sort? Seems like that would clear up any confusion by not having "independent" in the sentence. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A second thought: I don't think using a narrowly "document" definition for source adequately accounts for the other meanings of source used (i.e. a publisher), and I'm not sure how you could do that. I imagine that's just a case of reliable source having multiple definitions depending on the way it's being used. This may be the source of conflict with the second sentence: a different meaning being invoked. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In discussions, we use that word in multiple different ways, but when you are talking about what to cite, nobody says "Oh, sure, Einstein is a reliable source for physics". They want a specific published document matched to a specific bit of material in a specific article.

"Document" might feel too narrow, as the "document" in question could be a tweet or a video clip or an album cover, none of which look very document-like, but I think it gets the general jist, which is that RS (and especially WP:RSCONTEXT) is focused on "the work itself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am thinking more Breitbart, although you describe well what the underlying dispute is, describing a publisher as unreliable is making a presumption for specific cites. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a known difficulty. There's the "Oh, everyone agrees that Einstein's reliable" sense and the "Yeah, but the article is Harry Potter, and Einstein's not reliable for anything in there" sense.

I have previously suggested encouraging different words. Perhaps Einstein is reputable, and an acceptable source+material pair is reliable. But we aren't there, and for most purposes, the distinction is unimportant. If someone says that "Bob Blogger isn't reliable", people glork from context that it's a statement about the blog being unreliable for most ordinary purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the definition Google gives for reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted" does not caveat that it only speaks to verifying single pieces of information. This implies the Wikipedia definition is unintuitive. I do think this isn't the biggest problem here although it does make it confusing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We use the "able to be trusted" sense. And the question is: Able to be trusted for what? There are people you can trust to cause problems. There are source we can trust to "be wrong". That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether we can trust this source to help us write accurate, encyclopedic material.

A source can be "consistently bad in quality" and still be reliable. Many editors would say that anything Donald Trump posts on social media is bad in quality. But it's reliable for purposes like "Trump said ____ on social media", because it is "able to be trusted" for that type of sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Context makes a difference. We should never ask: “Is this source reliable?” but rather, we should ask: “Does this source reliably verify what is written in our article?” Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I find the formulation added ("A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept for supporting a given bit of material in a Wikipedia article.") quite bizarre. Firstly, it is, in effect, saying a reliable source is a source which "experienced" editors say is reliable. Isn't that utterly circular? It tells me nothing if I want to work out whether a source is reliable or not. Secondly, it fails WP:LEAD. I can't see anything about "experienced" editors' opinions being decisive in the rest of the guideline. It's completely out of the blue. Fundamentally, it's not what the guideline says. Thirdly, why do "experienced" editors views get priority? I've come across plenty of experienced editors with highly dubious views about RS and relatively new editors with compelling opinions. Fourthly, "a given bit of material". Seriously, are we going to have such slangy sloppy language in the opening of one of the most prominent guidelines in WP? Apart from that it's great. I don't disagree that a summarising opening sentence would be useful, but this is not it or anything like it. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, what would you write instead, if you were trying to write the kind of definition that MOS:FIRST would recommend if this were a mainspace article?

  Usually, editors start off trying to write something like this: "A reliable source is a work that was published by a commercial or scholarly publisher with peer review or editorial oversight, a good reputation, independent, with fact-checking and accuracy for all."

  And then we say: We cite Donald Trump's tweets about himself. They are N self-published with N no editorial oversight, Nno peer review, a N bad reputation, N non-independent, with N no fact-checking, and N frequently inaccurate. And despite matching exactly 0% of the desirable qualities in a reliable source, they are still 100% Y reliable for statements that sound like "Trump tweeted _____".

  An accurate definition needs to not completely contradict reality.

  As for your smaller questions:

  1. Is this circular? No. "A reliable source is whatever we say it is" tells you what you really need to know, especially in a POV pushing dispute, which is that there is no combination of qualities that can get your source deemed reliable despite a consensus against it. It doesn't matter if you say "But this is a peer-reviewed journal article endorsed by the heads of three major religions and the committee for the Nobel Peace Prize, published by a university press after every word was publicly fact-checked, written by utterly independent monks who have no relationship with anyone!": If we say no, the answer is no.
     Does that sentence tell you everything you need to know? No. I agree with you that it does not tell you everything you need to know about reliable sources. We have been discussing that in the thread above.
  2. See WP:NOTPART.
  3. Why "experienced" editors? Because, to be blunt, experienced editors control Wikipedia, and especially its dispute resolution processes. A source is not reliable just because three newbies say it is. However, it's unusual to have three experienced editors say that a source is reliable, and end up with a consensus the other way, and I don't ever remember seeing that happen with only newbies opposing that.
  4. If you dislike that particular phrase, then I invite you to suggest something that you prefer. As long as it prioritizes text–source integrity – by which I mean that we're talking about whether this source is reliable for this word/phrase/sentence/paragraph rather than vaguely about "the subject in general" or "some unknown part of the thousands of words on this page" – I'm personally likely to think it's an improvement.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think putting forward a strawman and then demolishing it is particularly useful. Your strawman clearly fails for its narrowness. The current text (and the premise of the above thread) fails because it's circular (yes it is - I'll come back to that) and doesn't tell us anything about what an RS is.

  To do that, one has to reach back to the fundamentals that, absent the detail of WP:RS, gives editors a guiding principle by which to judge whether a source is RS or not. For me, the fundamental concept is that RS are the means by which WP:V is delivered in practice. If it delivers it, it's RS. If it doesn't, it's not. I'm sure there are a number of ways this can be formulated. Here's one - I don't say it is the only one or the best one or it can't be improved. A reliable source is a previously published source of information in any medium which has all the attributes necessary to enable a reader to check the veracity of a statement in an article and to be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences. That's pretty much all you need to know to understand why this is RS for "Donald Trump has claimed on Twitter that China created the concept of global warming" but not for "global warming was created by China" (to take your example).

  Turning to your numbered points:

  1. How can it be anything other than circular? I have 37k edits over 12 years so I would think by most standards I am "experienced". So if I am in doubt on whether something is RS or not and I look at that I'm told that whatever I think is RS is RS. There are no inputs given to me other than what I already thought and what I already thought is validated. Circular. Obviously WP:CONSENSUS is how all disputes are ultimately resolved. But what you say is clearly not true - otherwise !votes contrary to policy in RFCs wouldn't be disregarded. Of course 'might is right' works from time to time here, but not always or inevitably and to embed and codify it is really inappropriate in a guideline.
  2. The great thing about WP policies and guidelines is that (for the most part) they reflect commonsense. Taking a bureaucratic approach to ignore LEAD, a very commonsense guideline, doesn't make sense to me. Of course, the opening should be relatable to what is actually said in the policy. There is absolutely nothing in the current opening that foreshadows the rest of the guideline.
  3. Just need to look at RFC's to see that's not how we work. And ultimately an RS dispute will end up there. And what's an "experienced" editor anyway? I can see it feeding arguments along the lines of "I've got 40k edits and you've got 2k so my opinion counts more than yours".
  4. For the reasons I've given above, the current text isn't salvageable. It needs a different concept. But a "bit of material" is particularly cringworthy.

  I really think the addition should be reverted. Also, given its prominence whatever the final proposal is it needs an RFC rather than 3 editors deciding it. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I like the direction your definition takes, except that it's not really reflective of actual practice. Here is an example of a source that has all "the attributes necessary to enable a reader to check the veracity of a statement in an article and to be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences", but which is not a reliable source:

  • Source: Soviet propaganda article in a government-funded partisan newspaper saying HIV was intentionally created as part of a American biological warfare program.
  • Article content: "HIV was created as part of a US biological warfare program."

  The reader can check source and "be assured that it is not derived from editors' own beliefs or experiences". That (dis)information definitely came from the cited newspaper and not from Wikipedia editors.

  But it's still not a reliable source, and at the first opportunity, editors will remove it and, if necessary, have a discussion to demonstrate that we have a consensus against it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Circularity

This is about the comments on the definition ("A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept") being circular.

Circular reasoning is this case: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." For example: "This drug was proven to work because 100% of the people taking it got better afterwards. I know they get better because of the drug (and not due to random chance, placebo effect, natural end of the disease, etc.) because the drug has been proven to work."

Circular reasoning is not: "A reliable source is whatever editors say it is".

This is the old joke about reality, perception, and definition: Three baseball umpires are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but they ain't nothing until I call them."

The last umpire speaks of definition: What makes a source be "reliable" is that editors accept it. If it is not reliable, it is not reliable because they do not accept it. They might (and should!) give reasons why they don't accept it, but it is not unreliable because of the reasons (which may vary significantly between editors, or even be completely incorrect); it is unreliable because they don't accept it.

Imagine that you have applied for a job somewhere. They do not choose to hire you. You ask why. They say "We felt like you had too little education and not enough experience". You reply: "That's wrong! I've got five advanced degrees, and I've been working in this field for a hundred years!" Even if you're 100% right, you're still not hired. So it is with sources: No matter what the rational arguments are, a source is reliable if we say it is, and it's unreliable if we say it isn't.

When you write above that if "I am in doubt on whether something is RS or not and I look at that I'm told that whatever I think is RS is RS", you are making the mistake of assuming the plural is accidental. It is not what "I" think; it is what "we" think. Another way to say it might be "A reliable source is a published document that The Community™ will accept", though that will draw objections for its unsuitable level of informality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Conference proceedings

We have had a number of discussions on the reliability of conference proceedings as sources. See:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Conference_proceedings
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Conference_proceedings_RS?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Conference_papers
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#Things_published_in_conference_proceedings

The gist of the discussions is that it depends on the conference and the degree of peer review applied to the proceedings. I think we should say something to this effect here, perhaps under Scholarship. BD2412 T 19:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If memory serves, it also depends on the field of study. Conference proceedings are unreliable in medicine, but I believe they are valued in other fields (computers?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Economics conferences deal mainly with working papers which are themselves cited relatively frequently in modern economic research. The papers are published in journals at the end of the process. I'd call them reliable depending on the calibre of the conference and its selectivity. Ifly6 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Ifly6: Perhaps something like, "Published conference proceedings may be reliable sources, depending on the field of study, the calibre of the conference, and its selectivity". BD2412 T 19:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? I'm tempted to add something like "and depending on what you're trying to claim", because a claim like "He presented something at a conference" requires much less of a source than a claim like "Recent experiment disproved the theory of relativity". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency between WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCEDEF

The definition of a source is not consistent between WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCEDEF. WP:SOURCE states that the word source has four related meanings whereas WP:SOURCEDEF states that the word source may related to one of three concepts. Here's a side-by-side comparison.

WP:SOURCE

WP:SOURCEDEF

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings: The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one") The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims"). The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims"). The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works"). All four can affect reliability.

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

So: does source have three meanings or four? —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 17:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The one from WP:V is correct, as it was discussed and updated in 2022. Either the two should match, or the RS should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thing is… I think these are meant to be examples more than definitions. We could probably come up with additional things that we might call a “source”… so it isn’t limited to just 3 or 4. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the original goal was to give newer folks a heads up that when one editors says something about 'the source', and another editor says something about 'the source', they might actually be talking about different things, like warning travelers that the word biscuit has different meanings in the UK vs in the US.

IMO it is not fundamental to any of these pages, and could be split out to an essay/information page like Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)