Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/rewrite

message: I am a bit confused about these points:
*Replicability of the material
*Corroboration
*Age and rate of change of the subject
*Persistence of the source, particularly when an online source is used.
*Confidentiality
Would you mind explaining?
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now amplified on each of my main points, they still need some refinement in terms of content and presentation but the structure is there.  I'm really not sure what is meant by the remaining three, although my assessment is that they are probably already covered under the existing principles.  The persistence issue needs a complementary section on convenience linking, since that's mainly what it affects.  Personally I prefer dead tree sources rather than online because I don't trust online to still be there when I follow the link through, linking to online editions of dead tree is a useful compromise though.ALR 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'm not sure about these.  I think they're already dealt with and become specifics during discussion of examples:
The following may also be helpful, but are not as broadly agreed upon:
 
* Declared legal liability (sometimes by implication)
* Degree of establishment
* Established history (track record)
ALR 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure either, but I added them based on something Terryeo wrote.  So I left a note on Terryeo's talk page. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspects of reliability 

message: IT would be prudent to avoid shuffling the order that the various points are listed in until after there is actually some meat on the bones.  Personally I'd say that explicit derivation and replicability are more important than source author bias, because bias can be mitigated through derivation and replicability.ALR 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Come to think of it, declaration of sources / corroboration is sort of parallel to editorial oversight.  It might be a sort of open editorial oversight, or a way of allowing the reader to do the oversight themselves. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've re-sequenced the order of aspects of reliability, hoping to arrive at which is most important for reliability, which is second most important, etc.  It is intuitive that some aspects of reliability are less critical than others. Terryeo 14:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuffling the deckchairs 

message: (also posted at WP:RS) Please note that WP:EL has been revised... there is one section that may impact this guideline or the various rewrites being drafted:
 
:Links normally to be avoided
:Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:
:2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
This is the first time that I can think of where factually inaccurate material has been discussed in such a explicitly negative way in a guideline.  OUR guideline certainly doesn't (nor the draft rewrites that might replace it).  Given this, Perhaps the time has come for us to address the issue of sources that contain factually inaccurate material as well.
I know that we have to be careful not to contradict the priciples expressed in WP:NPOV... but should we state something similar to what is on WP:EL.  I.E. any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research should not be considered reliable.  Any thoughts? Blueboar 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is inconsistent with our verifiability, not truth policy.  It is not Wikipedia's place to judge whether or not something a source (or link) said is "true" or not.  And it's not the sources that need to be verified - the sources are the verification.  Our only way of deciding how much faith to put in something a source (or link) said is reliability.  If all of the reliable sources agree on something, we call it a fact.  It might be wildly untrue, but at least we'll be wrong with the best.  A very unreliable source might say something true.  But we ignore them, because that's a minority point of view below our notice.  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of revisions at [[WP:EL]]