Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 17

message: A winning combination: vandalism, edit warring and harassment.  I've protected this for now, I'm happy to unprotect as and when a consensus is achieved here as to what (if anything) should change. I'm just deleting and restoring to remove some low-grade harassment.  Guy (Help!) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the need for protection at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, what's your thoughts on the disambig idea above? We're close to sufficient consensus there. Marskell (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think is is a good next step. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiratory comment - Pssst. Hey. "Reliable Source" should have two or more accepted meanings. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Biology.2C_Ecology_and_Medicine listenin (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ... that we merge this into WP:V? There is nothing here that is not discussed already in other policy pages, besides the exceptional claims section  which can be merged into V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 110% and then some. Brimba (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tripped over eachother, Jossi. I just typed the longest post of my life on this very topic. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'm 120% if it's not clear. Marskell (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes merge them. That way its easier for new users to read one quick and simple set of rules and therefore they are more likely to be able to follow the rules and get on their own feet quicker. Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't is about time... 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Oppose (nominator) – although the idea has some merit, for me this falls in "why do things the simple way if you can add complication?" (Dutch proverb: "waarom de dingen eenvoudig doen als het ook ingewikkeld kan") --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I am just comparing this page to what was here six months ago and it appears this guideline is becoming much less flexible than it was. If you read it now, it gives the impression that only academic sources are genuine reliable sources and that everything else, even what appears in quality newspapers, should be regarded with suspicion. There is no longer even a word about internet sites, except in regards to self-published blogs and so on.
If you took the current page literally, you would probably have to delete 90% of the content of Wikipedia, since it seems the only sources that qualify as reliable now are scholarly ones or (much less so) what appears in quality established newspapers. This is unacceptable to me and I don't believe it is the intention of the guideline to be so strict. IMO there needs to be a rethink about the direction this page is heading. Gatoclass 14:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gatoclass. We need to put back into this guidelines advice about newspapers, and certain types of websites (For example is a statment by WHO published on their website no longer acceptable as a source.) what about the answers provided by Hansard and the like for example is this reference no longer acceptable Refer also to the list of IRA terrorist incidents presented to Parliament between 1980 and 1994, listed halfway down the page here? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can reword the “Scholarship” section now to tone it down, but I do not see it existing once the merge to WP:V occurs, assuming that happens, for the very reasons you state. Brimba (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wait until a merger may or may not take place. It could be weeks or even months and in the meantime there is a hole between the guideline and the usual practice on Wikipedia pages. This does not help anyone who is currently engaged in a dispute or a potential dispute, or new editor who is reading this guideline for the first time for guidance. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline getting too rigid 

message: What exactly constitutes verification of a claim of consensus? The article on dice control has a debate raging right now between me and two other contributors over what constitutes verifiability of a statement. The statement was that the advantage gambling community generally agreed on a certain opinion, but that a more controversial opinion was not always accepted, and my citations consisted of several statements from gambling authors that this opinion was true. Do statements from members of a certain community agreeing with an opinion constitute verifiability? And, can a statement be considered verifiable if its citations require the reader to extrapolate in any way? Please take a look at the case and let me know what you think. GusChiggins21 10:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to miss the point.  You make a statement, and then add a citation that says NOTHING about the statement.  The fact that it is an original research conclusion of yours doesn't even come into it.  Citations are meant to source statements, which means they have to say something about the claim. 2005 10:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of consensus 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's stop this stupid polling. Marskell (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
: That is what we are trying not to do, Aude. We have a policy on sources, that is WP:V, an essay or guideline with examples is all is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you trying not to do?  Have policy worded differently on the guideline page compared to the policy page?  Or what?  I am not suggesting having different wording on the guideline page.  I'm suggesting we have the exact same wording, which could even be done with transclusion.  --Aude (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you familiar with the history of this page? I invite you to explore it before making a proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware of the history. --Aude (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you will know what not to do: To have two pages that discuss sources and their reliability. We have WP:V that is all what is needed from a policy perspective. Wanna have examples and give some guidance? see the essay on examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting having examples and guidelines about reliable sources on the reliable sources guideline page. The policy wording need not be different, but is useful to have here (transcluded from the policy page). --Aude (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I lack adverbs to express how completely opposed I am to Aude's page. Utterly, completely, vehemently, and totally will have to do. I can't believe this. We had apx. 14 people across the various threads support a redirect and now we're being held hostage. Marskell (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Aude, I think we had finally attained a compromise here, by having this material on a suitable secondary page, rather than disputing each point  endlessly as would be needed if it were literal policy. this is one of the rare rational moments in WP policy deliberations. DGG (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that examples and guideline don't belong on the policy page.  Reliable sources is a guideline page, and I am suggesting we keep it a guideline.  Reliable sources (the guideline) is secondary to policy. --Aude (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The disambig is a compromise. Your idea is to turn the clock back to '06. Marskell (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A disambiguation page is not a guideline page that I would refer to.  Not an acceptable compromise.  Strip it of content and it's not useful.  You might as well redirect it then. --Aude (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness, why wouldn't you refer to it? It quickly and directly links a reader to all of the relevant policy wording because use of reliable sources is a matter of policy. Marskell (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Does anybody who uses this page regularly know if any sort of consensus ever formed anywhere on whether The Register is a reliable source? I always assumed not, but this is apparently disputed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you've assumed correctly. I'm unaware of any specific consensus regarding The Register, but last I knew tabloids and such rags were considered unreliable sources by everyone except a handful of headcases and soapboxers. If someone is seriously arguing a tabloid is a reliable source, I'd recommend smacking some sense into them or an appropriate drug intervention. :-P Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And when moving this to the /Noticeboard, maybe also indicate that your question might relate to a current mailing list discussion, e.g. the following link indicates about where the discussion of this source's reliability started: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/086814.html --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess, I do not avidly follow the particular wording of policies, and hadn't looked at this one in any detail in, probably, about a year. I did not know such a noticeboard existed. I am also about 112 messages behind on wiki-en. My apologies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If Phil does get around to moving it, he might want to let them know that there are 1800+ links, many in article space, for The Register.  Risker (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Register 

message: I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.179.70.189 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi guys! 

message: A new page, Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, ahs been created which seems to be covering similar territory as this page, so I'm confused about the overlap.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because this page has been protected for a month. MilesAgain (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Evaluating sources is an outgrowth of discussions here, at WP:NOR and WP:V... It is an attempt to discuss sourcing and sources in general (beyond just the issue of reliability).  Overlap is not a bad thing, as long as what is said in the overlap is consistant.  If what is stated at Evaluating sources conflicts with this guideline, raise the conflict on both pages so people who work on both pages can discuss it and work towards consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate ? 

message: ::The objection to merging this it that WP:V is policy, and therefore needs to be general, and we also need a page of guidelines to interpret it, which should be WP:RS. The reason WP:V remains acceptable as policy is that all the practical arguments go here. And surely  people are not suggesting that WP:V be downgraded to a guideline. I think that rather, we should deal with the difference between the two pages by moving a good deal of the content from V to this page, because most of it is in fact meant to be -- and is-- interpreted flexibly. DGG (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DGG to not merge/delete/archive/obsolete/move.  One WP:RS is engrained in our fiber as a reference point.  Two I don't think the V talk page is too crowded so let's throw all the RS questions onto it as well, that wouldn't be swell, as it is people can't easily search through 25 archives to find that thread they remember it's already not very workable.  I can't see that improving by merging personally.  I am *OPEN* to having my mind changed.Wjhonson (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that, when I lasted look at this page (and almost every time I've looked at it), it didn't say much or anything that isn't in V, NOR, or BLP. And it has always either been that way, or else it has contradicted V (and has often been internally inconsistent too). That has been the perennial problem with it. We don't need a second page that says we need to use good sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources remain a key concept on Wikipedia.  Editors often refer to it.  There are numerous aspects of reliable sources (see the noticeboard and examples page) that do not belong on the policy page, but instead are suitable here on the guideline page. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You know what's weird on this to me is that, for the most part, the project is going along fine.  I wonder if people are learning by example more than by rule ?  I have no idea.  Maybe the vast majority of people already know "in their heart" (if you will) what is a reliable source. Which observation, would beg a question that I'm not sure I want to actually specify.Wjhonson (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: objection and alternative

message: Who's in charge of making that decision?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.17.246 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works by consensus.  In the case of sources which are contentious, we debate calmly with each other (*silences the hysterical laughter*) to arrive at a conclusion with which we can mostly and mosttimes concur.  Wjhonson (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To discuss a specific source, please post your specific source question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do sites become reliable sources? 

message: I have written an essay about assessing the reliability of different articles. I was hoping to get other editors to review, add to it and edit it. Currently, it is in my userspace at User:Billscottbob/Assessing reliability. Thanks for any input you may have. If you have anything you wish to discuss about it please do not discuss it here. Please discuss it on the talk page of the essay. Billscottbob (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to merge that into WP:EVAL. MilesAgain (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: Some of the kind readers of this talk page may take interest in the discussion here. Specifically, the exchange ongoing between Francis and I on the use of "old", "dead", archaic or hard to find sources in building an article. If you have any opinions, please feel free to weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion on "old" sources 

message: i watched a video on youtube claiming that jimi hendrix was accually born on the isle of lewis. Jimi's father was fighting at war and his plane crashed in the minch and was then washed up on a beach in lewis. he was found and treated by someone who they named mary he fell in love with mary and had a child Jimi. the mother was supposed to have died at birth and when she did the father left. is this true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.130.18 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no.  A quick look at various online biographies all say he was born in Washington (State).  You can not rely on things you see on YouTube Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimi Hendrix birth 

message: I want to give "position statement from a mainstream scientific body" as an example of a reliable source for "claims of consensus". What would constitute a similar example for consensus among ministers or scholars? ----Action potential  t c 13:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A position statement does not necessarily demonstrate consensus, as the organization may not be representative of all scientists in the field.  I would suggest that the requirement of reliability mean that the source must have polling data demonstrating the consensus view--especaially if it is an issue of any level of controversy.--Strider12 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it depends on the body... some organizations represent the vast majority of scientists in their field, while others do not.  Thus, some position papers may represent consensus opinion, while others won't.  The same is true for most accademic fields... some orgainzations have a significantly large enough membership in a given field of study that they might be citable for consensus, while others will not.  Blueboar (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of consensus: position statements 

message: Are religious authorities considered WP:RS sources even if they do not have PhDs from accredited universities?  This question is extremely relevent in the Hinduism related articles since much research and study has been done by people who are considered authorities in the field who are considered "religious authorities" and have gone through what might be considered a different line of education than what is considered traditional education as introduced through the British System.Kkm5848 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to put this up at WP:RS/N, actually. And the answer is that its difficult, because, if nothing else, some religions, like Hinduism or most streams of Protestantism, don't have a unified structure, and thus there are frequently vast doctrinal differences. In such cases, the pronouncements of religious authorities are dependent upon which authority, and will have to be balanced with disclaimers about how they don't necessarily speak for all interpreters. There are at least three other problems, at least that I can think of. Relata refero (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this is not a clear cut, yes or no question.  Not all religious faiths are clear cut when it comes to who is or is not an "authority" or an "expert".  Relata's take is good... it often depends on the faith in question, and the reputation of the "authority" within the faith's community.  Caveats and disclaimers would have to be given in many cases. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A unified structure isn't a requirement, otherwise universities and academics, who do not have a unified structure, could not be considered reliable. The requirement is simply (a) inherent significance of the religion, and (b) an established process for vetting reliability which can include agreed-on outstanding scholars. In Orthodox Judaism, for example, the decentralized organizational system doesn't preclude basic agreement on who is considered a top-tier notable authority, everyone would accept Rashi and Rambam as major classical opinions, Moshe Feinstein as a major recent authority in (non-Hassidic) Ashkenazic Judaism, Joseph B. Soloveitchik as a major authority from Modern Orthodox Judaism, and Ovadia Yoseph as a major authority from contemporary Sephardic Judaism, and this can be clearly documented. These are of course all secondary and tertiary sources; the Bible and the Talmud are the basic primary sources. Things may be different in other religions, but Islam, for example, has certain seminaries generally recognized as outstanding, much as academia has top universities. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Authorities as sources 

message: Journalism involves both the uncovering and reporting of events and the formulation and expression of opinion. If a wikipedia entry refer to a news piece of the former variety, it would be both verifiable and reliable. If it was to the latter, it would be verifiable and unreliable. News organisations have editorial policy that is determined by their editorial board and/or owner. In the UK, most news organisations that publish in print have political affiliations and align themselves explicitly with political parties at election times. For example The Daily Mail is a right-wing organ whereas The Guardian's editorial policy leans heavily to the left. As the editorializing text says, the trouble is that fact vs. opinion in news articles  often breaks down. 
I argue that WP:RS should stay because there is a meaningful distinction between verifiability and reliability. I further argue that the reliability of news organisation sources (e.g. Washington Post, Paris Match, The Times) is identified as less supportable than that originating in independent scholarship. 138.38.32.83 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Major newspapers are almost always considered reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e., disagreeing with other reliable sources or having its reliability called into question by another reliable source). And any good newspaper will usually make very clear through wording or titling the difference between their factual claims and their interpretive opinions, so anyone is within their right to match the weaseliness (or lack thereof) that a newspaper invokes. If there is a specific example you're taking issue with, you can bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers as sources: NPOV fact vs.  editorial opinion 

message: Is this valid or acceptable? If not, what's the policy/guideline that is related to it?
--BirdKr (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a reliable source, see WP:V or WP:RS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if the Wikipedia article you would want to use as a source is itself well-sourced, you can just look at those existing off-wiki sources and copy them over as needed to support the article you're working on.  (I hope that's clear.  I tried wording it about three different ways and it always comes out confusing) Wikidemo (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, if you have access to those sources and can vouch that they verify the text; I wouldn't copy a source onto some text if I could't verify it myself.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, the Wikipedia article you would want to use as a source is not well sourced to validate  your article after someone edits it to change that, and your article would still be citing it as a supporting source.  From WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia articles citing other wikipedia articles 

message: The definition of an aggregation on the Object Composition page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_composition#Aggregation) seems to tell that it differs from a composition by not having ownership on the members it contains. Thus, when an aggregation is destroyed, its aggregated members are NOT destroyed as well.
However,in the classical book "Design Patterns : Elements of Reusable OBject-Oriented Software" by Eric Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson and John Vlissides, the definition of an aggregation gos like this:
(p. 22)
"Aggregation implies that one object owns or is responsible for another object. Generally we speak of an object having or being part of another object. Aggregation implies that an aggregate object and its owner have identical lifetimes."
It seems to me that both definitions are antonyms. So, what is the correct definition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EstelleCharette (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a question for the reference desks. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object-oriented programming: the difference between a composition and an aggregation? 

message: I have had previous discussions on the propriety of imdb.com, and I have had experience making submissions to imdb.  My cousin was in Ray (film).  He was a specialized extra in Ray's band (2nd trumpet- Edward Anderson).  It is in no way a wiki.  Submissions are reviewed for accuracy and propriety.  When I submitted his name for an imdb page based on his role in the film, it took about a month for them to review and edit my submission.  It seems to me that a wiki is does not have an editorial review process and this does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had discussion about imdb.com quite a few times... not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to such a discussion?--206.59.103.242 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what archives it would be contained in, but I never saw anyone challenge the use of IMDB for bare facts (the run time, release dates, and cast of a film). Just about everything else on there is generally not trusted. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just don't use it to source anything remotely controversial.  R. Baley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] as it pertains to [[imdb.com]] 

message: There has been a dust-up over at WT:ANIME and WT:SM over the use of fansites and fan translations. This particularly applies to the website sailormusic.net, which also makes music downloads available in violate of copyright laws, The Oracle (soul-hunter.com/sailormoon/), which contains episodes downloads, and Hitoshi Doi's website (www.usagi.org/doi/smoon), which includes cast listings, episode titles, episode airdates, etc.
Defenders are saying that both of these sites are essential to verify information as there is "no other source". One even asserts that because Hitoshi Doi's website was used by academics in their academic papers on the subject, that implies that his website is a reliable source.
The main point of contention is that a number of GA articles make extensively use of these sources, and other fan sites containing image galleries, translations, and essays. --Farix (Talk) 14:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the issue?  The various guidelines and policies are clear on copyvio. 2005 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither verifiability nor citations require that the source be available for free, or even online at all. And the external links guideline prohibits linking to known copyright violations. Now, as a matter of using those sorts of sites to "verify" something from the episodes, I'd have no problem seeing someone drop that link in discussion so a content dispute could be expediently resolved. But Wikipedia is not TV Links, nor should it be. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the consensus on using a URL linking to fan-produced transcripts of television shows as the "transcripturl" argument of a  citation template that cites a television series episode itself, provided all the other arguments are accurate for the episode? Robert K S (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure fan-produced transcripts are considered blatant COPYVIO, and really a transcript URL is unnecessary. citing the episode is sufficient, and that field is for either public domain or official transcripts. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other voices?  (I didn't post here on AnmaFinotera's suggestion only to get her opinion here too.) Robert K S (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There are other editors that are suggesting that it isn't clear with regards to The Oracle and SailorMusic.net, since using them as sources isn't a "strict violation" of WP:COPYRIGHTS since they are not "directly" linking to the copyvio material, which is why I brought it up here. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps you should use a more descriptive section title.  if you are now asking what is the guideline on linking to pages that don't have copyvio on a domain where on other pages there is copyvio, well then there should be considerable prior discussion on that, but that has nothing to do with fansites except by coincidence. 2005 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites, Fan translations, and [[WP:COPYRIGHTS]] 

message: Does anyone mind if I remove this? It doesn't look as though it's going to happen. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Brimba (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: User:SandyGeorgia has filed objection at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley for WP:RS.  The remaining significant objection pertains to internet databases for professional American football.  Below are summaries of the significance of the remaining objections.  I understand Sandy's objection.  The ramifications of the objection standing without qualification or condition is that there will likely be no modern football player promoted to FA unless something is done (Note only Jim Thorpe, a pre-1930s player is currently an FA).  Most quality articles on such players rely on either http://www.databasefootball.com (DBF) or http://www.pro-football-reference.com (PFR).  If they don't they would likely be improved by reference to their big games and a summary of their playoff performances that seem to only be able to be sourced at PFR.  I do not seem to be able to find ready access to American Football League statistical leaders except at DBF (see Jack Kemp for usage).  The reason why these two cites should be approved as reliable is that they only provide statistical information that likely is sourced from the same databases that recognized data such as that at NFL.com or ESPN.com comes from.  Thus, there is no opinion that would trouble us.  There is no real reliability issue.  I have never heard of significant discrepancies between PFR or DBF and ESPN or NFL.  I think for strict data websites such as these which take the time to parse data in ways that provide useful information such as that below, we should recognize them as sufficiently reliable to be used in WP:FAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional american football internet databases 

message: The proposal says it all. Will (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the leak is published in an otherwise reliable source...what else is there to say about it? Is there a need to explicitly mention leaks? It seems to me no more an issue than your general unofficial claims published in reliable sources. Just as the ultimate source of a claim is mostly irrelevant, so is the ultimate source of a leak. Although I've certainly seen enough false arguments that certain claims shouldn't be presented on Wikipedia because the claimer is unreliable, even though the publisher (say, the BBC) is (with due diligence to frame the claim the same as the publisher does). And if the leak was publisher by the one who leaked it, on their personally maintained website for instance, than by my reasoning the leak has the same reliability as the website: none. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We already have WP:REDFLAG that deals with exeptional claims such as "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;" We do not need this here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. We should certainly reflect any caveats attached to reliably reported leaks (e.g. denials by the source of the leaked material) but it's going to far to say that we shouldn't report the leaks in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaks 

message: Wikipedia has historically accepted authorities on viewpoints as reliable for presenting those viewpoints. In organized religions with authoritative structures, this includes recognized religious authorities (my classic example is Moshe Feinstein, who is widely recognized authority without credentials). But non-academic sources can include party or company spokespeople, the United States Supreme Court, and other sources who are speaking as authorities. It should be noted that not such sources are limited to religions, political parties, etc. which are both (a) major (clearly significant based on reliable sources), and (b) have an authority or peer review structure so that  who represents them is clear.  Academic and newspaper sources are simply examples of the kinds sources that are considered reliable. To prevent confusion, would suggest some additional examples to clarify this. Would also suggest a specific statement that the enumerated list is no intended to be exhaustive. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to say that I don’t catch what you are trying to say here. On the other hand I am rather tired atm, so that may be why. Could you give a mock-up of your proposed wording? Thanks, Brimba (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed section: authority 

message: With the source types in this articles I am missing the "non-academic publications by independent publishers". The majority of publications fall in this category. And it is not remarkable that Wikipedia gets her so-called reliability almost completely on these type of sources. However, such sources are often disputed by the academic world, to put it mildly.
These popular sources should first be checked thoroughly by the academic community before being used in Wikipedia. This means publication in academic sources or being approved for or by academic publications. This criteria are lacking with popular publications from "independent” publishers. They should not be allowed as sources because their reliability is often hardly better than the category of “self-published” sources. (These kind of publications often go wrong where it concerns the sometimes very important details and the deeper search for and analyses of the causes behind the causes)
To my opinion the same should be applied to sources from “mainstream news organizations” and “Extremist sources”. Which means they should only be used in context with annotations made by specialised and well respected academic reviewers. If this is impossible they should be marked with source quality tags, in the articles which refers to them, like “unreviewed source” or “unreviewed and disputed source” respectively. So the reader can estimate the quality of all sources used.
To be honest, I believe every piece of texts in Wikipedia should have a reference to a source and every piece of texts should have a color (or colored-end-line-dot)so people can directly recognize the quality of every piece of text in every article. According to the quality of their sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.156.6 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this all depends on the nature of the material being used. Remember that since WP does not judge the validity of primary material, we are depend upon the evaluation of this material by subsequent reviews and publications. Some articles do cite extensively from primary research papers; I am not completely sure that in doing this we are not sometime going beyond our boundaries.DGG (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing source category in this article (and missing source quality tags in all Wikipedia articles) 

message: This article is about the reliability of sources. 
However, strangely enough this article categorizes by reliability of publishers.
Which is not the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.156.6 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... where does it talk about the reliability of publishers?  It talks about the need for sources to be published, but not the reliability of publisher (except in the case of self published sources... where the source is the publisher).  Remember a "source" has multiple aspects that are inter-related... by "source" we can mean the author, and we can mean where he/she said it.  Both can have an impact on the sources reliability.  When we provide a source for a fact, we have to look at who said the fact and where we found that information. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: where this makes a difference is with books or articles by academics published in non-academic sources. I can see on the one hand preferring them over their academic publications as more suited to general needs; on the other hand, though they do put their reputation at risk, what they write for trade publishers is not normally subject to peer review or academic fact checking by peers subsequently.DGG (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It also makes a clear difference if a person chooses to publish something under their own name, under a pseudonym, or in an anonymous work that is later shown to be theirs, the author is the same in each case, but our assessment of the reliability of these different sources will clearly be different. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of publishers or reliability of sources 

message: For the video games project, we have just discovered that one of our accepted reliable sources 1UP has undergone a retroactive change in their content; while most of this is for updating review scores (going from a number-based to a grade-based system), some have identified changes in content (a 4pg interview being cut down to 1pg). Unfortunately, 1up employs a robots.txt that has prevented Wayback from capturing the old pages.
There's about 1400 links to 1up articles from a linksearch estimation.  Most of these are likely review scores and can be upgraded, but there are concerns that sourced statements on WP will no longer have the proper backing if they relied on a retro'd 1UP article.  In most cases, we do use proper citing, so that accessdate is included, but since we can't use Wayback to show that, the reliability of that source is in question.
Question: should we worry about such cases where the facts from the original sourced material no longer exist at that source as long as we've provided an accessdate for that, or do we need to update our articles to reflect what is now reported (or not) from that source? --MASEM 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, update. Content sourced to a single source that isn't very stable has already borderline notability... when the source for such statements disappears (and no other more reliable source has come up in the mean time) it's below notability/verifiability threshold, definitely, and can be removed any time when challenged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that this will be a real headache for the project... but it is an unfortunate side-effect of relying so heavily on a single source.  Update what you can, delete what you can not update, and post a call for help on as many different venues as you can.  You have my sympathy. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the obvious cases of retroactive changes are newspapers' printing corrections and journals' retracting articles. When such a thing happens, the source is essentially removing its promise of reliability from the content, and so the content on Wikipedia should definitely be altered to keep in line if it's not sourced to anything else (unless the retraction/correction has itself been mentioned by other sources, in which case the full situation should be fairly presented...happens sometimes). If we're still presuming this site to be reliable, it probably shouldn't be treated any differently. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I don't think we're arguing this includes retractions; the content that's changed that we can tell would seem legitimate as being interviews with game developers and other inoffensive or prone-to-conflict content.   Also, as this changed just happened, it could simply be errors in the external web site ("oops, no page jumpers to move between a multipage article" might be the bug here).  However, we are girding our loins here in case we have to plow through and update references if it this remains to be the case after a few days. --MASEM 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Good call on going slow... no need to panic if it turns out to be a simple glitch.  Has anyone tried contacting the website to see if they are awair of the issue.  They might change their software to allow for Wayback to work if they knew it affected the ability of a popular site like Wikipedia to use them as a source (no free publicity and links to their site). Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: For the future, you could try using WebCite to archive any of their webpages you choose to cite. Not that its much help now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with retroactive changes in content from a reliable source 

message: There is a pending discussion where the age of an article/reliable source is being put into question. One party is stating the source is too old to be considered reliable, that since the source was published, information counter to it has been released and the view is not widely held any longer in academia. A further issue regarding the source is its origins. When the group originally published the source, they were not a reliable source, they have since become a group/foundation that we would consider a reliable source. What we need help is with the following:
Do we judge the sources reliability according to the state of the group/foundation when the source was first published?
How much weight should we give to a source that others are alleging is outdated and superseded?
What is the burden of proof one must give to remove this source, should this source be mentioned per undue weight?
Any answers or suggestions are welcome. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of sources 

message: This question was sparked by a discussion about whether an uncontroversial definition of a slang term in the Urban Dictionary should be properly cited to it when no other viable source can be found.
Do we, participants in a giant wiki, have enough faith in the wisdom of crowds to consider an aggregator of self-published information reviewed by hundreds of pairs of eyes to have, "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
If not, why not?  Is it just because someone could conceivably game it to have false information?  That can't be it, because even peer-reviewed sources can be gamed.  
Instead of outright rejection, shouldn't we have criteria for considering sources such as the Urban Dictionary reliable?  Something like "at least 20 reviews and at least 10 times as many positive reviews as negative" -- wouldn't that be the epitome of fact-checking, and who seriously believes that it wouldn't also lead to confident accuracy as well? CKCortez (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can aggrators of self-pulished info be reliable? 

message: I'm proposing a significant modification of this section, which in its previous state seemed to suggest that academic viewpoints were the only significant ones. The clarification clarifies that (a) scientific and academic viewpoints are included because they are significant, not because they are true (per WP:NPOV Wikipedia endorses no-one's claim to truth); (b) they are authoratative particularly in matters of science, medicine, history, and similar matters. Regarding academic and news sources as the sole reliable sources would be a huge change from present policy and this matter needs to be carefully discussed. Many matters -- religion, law, politics, and others -- involve questions of (for example) authority. The reliable sources for presenting (let's say) the Catholic viewpoint in religion articles are those the Catholic Church regards as authoritative. Otherwise we have a simple end run around the community's  rejection of WP:SPOV. Given that the community has repeatedly rebuffed efforts to establish academic viewpoints as the sole reliable ones, this is a matter that should not be decided by a handful of editors but needs more wide-spread discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative, we could take away the word "academic" and similar references which were added in the last month and go back to refering to scholarship generally without a claim that academic scholarship is particularly preferred. This was the previous status quo. However, if it is desired to refer to specifically academic scholarship, we need one or more new sections to clarify the other kinds of scholarship that are reliable and what they are reliable for.  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that (barring a statement from the Pope) the the Catholic Church would consider the statements of respected Theologians (who qualify as Academic sources) as authoritive to express the Catholic viewpoint... I am not sure that I understand what is being proposed.  Could you give a more concrete example? Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to work out when this "Scholarship" wording was introduced. As far as I can see it came from August 2007 (see this version for example), so can't really be described as new, or the product of a few editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm wrong, this dates back to at least December 2006 see this version. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The wording may have changed back and forth at various times. At this point I realize many changes have been made since I last visited earlier today, so my past comments are doubtless irrelevant to the current approach. I'll have to revisit this later. I realize I shouldn't start threads that require a lot of follow-up on Friday afternoons. Good weekend to all. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think "superseded" is the wrong word to use... both Academic scholarship and newspaper reports are reliable sources, so both should be discussed.  The question is how much weight to give each view.  Academic scholarship should be given more weight that newspaper reports. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think superseded is entirely the correct word to use, as weight and notability are entirely separate issues. As I've said elsewhere, this is why a notable theory like intelligent design receives no mention at the article of its parent subject, evolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see SlimVirgin has substantially edited the section and her edits seem to have stuck, so I'll withdraw my previous objections. What I'd like to stress is that academic sources and newspapers are simply examples of the kinds of sources that are considered reliable; the list isn't intended to be exhaustive. One clear difference between the German and English Wikipedia is the interpretation of WP:NPOV. The English Wikipedia doesn't have any authorities which it regards as unbiased, it regards every opinion as potentially biased, and hence it gives significantly more coverage to non-academic views than the German Wikipedia does. This is a core policy decision, and a proposal to change it should be addressed at the core level. For coverage of e.g. science as science, there would be no disagreement that science journals are preferable to newspapers. However, for disputes between e.g. academics and theologians or between research institute management and labor unions, the academic viewpoint is simply one view. A good example of why it would be a bad idea to make one kind of sourcing trump as an inflexible rule is the Archaeological ethics article, which, while currently not terribly well sourced, notes the periodic disputes between archaeologists on the one hadand indigenous peoples on the other about rights to dig and take artifacts and human remains from living cultures. The issues involved in such disputes aren't just scientific. They include legal, ethical, moral, religious, and a variety of other perspectives. NPOV is designed to permit both sides of such issues to be heard. It's one of many examples of cases where societies (and individuals) weigh the value of science and scientific knowledge against other claims (in this case, property rights, a right to maintain a connection with ones ancestors, etc.). By giving these other claims recognition, society is acknowledging non-scientific perspectives as having weight. Interpreting WP:RS to regard only one side's sources as reliable and permit only one side to be heard from would effectively defeat NPOV. In these types of disputes it's claimed that archaeologists have a personal and professional interest in favorable artifact laws. Many people believe that this is not possible, scientists never do this. But the historical view of the English Wikipedia has been that nobody has a special claim on truth, everyone is potentially biased, and every relevant and significant opiion should be heard from. Archaeological ethics is only one example of disputes between scientists and non-scientists; there are many others. WP:RS should not be interpreted to tilt the scales in articles involving these types of disputes. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm involved in a dispute relating to this topic at Noah's Ark: a reference to educational material provided by the University of Pennsylvania was deleted by another user as being unreliable and inadequate (not a scholarly journal, and not bearing a specific author's name), with no substitute reference provided.  Apparently, no reference at all is preferable to a university source.  There's not much here about reputable (and even "scholarly") institutions (other than news outlets) that don't name individuals within them.  A similar problem is likely to occur when a reputable institution provides material that IS signed, but the signatory is non-notable and has no discernible relevant qualifications: the institution nevertheless commissioned, reviewed and endorsed the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic scholarship 

message: Despite having seen dozens of blog entries cited in articles or offered as links of interest, I recently tried to cite an academic blog and had it promptly removed (the article in question had been under heavy surveillance by the deletionists — don't you love how some WP contributors call themselves "editors" and tell other people to seek their approval?). I left comments on the talk page justifying my source:
# Rules (which are not hard-and-fast per WP:Ignore all rules and WP:RS) on blogs could be overruled if the material cited was uncontroversial, clearly not opinion, or meant to demonstrate common usage or popular opinion, in which case the source served as its own example.
# The blog entry in question cited many sources and was part of an academic website. The blogger's credentials were available on the site, and he was not a casual blogger, which are the types I think the policy was originally directed towards.
In any case, the edit war ensued until the other editor finally looked at the talk page, as I'd directed people to in my edit summary, and "reminded" me that I needed approval from the editors and that my source was still not verifiable. I realized that WP:RS's policy on blogs is not only stifling, it makes it easy for any editor who believes their grasp of WP policy and their contributions are more valid and valuable than others', to engage in deletionism and edit-warring. On the latter point, I recommend a more specific self-published source policy, considering the following points:
# Blogs are no longer only of the personal, "here's what my cat did today" variety. Blogging has become a widespread and well-known form of publishing that allows for both timestamped content and the meeting of minds. The benefits of blogging and of the blogosphere have been widely acknowledged (here are a couple of indications of this, from my bookmarks file: Peer Review vs. Blog CommentsBlog comments and journalism), and not only is a sweeping "no-blogs" policy old-fashioned, as it clearly smacks of anti-Myspace bias (as well it should; personal blogs are not reliable sources), it runs counter to the very philosophy that powers Wikipedia!
# Wikipedia is not a directory of interesting links. But the inclusion of one or a few links releveant to the topic is not going to make WP a directory, and indeed "External Links" is often a valuable part of the article.
I am not making this recommendation for any reasons of my own. I have observed that trends on Wikipedia have long been in conflict with this policy, and whether or not the policy is being abused for some articles (and I believe it is), blogs that cite sources or that provide valuable examples should not be excluded simply for being a blog or self-published source (recognizing that there are some distinctions related to timestamping and software). The policy should reflect (a) the changing nature of journalism and publishing, (b) the wisdom of the masses and meeting of minds philosophy that WP is based upon, and (c) the general trends of WP articles and attitudes of WP contributors (ALL of them).Elle (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As blogging becomes more common, the community consensus has changed over time.  Until about a year and a half ago, we used to say "NO BLOGS"... period.  We have mellowed a bit since then, and are now recognizing that some blogs can be used... under certain conditions.  At the moment, consensus is to allow: 1) Blogs of notable people... in articles about those people... and then only used to demonstrate their opinions on the subjects that make them notable (this falls under WP:SPS); 2)"Blog format" collumns that are attached to the websites of major print or television news outlets (These often are simply on-line versions of what is printed in the paper/magazine or stated on air - However, these should only be used for statements of opinion and not for statements of fact; and (most recently) 3)Nationally/internationally recognized "news" blogs... if it can be demonstrated that the blog itself has become noted for its journalism (if the blog or blogger has won major journalism awards, for example).  With time, further exceptions may gain consensus ... but until they do, we should stick to these three.  Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs and Self-Published Sources 

message: A recent issue came up regarding video clips available on the ABC television network's website.  At issue were specific statements the various co-hosts made during a recent show.  Would such clips available on the production company's website be considered a reliable source or not?  Please advise.  Thanks.  --Art Smart (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Video clips (or at least the indisputable commentary that was spoken within) are essentially no different than written sources. The key idea of the publisher needing a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy still apply. Thus, an ABC news broadcast can generally be treated the same as an ABC news article. This clip, however, is a discussion. It is not subject (presumably) to any strict form of editorial review (aside from, of course, making sure its tame enough to publish), and this should really be treated the same as a self-published source. That is, it's a perfectly valid source for quoting people, but not for stating their claims as facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only might it be considered self-published, but is the publisher controlling the publication so there are no trustable copies outside their control?  There is a risk that the video might be edited to show something different than the original version.  Would the video be confirmation that the co-hosts said something, but is the video confirmation that this is exactly what they said in the broadcast?  -- SEWilco (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the publisher was some obscure website no one had ever heard of, or the only copy was on youtube, that might be up for discussion, but we're talking about a major television corporation and news distributor. In light of evidence to the contrary, it is typical to assume that such a publisher has not doctored anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, everyone.  I appreciate the analysis.  In the main article, I didn't notice the issue of video clips discussed, so perhaps that source could be addressed in the main article using some of the language above.  Thanks again.  --Art Smart (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Ideally the timestamp should be included in the citation. You'd be faced with the exact some problem if someone cited, without a page number, a one thousand page book that has never been electronically published. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a Video Clip a Reliable Source? 

message: One problem I have with video (and audio) clips is that the relevant material cannot be readily identified and thus they seem to run afoul of the verifiability requirement that sources "be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."  I have seen citations from lengthy programs on sources like the BBC or PBS where you have to listen through the half-hour discussion to find the sound bite that the editor believes demonstrates his point.  Even a (searchable) transcript is more verifiable than a media file.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the timestamp should be included in the citation. You'd be faced with the exact some problem if someone cited, without a page number, a one thousand page book that has never been electronically published. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they Verifiable? 

message: This article is terribly misleading. It is not about barnstorming but about stunt flying. The word 'barnstorming' arose in the 1880s in reference to traveling theatrical troups.  By the 1890s it was used to refer to political campaigning in rural areas. But the time stunt flyers began using the word, it had already passed through two stages of its development.  The title should be changed so that people interested in barnstorming is not led to this narrow interpretation of the word.
Rbeard (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place to question this sort of thing would be on the articles talk page. This page is a discussion on what constitutes a reliable source. CredoFromStart  talk 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'barnstorming' 

message: I know images aren't typically considered under the "Reliable Sources" criteria, but the rule generally applies: Sourcing information needs to be complete so that it can be verified the license is correct. The source of the image, depending on what information it contains, needs to be reliable to support whatever the image is purporting to show. This would be a small part of the education of this planned project:
Help is needed to develop an "image cleanup month" (June). The goal is to "Educate, cleanup and move images here at Wikipedia". You don't need to be an expert or knowledgeable about images here to help. Need folks who can write well, copyedit, design connections/templates, organize, group, communicate, have connections to users to help advertise (once the month starts) or just want to help in any other capacity. Not knowing about images would be helpful as we can test our pages on you. Being knowledgeable you can help write the content. See the project central location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group#Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month (June) and dive right in to help. MECU≈talk 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Develop image cleanup project 

message: I just watched "Goodbye Girl."  I went to Wikipedia to see if I could learn more about movie.
To my shock, the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH summarizing the plot was COMPLETELY WRONG.  I FIXED the entry.
Later, I found it was unfixed.  The editor asked for proof.
Well, I HAVE THE PROOF. Besides having just watched the movie, I did research and found that MOVIE WEB SITES have summaries of the movie that are ACCURATE and dovetail with my summary.  In short, Turner Classic Movies has a summary that is CORRECT and Wikipedia's summary before I edited it and after someone unfixed my edit is WRONG.
Are you concerned about credibility?
ZWrite
There are no tildas on this laptop
: The next step is to go to the talk page and explain that to the editor in question. :-) Sometimes people need a little convincing. Linking to some of the websites you mention might help. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Goodbye Girl movie page 

message: I've added two notes to this section - nothing terribly controversial, I think, just spelling out a couple things explicitly, like that fringe journals exist, and that single scientific studies are usually considered tentative results. There's actually a lot that could usefully be said about scientific studies in the medical fields - e.g. evaluating studies, importance of double-blinding, quality of journals - but I think that might be getting too detailed for the general policy document. That said, anyone who's hung around any sort of fringe or alternative medical page on wikipedia for any length of time has seen a fair bit of abuse of sources (e.g. pointing out a small, obscure, low-quality study in some minor journal then claiming that it deserves equal weight to that meta-analysis in The Lancet that the article's quoting... If you think that's an exaggeration, you've never edited altmed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific journals