Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 2

message: Recently I was checking the sources on an article and found an important point whose citation was to a website which requires a "free" login (which requires one's email address).  I'm sure I'm not alone in being leery of giving out my email address.  It's common knowledge that some organizations cannot be trusted to keep one's email address out of the clutches of spammers.
My question is, should Wikipedia as a matter of policy, stick to only those online sources which can be freely viewed by all, or is it acceptable to use sites which raise this bar against readers?  My personal opinion is, no, we shouldn't use them.  I feel that rather than going on and registering and checking the reference, many users will just shrug their shoulders and assume the point was well sourced.  This could allow incorrect or POV points to be masked with the illusion of being sourced, which few will be interested in checking up on.
After all, Wikipedia is not a job or a way of life to many of its editors; it is a hobby, something to do in one's spare time.  I doubt that many of them would be willing to remember a long list of logins to various online journals and news sites merely out of a desire to improve Wikipedia.  I think the more probable result is that statements which cite login-required online sources will simply go unchecked, defeating the "many eyes" advantage of Wikipedia and throwing the ball in the court of whichever partisan happens to actually check the link by registering.
At the very least, links to online sources requiring registration should at least have a warning, along the lines of "(free registration required)" or "(paid registration required)".  
How do I go about proposing this to the powers-that-be as a new policy or standard?  -Kasreyn 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki can either use good sources or poor sources.  The more artificial restraints imposed on the editors against their will the poorer the sources. Quality degradation defeats our mission. Rjensen 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do we deal with reliability of those sources, if there's an extra requirement (maintaining login id's) imposed upon editors interested in ensuring reliability?  I'd personally prefer to have no source at all (and remove the content reliant upon it) than have content whose source only extreme partisans will take the time to check on.  -Kasreyn 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: we're talking here about sources like Google.books and the New York Times. They contain high quality information, higher quality than most open sources. Shutting ourselves off from vetted sources lowers the reliability of Wiki.  It's like saying no one can use a book XX because that book is not in every local library. Extreme partisans are not "more likely" to use those sources; they prefer websites maintained by other extreme partisans.  Most editors who are keen on reliability will gladly suffer the extra indignity of using a password to get free access to high quality material. Rjensen 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. It would be nice if everything was freely available, but alas, not quite yet. You could make the same argument against someone citing an older newspaper article or book that's not online... it's a hassle to go to a library and look at it on microfilm, or whatever. But nevertheless, it would be a bad idea to disallow sources that aren't instantly available at a URL... as you get to more obscure topics, the information just isn't there yet. The important thing is that the source does exist and can be accessed reliably, if not highly conveniently. --W.marsh 01:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken; I stand corrected.  I suppose I'll have to either spend the time or trust in others.  But what do you feel about my other idea, putting warnings on links that will require registrations? -Kasreyn 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose warning labels. We should treat our users as adults capable of making their own choices--not like children who confront warning labels on their music cd's. Rjensen 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a section of commonly available links and another section of "registration required" links, such as the New York Times requires for some articles or that some encyclopedia's require?  Another bothersome one is a kind of google map that requires their software. Terryeo 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on online sources 

message: "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."
But the other sides in the disputes these people have, equally partisan, are good sources. I think it would have been far better to be clear that no partisan website is likely to be a good source, whether it's Stormfront's or the ADL's, Hamas' or the Israeli government's, the Socialist Workers Party's or the Confederation of British Industry's. 
I know I'm one of the few people here who is even concerned that, far from presenting information in a fair, neutral way, Wikipedia simply entrenches a set of biases with this kind of policy but someone has to say it. This and other policies are written in a way that prevents  the encyclopaedia's being neutral (including, hilariously enough, the NPOV policy, which is rather a roadmap to a particular bias than a means to create neutral articles).Grace Note 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication of what you're saying is that we shouldn't use the British government as a source of information on the IRA. So if the British govt has on an official website that X number of people are believed to have been killed by the IRA since the troubles began, we should ignore that, and quote the Guardian instead, which will have used the govt website as its source? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is the staunch university professor in his ivory tower who's use of the internet is "non-encyclopedic", perhaps.  But many points of view such as The British Government, Religions, "save the whales", etc. have presented their POV for us.  While I agree that the policy of NPOV does not address in enough specificity the vastly different world of online resources, compared to traditional resources, enough to fulfill every possible example, its meat of an encyclopedic, neutral, readable, understandable point of view is, I think, enough as a broad, general policy. Terryeo 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I love this

message: "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees…": Ridiculous. Only true where academic citation is relevant. For one thing, there are many areas where this is absolutely irrelevant as a yardstick: there is no reason to think that someone with a postgraduate degree in music, or in critical theory, or whatever, has more to say about Madonna or Bob Dylan than an undegreed music critic who writes mainly about popular music. Most academic writing about popular music is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretentious wanking. 
Similarly, would you really rule out Jacob Adler as a citable source on the early years of Yiddish theatre because he didn't have a degree? He was a brilliant intellectual (among other things, translator of Tolstoy into Yiddish) who was in the middle of it all! Who else is one going to cite on… well, on the dozens of things for which we currently cite him (easily found with a search on his name: we probably use him as a source more than we write about him). 
Would I hesitate to take a non-academic source on Ancient Mesopotamia, especially if it contradicted the academic sources? Sure. But on current events, I'll trust a good newspaper reporter just as much as I'll trust the average post-doc or professor. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academia as sole authority? 

message: Rjensen, you keep changing my descriptions of primary and secondary sources, but your edits are introducing errors e.g. that NOR means Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources (not completely wrong, but misleading) and it contradicts your own account that a story by a journalist who witnessed an event is a primary source, because of course that would be fine to use; that people aren't primary sources (see previous point: the important thing is that it's okay to use their information when it's published, but it isn't okay if they tell your their story over the phone); and you deleted that trial transcripts published by court stenographers are primary sources, when in fact they're an excellent example of the kind of primary source we're allowed to use. Can you say what the purpose of your edits is, so I can understand where you're coming from? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - these changes keep undermining established policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't have to be "verified," if by that you mean sourced. This isn't an article in the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I apologise for the fact that my comment wasn't self explkanatory.  You are stating that your edits are being amended and that as this is a guideline strong language such as "may never" has no place.  I am trying to state that your position cannot be the case when not using such language undermines WP:V, which is policy.  Although this page is a guideline, where it restates the policy at WP:V, it should use the language of the policy.  Your edits seem to be removing phrases which exist in that policy. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary/secondary sources

message: This page seems to me to have a fundamental problem, which is that it is trying to be a didactic guideline that people can check and immediately know what to do. Such a guideline would be wonderful. Lord knows I and many other college composition teachers would pay good money for such a guideline. Unfortunately, such guidelines are largely impossible, which is why we generally teach entire courses on evaluating sources instead of pointing people to the relevent Wikipedia guideline.
I suspect this page would be more useful and helpful if it were a statement of general principles of source evaluation rather than the over-ambitious declarations it currently represents. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on the one hand you've got people for whom such strict guidance isn't perhaps needed, since they're well aware of the issues, but on the other you've got people who don't realise what the problem is, and if we had a statement of general principles it might allow this area to be opened up to even more wikilawyering.  That's not to say I don't agree, but I can see a reason for taking the strictest line possible as long as we mind that we also have WP:IAR. It may well come down to, well, Phil knows what he's doing, but keep an eye on Hiding. But then isn't that the nature of wikipedia?  I've rambled on to long, sorry. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This guideline (like most of them) isn't written with good, experienced editors in mind, but for new editors, or POV pushers and troublemakers. A statement of general principles would be open to interpretation and would cause endless hassle. The more we can pin things down, the fewer the loopholes and the less wikilawyering there is. The general principle for Wikipedia is that the greater a publication's fact-checking and libel-checking process is believed to be, the more reliable the source is considered. Those that clearly have no such process are considered unreliable. That's basically it. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental Problem

message: I second that, Phil. I have changed the verbs used from obligatory to recommendation.  One User:SlimVirgin seems to want to make the guideline a policy, however. Fahrenheit451 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, but that's not really the problem I have with the page. Phil Sandifer 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view it's one of the most valuable parts of the page.  Blogs, bulletin boards, etc. are unchecked and unverifiable, and appear and disappear on a whim.  They are simply not reliable sources, and even suggesting that they might be opens up the encyclopedia for untold amounts of abuse.  I say this have seen these sources used to push various kinds of nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And where do you propose the featured article Spoo get its major source then? It is simply not the case that blogs and bulletin boards - and especially UseNet - is blanket unreliable. There is crap there, but that does not rule out the entire category of source. Phil Sandifer 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily that it's crap, Phil, it's that it's anonymous. An encyclopedia being edited by anonymous editors using anonymous sources would be completely unreliable. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it's NOT always anonymous. I can think of very few recent examples of impersonation, and very many examples of people authentically posting. And, again - what do you propose we do with all of these articles, some of them featured, that rely on Usenet sources? Phil Sandifer 06:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit, please stop making large changes without prior discussion. This page has to be consistent with WP:V, which is policy. Also, you're adding edits that make no sense e.g. that we have to "evaluate" websites for "illogical statements," whatever that means, before we cite them. You seem to be saying our citation standards are so low that all a source has to do to be credible is not contradict himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Farenheit451, a policy page does not have citations in it, and please restrict your comments to the page itself, rather than commenting on individual editors. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: F, with respect, your contribs show you've never edited any of the content policy pages or their talk pages, so this material is somewhat new to you, perhaps. Please understand that the three content policy pages have to be consistent with each other, and any relevant guidelines have to be consistent with them. This page, as it stands, is consistent w with policies, but the changes you want would introduce a problem, and some were not at all clear (e.g. evaluating "illogical" statements: who's to decide what an "illogical" statement is? ;). Also, policy pages don't need cites or NPOV. "Some people like citations, but others don't"? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Could I ask you to tone down the rhetoric, which isn't helpful. This page is watched by editors who are very familiar with the content policies. We have to be careful about recommending that people "evaluate information irrespective of the source," because that sounds like OR and is often exactly what they're not supposed to do. Rather than talk in generalities, could you give a concrete example of the kind of edit this page might rule out, so I can see where you're coming from? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be some clarification of what a personal web site is. Obviously a MySpace-type page is a personal web site, but is a large site that is primarily the work of one person? What if it's an archive of other secondary sources? Does it stop being a personal web site if the domain name is registered in the name of a company? Does the company have to be incorporated? Is there a difference between links to long established sites like The B5 Lurker's Guide or Operation Clambake? (And what does the Narn Bat Squad think?) Because personal web site isn't defined, it creates openings for disputes about references on that point, irrespective of any other grounds. AndroidCat 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my replies to Vivaldi below, Android. It might go some way toward addressing your point. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Farenheit451's comments

message: I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something in the Auberon Herbert article that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?"  that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy.     Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? Here is another article that came about shortly after arguing with him about Herbert: . It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. What is the policy on this? RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't look like credible sources to me. The first one (the geocities site) definitely isn't. The anarcho directory in anarchism.ws looks like a personal directory. Anything that looks like a personal website is disallowed, in part for the very reason you've given above, viz. that anyone could add whatever they want to a personal website then use it as a source for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Isn't this deserving of a ban or something? This seems pretty serious. RJII 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same thing the editors of the Jack Hyles page are doing, and Wikipedia defends it in that case. Anything that was published anywhere else is fair game, based on what is happening on the Jack Hyles and related pages. Pooua 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: He just admitted to it: ""Anyone can make things and sections up"? So the sections in question are not referenced with the appropriate sources? As for who I am, it is not that relevant as it is the quality of my contributions which count, based on the evidence I supply. BlackFlag 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not admitting he wrote that section of An Anarchist FAQ because of his debates against you. -- infinity0 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. Thank you. RJII 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You bet I have an attitude. The FAQ cannot be used as a secondary source on Wikipedia. If it is used as a primary source, then it cannot be the "sole source" but must be buttressed by a more credible source. And, it is very shady for a Wikipedia editor, when a source is requested of him on Wikipedia, to go add his own research to An Anarchist FAQ and then come back to Wikipedia and cite it. You better believe I have an attitude against this. RJII 16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your dates are wrong. And, he already admitted it. And, "going to be published" is not good enough. Review our Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. RJII 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They are indeed wrong. I've been in disputes with him long before that. And, there are no dates on these things:  You don't know what you're talking about. And, no I am not distorting policy. You need to read the policy. RJII 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See the Auberon Herbert talk page . This been going on long before April 15. That article is how this got started. He was making up things to say in the article that he had no sources for. After I requested sources, he would go write material and post it on the net then come back to cite it. RJII 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL. Obviously, you simply don't know what you're talking about. RJII 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation fraud?

message: I think there are several issues getting entangled here. We need to be clear about them on the guideline page. As Terryeo has shown, there's a degree of unclarity which can be exploited by the unscrupulous. (On the subject of Terryeo, btw, I strongly advise against engaging with him on this topic. He's an obsessive POV-pusher and would-be wikilawyer who's just been enjoined by the Arbitration Committee for his continued disruption - see . Please don't feed the trolls!)
The basic purpose of the guidelines under "Personal websites as secondary sources" is clearly related to the section under "Reliability" immediately above. This identifies the key issue as being one of self-published sources. The mere fact that information is hosted on a "personal website" does not automatically make that information self-published. If it's a republication of existing information published by a third party, it's a matter of secondary publication.
We need to make a distinction between content personally authored by the website's owner and hosted content written by and clearly attributed to a third party. Items such as books, newspaper articles, peer-reviewed academic papers etc. may well be (and often are) hosted on "personal" websites. However, these are clear not self-published sources. They've already been though the publishing process, most likely independently of the website's owner. This includes the fact-checking, lawyering etc. mentioned in the guideline. They're also, more often than not, available offline and therefore satisfy WP:V. Linking to an online copy is merely a convenience for the end user. The fact that they are hosted on a personal website doesn't mean that they are, in fact, self-published items. I think this needs to be made clearer in the guideline. -- ChrisO 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You never miss an opportunity to stick in, "troll" or "I think he is editing in bad faith" do you, ChrisO? It is unnecessary and irritating, it neither adds to the issue you communicate about nor can it impresses others. You have done it several times on this page alone, and always directed at me Terryeo 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was actually ChrisO who enjoined me to the Arbitration Committee and it is the issue of Personal websites being used as secondary sources of information as verifications within Scientology articles which drove the arbitration.  Not external links or references, though I have made a mistake in my editing, but actually using personal websites (and frequently, too) as information, cited information, with articles.  ChrisO says he contributes to Clambake.org and he frequently cites Clambake.org.  I assert that Clambake.org is a personal website and can not be used that way for Wikipedia standards.  The situation has been hammered at for months in the Scientology articles, I caused enough disturbence that I'm presently "being enjoined" by the arbitration committee, thanks to ChrisO who, with a handful of other editors, initiated it.  Meantime, I'm enjoined not to edit the articles. And that's fine with me but I hope to see the issue, "Is clambake.org a suitable site for use as a secondary source of information within articles" be resolved (whether or not I'm a troll)Terryeo 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Chris, yes we could make that clearer, though by "source," we don't mean a site that has posted information from elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the issue that Terryeo is raising - he wants to delete links to web-based versions and extracts of published books and newspaper articles, on the grounds that they're on "personal" websites. (He's not asserted that it's somehow altered, merely that it's been "tainted" somehow by being on a "personal" website.) The material that he wants to remove isn't written by the owner of xenu.net, nor is it self-published (see e.g. http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/ ). So when you say above that "They can be included in external links, but they can't be used as sources if they're run by one man", you're falling into this trap of conflating information written by the website owner with information hosted by him/her. -- ChrisO 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ChrisO....makes the case that I am raising an issue, but his statement only talks about a minor part of the issue I am raising. At this site you see an example of the issue I am raising. by ChrisOwen It is one of 134 articles on Clambake.org authored by ChrisOwen.  ChrisOwen is just one contributer to Clambake.org but he has contributed personal essays, so I use his name as an example.  Many people contribute to Xenu.net, ChrisO....says so at this difference  Since the site does no fact checking, Mr. ChrisOwen might, by some mistake, in one of his essays, exaggerate or even make up a pure fantesy.  The owner of the site beholds to no one, so Mr. ChrisOwen's essay might appear in ChrisOwen's own words.  Then, that Same ChrisOwen could come here to Wikipedia under some other screen name and present the article of his own words, quoting and using portions of it in a Wikipedia article as a secondary source.  I am completely against this sort of manipulation.  That is the issue I raise, though I appriciate that ChrisO has stated a portion of the issue I raiseTerryeo 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The External links section doesn't contain sources, but only further reading. The References or Notes section is where your sources are listed. Maybe I should take a look at the article. Which one is it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not external links or sources, but references for quotes or statements in articles. Take a look at this diff for an example (one of many, unfortunately) of the sort of silliness that Terryeo has been trying to perpetrate. We need to make sure the guideline is worded tightly enough to discourage this sort of thing happening again. -- ChrisO 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a mistake there, removing an external link reference. I shouldn't have removed an external link reference to Xenu.net.  However, exterally linking has not been my assertion, my assertion revovles around using Xenu.net / Clambake.org as a secondary source of information.  That was my mistake. But not the issue I have raised. Clambake.org is practicaly the bible of the advocates in the Scientology articles, nearly every and perhaps every Scientology article has references to Clambake.org within the article.  I raised the issue because it does not seem appropriate to use Clambake org as a secondary source of information, as a verification and a cite for information within an article. Terryeo 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't "remove an external link reference to Xenu.net", Terryeo.  You removed everything on the page that had to do with Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and used a link to Xenu.net as an excuse for doing so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean, but that's just a failure to understand the guideline and what the word "source" means. We have to assume that people know what words mean. Any new wording about this would have to be careful not to open up other loopholes, and I'm not sure it's worth it just to accommodate one person's misunderstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may be right, though I'd say that it's deliberate bad-faith wikilawyering on Terryeo's part rather than simple misunderstanding (and it seems the ArbCom agrees, considering its injunction). However, I'd still prefer it if we could be clearer about the self-published / republished content point. -- ChrisO 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how clear I can be, the articles ChrisO is talking about have be revolving around secondary sources for months with 2 editors saying one thing and ChrisO and advocates for Clambake.org saying another.  It isn't bad faith, though I did make a single mistake in removing an external link.  The issue I have raised and talked about (desperately) in talk pages is good quality secondary sources.  I have provided links to the U.S. Navy's statements about Scientology and they have been removed and scoffed at, and to scholars who testify before governements, their statements.  Those too get scoffed at and deleted.  I did make a mistake when I removed an external link reference to Clambake / Xenu.  It wasn't a deliberate act of malice on my part. Terryeo 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terryeo is now being deliberately obtuse.  He knows why he can't call these words, "the U.S. Navy's statements about Scientology".  He's been told why numerous times, and yet he continues to repeat the same nonsense like a broken record.  This is just more example of disruptive and time wasting behaviour.  He pretends like he hasn't even seen the reasons why his statements are false.  For those who are unfamiliar with the "Navy" document, it is merely a copy of the work of one man, B.A. Robinson of ReligiousTolerance.org.  This man is clearly biased in favor of cults.  His only scholarly reference on the subject of cults include the reknowned cult apologist J. Gordon Melton.  His only references that he used to find out about Scientology were from Church of Scientology owned web pages.  (Robinson is admittedly not an expert on the subject of religions). So of course his analysis of Scientology is going to be nothing more than a rehashing of what the Church has already said.  And just because the Church of Scientology offers up this biased "study" of its religion to the Navy doesn't mean that the Navy endorses it as anything other than a document that the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain the religion.  It is not a Navy study, nor does it validate Scientology teachings at all that the Navy republishes the document.  Compare  ReligiousTolerance.org version to Navy copy of the same.  See also the disclaimer on the Navy's site, which specifically states that the U.S. Navy exerts absolutely zero editorial control over the website. Vivaldi (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "being deliberately obtuse" is not what i am doing.  Please re-read what I said.  I said I presented to editors neutral links.  I did not tell editors how such links should be referenced.  Will you clean up your language, please, particularly when you mis-state the words I have typed.Terryeo 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, note that although we comply with the fair use doctrine as it pertains to quoting sources, that webmaster or blogger may not be as punctilious as we want to be, resulting in possible linking to copyvios. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was another point I wondered about: how can the website be posting large chunks of a book without violating copyright? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SV -- The website posts the entire book without violating copyright, because it is okay.  Atack does not object that his book is distributed online by these particular people.  Vivaldi (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. With no disclaimer about permission, that is probably a copyvio. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it certainly would be more clear if a disclaimer were put up, the lack of one does not not mean its a copyright violation.  The author can grant people the right to redistribute his works or they can choose not to object when people redistribute their works, while still maintaining their copyright.  You can rest assured that you will never see Atack make a copyright violation claim in this case.  (I'm sorry if I'm dancing around here, but there are specific legal issues involved since Atack is a citizen of the UK and his book was banned in UK.  So my comments aren't here to indicate that Atack "encourages" or "participates" in the distribution of his book -- because that isn't true either.  Atack plays absolutely no part at all in it.  He neither objects or encourages people to distribute it online.  Atack spent a lot of time and money trying to get his book published and Scientologists have fought him a long time.  There is nothing that would please a Scientologist more than to see Atack tossed in the slammer or fined heavily for violating a court order.) Vivaldi (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology Book an Open Issue, Wired News, May 5, 1999. AndroidCat 04:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's a republishing of another source, than the original source should be cited.  Wikipedia should not be so far removed from the reliable source that it can't be cited directly.  Agreed.  The original author, publisher, and all other relevant details should be cited as the source (if indeed they are they source).  Then if someone wants to place a convenience link or courtesy link to the material on a website, then that is okay too.  It is like an "external link" that is provided for convenience and not as a source.  These external links are not even affected by the guidelines of WP:RS.  Vivaldi (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal websites and reliability

message: Due to a number of flaws in these guidelines and the conduct of one editor in particular, this article has been placed for mediation. --Fahrenheit451 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't place guidelines for mediation, only people, and I have said no. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: She's right - it's not appropriate to mediate Wikipedia governance. The mediation process was set up to mediate articles. If you want to get the community's views on a matter of governance, you should raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- ChrisO 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources has been placed for mediation 

message: (copied from SV talk page) Hi Slim Virgin, I'm posting this to you here because things are frenzied to the point of unreadability on the Reliable Sources talk area. Firstly, Regarding xenu.net, you commented: "On the issue of the website itself, it clearly is a personal website. The author uses the first personal singular throughout and says that he pays all the website costs himself." This isn't exactly true. Mr. Heldal-Lund, the site's webmaster, does not use first person singular throughout, only on that small percentage of the site that are comments from himself. The vast majority of the site consists of material from other sources and contributors. Secondly, although Fahrenheit451 may be a hothead, his essential point is correct: the idea that an investigative website can't be used as sources if they're "run by one man" is preposterous. "One man" ultimately runs everything. Les Moonves runs CBS, so is CBS News ineligible as a source? Books are permitted as sources, yet doesn't "one man" write a book, more often than not? If Mr. Heidal-Lund were to present his website as an e-book rather than an investigative website, would it suddenly magically pass muster? In the final analysis, the information is out there, and the information is crucial to literally dozens of Wikipedia articles (one of which was a Featured Article). It really seems detrimental to Wikipedia to treat xenu.net as one would a blog or other "personal website" over such a technicality that goes against the spirit of the guideline. (And it IS only a guideline.) wikipediatrix 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, if you read some of my posts above, you'll see the explanation. We can't use personal websites as sources because there is no editorial oversight, no fact-checking process, no libel-checking process. That doesn't mean that, if a personal website contains a newspaper article, we can't link to it, because the source is the newspaper. But we can't use information written and posted by the website owner, in part because he could add anything he wanted, then cite it as a Wikipedia source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.... I stated that I deliberately kept my comments off this page, and I don't appreciate them being moved here against my will. I already read your comments (obviously) and I don't feel they answered my concerns (obviously). You are stating things in absolutes, as if they are set in stone, and they are not. wikipediatrix 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Trix, the logical rules for a situation, once agreed upon, are "set in stone". Guidelines, though subject to modification over time, are at any given time, static. Please try to live by them, rather than fight against them. Merecat 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merecat-- Actually guidelines are not "set in stone".  There is a specific policy that you can read called at policies and guidelines that specifically and unambiguously states, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  And just someone believes that a particular exception should be made to a guideline, doesn't mean they don't support the guideline in general.  It isn't "fighting against a guideline" when we make an exception to it.  It is just part of the normal editing process that is granted to us by the official policy that states, "Guidelines are not set in stone". Vivaldi (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We aren't citing it Merecat, we are citing the original source and providing a convenience link to a web page.  The web page itself is not used as a source.  It's called a courtesy link.  It is like the "External Links" section.  Since the web page is not being used as a source, WP:RS doesn't even apply.  We are using the actual source and clearly describing the details of authorship, so that a enterprising person with a library card or access to Lexis/Nexis can go verify the details.  And we know that Operation Clambake accurately reproduces articles, because they have developed a reputation over the last 10 years as a reliable source for such information.  Not once in its 10 year inception, with over 10 million unique viewers, has anyone even suggested that one of the sources copied was done so incorrectly.  It is a reliable and reputable resource. Vivaldi (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Trix, I didn't mean to offend you by replying here; it's just that I didn't want to start another thread about it elsewhere that would probably be repetitive. Which point exactly do you feel has not been addressed? Bear in mind that this page has to be consistent with the policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to wikipediatrix

message: The problems with this section of the problem go far beyond those discussed in a couple of the talk page sections above.
The first two paragraphs deal with various faults in perception and memory, a couple of the things which can cause variations in what you find even in "reliable sources".
The third paragraph says that "if multiple independent sources agree" (note that it doesn't say all) and they are either not biased or their biases balance, "then you may have a reliable account".
But the rest of this section, and the rest of WP:RS in general, seems to be devoted to the proposition that a "reliable account" is not the goal, is not even a legitimate goal, and is in fact irrelevant.  What we are striving for is a "verifiable" account from "reliable sources".
The second fundamental problem is that while the third paragraph does at least provide some guidance when multiple sources agree, nowhere are we given any advice about what to do when we run across those inevitable variations in verifiable accounts from reliable sources, the very thing we are warned so strongly about in the first two paragraphs of this section.  
Given that no real guidance is provided, what's the purpose of having a guideline in the first place? Gene Nygaard 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental problems with "Check multiple independent sources"