Wikipedia talk:Published

message: In what way will this be a "guideline"? As it stands, it is a definition. Fram 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To further define what "published", "accessible", "reliable", etc mean.  We are discussing it on the talk page of RS if you want to add your opinions, to what's posted there. Wjhonson 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that the page "is proposed to eventually become a guideline". So again, in what way is it or will it become a guideline? Secondly, why have you created a shortcut page as a discussion page or Wikipedia guideline page (see Wikipedia:Shortcuts)? I think the naming of this page is quite wrong. Proposals are either at a WIKIPEDIA: page, or at a user subpage (see Category:Wikipedia proposals for examples). Fram 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A guideline on what "published", and "accessible" mean in the wikipedia context. And I moved the page now as you suggested above.  The system went ahead and created a redirect as well. Wjhonson 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is good, we can hash it out here and then put the nugget of our work into WP:RS or, possibly even into WP:V.  Or it might even become a guideline if it grows huge.Terryeo 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that we define "public" as "a group of people who share a common interest".--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "published" comes from the idea of broad, general distributed to the public at large, i.e. "everyone".  In ancient times, it was a huge investment of manpower and material.  In modern times, publication is much cheaper and easier.  However, the meaning of the word "published" is "to the public", as any good dictionary will tell you, whereas there is the alternative, "information distributed to selected individuals".(belatedly signing)Terryeo 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, I did post that and didn't sign it but have signed it now. Sorry about that.  Re: your definition of "public", you are simply mistaken.  Published in your sense is a distribution by a special interest to its members and not to the public, whereas "published" means to the broad, common public, i.e. "everyone", so much as is possible by the publisher.  Ideally, every publication would reach everyone, the New York Times would love to publish copies to every person on the planet.  That is the meaning of publish from dictionarys and not the "narrow, special interest group of person distributed to by an exclusive club, for the interest of the members of the club", which you are attempting to use. Terryeo 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again, Terryeo. I use the dictionary definition of publish and the dictionary definition of public. You are the one advocating the "published to the public" stuff over and over again. You are preaching a wrong target about publication, it is in fact, communicating to your intended public, not the "everyone" notion of yours.  It is completely absurd; when the NY Times publishes an obituary, do you really believe the Times wants "everyone" to read that obituary?   The definition you attribute to me is your fabrication. Please stop your black pr.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be true if the public which the Roman Crier reached (anyone within earshot) were incapable of speaking and writing the words which he uttered.  However, most of the people whom heard his words not on were capable of relaying his news, but reveled in it.  Today these are called "press conferences" and are attended by specialists who carry the Crier's uttered words to the broad, general public, even though the Crier's words are directed to s a specific, closed audience.  And there you have the crux of the difference, F. "Broad, general public" is the meaning of the term which dictionarys define while "targeted, specific people" received distributed (not published) information. Terryeo 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: May I point out that most of your posting does not address the issues which is being discussed, but is an attempt to invalidate discussion about it?  The issue which you have chosen to engage discussing involves a term and the concensus of understanding of the term.  While it is obvious to most editors that "publish" means, "to the broad, general public" and implies "without any restriction on the part of the author or publisher of who is reached by publication", your understanding of that common english word differs.  That's fine.  I am not presenting this issue to you personally, nor am I presenting this issue based only upon your, personal edit.  It is a broad issue which first comes into view at WP:NPOV with the presentation our Wikipedia is to contain and present "published" information.  I am convinced that a stable understanding of what information comprises "published" will enhance Wikipedia. Terryeo 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I point out to you that we were discussing the definition of "publish" and "public" and that is what my statements have addressed. I advise you to speak for yourself and not any other editors.  I also advise that dictionary defintions be used, NOT Terryeo POV defintions.--Fahrenheit451 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline?

message: I thought you would find this interesting as you represent yourself as a member of the cofs.  Here is a quote from Modern Management Technology Defined by L. Ron Hubbard: 
"Public, 2. there is a specialized definition of the word "public" which is not in the dictionary but which is used in the field of public relations. "Public" is a professional term to public relations people. It doesn't mean the mob or the masses. It means "type of audience."(HCO PL 13 Aug 70 III)"  
I would conclude that your notion of public diverges from that of the founder of the subject of Scientology.--Fahrenheit451 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find your comment to be of interest.  You quote some information of a specialized nature which is used, according to your quotation, in public relations work.  We editors are working toward a better, more complete Wikipedia.  In these guidelines we are working toward easily understood, easily applied information which will help editors produce Wikipedia articles easily and prolifically.  Your quotation comes from an an uncommon dictionary, a specialized dictionary which is neither available online nor applicable toward WP:NPOV.  'nuff said. Terryeo 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of information for Terryeo 

message: Second paragraph: I would delete "remaining" to read as follows: 
: "(e.g., the only copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it)"
This allows for the possibility that either it was never widely published -or- was, and is now widely inaccessible. --Lexein (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I see we are explaining "published" here. But what is the "reliable publication process" mentioned in WP:RS?Mzk1 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely fact-checking. But that's a restriction based on reliability, not on publication.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "reliably published" mean? 

message: Not all of them get archived (by archive.org, etc.), therefore "Any item which is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'" makes information cited from them fail WP:V once they go off-line? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about web pages? 

message: So, OK, basically with the current state of the world, anyone can potentially be speaking to anyone. For example, I have personally exchanged emails and chat conversations with lots of international musicians and labels, often getting some "insider's info" on albums (eg. what did they mean with "x" line? are they expected to be releasing anything soon? who were involved in recording some uncredited track? etc.) Of course, all of this is original research and as much as I'd like, I cannot use it here.
And just like I do these inquiries, so do many other individuals who run informal websites or blogs, often in interview format. Again, I realize that alone is not enough, given how I could just as well set up a blog right now and claim I just interviewed Dave Mustaine and that he personally told me he is abandoning Megadeth to work in a collaboration with Varg Vikernes.
But, what about cases where there is confirmation from the interviewee that such conversation did take part (and of course, that the information provided is accurate)? Do these documents become "officially published by proxy"? Of course, just as any self-published source, only some "objective" claims could be taken and may need to be preceded by "in an interview, [John Doe] said that...".
And while not really the same thing, how are answers given in "Ask [x]" events treated? This format is also public and contains interaction between some non-professional party with a relevant one (yes, I'm also aware this entire entry is moot if the subject is non-notable). 201.190.31.192 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can "confirmed" informal sources be considered published? 

message: The phrase "distributed to a public" seems, at best, awkward, but it is used 5 times.  Any ideas?--Elvey(t•c) 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "distributed to a public" ?? 

message: Attached to many public building, in a town I was visiting is a large brass plaque that was erected around 1886, giving a useful biography of the first owner of that house, erected by the City Council and tha Victorian Historical Society. It is accessible and published by a reliable source. Am I wrong?ClemRutter (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that it is accessible and published.  (Whether it's reliable depends upon context, etc.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  another borderline case 

message: I've created a minor rewording proposal at the village pump. Here's the link if anyone would like to participate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:PUBLISH_rewording_proposal. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you bothering with a whole voting-style RFC over such a small thing?  If you're sure that it's an improvement, then be bold and fix it already.  If you're not sure, then talk about it here.  If you don't get objections here, then you could leave a note at WT:V and/or WT:RS to let those busier pages know about your suggestion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response. Someone else implemented the voting style to the RfC, and I left a reply there to explain why I felt the need to bother with an RfC over a less important edit. However, since you are the second editor to suggest being bold, I may opt for a speedy RfC removal and just be bold so as not to bother anyone, (which I really didn't want to have to take my time to do anyway, but felt it was best under the circumstances). Thanks much for the suggestions. Huggums537 (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize it, but the RfC has already been closed by another editor as unnecessary. I will now make the proposed changes. Huggums537 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording proposal. 

message: There's related discussion to the definition of published on WT:RS and WT:V, I guess maybe this page was a good place to discuss it. Andre🚐 03:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion