Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 24

message: I inserted numerous  tags on the Red Line (MBTA) article, and another editor reverted them, with a comment in the main page's history "That seems a bit excessive. Perhaps you were looking for the article's "talk" page? Reverting.)"; the other editor does not appear to have made any effort to improve my edit, simply removing it completely without adding any note to the talk page.  What is the best way of dealing with this?  JNW2 (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a general sense that drive-by tagging of an article is not terribly useful, and it comes across as a little bit rude. If you have specific concerns about an article, it is usually more productive to express them on the talk page rather than to spew "numerous" tags across the article. --FOo (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or, alternately, use a single  or  at the top of the article, which goes the same point across with less... Invasiveness. Grandmasterka 11:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to stand up for the opposing position that adding fact tags for uncited material is improving Wikipedia and is usually appropriate, and that removing them rather than adding cites is quite rude, inappropriate, and is failing to improve Wikipedia. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding citations for uncited material is improving Wikipedia; adding appropriate tags to encourage this is one of the ways of doing so; adding tags for multiple sentence of parts of sentences in a single paragraph over the same issue is usually more irritating than helpful. The particular tags related to documenting the probably noncontroversial dates of opening of various branches and introduction of various services. This could have been better handled with one or two tags, explained on the talk page. It's not as if the article has major problems with these issues. DGG (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that drive-by tagging is not productive, and does not reflect well on the taggers. A strategically placed fact tag or two should suffice if there are facts that really need citations.  An overall tag in the references section (or on top if the problem is really serious) is better than a scattering of unsightly fact tags. Anything more than that is overkill. Remember that Wikipedia is here to serve the readers' education needs, not the editors' ego needs. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, WP:SOFIXIT yourself. If you can't, discuss it on the talk page. But by all means be objectively constructive, rather than subjectively critical. Dhaluza (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive facts tags? 

message: :US, re your recent edit, V is the policy, and RS has to be consistent with it, not the other way round. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SV, I raised it above, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Sentence that is a bit much "in your face", and I thought BB's language was a big improvement.  I think we should direct people to raise the issue on talk pages, since I think we all agree that it makes sense to do so - one person acting unilaterally on their perception of "inconsistency" may not make be the best outcome (edit wars, etc.). Can you suggest alternate language rather than a revert? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain... I have seen at least two rounds of RS being edited so it no longer is consistent with WP:V. In both cases it took a lot of time and effort to bring it back in line.  I would prefer to scrap RS completely, and deal with the reliability issue in V... but as long as we are going to have a seperate guideline, I would like the active editors at V to keep tabs on it.  My suggested language that people to raise the issue of any inconsistency at both locations is so more WP:V editors will become awair that there is an inconsistency and fix it.  SV is correct in saying that WP:V is the policy, and 99 times out of 100 (and probably more often than that) when there is an inconsistency it is RS that needs to be ammended to match WP:V.  However, I also leave open the remote possibility that someone in the future may come up with an issue at RS that was not thought of and addressed in V.  They would have to make an extraordinarily good argument in favor of changing V to match RS... but it could potentially happen. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we did once, and that was with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved the following discussion from below 

message: I have a general question about this policy. Does it apply to images? I mean, do images have to be published by a reliable source per WP:V?
If WP:V doesn't apply to images, is there any policy that does? If not, does this mean that anyone can produce an image and make a claim regarding it? What if there are conflicting claims?Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOR for the primary exception clause regarding use of images. Additionally, please assume good faith regarding such uploads, in general. If someone makes an extraordinary claim with an image, i.e. This photo claims Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11!!!, then it needs to be backed up accordingly. Basically, just accept an image unless it can be proven to be false/misleading. Please realize that captions for said pictures are another matter altogether. Is there a specific image you have in mind? — BQZip01 — talk 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hello. There's a been an ongoing dispute at Talk: Super Smash Bros. Melee about the relevance of a gaming forum to SSBM in relation to gaming tournaments. Sources have came to light today from MLG—a gaming tournament website. However, the writer of the sources—who's trying to assert Smashboards's notability—is a actually an administrator at Smashboards. This obviously makes him biased, but does it invalidate the source? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it does. If it's that important, then there should be another source for the information; or, at least, editors vouching for it who have no personal connection. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other authors who have written about the competitive Smash community and mentioned Smashboards, including other authors from MLG, Nintendo Power, and other eSports websites. All of the authors who have ever written anything about competitive Smash (including Nintendo Power authors) have accounts on Smashboards because Smashboards is where the majority of competitive players inhabit. To not have an account there and write about the community would be poor journalism. Ashnards assertion of bias should have no effect on the validity of a source, especially when the articles were written for, paid for, edited, and published by MLG. MLG is a major source on competitive gaming as it is the largest gaming league in the USA, Ashnard has agreed that MLG is an authority, yet he selectively discredits my articles for my affiliation with Smashboards, an affiliation that if I lacked I would have no right to write about competitive Smash. People don't call into question the validity of a historian who is a republican writing about the importance/history/term of president Clinton.  There is suspicion of bias based solely on my membership at a website, but there is no proof of bias.  As an author I feel I must defend my work. I agree that me pushing for Smashboards inclusion in the tournament section of the SSBM wiki would be biased, however I'm not the person pushing, I'm merely supplying the people who were pushing for it with sources so they can back up their assertion, yet when I presented my work and others as sources Ashnard discredited them based solely on bias with no proof. Alphazealot (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you're pulling the "I need to be a member to report accurately" card. To use the analogies that you love so much, it's like saying that a journalist must be a member of a particular football club to truly report on that club. As for the Clinton analogy, no open Republican should be used as source if that source is trying to certify the relevance of Clinton accurately. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be a member regardless because I am an avid fan of SSBM and Smashboards is the largest message board dedicated solely to the game. A republican writing about Clinton would be no more or less biased than a democrat writing about Clinton, which is why its assumed authors who have an expertise in a certain field write about that field with as little bias as possible. Are you saying that historians have no political parties and have never voted, which is why they write without bias? Absurd. A journalist should go to whatever lengths are necessary to accurately report on something. In the case of Smash, you either go through Smashboards or through MLG, eventually at the end of the day you'll be associated and have dealt with people from both (as evidenced in numerous articles I have linked to you).Alphazealot (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No. There is a difference between voting for a political party and being an active member in its functions. By the way, why defend your position as a journalist as if I'm attacking it? I'm just questioning your position as an author of a source to verify a particular assertion. But you just don't seem to understand. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to know whether a source should be used 

message: Is it fair to say that Private communication, 2007 is not an acceptable Wikipedia reference under any circumstances?  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. See WP:NOR too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private communication 

message: Guys, is there any reason we can't some pictures and big quotes to liven this page up a bit? David tried to add an image and it was removed within seconds, and now my big Tacitus quote has gone to NPOV, even though it's clearly relevant to V.  I think we need a few eye-catching things on this page to make it easier to look at and to convey the message. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I kinda like the Tacitus quote. Wjhonson (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already one of the liveliest pages in policy spage.  Eleven shortcuts, a Jimbo quote, a nutshell, three policy box templates, footnotes, and an audio link.  It's setting off my ADHD just to look at it.  As a suggestion maybe we could set this quote off with a text box instead of a section header so it doesn't appear in the TOC, and read, as a part of the official policy rule.  Also, an internal or external link to a commentator who interprets this quote for some of us not-so-smart mortals might help.  Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And why do I want to go play DnD right about now?Wjhonson (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You look at dice-shaped objects and you get the urge?  Now that's being addicted.  The Transhumanist  14:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, quotes 

message: Above, at #proposal: "independent" of interests involved, I argued Reliable Sources should be independent of vested interests. No one replied to that directly; Wjhonson, thank you for your addition, I agree with that. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rationale for omitting facts 

message: In several articles, I have tried to add facts, which I deemed important to include to balance the article, making sure it is WP:NPOV. There is however a mechanism at work which distorts this. Let me continue on Wikipedia_Talk:NPOV — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Narrative based fact selection

message: Hi,
Are the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health websites good reliable sources for medical related articles?  If they say something, can we say they are WP:V sources? 74.45.251.26 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are good sources, though they might need other sources to balance them if there are neutrality concerns, but in essence, they are definitely reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent and fair-minded consensus statements for topics of practical medicine can in my opinion best be found at Medline Plus. As they are PD, we might sometimes  do well simply to copy them with attribution. DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMA and NIH 

message: Increasingly I stumble upon unreferenced maps, even in well-referenced, FA class articles. Such maps certainly violate our policies, from V to OR and often, to NPOV. I don't advocate removal of them, but we need to raise awarness among map makers that they too need to cite their sources. How to do it? I think a good first step would be a creation of templates, inline for captions of unreferenced maps, and general for the image pages of unreferenced maps, and of course we would need a corresponding category. See also my post at Template_talk:Fact#Version_for_maps.3F. Comments much appreciated. PS. One of many examples of a completely unreferenced map used on Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't require sources for images in the same way we do for text. If you think the image is incorrect, you should start by asking the author what data it is based on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Images, including maps, should accurately represent things that are stated in the article... those statements are, presumably, sourced.  Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced maps a major problem 

message: I qualified the phrase "academic" community in this section, and because this has gone back and forth a couple of times, discussion appears to be in order. The reason for qualifying is not to allow every quack-medicine or flat-earth claim; it's simply to try to ensure that "non-academic" is not casually equated with "extraordinary". The community expressly rejected WP:SPOV, and accordingly there is a consensus against the idea that Wikipedia expressly favors academic points of view vis-a-vis non-academic points of view. It seems to me that WP:V needs to be consistent with consensus on this matter. The key issue, it seems to me, is to prevent misrepresentation: the problem here is claims which represent themselves as scientific/academic theories or facts which verifiably aren't. We should make clear that this subsection doesn't threaten Star Trek, Ablution, Pizza, Libertarianism, and any of the hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects which are simply not scientific, medical, historical, BLP or similar in nature. (I'd be happy if some of the popular culture articles had any 3rd party sources, requiring academic sources seems excessive and without consensus); similarly, in mixed articles like Bible, the key issue is that religious and academic viewpoints need to be identified as such, the rejection of WP:SPOV means there is no favoritism for one viewpoint over another. Labeling non-academic subjects and viewpoints as "extraordinary" in a general, across-the-board fashion strikes me as risking an end run around the community's rejection of WP:SPOV and hence against consensus. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that in the United States, there are many issues in which current social policies are different from what most academics believe. For example, the composition of the current United States Supreme Court is much more conservative than most law school faculties, and the Supreme Court on several occassions rejected viewpoints that virtually the whole academic community supported. It also strikes me that in many matters of social policy, politics, morality, etc. where scientific viewpoints are relevant, other viewpoints are also relevant and significant and can easily be reliably sourced. Arguing the merits isn't the point; the fact is, rightly or wrongly, WP:SPOV isn't policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a way of looking at it that I had not considered. I see your point. Thanks Brimba (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the reasoning of Shirahadasha's removal of the word "academic"... however, can we come up with a better term than "community".  People understand what "academic community" means... but "community" on its own is more vague.  You could say that three or four people who push a particular extraordinary claim form a "community" ... which would defeat the whole intent of the bullet point. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just say "specialists in the relevant field," which leaves open whether they're academic or other specialists. So that part would begin: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view among specialists in the relevant field ..." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "Experts" might be better, actually. "Specialists" has an academic ring to it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is as follows. Imagine there is a group of 10 people who decide the sky is green. They publish their own Green Sky journal, let's say, they consider themselves as experts in their field, and they each act as peer for the others, so their publications are "peer reviewed". Aside from the fact that WP:UNDUE would suppress their views as extreme minority, I would like to see their claim also fall under "exceptional". But one could argue that there is no "red flag" here, since within their own community of green sky "specialists" or "experts", the prevailing view is that the sky is green. This is why I think we need to emphasize the mainstream, so we don't end up relying on tiny self-reinforcing groups (except when writing about those groups). We need to examine claims relative to the mainstream of the entire global community, not just the narrow "specialists" or "experts". Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would be OK with just saying "contradicted by mainstream experts." When we get into "relevant communities", it becomes harder to define what that community is, and hence what the prevailing view is. Crum375 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If its defined too tightly, then you get into cases such as “he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject.” or some other “community” of one or two or six individuals. Anything with expert in it, or similar will allow someone to alter their definition rather than their source. It may be a catch-22 situation, I don’t know. Brimba (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We already say "surprising or important claims not covered by mainstream sources".  If we were to add "mainstream" to the contradiction area, that would effectively neuter undue weight.  We'd be in-effect saying, that we only relate mainstream sources.  That's basically why SPOV was rejected.  We're really here to report all moderately interesting sources, all moderately important sources, even when they contradict each other.  In fact those situations make articles more interesting imho.Wjhonson (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have read Crum’s rational instead of just skimming it. His concern is the same as mine, just expressed more clearly, although I am more incline towards the “Claims that are contradicted by other reliable sources” wording. I think his statement of “and they each act as peer for the others, so their publications are "peer reviewed"” is particularly on the spot. Brimba (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the concern is a group who are not part of the "usual suspects", and what we're discussing is how to articulate what we mean by the "usual suspects" without being either too narrow ot too vague. One possibility might be a phrase like "accepted authorities". Another possibility might be language specifically covering claims of expertise in novel fields, which I understand the example represents (this might be too specific, since understand the example doesn't necessarily convey all the possible issues.)  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much point in defining this in too detailed a way, because all the section is saying is that, where an exceptional claim is made, editors should make sure the source is extra reliable. But we should be doing that anyway. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially as, no matter how we word this, we will have to work out how it applies in each case that arises. It will come down to a discussion of whether any individual claim is 'exceptional', and what sources are reliable enough to support it, and we can't prevent that by loading down the policy with details. -- Donald Albury 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I'm kinda OK with the way it reads right now to tell you the truth.  I do understand Blueboar's concern that community by itself is vague.  Can we say "accepted authorites within the relevant community" ?  At least we're not saying academic ;) Wjhonson (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I've read the original suggestion again, and the only example that is really relevant is that in articles on Bible-related subjects, religious and academic viewpoints both need to be given space. This is a bad example: religious studies departments exist, and are more than capable of presenting coherent summaries of mainstream religious views. Indeed, most conceivable  examples - with the sole exception of pop culture articles - will have the same objection. Can someone come up with an example of something academics will not study? Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To continue the religion example, the Catholic Church maintains credentials for individuals qualified to teach the Catholic perspective on Theology and compiles secondary and tertiary sources on the subject that it regards as reliable. An academic without Church credentials can offer an academic viewpoint on the subject, but is not considered qualified or peer-reviewed to offer a genuinely Catholic one. If authorities with Church credentials generally agree on something, it is their consensus which represents the dominant view on what the Church teaches and an academic who proposes something inconsistent has to have his or her opinion attributed as such (i.e. as representing the academic's view, rather than as being an authority on the Church's view). One may personally disagree with the Catholic Church's credentialling process and believe that non-credentialled individuals are "more than capable", but it's not Wikipedia's place to do so. Academics have different criteria than the Church for what makes a theory worthy of publication (Academia tends to favor novelty, for example, in a way a religion may not). Catholic authorities have the same say for whether a claim is legitimate or fringe Catholicism as scientists do for whether a claim is legitimate of fringe science. WP:NPOV means no preference. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "academic" in [[WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources]] 

message: Hi. Tel Aviv almost reached FA status yesterday but failed because the sourcing isnt considered to be good enough.(Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv/archive2) I wonder if there is someone here who would be able to help solve this/tell me where I can find someone who is able to do so. Thanks in advance. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiny little Andorra has at least 12 museums (see this site) with a population of just under 72,000... that gives us a per-capita ratio of one museum for every 6,000 people.  Israel has a population of just over 7,000,000... which would mean that Israel would have to have something like one museum for every 600,000 people for the claim to be accurate. Does it? OK, I know that my quick calculation is OR, but I'm not trying to add it to any article. I just wanted to give an example of why the claim should be taken with a grain of salt. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arithmetic has a typo. You mean Israel would need more than 1 per 6,000, or 1168 museums. DGG (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry about that... I stand corrected. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tel Aviv 

message: I am currently having an issue with a passage in an article that cites a court judgement. I have reason to doubt that what is said is accurate. However I have no way of getting to check that the document says what the article says it does except at an unacceptable cost. Obviously a court document is reliable per se, but it is effectively unreliable if you can't get to see it for yourself. What is the best way to deal with this? ireneshusband (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obviously a court document is reliable per se", so we treat it as reliable.  A document is not less reliable if it is not easily [intentionally vague meaning] available to one person.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the docuemnt is still verifiable... the fact that you find the cost unacceptable is irrelevant to that fact.  It is no different than if someone cited a very expensive book.  If I wish to double check what is said in the book, I may have to go out and purchase the book.  I might not like that, and may find the cost unacceptable... but that is my choice and does not change the fact that I could purchase it if I chose to do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A court document is considered a primary source, which is generally unacceptable for use in Wikipedia unless accompanied by a secondary source interpreting it. Crum375 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is especially true in BLP cases, as your case seems to be. Crum375 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Um... primary documents are acceptable... they just need to be used with caution.  Certainly any analysis, interpretation or conclusionary statements should not be based upon the primary document (as that is a violation of WP:NOR), and such statements do need to be accompanied by a secondary source... but if all you are doing is repeating what is stated in the primary document then the document is a reliable source.  To take a judicial ruling as an example... We can quote (and cite) the ruling, but that is as far as we can go.  We may not interpret it or say what it means unless we have an independant source to back that interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If it is available only at great cost, or with exceptional difficulty,  and someone relies on it for something which is in good faith open to question, it is appropriate to ask for a quotation of the key text. It is incorrect to insert a reference without actually having seen the item, so the person inserting it must have had it available.  DGG (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A primary source such as a judgment is acceptable as a quote, without any interpretation or analysis. Once we start adding any interpretation beyond the original words, we are into WP:OR territory. This is why we generally need secondary sources for legal cases. Crum375 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There seem to be two issues here. One is the expense. Expense basically isn't a problem, as long as sources are considered reliable it doesn't matter if they are expensive or hard to access. User:Blueboar and User:DGG have suggested some steps to take. The second issue involves the use of court documents. I agree court documents can be reliable, but for limited purposes. In general, only documents by the judge (judments, opinions, etc.) should be used, documents that come from the parties (motions, depositions, etc.) should not. Finally, not all lawsuits are notable and nuisance lawsuits are a fact of life, so particularly where WP:BLP issues are involved, a lawsuit (particularly one that has not reached a judgment) should generally be mentioned in the first place only if it has been reported on by newspapers, law journals, an appelate court, or other reliable third-party sources indicating that the lawsuit is notable. If the lawsuit is notable, one can then go to court records for additional detail. --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  court documents? 

message: So a question for clarification...  What about sources that are only available online *and* require a subscription access to view the entire article?  I'm thinking of a magazine that used to be in print many years ago, but ten years ago (or so) moved to a web-only publication format.  For a subscription fee of $20/year, you get access to the online magazine (new issues/content) as well as its archives (which includes all of the original paper content as well).  If I want to quote an article from this magazine, it's certainly verifiable (at least by anyone who has a subscription, or wants to pay for it).    --Craw-daddy | T | 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the definition that arose in our discussion this magazine meets the verifiability standards. The reader of the Wiki article can decide whether he wants to access and verify the web-only magazine or not. He doesn't have to approved. It's up to his discretion. If he's willing to pay the fee than that's all that matters. It's like citing a book that's only available at a library in another city. You'd have to spend money on a bus ticket to access and verify the source for yourself but that's your decision. Nobody stops you from doing it. Both this fictitious book and the web-only magazine have to be considered publicly accessible. From that standpoint they meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards.  -- Aexus (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that we reached this consensus. Imho, if there is no relatively-free version, where you need no approval, and need not pay the originator in order to verify the content, then to me, it is not accessible, and thus vails V. Wjhonson (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood it to be a fundamental, long-settled issue that we can source factual claims to pay sites, offline sites, etc.  The mode of access simply doesn't figure in to verifiability but everything else being the same it's best to use an accessible site, courtesy link, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho, it's not fundamental and not long settled that we can source claims to *solely pay sites*.  We can source to pay sites, if there is a relatively-free alternative which does not require payment to the originator of the data.  We can source to a pay site like the New York Times online, because you can also go to the library and read it for free.  We can source to a pay site like some obscure magazine online if there is a possibility that you can get a copy of that item without the need to pay the author or publisher anything.  That does not mean it's free to you, if you have to send a letter or make a phone call to some remote librarian or colleague.  It means there's no direct interaction required between you and the author or publisher.  That's the effective language we have discussed.Wjhonson (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah alright, my mistake. I answered Craw-daddy's question with the discussion about private sources in mind. I thought that a pay site is verifiable as it's my own decision if I want to pay the fee.  -- Aexus (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all getting very complicated.  It seems there are few if any sources that are both reliable and inaccessible, because the nature of scientific and academic research, news reporting, etc., is that they all have their various own versions of verifiability, and facts are not trusted unless they are subject to acceptance by a community.  I can imagine a few special cases, say, religious research on a secretive sect, military secrets, police investigations, sealed court records...but for the most part the two questions boil down to the same thing and we can usually reject the source as unreliable.  Regarding the "Aurora" site that sparked this discussion I would simply say that the material is either unreliable or original research and leave it at that.  But yes, I see how if a site is accessible only to a small exclusive group it does not help for purposes of verification.  As an analog, if I added a comment to an article that the tribal elders of X practice a form of magic in which Y, and I cited it to a tablet Z kept by the chief of the tribe (and not studied, described elsewhere, or otherwise available), I think you can say that we would dismiss the claim as unverifiable.Wikidemo (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Two questions about your last post, Wjhonson, if I may:1. If I can ask a librarian to check a "pay-only" citation for me, and that librarian has access to the "pay-only" website as part of his job, does that make the source verifiable?2. What does "verifiability" really mean? Does it mean actually seeing a copy of the source myself, or will having someone I trust tell me that the source agrees with the passage in the WP article be enough?  —SMALLJIM  16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think so, too. It shouldn't matter who wanted to access and verify a source. If I want to access the source I should be allowed to do so. As soon as it's not up to me anymore the source becomes unverifiable for me. Thus it fails one of Wikipedia's standards which in turn means that we consider it invalid. -- Aexus (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: For clarification

message: I can understand saying that a pay to view sight is OK... I am less happy about the idea that you have to be approved in some way.  What is the approval process?  Any one can pay, but will anyone be approved? 
 
In any case... There is another issue that may come into play here.  Do members of this forum post anonymously, or do they post using their own names?  If the former, I don't think we can call it a reliable source, since there is no verification as to who says what or the qualification of any given poster to say what they say.  If the latter, what is the policy at the site... how do they verify that someone is who they claim to be? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion about reliability of these forums goes on here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In short: members of Aurora post with their in-game name. Thus they are not anonymous. Also, we can consider forum posts by some members reliable. For example posts by the leader and his substitutes. They are notable. Even if it's a forum we could then consider the source itself reliable as the statement in question was made by a notable person. The reliability issues a resolved. In my opinion the forums don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. There's no payment involved in this case. At least not directly towards Aurora. If I wanted to access the source I had to apply for a position at Aurora. And to do that I'd have to start playing EVE Online. Which in turn costs a monthly fee of around 15,- USD. A little less if you buy access for several months in advance. As for other criteria I can't give a definite answer. New players probably aren't accepted. One had to play for, say, six months first. That way Aurora can ensure that members know at least some aspects of the game.  -- Aexus (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability is a factor of a source's verifiability, so a discussion of its reliability here is appropriate.  In any case... for multiple reasons, I don't think the site is usable as a citation on wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A different question

message: I haven't run into this yet but a couple recent posts got me thinking... what is the Verifiability process for images in an age of photoshop that can make almost any image appear "real".  For content, we push the V policy, but then we promote and even require "free" images created by users.  We have none of the reliable source requirements for image content - no fact checking.  An image could easily be doctored for bias (I can think of several examples in recent media where such has happened).  Anyway.. this has likely been discussed but it popped into my head so I thought I would bring it up.  Morphh  (talk) 3:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't really have a verification process for images.  Part of the problem is that, due to copywrite and similar issues, many verifiable published images can not be used on Wikipedia... which means that we often have to rely on images that are self-created by our editors.  We have to assume good faith and assume that an image portrays what the creator says it portrays.  That said, images can be challenged just like any other material in wikipedia.  If you have reason to believe that an image has been doctored, challenge it. Or better yet, find a better image to illustrate the article and substitute it.  Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: There is a discussion of the correct application of this policy to extremist sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Animal Liberation Front references. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion seems to have come to consensus, does anybody else have any comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Apparently this issue has not been resolved as Crum375 has stated today that "I see no "consensus" there." and replaced the Animal Liberation Front links in the Animal testing article diff. Could people please examine this question again? Further comments would be much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this issue should be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles. We do accept published material from sources about themselves, and the images in question were taken by the sources as eyewitnesses. Also, the "Britches" video is displayed on PETA's PetaTV, which is not "extremist" by Wikipedia's definition, as PETA has nearly two million members, with many celebrity supporters. Crum375 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremist sources 

message: i'm not a frequent wikipedia editor, but wanted to point out that nearly every single article on a film or tv actor has a first sentence with an unverified/uncited assertion, something like: "Skeletor is a Norweigan actor best known for his performance in the television series, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe."  ...best known to whom?  I dunno if there's some kind of wikipedia insider community, but this might be pointed out to folks working mostly in tv/movies...
98.163.232.140 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a dispute about the "best known for" part, the wording gets changed. Usually this is covered in the body of the article in some way, based on commentators discussing the actor's most famous or breakthrough role. When sources say some actor "went up a step" due to some recent role, or explicitly say some role made the actor famous, I think it's fair to use the "best known for" phrase. Gimmetrow 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  common error 

message: Requoting a recent snippet from WP:RS:
Is this situation sense or nonsense? I'm not clear on what "Wikiproceduralthingies" were suggested, but it seems to me that having the author of the cited source containing the error write to wikipedia would not satisfy the verifiability, not truth threshold for inclusion criteria. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're expected and permitted to exercise common sense. The key here is that "verifiability, not truth" is the threshold for appearing on Wikipedia. We can perform original research and use sources that don't explicitly satisfy RS to form arguments that content should not appear on Wikipedia. And if there is a good consensus that such content should not appear, and that enforcing the rules would actually harm Wikipedia, we can invoke editorial discretion. This option is always available for these sorts of situations. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is indeed an error, there seem to be two likely situations. In one, it's a claim discussed by other reliable sources. In that case, either the other sources make the same claim or present a contrary claim. In the other, it's a claim not discussed in other references. In both cases, if the claim is exclusive to that single author/work, we should treat it an extreme minority claim. If other sources repeat the same (allegedly erroneous) claim, then the author's opposing word alone would still be an extreme minority claim. Either way, we should stick to what the general body of reputable references says about a topic. (In essence, the verifiability question is solved or superseded by the requirements of NPOV.) Just an opinion. Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we can mention the correction and explain the relative lack of authority. But then I am not generally confident with the way we interpret "extreme minority"--I think it can be used as a way of expressing POV. DGG (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I've just come across another instance of this situation. See this exchange of edits. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: interesting example: many of the figures in that population table needed some qualification or reconcilement. When we say V not truth, we do not mean to say that V=error , not truth, when a clear error can be shown and documented. when there's an obvious arithmetical error in a source, correct it and report the original in a footnote. 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable sources having known but unverifiable errors 

message: I think we all agree that a person's website, or blog, or Amazon.com list, is a self-published source.  However, would the same apply to a person's book or movie ?  True, a person can pay to get a book published, but for that matter, then this would also apply for a person to get articles written about herself/himself.  So unless there is a reasonable doubt that this happened, I don't think that a book by the person is a self-published source, more than an article about the person, as long as the book is the subejct of third-party sources - and otherwise, it would not be in wikipedia anyway.
It may be good to expand on this.--CCorward (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At Grey DeLisle it was established that the only reliable source for D.O.B. was the actor/artist's official MySpace page. IMDb, numerous other sources (which had cited us) were all incorrect and it was only proven through Grey's letter at the social networking site which led to a check at databroker Intelius finally debunking the false DOB and supporting (but without subscription it could not verify) the true DOB. This has kind of a disturbing impact on the rules, really, because it's exceptional that a social networking site will provide the most credible and comprehensive verification of data. This DOB issue, and issues citing a childbirth this year (for which a primary should be most useful) have been problematic because editors rightly read our policy on sources, but fail to notice the article's talk page. Perhaps a boilerplate related to WP:IAR accessible only to a high authority (is there something above admin?) could be used in such situations. In theory I agree with the unreliability and unverifiability of such sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  I think we should apply the rationale of reasonable doubt here, i.e. an actress may lie about her DOB, while it is less likely that a scholar would do so.  And perhaps more important, then the text can be phrased accordingly, e.g. according to one source, X has two children named so and so.  And anyway, about the credibility of self-published sources, well... what about the credibility of media ?  Media misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent on a daily basis, and the fact that something was written in print does not mean it is true...--CCorward (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an actress who would appear on-screen, absolutely has good reason to lie. Grey DeLisle is a voice actress. The verifiability of these things should go back to a source, and imdb isn't one... it's just a collection of contributions like us--except they don't provide sources to verify. When the MySpace page disputed our DOB for her, it didn't just dispute it, it produced what it represented as a letter from Grey. The search at Intelius under DeLisle's birth name verified our error. When the MySpace page announced the birth of a son to Grey and Murry, they didn't just announce it, they showed pictures (great verification) and quoted DeLisle's announcement. So whereas imdb doesn't give sources to verify, this social networking site at least described and displayed primary sources. Normally we must treat such a site with deep skepticism. But I am more skeptical of those who make claims without backing them up, whatever their URL or POV. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Total agreement. I think that's one reason WP:IAR exists. Trouble is, everytime the subject comes up, the whole sourcing history has to be repeated. I suppose I should just link this once it's archived. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly constitutes self-published information anyway ?

message: Edcolins knows what I am referring to, which I think is an interesting case study, left aside that specific case.  Essentially, an author has published a book, and the book and author are in wikipedia because third-party reviews of the book abound.  Personally, I would think that it is relevant to state information about the book not only in terms of contents, but also in terms of who else may have contributed, e.g. was there a co-author or co-editor, or a foreword by someone ?  Not very different from stating who the publisher was, in my view.  Yes, a foreword by a prominent person is used to sell the book, true, but so is the writing by the author too, and so is the name of the publisher (e.g. a book by Oxford University Press might be considered automatically notable by virtue of its publisher)...  I think that "the book has a foreword by ..." is factual information about the book, relevant for wikipedia as long as this is not a reason that led to notability (i.e. the book must have been there in the first place thanks to third-party sources).  And the same in my view applies to blurbs, which are essentially the same as a foreword, except that they are shorter, and usually on the back cover or before the first pages of actual book.  Incidentally, in the book I am referring to, you may notice that the blurb authors are also listed as commentators in Amazon.com, signifying - to me - that their contribution to the book is part of the book.  I think their names (which are after all some academics and diplomats, hence not much more notable than the author) are relevant to the book and hence to the author.  And after all, if there were a foreword by a very prominent individual, e.g. the President of the United States, would this not also be pertinent ?  I stand by to be supported or counter-argued, by Edcolins of course, but ideally also by others. ;-)  Cheers,--CCorward (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Case study: ''blurbs'' in someone's book