Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

All you want to know about Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcut: WT:V

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.

Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

"Warning" signs on bio. pages and nomination for deletion

Have added a large number of

This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2008)

to a large groupe of players in the swedish top league, aka Allsvenskan, i myself is a major fan of Halmstads BK, also a team in Allsvenskan, and have made major contributions to that teams and players articles, i am trying to improve all articles regarding to Swedish top fotball, Allsvenskan and Superettan mainly, and was hopping that some user and IP numbers would help if i added this tags, this however havent happend and i feel that i know to little about some players to writte theire bios on my own. I also added this signs to the articles since i dont feel like they reach the demands on Wikipedia regarding bios. So now i wonder how long i should wait before i put up a bio. page for deletion or if there is something else i should do instead? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources must directly support

Added this line: "The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article." I believe it's uncontroversial. lk (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is some controversy. Look at my unsuccessful attempt to get "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body of text) Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 into the Jesus myth article. Those quotes were removed on the ground the article as a whole didn't say that. In my view this will cause as many problems as it solves.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think this will cause problems, then those problems have already been caused by Wikipedia:No original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it is easy to use Wikipedia:No original research to claim that a quote is being taken out of context (how one can claim that about a quote that is practically a paragraph I have no idea) and then use OR by taking another quote out of context to claim the source as a whole doesn't say what the direct quote says.

On the flip side I am trying to remove this quote "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." (Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.) on several issues: possible Wikipedia:Libel as it basically states that anyone that questions the idea "Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived" is not reputable scholar (even among the Historical Jesus group there are those who dispute the 'son of Joseph' part so are they somehow unreliable scholar?), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues as the statement is an Ad hominem attack and doesn't really add anything to an encyclopedia article, WP:V issues as Charlesworth is the editor of the very book in which his comment appears and Eerdmans presents themselves as "Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." creating COI concerns. The quote has been put back in with claims that Charlesworth is an "expert in biblical archaeology" failing to explain that only thing to imply this is his E.T. (Eleve Titulaire) from the Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem (Princeton Theological Seminary) but if you have no idea what Eleve Titulaire equates to then you are left wondering especially when it is not mentioned what he got his B.D. from Duke Divinity School, a Ph.D. from Duke University Graduate School in and later that Eerdmans is "reputable academic publisher" something not even claimed at Eerdmans' own web site. This is supposed to have more merit than an quote from an article published in a peer reviewed published by the American Anthropological Association?! Something wrong here.

Personally I would yank any Ad hominem quote regardless of subject matter as I can not see on reasonable use for one in any article. The fact you don't see such quotes in articles on other fringe theories like Flat Earth, Creationism, or New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) raises the question of why are Ad hominem quotes in the Jesus myth article and why editors are fighting to keep them in when better quotes exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling verifiability

I've jut been reading my latest copy of Private Eye in which it suggests that the Daily Mirror used an (essentially vandalised) copy of a page on a Cypriot football team called Omonia Nicosia with a joke supporters group inserted into it. Private Eye's assertion is that our verifiability policy is essentially daft, given that it requires simply attribution in a third-party reliable source, such as a mainstream newspaper, which would allow this "joke" to be included as factual. I'm uncertain on this specific case, but I've seen similar point brought up before. Whilst I'm happy that in general we may catch these problems, do we have any procedures in place to prevent this, or specific guidance? This is an issue, since it impinges on our reputation and the quality of the encyclopeadia as a whole. Any thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're using either Private Eye or the Daily Mirror to support article claims, the joke's on us. Regardless, reputable publications with established reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight are quite unlikely to be regurgitating vandalized and/or inaccurate information from Wikipedia. The neutral point of view policy is a further safeguard, since it indicates we shouldn't be presenting claims only present in one or very few sources. Vassyana (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll dig around in my archives, but I'm pretty certain that several reputable newspapers (The Times, Telegraph) have been regurgitating portions of our pages. Maybe this is only a problem with newspapers, and as such isn't going to affect quality on a wide scale. I'm not sure - I just felt it was worth discussing. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a deference to higher quality sources and ensuring that our articles reflect the body fo reputable sources is the best systematic way to counter the concern. In other words, sticking to the principles we have in place. I believe that at worst this highlights concerns periodically raised about the news media, particularly those outlets with less than a sterling reputations. Vassyana (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" doesn't mean we should include what we know to be untrue. --NE2 10:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I think I was thinking more along the lines of how we try to prevent this from happening, if indeed it is possible. For instance, in this example, someone could unwittingly read the Mirror article, and update the article with a valid source. The edit is in good faith, and it could be very diffcult to catch. I was wondering if some sort of additional criterion, such as the date of the verifying source having to precede the first inclusion of the information in an article would prevent this? I'm certain that someone else can come up with ways in which this wouldn't work though... Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Daily Mirror is using Wikipedia as a source, we should not consider it reliable in any case. Powers ^T 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't that difficult to enforce in practise? The Daily Mirror crops up as a source in several pages, and we can't be sure that we're not being used as a source for info by various publications, even if it is less obvious. I'm just a bit concerned about the possibility of us verifying our own information via a proxy third-party source, and that maybe the date of the source needs to be used to assert it usefulness in verification. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered this a bit recently - when trying to reference long-standing articles, we may need to be careful that the source didn't rely on Wikipedia. I've taken your approach, and prefer to rely on sources that either predate the entry here, or which are clearly reliable (although "clearly" is tricky to judge). Not perfect, but it makes me feel more comfortable. - Bilby (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly wondering if we should make an expicit note/suggestion to that effect on one of the policy or guideline pages. Just to make people more aware of it? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, lately. :) Yes, I think it is probably a good idea to mention the issue, although I have no idea how. Perhaps in terms of what consititues a reliable source? - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll move this off this page and over to WP:RS, where I'll propose adding a bulletpoint to Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations - Join me there? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if a publication sources it's articles from Wikipedia, and doesn't fact check, then it wouldn't be a 'Reliable Source', and so the supposed fact cannot be supported by an article from such a publication. lk (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But how do you know the publication is sourcing in this way? I only saw this one because someone else happened to be checking it out. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just tabloids like the Daily Mirror - a dubious "fact" from Wikipedia found its way into Ronnie Hazlehurst's obituries in several far more reputable newspapers, including The Times (see Talk:Ronnie_Hazlehurst#The_SClub_7_Hoax). The Times retracted it fairly quickly, but similar instances could easily have fallen through the net. Since otherwise good sources may well do this from time to time, I don't see a way to exclude the possibility of this sort of feedback loop completely, though it might well help to suggest that for unlikely facts, sources which pre-date the Wikipedia article are preferred. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suspected as much. I guess, given Wikipedia's prominence, this was bound to happen - we'll catch some of the problems with people noticing similarities. In the meantime, I would like to propose an addition to either WP:V or WP:RS to make a note of this possibility. Any suggestions as to which or if this is even a good idea? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By chance I just posted about a specific example of exactly this issue today at at the noticeboard! Times are hard in the news rooms! Carol Moore 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Any organsation that makes extensive use of Wikipedia as a source is not a credible source to be use by Wikipedia. I.e., if one-in-100 articles in newspaper x can be seen to have used Wikipedia-originated material, then maybe no articles from newspaper x should ever be considered citable as sources within Wikipedia articles. Meowy 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's as easy as that. What if the copying is non-obvious? I think an advisement of caution within the guidelines might be better than trying to organise overview of statistical information gathering on the use of Wikipedia articles by the press. I've proposed a wording addition of sorts at WT:RS, and I hope people can gather to comment there on whether the change is needed, and to help with the wording, since I am not an eloquent chap Fritzpoll (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree especially if the information is actually coming from one of the many unofficial mirrors of Wikipedia some of which don't update as often as Wikipedia does. So you have the risk of someone using an old version of a Wikipedia article that may not match the current one and therefor be missed as actually originating from Wikipedia. This is an issue if when the mirror was created a piece of information was wrong or misstated and that article is then used to reinstate the old inaccurate information. Also even the best papers may use wikipedia; in the link Carolmooredc provides it was stated that "The New York Times has links to wikipedia all the time, that isn't a reason to remove their blog posts or news articles." Remember that mainstream newspapers is last in the hierarchy of reliable sources which implies that greater care must be used than with sources higher up the hierarchy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources that are not Reliable, but are also not Extremist or Fringe

The guideline right now clearly describes high quality reliable sources, and describes how to treat fringe and extremist material. However, this leaves out a whole swath of sources that don't easily fall into either category. How are we supposed to treat things like a new minor magazine, a small town newspaper, a congressional testimony, a white paper issued by a major organization, Krugman's blog on NYT, a magazine published by the Catholic Church? I would like the page to spell out clearly that some 'questionable sources' are not 'fringe' or 'extremist', ie. an article from a new magazine is not the same as an article from a newspaper published by the Communist Party of America; and also describe how such questionable but not fringe sources may be used. lk (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You should read the essay Wikipedia:The rules are principles. Reliability is not a binary, black and white, on or off thing. It is really a sliding scale. No source is ever "always reliable" or "always unreliable". Some sources are more reliable than others... but few sources are completely unreliable. Heck, even extremist souces are considered reliable for statements about as to what is contained within the extemist source (Mein Kampf is reliable for statements as to what is written in Mein Kampf).

The ultimate answer is that every source must be judged on its own merits, on a case by case basis. What is the source being used in support of? Is it likely that the source is accurate for this information?... does it have a known bias that might skew how it presents the facts? Is a given Wikipedia article using the source to support a statement of fact, or is it using the source to support a statement of opinion?.

We want wikipedia to present the best possible information, supported by the best possible sources. At some point, the "best possible" crosses a line into "not good enough", but where that line lies is often a difficult thing to determine. My advice... if you are wondering if a source is over the line, it is time to look for a better source. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Reliability is not a binary, black and white, on or off thing" - one example is chess, where current / retired top players are good at assessing the quality of others' play (when not emotionally involved), but are often unreliable on chess history. However I know from experience that it's very hard to persuade people that reliability is variable and situational. It may partly be because reviewers can easily apply what they see as simple rules, and often don't have enough knowledge of articles' subjects to judge reliability on a sliding scale or according to the situation - and there's a shortage of reviewers, so reviewers don't want to spent time debating the reliability of sources during reviews.

The best work-round I can think of is a reliability panel that assess claims about whether a particular source is more or less reliable in particular cases than the standard WP:RS rules would suggest. If such a panel existed, I'd argue to have chess player-writers down-graded on chess history (I can cite chess historians on this) and some "self-published" sources for video games upgraded because their content is more knowledgeable and objective than the average "big name" games mag.-- Philcha (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The sliding scale metaphor is excellent and should be incorporated in both WP:V and WP:RS. As I've said elsewhere, many of the questions on WP:RS noticeboard are from people who don't get that and a clearer statement in policy pages would make it easier to remember that, even if they only ran across it the FIRST time they post to WP:RS noticeboard. Carol Moore 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

My point is that we have guidelines for how to treat solid reliable sources, and guidelines for how to treat obvious fringe sources. But we don't have guidelines for how to treat many sources, that lie somewhere in between.

Should sources that are not prima facie unreliable be used in essentially the same way as we would peer-reviewed articles?
Should they be used but only if the information can also be backed up by other multiple sources? (How many?)
Should they be used only if the source is uninvolved with the topic, and can be seen as a true third party?
Should biased sources be used, but only if the bias of that particular source is noted inline (eg. According to left-liberal Mother Jones magazine ...)
Should they be used, but only if the source of the information is attributed inline?
Should they be used only for non-controversial statements?
Should they be used only to note the existence of various viewpoints?

I've seen adhoc solutions, but it would be nice if it were written out somewhere. lk (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that the only really good sources are peer-reviewed academic journals. The peer review filters out obvious rubbish (it's only a first-cut filter), but the real driver for reliability there is the Darwinian competition between ideas, and sometimes between academics, so that dubios / controversial ideas attract counter-articles pretty quickly.

Books by even the top academics in their fields are quite a long way down from peer-viewed journals, for a variety of reasons, e.g.: the authors will usually favour their own pet theories; they may be writing a wide-scope book, a large part of which is outside their specialism; they may be writing for less expert audiences, which includes undergraduates.

After that it's a jungle. That's why I suggested a panel to assess the reliability of sources. -- Philcha (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We have such a panel. It's the reliable sources noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly are foreign language sources verifiable?

I've recently been into heavy discussions at FAC's etc about the use of foreign sources. I am not against them in any way, but I like to enforce the fact that as per the guidelines, they should only be used if there is no alternative in English. Very recently, this article passed FAC even though it uses German sources predominantly. I have bought this up with the reviewers and the actual mod who decides upon promoting or failing FA's, and he told me to bring this discussion here. Now long story short, I myself have been working on an article that uses a fair bit of foreign language sources. this alternative article uses a few Croatian sources here and there, but notice how I have included relevant translations of the source. I think all/most articles should do such, deepening on how often they use references in languages other than English. At FAC, the nominator refused to commit to such, pulling out insufficient cop-outs as to why his German sources shouldn't need to be translated. Basically, I asked the predominant question; "How can this be a Featured Article when it cannot even be verified in English". Rightfully so. The German sources are constant, and without translations cannot be verified. I don't see why an article should put the reader through further trouble by making them use online translators etc (which are usually difficult and inaccurate). Furthermore, its a Featured Article, which needs to "exemplify Wikipedia's best work".

I think the guidelines as to using foreign-language sources should be changed strictly. Unless in some extreme circumstances where exceptions can be made, most sources should be translated into English so readers can easily verify the information. For all we know, the majority of the German sources have nothing related to what they are supposed to backup in the article. Domiy (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The policies regarding foreign-language sources should be more lenient, not more strict. When writing about topics pertaining to countries outside the Anglosphere, editors must often rely on non-English sources. Stricter guidelines would worsen systemic bias on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What systemic bias? The bias towards verifiablity and reliable sources? When readers can't read the language, how are they to know if the source is being reported accurately and is a reliable source? Doug Weller (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Wikipedia should only have articles about American pop culture and not Chinese cities, because most of the sources for information about Chinese cities (such as mainstram Chinese newspapers) are naturally in Chinese? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the question of verifying translations. Translations by editors would be frowned on, I'm sure there's a WP:rule against it somewhere. And who's going to pay for a certified professional translation? Do we have any pro translators who are editors / admins / whatever?

OTOH I agree that we should not worsen systemic bias on Wikipedia.-- Philcha (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully what I said. It is indeed acceptable to use foreign language sources by all means, as long as it becomes a guideline for them to be translated into English for verifiability. If an editor has used a German source heavily throughout an article as he is very reliant on it, then he has every right to; as long as he provides a translation into English so others can verify it except him. Domiy (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy currently requires to quote the source, in its original language, in the footnotes. Native speakers of the foreign language can thus check the accuracy of the translation. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but what about those who read the article but don't understand the foreign language? Why should they be doomed to not being able to verify the information? Everybody should have the same ability to verify facts. If an editor has used a foreign source then I don't see why they can't go through the trouble to merely include their own translation of the source. The fact that numerous editors refuse to do this is a heavy ground for suspicion. Perhaps they have said something in the article and backed it up with a foreign source so most people (including reviewers) will not be able to suspect anything. Well I do, and it is very suspicious that so many editors are against this. Domiy (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A choice has to be made between allowing only content in published translations or alternately sourcing the original and providing a rough translation which polyglots can verify. The latter frequently would be a copyvio, creating something of a double-bind. An English precis of a fair-use quotation from the original (provided in the citation) is often the best available option.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

<Shrug> I can read German. For me it's verifiable.

I can't read Croatian. But I can ask someone from the Croatian wikipedia to help me. :-) So once again, I have no problem there either. I'm not seeing it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has come up... so perhaps we need to make it clearer... people often mistake being able to verify information with being able to verify it right now. Wikipeida requires that information be verifiable... it does not require that it be verifiable right this instant. Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

*nod* --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see what the process of waiting will offer. If it's not verifiable "right now" then why would it be verifiable later in a few days/weeks time? What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia, at its best, should be a primary tool of research on a subject (hence the purpose of the Featured Article process). Making the reader go through all the trouble, navigating them away from this website etc really defeats the entire purpose of such. You say, for example, you cannot read Croatian. Personally I will tell you that you will have an equal amount of trouble trying to ask for help on the Croatian Wikipedia. And I don't see how providing translations yourself can be a copyright violation (?) I think it is actually more accurate as the editor who used the source for the information can translate it into what he has interpreted the information as saying. This would be much clearer to the reader or anyone else who tries to verify the source. At the very least, there has to be something that can distinguish a normal translation to a translation that has been accurately checked and verified, hence is a reliable source. Domiy (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J.L.W.S. that "The policies regarding foreign-language sources should be more lenient, not more strict."

And I disagree with Domiy's comments: "Everybody should have the same ability to verify facts" and "Well I don't see what the process of waiting will offer", both for the same reasons. That makes it sounds as though any and all books should be forbidden, just because all readers don't happen to have them at home. We do, and we should do, allow papers and books which are not online, or which require a subscription, to be used as sources. Checking them out can require some digging, whether they are in English or not.

I was recently involved in a BLP AfD, not to !vote one way or the other, but because someone asked my opinion of several sources in a language I know. I evaluated the publications and articles, but did not do any translating. That required perhaps an hour of my time, while full translations would have required more than a day or two.

In most cases, AssumingGoodFaith (as Domiy's bolded comment above does not do) is sufficient. In a few cases, more digging and 2nd opinions may be necessary. --Hordaland (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(((The preceding comment redacted with sincere apologies to LeadSongDog for having put words in her/his mouth! An honest but nasty mistake on my part.))) --Hordaland (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from. However, I still think something has to be done. Perhaps the foreign sources should require, instead of a relevant quote, a relevant part/paragraph/line of the source which identifies where the source is backed up. For example, if a German source is used to back up a statement which can be found in the 1st paragraph, 3rd line of the source, then this should be specifically and directly stated so readers may know what exactly needs to be translated/verified. Domiy (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a very simple statement of fact can be quoted and/or translated in the ref itself. That's easier than paragraph#, line#, and should be fair use. One problem is, we're often referencing statements, opinions, debates and facts which cannot be stated in 5 words or fewer. Another is that we may need to establish the reliability of the author or publication. 'Tweren't meant to be easy. --Hordaland (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article (When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.).

The current wording could be misunderstood if a reliable sources cites another (reliable) source to support the information as it is presented in the article. This practice is very common in peer reviewed publications. We have a section in the citation guideline to cover this (see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I would suggest removing the word "directly" from the sentence.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Or the word 'directly' in that first line could be replaced with 'fully', if that is what is meant. --Hordaland (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... perhaps we do need to think of a way to rephrase this, because similar wording is being questioned at WP:NOR as well. The reason for the words "directly support" was to stop editors from misusing sources... taking something a source says out of context and using it to support a statement that the source does not actually agree with. I think we would all agree that this is something we do not want... but perhaps the wording needs to be rethought. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How about saying that the "source cited must clearly support the information..." That deals with the indirection of someone citing someone else's work and also the NOR problem of taking statements out of context (e.g., to quote a relatively famous example, the assertion that "Psalm 14 says, 'there is no God'", without noting that the entire sentence reads, The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My favorite "out of context" line is: "Congress shall pass no law"! (First Amendment to the US Constitution. (sometimes I wish it did end there...) Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think "must clearly support the information as it is presented" is good. lk (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a publication from a fringe group a Questionable Source?

I'm being reverted on this edit where I add the word 'fringe' to the section on Questionable sources. I believe it's uncontroversial, but Vision thing (who apparently thinks some Fringe sources are reliable sources) insists that I get consensus first. So, I would like to ask, 'is it ok to describe Fringe sources as Questionable sources'? By 'Fringe', I mean as defined by WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI. lk (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to refer to this as pseudoscientific instead of fringe. Count Iblis (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think lk's edit was well within both the spirit and the intent of the Questionable Sources section. Fringe sources are questionable sources... as such they can be reliable, in certain limited circumstances... and the limitations are the same as for any other questionable source. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing WP:Fringe on this doesn't seem entirely applicable here, as that page is about fringe theories, not "fringe sources." --Hordaland (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to a point... WP:Fringe is not completely applicable, but it isn't completely unapplicable either... Fringe theories are often citable to Fringe sources. I think lk's point is that a Fringe source (say a publication by a fringe religious sect) would fall into the "questionable" category. Such sources can be reliable in certain limited situations, but generally they are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the point about theory vs source, I remember being a bit surprised when reading the sources section here. Because it starts off defining reliability in terms of (reputation for) fact-checking, scrutiny etc. Fine. Then in the questionable sources subsection it's talking about sources that rely instead on rumors and personal opinions, promotional etc. Ok. But then: "or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". I was surprised because it switches from the issue of the editorial quality of the source, to the issue of the 'viewpoint being expressed therein. In other words, it seems to be implying that extremist viewpoints in sources means there can't have been fact-checking etc... EverSince (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's justified to characterize organizations that espouse fringe, pseudoscience or extremist views as Questionable Sources. Since by espousing such views, these organizations have given prima facie evidence that they do not care much for fact checking or the factual accuracy of their views. LK (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I took that subsection to be talking about sources in the sense of documents rather than organizations/authors. And about how much scrutiny/fact-checking there's been of the document (and it's explictly not talking about self-publishing). I think "pseudoscience" is different, being more inherently about the nature of the facts. EverSince (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

arXiv papers, self-published?

Are research papers posted on the arXiv archive considered self-published? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are self-published. There's no editorial control or peer review apart from minimal checks to make sure papers are on topic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Although there is a moderation process, so that sheer nonsense is excluded, the papers should probably be styled as self-published. However many of the papers also appear as working papers published by the author's university or other affiliated institution. These working papers should generally not be considered self-published. LK (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. The quality is generally very good, and most are formally published later. But initially everybody with an email account at a university could get an account. This led to a small amount of fringe stuff being put on the server, and they have subsequently tightened the requirements, but only a bit. An arXiv article is generally as reliable as an article available from the author's home page. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The arXiv model of retrospective open peer review (as opposed to the traditional preemptive or prospective peer review shouldn't be itself be an issue except perhaps for recent papers. Possible problems:

If an article hasn't been trashed in a year after publication, can we accept that it has had a de facto open review?
Are there any concerns that the papers now published on arXiv are not correctly attributed to their real authors, or are they adequately attributable for purposes of copyright? Does their system provide non-repudiation?

LeadSongDog (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can't take a lack of negative reviews as an indication of quality. I agree with Hans - arxiv papers should be treated the same as papers on the person's personal website. There's no reason to think that arxiv papers are more or less accurate than any other preprint. Being put on arxiv doesn't give them any extra credibility. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an examination of these withdrawals, "The arXiv moderation system" and "The arXiv endorsement system" will help clarify the discussion.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with the arXiv processes: [1]. The arXiv is a sophisticated preprint server that guarantees that papers remain citable in the foreseeable future. It tries to keep the amount of crap (crackpot papers and non-scientific stuff) low to save resources and keep its reputation intact. This requires a very small amount of checking, some of which is automated. My educated guess is that they phrase everything as if they were a bit stricter than the really are, to reduce the amount of arguing they have to do with the crackpot authors. But I know one former Wikipedia author who still has 12 papers on arXiv (some of which he tried to push onto Wikipedia). I have evaluated one of them, and it was incredibly stupid and would never pass a serious peer review in the appropriate field. He actually managed to get some of them published (in journals such as "Speculations in Science and Technology"), but that's another story.

The withdrawals that you cited were a widely reported (e.g. in Nature (journal)), and hopefully singular, event. They had nothing to do with accuracy (which would not be an issue, as far as arXiv is concerned), but were because of "excessive reuse of text from articles by other authors".

Scientists don't usually put random crap on their academic homepage, because it would be very bad for their career. This self-control is also expedient when publishing with arXiv. Even more so, because you can't let a paper disappear if you find out later how embarrassing it is. But all of this is already provided for by "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Hans Adler (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all! I am working on this article, where I cite this arXiv paper (mentioned here and here), and this arXiv paper (mentioned here), which concludes that the previous paper is bunk. Both papers are cited here and here. Am I allowed to cite the first arXiv paper? (the author subsequently updated his paper with a reply to the critics in the Appendix)? Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You can definitely cite them for purely descriptive claims ("This person claims that X might happen. This other person disagrees.") If you go out of your way to explicitly attribute the claims to the authors of the articles, and and cite as many things to second-party sources as possible, you'll probably be OK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That provides an excellent case in point. Note that the first paper's abstract is followed by "Comments: Now contains a reply to a comment on this paper (0808.4087) as appendix. Comments and criticism are still highly welcome". If the arXiv process makes these comment linkages independent of the preferences of the original paper's authors, then it greatly enhances the objectivity of the process and reduces the likelyhood of crap remaining uncriticised. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are reading something into this that isn't there. What happened is that someone criticised the original paper, so the author uploaded a new version with an appendix that replies to the criticism. Of course he was under no obligation to do this, and most crackpot authors would not do it. This is exactly the same situation as with self-publishing on one's homepage.

What is potentially interesting, though, are the two trackback links from the abstract page of the paper. Unfortunately it turns out that they are not useful in this case, and we can't rely on enough scientists using blogs for criticising papers anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did say "If the arXiv process..." precisely because I didn't know what that process does. If we compare the traditional journal publishers, they provide a commentary process, whether it be "letters", "comment in" or whatever. It would be very disappointing to learn that arxiv doesn't do this.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "verifiability, not truth"

The first paragraph says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This worries me greatly. I mean if Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human knowledge" then how can we only allow verifiability?

There must be some give-and-take involved here. I'm sure that this is an age old question, but please humour me. I've seen many maths additions be removed because of lack of verifiability, even though the things written are quite clearly true!

If I were to have enough money I could self-publish a book full of a whole range of falsehoods and then come onto Wikipedia and post the stuff because it's verifiable by the definition of these guidelines. (I had previously argued against self-published work but found myself against a more vocal minority.) For example: I could cite many verifiable sources that say that NASA never went to the moon, and (disgustingly) that the Nazi holocaust never happened.

If I'm talking a load of rubbish then please let me know nicely!

Δεκλαν Δαφισ (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't despair. Although the debate about what "verifiability v. truth" means has gone on and on, our fundamental goal is to write an encyclopedia, and that carries with it the obligation that our content is "correct" in a certain sense. You can read "verifiability, not truth" as "verifiably in agreement with the published literature on the topic"; then the extent to which the articles are "correct" will reflect the extent to which the published literature is "correct". The word "true" is too loaded with meaning, and there are too many armchair postmodernists, for discussions on Wikipedia about "truth" to get very far. The moral, though, is that we do try to make our articles correct in the sense that the average reader would expect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for it is the fact that there is no such thing as 'the truth', it's all subjective, every editor has an idea of the what is truth so we rely on sources that have a reputation. Any other way would be impossible. Also note that common sense always applies and obvious things do not necessarily need sourcing and vanity press releases are not usually acceptable as reliable sources. Also the examples you cite are usually considered fringe theories and are represented as a opinions and views not as truth. --neon white talk 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiable, not True™" is usually invoked when an editor wants to include something that s/he "knows" is "true", because -- oh, my mother told me that's how it is. Or because I'm pretty sure that I saw a magazine article about that a while ago. Or maybe it was someone's blog somewhere. Anyway, I'm sure I remember it correctly, and I sincerely believe it, so that's good enough, right?

This rule does not excuse the addition of false information; it merely limits the information to that which is verifiable in a reliable source. The contents of the encyclopedia would ideally be both verifiable and accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability"

Hidden categories: BLP articles lacking sources • Articles lacking reliable references from August 2008

No comments have been added.

Your name:
City:
Country:
Your comments:

Security check * (Please enter the number into adjoining box)

up to content »