Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, consider if changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Archives

WHAT??

The Baseball-Reference.com is the GOLD STANDARD for baseball references, you bozos!!!! Garagehero 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves (part 1)

I propose that we change:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

To say:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, as long as the statement of fact makes it clear that the material was produced by the subject. E.g. in an article about Kevin Trudeau:

• • Unacceptable: "Kevin Trudeau lost over 45 pounds in 6 weeks."
  • Acceptable: "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he lost over 45 pounds in 6 weeks.[1]"

It is also required that:

• • such material does not involve claims about third parties;
  • such material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

— DavidMack 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to that. It's problematic in more ways than I would care to think, e.g. "The National Institutes of Health states on its website that its headquarters are in Bethesday, Maryland." Wikidemo 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we were outlining research critical of the NIoH; for NPOV we'd want to state that "the NIoH claims it helped reduce death rates from stroke.[2]" Right now the guidelines do no expressly allow that. — DavidMack 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also oppose. No need to write policy to compensate for cluelessness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that removing the first two points adds significantly to what's allowable:

• Removing the "notability" point would allow "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he was born in 1950 in a Kentucky farmhouse" in his biography, if he did state that, even though that's not relevant to his notability.

• Removing the "not contentious" point would allow "Kevin Trudeau states on his website that he is the son of George W. Bush and Cleopatra," in his biography, if he did state that, even though the claim is implausible.

This is a good example. If Kevin Trudeau, or Goerge Bush or anyone, does make implausible claims on his website, it may be important to quote him. — DavidMack 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both sentences would be verifiable, but may be inappropriate for other reasons. The remaining bullet points in the revised section, aside from "doubt as to who wrote it," could also be omitted, if verifiability were the only concern of this section. -Agyle 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the way it stands now there is no provision to state basic facts about an organisation based on statements it claims about itself. E.G. "Some researchers state that Alcoholics Anonymous excludes the poor. On its website AA states that "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."[3]."

Personally, I think if the source for a statement is explicitly attributed in the sentence (as in DavidMack's "acceptable" example), is properly cited as a reference, and the source can be checked (e.g. it's a website, or a widely available newspaper/magazine), then it's reasonable to consider the explicitly-attributed text (that says "According to....") to be verifiable whether the attributed source's claim is true or not, and whether it's about a third party or not; the only one of the six points I think is important is "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." It may not be suitable for many other reasons, like being unimportant to the topic, being presented in a non-NPOV way, being synthesized into original research, or the topic itself being unworthy of an article, but if it says "according to...," and that can be verified, then it should meet the verifiability requirement. I think the list of six requirements are important when you're not explicitly attributing the source, and instead treat the source as a reliable source in itself, as in DavidMack's "unacceptable" example. -Agyle 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Thank you for the discussion. I argue that it is essential to quote self-published sources in many cases, for example

• Senator John Doe asserts that he was never convicted of a felony.<ref>''John Doe: my Life In Politics''. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 100.</ref>

(It would be unacceptable to say "Senator John Doe was never convicted of a felony", since we have to make it clear that John Doe said it.)

• World-renowned violinist Jon Daue has called himself "the greatest musician of the 21st century".<ref>''Jon Daue: my Life In Music''. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 101.</ref>
• It is the policy of the American Institute of Racial Harmony to exclude people with ginger hair.<ref>"The problem with Gingers" (pamphlet) American Institute of Racial Harmony, 2007.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Uri Geller states on his website that a paper in the journal Nature proves that his skills are genuine.<ref>http://www.uri-geller.com/unlimited.htm#bio</ref>

So I propose this amendment:
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• contentious or self-serving items are presented as statements that were made by the subject about themselves;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."

— DavidMack 20:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any good reason to change the wording of this section. Self-published sources are problematic. If a subject cannot be adequately covered using secondary sources, then there is probably a notability problem to begin with. - Crockspot 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No comment on the proposal per se, but your objection seems odd... there may be plenty of coverage to establish the notability of the subject, whilst not covering all relevant material that may come from self-published or self-authored material (an autobiography tends to be self-authored, or claimed as such, but not self-published). SamBC(talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To take an extreme example, in an article on human rights in the USA, it would be important to make reference to the Constitution. If you don't allow self-published material, we'd have to write "Smith says that the US constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizure" This applies to smaller organizations, and is a problem in the article Alcoholics Anonymous, where some users are claiming that AA policy is self-published and therefore irrelevant -- please read the examples above before nay-saying. — DavidMack 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion resumes below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

University Presses

I believe this line:

"the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses"

should really be by intent:

"the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed books published in university presses."

If so, I would request the change be made. ThreeE 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is what it means. University press books have a very high degree of rigour, but I don't believe that it is actually the same as the peer review process for journals and conference papers. SamBC(talk) 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd think ThreeE's intent is that university presses can publish all sorts of unreliable books, from fiction to highly controversial theses. Whatever the source, some common sense still needs to be applied to the reliability of the source for factual information. A univ.-published feminist tract might say that renaissance sculpture is a form of mass rape, a claim that Wikipedia shouldn't present as a fact. ThreeE, I think there's an implicit need to apply common sense regardless of the source, and while maybe that should be described a bit more, "peer-reviewed books" seems like an odd addition. -Agyle 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern here is that the policy calls out "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" as particularly reliable sources. To your point, this isn't the case for non-peer-reviewed books published in university presses. That is the point I am looking to clarify here. Your point is close to what I am trying to say. I don't think the policy intends to treat non-peer-reviewed books published by university presses as any more (or less) reliable than books published in general. ThreeE 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with peer-reviewed in that case is that the process university presses use to review books simply isn't the same as the process used to review journals, as I understand it. Maybe some books are reviewed in that way, but there are plenty that rigorously reviewed in other ways that are still more reliable than the typical mass-market popular science book. I haven't personally come across the sort of publications Agyle describes from university presses, only published by the university themselves. I don't know if that's the confusion, or if I just haven't come across them and people like OUP do publish theses and so on. I think that might need clarifying - are we really talking about university presses, or just things published by universities, and is that distinction well known? SamBC(talk) 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The question that I raise is what kind of publications does this policy intend to call "particularly reliable." I believe that the policy intends to grant this status to publications that are a) peer-reviewed by b) a university or discipline community. I don't think this policy intends to grant this status to, say, yearbooks published by a university press.

University presses are of varying qualities. They also have multiple lines of publications; on particular, they often concentrate of local history of their region, and local authors, and these books may not have the same general interest as their other imprints. But it is usually possible to distinguish the book popular from the more scholarly works. That said, some commercial imprints have as high a reputation, and similarly use peer-reviewers. it is generally possible to tell from the introductory matter what the status is. DGG (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. SamBC, just as an example, see the Michigan State University Press; in addition to fiction, there are also personal memoirs. While their focus is on uncontroversial, scholarly works, you can find examples of controversial, biased writing. Of course you can find peer-reviewed journals that are dubious too; I was dealing with an article the other day that cited the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, which operates outside the realm of established science (to put it politely). -Agyle 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the following change be made:

From:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

To:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed works; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

This emphasizes the peer-reviewed part without overly implying the reliability of university publications in general. ThreeE 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse this solution. -Jmh123 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with "respected publishing houses"

1. They aren't actual houses; if we are going for this, change it to read "publishers"
2. I'm sure every publisher has someone who respects them. Without a firm definition of what "respectable" means, this will only cause problems.
3. "In general" already covers your objection. The vast majority of books that come from a University press are reliable. If there is an exception, it is likely to already be noted somewhere.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BQZip, I see you reverted ThreeE's changes. Perhaps you might suggest a new "To:" section? 216.85.6.131 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. A new "To:" section? What exactly does that mean? I reverted the changes because a consensus had not yet been reached (a single person's feedback is not a consensus). — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE offered "From:" "To:" language. Rather than just revert, why not modify his suggestion? Seems more constructive... 216.85.6.131 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. This is a policy and changes should not be made lightly nor without consensus (which he does not have). Therefore the change should not have been made in the first place.
2. I already stated that his concern was already covered with the words "In general" and a change was unnecessary. He has not yet responded.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't if the university publications are reliable, it is if they are the most reliable. This seems to be a fair assertion for peer-reviewed university publications and the point of the statement. It doesn't seem to be the point of the statement to claim that all university publications are the most reliable. In fact, I certainly would object to this claim as others have commented here. ThreeE's proposed wording does emphasize this. 216.85.6.131 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm concerned that there may be too narrow a focus on academic publications, which are only one example of reliable sources. WP:NPOV requires representation of significant non-academic points of view where relevant to the subject. For example, Moshe Feinstein and Ovadiah Yosef, represent pre-eminent contemporary scholars and judges of Jewish religious law whose opinion would be significant on almost any topic in that subject, yet they did not tend to publish their opinions through academic journals and university presses. We've recently had some people claim that only academics can be reliable sources even on matters of religion, who appear to be using this policy as their basis. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there are other reliable sources out there. We should be open to other sources, especially those who are experts within their own field. Sources need not be academic in order to satisfy WP:V. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources doesn't insist just on scholarly publications, but I think it's fair to consider them generally more reliable. In the particular examples of Yosef's and Feinstein's views, they seem significantly covered in academic journals and reliable-sounding reference books, from a scan of scholar.google.com and books.google.com. Their views that made it there are a good indication of which are considered significant, and are probably more useful for inclusion on a topic. Latitude on sources depends on the topic; People Magazine (a silly weekly U.S. magazine on entertainment) could be unreliable on a scientific topic, but reliable about a cartoon episode. :-) But if you're dealing with a contentious religious topic (I have no idea if you are), it's probably better to rely on more objective sources for the topic, like peer-reviewed journals on religion, or books by respected scholars or authors that cover a topic with a variety of views, rather than, for example, just one view. -Agyle 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that religion is a subject-matter, not just view. I think this would be a little bit like suggesting that historians and literary theoriests ought to be preferred as reliable sources on law to constitutional lawyers. Doubtless lawyers, as applied professionals constrained to a mentality where historical and literary documents are analyzed for purposes of constructing arguments about present-day issues to courts that have limited persuadability windows, don't have as broad a background and can't be as objective or entertain as many different views as historians or literary theorists. There is certainly some overlap in subject matter. But while it's not quite as extreme as using mathematicians to determine who is a reliable biologist, being an expert in the broader topic doesn't automatically convey reliability in the narrower one. Other Orthodox rabbis would appear to be the relevant peer group for determining who is a reliable Orthodox rabbi, despite the fact that, like lawyers and other professionals, the entire subject-matter operates in a mode others may find constrained. Would you rely on a literary theorist if you had a legal problem? Of course the phrase "Talmudic argument" implies, whatever its other sometimes pejorative connotations, entertaining a multiplicity of views. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes

People are deleting things based on policy regardless of whether they agree or disagree citing "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" so we need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes and "truth" is a fine criteria where there is no dispute and was in fact the original criteria for the content of the initial wikipedia articles. It was only with disputes over what is true that it became clear that it was better to argue over sources than argue over "truth". We need to be clear that we do not want people adding things they believe are true unless they believe there are reliable published sources for those claims because this is very useful in dealing with people who want to add what they saw with their own eyes and just KNOW is true. On the other hand we now have people going to the other extreme and deleting things that no one has even suggested might be inaccurate; just because it lacks a source (eg BLP's) and the fact that no one disagrees that it is true is held to not be an argument to keep it - and that's not useful behavior. I made an edit WP:BRD that tried to do this but was asked to come here and discuss. So what do you'll think? 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)WAS 4.250

Well, I personally think that the threshold is fine as-is. In general, if someone adds something without a source, I am not going to delete it unless it is contentious, defamatory, alters the meaning of the sentence, or is just plain wrong. I will, however, place a fact tag on the claim and request a source, either on the talk page, their user talk page, or in the edit summary (if I alter it). That said, this is my personal preference. It is certainly within an editor's purview to delete uncited claims. I think that this applies not only to disputes, but to anything. That said, things that are uncited do not necessarily need to be deleted, just tagged with {{fact}}. Perhaps some specific guidance is in order on what to do if something isn't cited? Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that ordinarily deleting uncited claims represents a bad case of WP:BITE. Fact tags (and ideally notes to the editor for new material as well) should be used except in cases of WP:BLP or theories that seem wacky or otherwise contestable. In addition to its being more respectful to newbies, I also believe it's more in the interests of the project's goals. A user-written encyclopedia will inevitably be somewhat under construction. One that looks that way, with tags showing questionable claims visible at any given moment, is actually more accurate and reliable, in addition to being more harmonious, compared to one where all disputes are hidden away and revert wars are used instead. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As soon as the deleting editor deletes the statement, I would call that a disagreement as to the statement's truth. When they cite "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", this is probably due to a claim by the other party that the deleted statement was true, not to some disappointment by the deleting party that despite their own belief in the statement, that it has to go. Sancho 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on experience at WP, I wouldn't assume that. Objective editing on non controversial topics is relatively unlikely to be challenged. When there is conflict, there is usually some POV involved. In contentious issues, it is somewhat difficult for involved parties -- even with perfect good faith and the highest motives-- to distinguish properly between truth and what supports their own viewpoint. Although we may discourage editing by those with strong POV, it is generally just those people who will inevitably be interested in such subjects. DGG (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to change it. Its one of the few things that really keeps people who are trying to push POV in an article out. There is no information that is so important that we should let it sit in an article until a proper source is found. This isn't a race to who gets to add some tidbit of information they heard somewhere.--Crossmr 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Information may not be important, but people are important. This is a volunteer organization. We have to keep the goodwill of new volunteers. Simply deleting new user's contributions for policy imperfections does not serve this end. I revert for deleting sourced conduct, major restructurings without consensus, and highly controversial unsourced statements that make an article appear soapish, but in the absence of soap, hoax, or edits which themselves deleted sourced opposing opinions I don't believe reversion/deletion should be the first response to an unsourced statement. I think we have to keep our user community in mind and the project forgets it at its peril. --Shirahadasha 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Is this mean only verifiable real facts that are absolutely true articles can exist in Wikipedia?

If so why do you include articles which are open to discussion, and even hurt many people? --Obsteel 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The opening sentence of the policy reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Please take a better look over it. Vassyana 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question as to "why", here's the short version: "truth" is nearly impossible to verify...and even then, there will still be some who deny absolute facts. Since this is an open source encyclopedia, everyone's opinions would be valid and WP would be in a constant state of turmoil. By adding a simple layer of protection (it has to have been published elsewhere by a reputable source), it avoids lawsuits (hey we didn't say it, they did) and removes the onus of credibility to the publisher/author. If something is quoted from the front page of the New York Times, we can assume it is at least somewhat reliable. If it isn't, other published sources will likely take great joy in destroying the piece and the opposite side of the argument can be placed along side the original leaving the reader to decide for himself/herself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean anything like that. I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies thoroughly, as you spend a lot of time advocating actions violating those policies, such as your suggestion to remove all comments contrary to "the Turkish point of view" from Wikiproject Turkey. Unfortunately, your reading may be hampered by language difficulties. Please consider removing the en-3 tag from your user page -- you're at most en-2. -- Jibal 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Jibal, I assume you are talking about Obsteel and not me.
2. Assuming good faith, his question was a valid one. Your comments seem overly hostile for the given question, unless WP:AGF does not apply for some reason.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

What about mission statements? One editor said that mission statements are "basically a sales pitch" and should not be included. Other users have expressed similar views. I am unsure and was wondering if the following text should be removed from the Campus Watch article in accordance with this policy?

Founded in 2002, its website states that it: "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."

Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO (in my humble opinion), I think the phrasing is perfectly appropriate when used in an article about itself as long as the source of the text is clear in its source (i.e. "XYZ's stated goal is ABC, DEF, GHI, etc."). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a mission statement is acceptable and likely essential to include, as long as it is clear that it is self-published. The current wording does not allow self-published quotes at all. The proposed change below allows missions statements.
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• contentious or self-serving material is presented as self-published;

It is also important to be able to include quotes like "Senator John Doe asserts that he was never convicted of a felony." — DavidMack 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This goes to the reason for including the self-serving or contentious material self-published by an article subject. A statement by Sen. John Doe, even if clearly described as self-published, should not stand for the proposition that John Doe was never accused of a felony. We need better sourcing than that. But it can stand for the proposition that he denied an accustation. Likewise, a company's mission statement should not be used to describe what the company does. That's notoriously unreliable. Rather, it may be quoted to say what the company's mission statement is. I understand the point of allowing self-serving statements by an article subject. There are quite a few good reasons, e.g. a company reporting its number of employees or retail locations. The key is that we should not allow unduly self-serving statements. The word "unduly" implies a flexible standard that depends on the circumstance. The proposed language, by contrast, places no limits on the nature of self-serving statements. That would seem to permit the messy problem of spam-style articles, as long as the spam is attributed to its source. We shouldn't repeat press releases or advertisements, sourced or not. Wikidemo 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you suggest some alternate wording to allow on appropriate self-published statements? There are mission statements. And absurd statements like "Uri Geller states on his website that a paper in the journal Nature proves that his skills are genuine," which may then be debunked.

This is an important issue for me. Some editors are insisting that mission statements are self-published and therefore inadmissable. — DavidMack 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An orgainization's mission statement is indeed self-published... and thus should only be included in an article about that organization. I think the question here is really whether a mission statement is "uduely self-serving". That probably needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I don't think we want to change the policy to allow all mission statements. Some mission statements are going to be fine, others will indeed be "unduely self-serving". Blueboar 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A company's mission statement is mostly for internal consumption and by definition not self-serving in a PR sense. There may be some exceptions. Nonetheless, it's not very encyclopedic or helpful. Most people don't feel like they have to read a mission statement to understand what a company is. Does anyone really care what the Mission Statement is of Microsoft, or Boeing, or Exxon? I think it's incorrect, and a little sloppy to repeat a mission statement of an advocacy organization as evidence of what the company actually stands for or does. That's best established by what they actually do, as established by reliable external sources. But in a few cases a company mission statement is probably useful if it's identified as such. Probably not in the lead or introductory part of an article, but in a section related to what the company thinks its mission is. Wikidemo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. So far I have failed to come up with wording that gains consensus, but the current wording is obviously not adequate. Mission statements may sometimes be relevant, as may unduly self-serving statements. For example, here's a quote from the article Kevin Trudeau: "According to Kevin Trudeau, the book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." Under the current rules that statement is not allowed, but it is certainly essential to that article. I'm asking for help. So far I've had my edits reverted without comments on this talk page. Can those who reverted my changes please make a constructive suggestion? — DavidMack 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as references

I'm going through a similar thing in the Art of Living Foundation (AOLF) article. I found it the other day in need of some attention. It read mostly like an ad for AOLF. Some users were regularly removing the Criticisms section of the article, pointing out that much of it is inadequately sourced. I pointed out in turn that the article as a whole is mostly inadequately sourced (primary citations for the most part).

I set out to do my share of helping out by trying to track down sources for material in the Criticisms section. I did find a couple of non-self-published sources, which will be helpful, but under current policy much of the section will need to be scrapped (as will things like the mission statement--which I see as helpful--in other parts of the article). However, I found a lot more of what, imho, is quality information in the form of people's first person accounts, e.g. this one, of how they were treated by the organization. This information is, however, located in blogs and comments, making it off limits. I realize, of course, that it would be not ok to use those accounts as sources for a statement like "The Art of Living Foundation discourages student questions concerning its techniques." But how about "Some people have claimed that, as AOLF students, they were discouraged from asking questions concerning courses and techniques." If not, how about sourcing them for "Various first-person reports can be found on the internet in which people claim the Art of Living Foundation discouraged them from asking questions concerning courses they have taken." If not, it seems like there is good information going to waste there. Shouldn't there be some way to get it onto Wikipedia? I'll try to come up with an explicit suggestion in a few days. I would appreciate others trying to do the same. --Floorsheim 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the topic of self-published sources in articles about themselves. You want to allow fatual statements that ABC blog said XYZ. Not possible -- too many garbage blogs. — DavidMack 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it come down to notability then--whether the blog is notable or not? Certainly some are, certainly some aren't. Certainly some are, as a reference for certain types of statements, and not so as a reference to other types of statements. Granted what's going on in the case of the article I'm working on is a little different from yours, but to me, the two issues are very closely related. They are both cases of a general phenomenon: it seems that, sometimes, information coming from self-published sources is appropriate and valuable for Wikipedia if included in the right way, and that the policies governing their use could use a little adjustment. --Floorsheim 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs in general are not reliable sources. There are of course complications. The simplest one is when the blog entry is written by the subject of an article, in which case they can be used as a source about themselves (this itself has other exceptions. If someone is notable and he has a blog that says he is the reincarnation of Julius Caesar we don't need to report that as a fact). For example, the New York Times runs what it calls "blogs" which are subject to standard editing and vetting. So we need to be careful about the labeling. In general, very few blogs in the traditional sense of the word are notable, and they are notable only in the form "According to notable blog X". A good rule of thumb for this sort of thing is that the person should be notable enough to have an article and should be clearly a relevant expert. Even then, one should only use such sources sparingly. As to the Art of Living example, given the critical nature of the information and the non-notability of the blogs in question, it is very hard to see how they could be mentioned. One might have better luck having some mainstream newsource do an article about the criticism and then come back here and use that a source. JoshuaZ 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is going off on a tangent. "Notability" as such isn't relevant to whether a blog entry makes a good source. But some blogs and some authors are more reliable than others. Saying that all blogs are unreliable is like saying that all video is unreliable. Blogs are just a medium. The reliability of the content is what is in question, not the format. The real issues are who is writing the piece, whether there is any editorial control, etc. Wikidemo 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed except to note that relevancy of opinions matter. Some opinions are more relevant or notable than others. This is not just based on whether or not there is some oversight. For example, an editorial in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal may be worth noting for a claim. A similar one in the local newspaper west-nowheresville population 40, not so much. JoshuaZ 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with statements like "blogs are unreliable", especially in policy statements is that it discourages critical thinking about whether a given blog is reliable in the contex of a particular article. Newspaper may in general be more reliable than blogs, but in specific cases a blog can be (verifiably) be right and a newspaper (verifiably) be wrong. I'm missing a sense that these rules are rules of thumb, rather than pronounciations handed down from heaven. --Martin Wisse 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a fundamental choice:

Q1: What is wrong with being conservative and relying just on 'most reliable sources'; those with fact checking and a reputation for oversight and accuracy?

A: You loose the ability to use many potentially 'right' sources (like some blogs). And, you get an encyclopedia with a reputation of using (sometimes) poor sources containing crackpot ideas.

Q2:What is right...?

A:You get a smaller encyclopedia with a mainstream trustworthy reputation.

Which do we want, a larger encyclopedia or a better reputation? SaltyBoatr 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I think the tendency certainly has to be toward the latter. But I also think it would be a mistake to try to make an absolute principle out of this no blogs thing. Certainly there will be cases in which it is very clear that a blog source is ok. Currently, we have that "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." I agree with that. However, I am not satisfied that this is the only case of when a self-published source would be appropriate and valuable. I think the issue is in need of further elucidation. Both in the form of examples of when a blog source is ok and when it is not as well as guidelines for ascertaining which is the case as different circumstances come up.

In regard to the latter, I've been thinking about the issue from the standpoint of WP:OR. There, we find "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." It seems to me the extension should be one of the guidelines regarding blogs and other self-published material. Any statement in an article sourced by a blog should be non-interpretive and readily verifiable by a non-specialist who reads the blog. Furthermore, from a WP:NPOV standpoint, material sourced by blogs should be non-controversial. Furthermore, from a WP:NPOV standpoint, statements in an article pointing to a self-published source as their means of verifiability should not be subject to doubt or dispute as to their validity. This would mean, in most cases, sticking to "Blog X states that...". Additionally, there should be a WP:NOTE consideration: Is the fact that "Blog X states that..." relevant to the notability of the article?

What are the thoughts of others? --Floorsheim 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "it is relevant to their notability"

I removed this bullet point as it appears to be in contradiction with the "self serving" prohibition. If statements about something's notability are not sourced from elsewhere they are clearly self-serving. - CygnetSaIad 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted someone who rolled back this change, apparently under the mistaken assumption that policy pages are somehow special. If there is any argument about why this should not be removed, I'm happy to hear it, but please don't just revert for the sake of reverting. Have a look at Template:Policy, and note that it doesn't say "check before editing." While common sense dictates that sometimes, in contentious cases, we do that, Wikipedia:Be bold is pretty central to the whole Wikipedia concept.
CygnetSaIad 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this has a very interesting relationship to a nearly identical formulation that covers a different (but overlapping) scope of material in WP:BLP. To do this intelligently I think one has to consider both sections.Wikidemo 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Barry Bonds could write in his blog "Man, I fucking hate baseball" (hypothetically) - it's relevant to his notability (playing baseball, mostly) but not noticably self serving. WilyD 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That example would only be appropiate if Mr. Bond was notable for "fucking hat[ing] baseball." In that case, we'd want something more from him than his word on his website that he was famous for it. The presumption would be (still talking about Bond) that whatever it is that he's notable for would be established elsewhere, and his opinion as above would be found on his website. Perhaps if we had some better examples? - CygnetSaIad 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Just glancing at this. The bullet point is concerned with whether the info is relevant to the person's notability, not whether the info is the person's notability. In the Bonds example, farking hating baseball may not be his notability, but it would be relevant to it. I'm with Wily on this one. --Floorsheim 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The example given seems, with respect, borderline nonsensical. Is the suggestion then that anything the person stated on their blog that related to whatever they were notable for is valid for inclusion? That is to say, since Bond is famous for baseball, anything he says about baseball on his blog can be quoted? If that is the argument, it appears to utterly sidestep the notion that the items included in an article should be encyclopedic in nature.
CygnetSaIad 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but let's suppose that Bonds made a comment in his blog to the effect that using steroids helped him hit more home runs. Now that would be directly relevant to his notability, and yet it would not be self-serving. Blueboar 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like this. For instance, if Scott Tremaine includes an anecdote in his blog about how he likes ice cream, that's not relevant to his notability and should be excluded. But if he includes an anecdote about how he developed his love of astrophysics after his grandfather bought him a telescope (hypothetically, I have no idea) then that is relevant and might be included. Relevant to just means "on the topic of the thing(s) they're notable for". This is what it *means*, anyhow, and why its not redundant. As an actual example, I used Peter Goldreich's page at the IAS to source that he was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold, when all the other sources used the more generic "graduate student" or just "student". A science's Ph.D. supervisor is very relevant to their notability, so this is the kind of exception we're making. WilyD 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you both, the better examples have made this more clear to me. - CygnetSaIad 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

www.constitution.org

I notice that about eighty times[4], that the source www.constitution.org is used as a reference in Wikipedia. I am curious about the opinion of other editors about whether this source meets the reliable source policy. While at first glance the website appears to be scholarly and impressive, when you look deeper it appears largely anonymous and without reliable publication process. Also, there are indications that lead me to guess it is a blog of user Jon Roland and to some extent this also may be a policy question of WP:COI. What is the consensus opinion of editors on the question of the reliability of this source? SaltyBoatr 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be worth addressing to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. JavaTenor 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, moved to here: [5] SaltyBoatr 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion

I have put comments markers around:

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

ththis should be seen as an attempt at good advice, but it is not formal policy or worded as such. Personally, I think the different sentences contradict each other. If it applies aggressively to everything, it can not especially apply to something, and there is a difference between "pseudo" information and information suspected as being "pseudo" I suggest the proper place for this is a footnote. DGG (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

I wholeheartedly agree that the unlikely cult of personality around Jimbo shouldn't cloud our thoughts or our policy pages. Sometimes it seems that most any uneventful thing he sends ends up as a non-sequitur on a policy page. On the other hand, he really does have a lot of insight, and the predictable anti-Jimbo hating (I use the word in the kind, pop sense) goes too far. Perhaps we should simply develop a "Jimbo quote" template.Wikidemo 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jimbo, I believe new Wikipedia editors would experience undue WP:BITE if their content was summarily removed unless it conformed completely to sourcing requirements. Moreover, disputes about the reliability of sourcing are often connected to content disputes. Wikipedia will be a more WP:CIVIL place if people can discuss sourcing disputes rather than respond by reverting. Articles on highly visible topics may be different, but on ordinary articles -- even very controversial articles -- tagging rather than removing material as the initial response to sourcing issues is more likely to lead to resolution of disputes in a manner productive to the project, both in terms of reducing tensions and in terms of improvement to the overall quality. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's another problem with many Jimbo quotes. They can't be taken literally. He's an idea man more than a nuts and bolts policy pragmatist, and in that role he is prone to overstate a point for emphasis. If you read this closely, he is riffing off of "random speculative...pseudo-information." To suggest that all unsourced information should be aggressively removed rather than tagged is utterly counter to the actual way things work here. The quotation complicates things more than it explains them, especially for the uninitiated. Wikidemo 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

I have never liked that line - too many people think it means that things just need to be verifiable, and it doesn't actually matter whether they are true or not - I realise what it actually means is "something being true isn't enough - it has to be verifiably true".

I would like to suggest changing that opening line from "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to "For inclusion in Wikipedia, information has to be not just true, but verifiably true", or something similar. Thoughts? Neil ☎ 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against. It would make many editors think they can remove well-sourced material just because they are personally convinced that it is not true. PrimeHunter 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there really a large number of people who go around adding information that they personally believe to be false, but verifiable? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the change, because it would allow people to simply claim things are false and remove the content. This is a problem we've had before on many articles where we've pointed to this and said "If you really think otherwise, get it published somewhere and we'll note that". Tampering with this could lead to many problems. JoshuaZ 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JoshuaZ. --Coolcaesar 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If we tried to determine "truth", then we would be committing original research. Unless we has a source to verify it was the truth... well you see we are back at "verifiability" again. 1 != 2 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you come across some fact that you think is an "untrue" statement (I will assume it is cited), one way to deal with it is through attribution. Change it to a "statement of opinion"... as in: "According to Source X such and such is true<citation to X>". This makes it a "true" statement (it is true that the source does indeed say this and it can be verified that the source says it)... but informs the reader that it the truth behind the statement is simply the opinion of the source and may be in doubt.Blueboar 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. 1 != 2 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree my version isn't great either, but there has to be a better way of wording it. Verifiability is how we know something to be the truth, it isn't instead of the truth, and the current wording is confusing some users (see my talk page, for example). Neil ☎ 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording change

This policy article says, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.". I suggest that "third-party" be changed to read "supporting". Wikipedia itself, of course, is not a third-party source. Other open wikis are third-party sources. The issue does not revolve around their third-party-ness but around their fitness to be cited as supporting sources. If this change is made, a similar change needs to be made to the WP:RS guideline article. -- Boracay Bill 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If another Wiki is being cited as a third party source, you would expect their (secondary) sources to be included in their article / page. If they are, then why not just cite those? If they are not cited on the other Wiki, then it shouldn't be used as any kind of source, because it could have been made up by anyone. Neil ☎ 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Web sites

I don't know if in one of the many archives already here it was debated (i'm pretty sure it was).

We in wikipedia have lot of web links that are used often as sources, also because not everyone has the possibility or the will to buy an appropriate book to couver the issues, and moreover, web sources are available to be checked by all, including erroneous or bad-faith statements.

Now i want to ask to you the 'ufficial' position. It's blatalanty obvious that there millions web links here in wikipedia, and not necessarly they are links to universities or whatever 'istitutional'. In stead, there are many sites that talks, as example about history.

Now, that's the problem: in wikipedia as verifiability how these sources are handled? It's natural that they are widely used, but still, is correct to contest this or that site? As example, in F-86 page there are in references, at least 40 links. Tell me, is it right, how it appears to be in practice, to cite these web sites?

As example, the site : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html is contested in F-86 page datas. I cannot understand how because a site is 'unusually giving his book sources' it is not allowed to be cited! So if that site gives only datas without sources used, it would be more acceptable? Differently to many other sites this one has one specific author, is well known (over 300,000 visits in http://home.att.net), and offers a list of sources to verify freely his affermations, in a work that is meant to be a sort of encyclopedia. This could be 'unusual', but it is not difficult to recon it as way more reliable than usual web sites (used as well) are. Moreover, the site owner is an author also in paper world, with two books and some articles published. So, to me it looks far more reliable than thousand web sites used freely as sources or link, or whetever.

Moreover, Joe Baugher is present also here in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Baugher ( 'who is also notable for his series of articles on aviation') and if you search him in the web you'll find http://it.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-mdp&p=Joe%20Baugher%20aviation no less than 2,560 results, mainly related to world aviation.

In fact, he is one of the most known and widespread authors in web aviation articles. So tell me, what's the point to take out him from wikipedia aviation articles, when he is in fact one of the most quoted aviation authors in the web? This is not the blog or personal site of some obscure 'author' without identity or affidability. He is in fact both known and well accepted in the web about aviation world--Stefanomencarelli 11:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tatters

Dear contributors, as you may be aware Google books are being used widely recently. However Google books has not only visible abstracts (several pages like this) but also and restricted view (few words of sentences, like this (text in right corner)). Such books' tatters being increasingly used as well. However such limited view makes impossible to see not even a broader context, but sometimes it is impossible to verify and even see the text. For instance, my newest experience regarding such tatters - [6] (please see, right corner - white space without any text). It was stated by contributor who used this source that actually there are such text poetka polska Karolina Proniewska (1828—1859), nazywana z litewska Karolina Praniauskaitė, notably contributor used these taters as primary mean and not original book with full text. Another example - from this tatter contributor suggested that there are such text Karolina Anna Proniewska urodziła się... w rodzinie szlacheckiej, we can see some similar words there but not all as was stated. And this is not English source as well. So does such practice with presumed text of Google books qualifies WP:OR and meats WP:V standards? M.K. 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources not in English

Hey, this is less a request for change then perhaps a request for clarification. I've been working on some articles that cover universities in Korea. This can be problematic because many tend to seem POV/advert with statements like "In general, the students of (some) University are well known for their rigid attachment and strong unity, as well as for their easy and loyal incorporation into the societies to which they belong." This statement is then sourced in Korean only (one of the 3 sources prompting the user to download a ".doc" file which I'm afraid to do). What is the procedure here, then? I know that lacking an English sources doesn't preclude having sources in another language, but are the only options for a non-(good) Korean speaker to (a) leave the statement alone (b) constantly find laymen to translate? What happens if a user who likes the language just adds another source? Thanks Epthorn 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TO be realists, i would remind that there are 7 billions humans all around the world, and english is the standard language of let's say 1/10. Wiki.en is a sort of magnet for foreigners like myself, and many arguments have no sources in anglo-saxon world (that tends to think to be the only to have 'culture') so a bit of 'common sense' there must be. We are far away to be 'hunified' in the english glory: german, french, italian, oriental languages etc. etc. have immense amount of stuff to display. Also in wiki.en, that is not wiki.swaili or whetever. Foreigners with foreigner language sources must be previewed, in the well and bad they contributes also in wiki.en.--Stefanomencarelli 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Of course, I understand that there are many sources out there that are not in English, wiki.en or not (though luckily the most authoritative of those tend to be translated into several different languages). Let's take another more common example. Let's say that a user puts up a statement of fact on wikipedia and backs it up with a source. Say someone says it is a "fact that the genocide of Armenians is a hoax." and cites several sources, none of them in English. Or if a user denies the existence of a nation/ethnicity (say, Bosnian or something) and cites sources not in English. How should users who cannot read such a language act? Should every instance demand the attention of a user who can translate? In the meantime, should such statements be 'verified until proven unverified'? I'm not trying to advocate a position, but I have been trying to figure out what should be done with an article that appears POV but has citations to outside links that are completely in a different language. Epthorn —Preceding comment was added at 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- Looking at WP:RS/N there is a discussion on sources- is that the preferred method when finding a source that is in another language? Epthorn 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ephthorn, I think what you are concerned with is what is being said in the article, not what language the source is in. Some of your examples are a bit extreme. If an article said that it was a "fact that the genocide of Armenians is a hoax", I would seriously challenge that statement as being POV, no matter what language the source was in. However, if the article said something like: "(Author X) has concluded that 'the genocide of Armenians is a hoax'" and that was cited to a non-english source, I would say it is probably a verifiable statement. Essentially what I am saying is that POV is POV, no matter what the language. And verifiability is the same. In most cases, you should assume good faith and accept that the source does verify the statement. However, if you have good reason to think that the source has been mistranslated, is being represented inaccurately, or has taken out of context, then you need to contact someone who reads the language and get them to double check what the source actually says. Blueboar 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have shot myself in the foot using those extreme examples. A more realistic one would have been to actually use a real incidence I saw where universities' articles were all saying one was more or less prestigious than the other based on sources in Korean. I like to assume good faith in a user, but sometimes it's hard to assume good faith in sources, especially in a (surprisingly) charged environment like universities. Rarely were the citations "author X from journal Y"... instead they were to news websites. It can be difficult to tell which of these is reputable, unfortunately, just as I'm sure it might be difficult for a non-American to know that tabloids are not. I take your point however... and I'll try to enlist some help by native speakers when possible if there is no way to get a similar English source. Thanks- Epthorn 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... in that case, I would assume that the sources do verify the statement, but ask questions as to their neutrality and reliability on the talk page. Finding someone who lives in Korea, or visits Korea frequently might help. Blueboar 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, 'use common sense'. I am working in aviation and i don't act in 'hot arguments' like Genocides. I talk simply with stuff like: i have aircraft datas, but i have problem because i have italian written sources. Sadly, often the web english sources about are not available or without or obsolete datas, so even posting with the maximum precision is difficult that these are accepted without any discussion. I don't think they not must be verified, but if i have reliable sources (books, magazines) and want to contribute in wiki.en, how i can act if someone starts to no believe to my datas, being not 'immediatly verifiables'? The funny thing is also that sometimes (see my first post here) these datas are verifiable with internet sites well known. But wait a moment: with a double strike ('you must have both written sources and english sources) even with the case presented above, i have still troubles to be accepted. I ask to you: if i want to add contributes in articles in wiki.en, i am in fact obliged to buy a english book, or the wingpan of an aircraft can be reported reliably also with a italian or whetever magazine (of which i provide reference, to search it eventually)? Just tell me.--Stefanomencarelli 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy clearly allows for non-english sources: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

The issue here is not whether we can use non-english sources. It's what to do if you have a concern or question about a non-english source. All you can do if find someone who reads the language and ask them evaluate the source for you. It is not all that dissimilar to the difficulty of double checking a questionable statement cited to a rare or out of print book... it may not be easy to check (you have to find a library that carries the book). But that does not mean you can't double check it. The statement is verifiable... just not easily verifiable. There is a difference. Blueboar 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, in this particular issue, i found a direct confirm: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html, one to one matching my numbers given. Is it accounting for a double checking, considering that Joe is one well known and appreciated editor in aviation articles (and even book and magazines)?--Stefanomencarelli 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

Are images subject to verifiability? For example, if I take a picture of someone that I claim is the president of an organization, do I have to back that with a citation? ThreeE 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No.Wikidemo 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this one is more of an "it depends"... normally images do not need verification. This is because it is usually obvious and uncontested that the image is indeed what it purports to be. But, if someone raises a reasonable challenge, contending that the image is not, in fact, a picture of the president of the organization as you claim, you might have to defend your contention that it is. It does not happen very often, but it could happen. Blueboar 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology change proposal

I thought that I had made this proposal here recently but I cannot find it in the article history. This is a second attempt.

This policy page says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."

It occurs to me that, though Wikipedia itself is not, other open wikis are "third-party sources" relative to Wikipedia and to the subject of any particular Wikipedia article (right?). It also occurs to me that the answer to the question of suitabllity of open wikis as supporting sources turns not on the third-partyness of the source but on the questionable reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight which grows out of the openness of open wikis. Consequently, I propose a terminology change here to something like: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as supporting sources."

Incidentally, related my point above, I'll mention that there is a discussion at WT:RS#Wikitruth_as_a_reliable_source regarding (some?) closed wikis as possibly being reliable sources. -- Boracay Bill 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Open wikis

Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Wikitruth as a reliable source, Jossi and I have removed "open" from the line prohibiting the use of wikis as sources.[7][8] It implied that closed wikis were allowed even though they fail the basic verifiability standards since they are almost certainly self-published and are inherently unstable. We couldn't think of a counter-example: a closed, stable wiki written by experts or published by a proper source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think you were rushing out to get to that tent - Jossi removed "open wikis", not simply "wikis". A similar change may be appropriate here, but removing "open" and leaving "wiki" in implies the software platform is the problem - when it's the self-published nature of the information that is at issue. -- SiobhanHansa 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium is I think a counter example.It's stable enough to cite, contributing is open to anyone who registers whose identity can be verified, but the approval of final versions --what they call "editing"--is conducted by subject experts. I do not think material there can be said to be "self-published"--at least not the part in the approved versions. DGG (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)