Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 398:
:There is no requirement for unbiasedness in [[WP:RS]]. The requirement is on editorial procedure. The reason for this is that most sources can be assumed to be somewhat biased. So the fact that communist publications operate under censorship does not in itself mean that they are unreliable. The issue of proper fact checking might come into play, but will depend on specific sources. In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to [[WP:Undue]] which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:Having written the article on [[Soviet historiography]], I tend to be cautious when it comes to communist-era sources. That said, they should not be treated a biased by default; a lot of them were correct, and Poland, as most Soviet satellites, was more liberal then SU itself. We need articles on [[Polish historiography]] and [[German historiography]], and on average, any Polish or German source about Polish-German relations is going to be somewhat biased, but ''Polityka...'' by [[Czesław Madajczyk]] is, for example, still seen as the best comprehensive overviw of German Nazi policies in occupied Poland, and widely cited. Unless specific reviews can be presented that would dispute reliability of those works (or authors), I think they should be accepted. If info cited is controversial, full atrribution (ex. Polish historian Czesław Madajczyk wrote...) should be enough. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
It is true that totalitarian countries' sources tend to lie. However, they don't ''always'' lie, which means that they can be used, with caution. In general, it is best to back up claims derived from a totalitarian source with other, more independent sources. Also, matching the claims against two basic criteria: ''Does this make sense?'' and ''What reasons would these propagandists have had to lie about this topic?'' is useful. For example, should Stalin have said that the sky is blue, it should not be discounted in a swift knee-jerk motion merely because he was Stalin. But if Stalin were to claim that the Red Army has painted the sky blue, any reasonably calibrated [[bullshit]] meter should take notice. [[User:Digwuren|Διγουρεν]]<sub>[[User talk:Digwuren|Εμπρος!]]</sub> 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 448:
== [[Mike Easley]] ==
An editor has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Easley&diff=288434843&oldid=287267302 added] a somewhat controversial claim to a BLP, citing [http://www.truthinjustice.org/gell-probe.htm this] website. The original article can be found [http://roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/news/2004/feb/25/prosecutorial-misconduct-probe-is-needed/ here]. My question is whether or not the ''[[Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald]]'' source is an [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations|editorial/opinion piece]] (example: the opening sentence states "What the prosecutors did in the first Alan Gell trial is criminal."). The claim may be true (I don't know anything about the case), but the 'Controversies' section already accounts for ~40% of the BLP. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><
:'''Comment:''' It is an editorial/opinion piece, and if used, should only be used as such and attributed as such. The latter part of your comment seems more something for [[WP:BLPN]] than here. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Ok. Gracias. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><
== Validity of Youtube References ==
Line 965:
:::''This looks like a real problem.'' I'm sorry to say that I looked at this a few months ago, sensed these links might be undesirable but did not invest time to push the issue. Now it looks a lot worse.
:::For starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors. --<
::::A. B. wrote "for starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors." I don't think it matters for purposes of deciding that it isn't a reliable source. No matter how many well-meaning editors cite an unreliable source, it's still unreliable. However, it might matter if we are trying to get it black-listed; I don't remember the blacklist criteria off-hand. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 05:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 981:
The fact that a source takes something from WP doesn't mean it doesn't have a proper fact-checking procedure. After all, ''some'' statements on WP ''are'' factually correct. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:My point exactly. It is possible that the source has in fact validated via peer review what was previously an unreferenced Wikipedia claim. Still, can we assume this much good faith? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
:It is also possible that the wikipedia entry was written by the author of the paper after submitting it for publication but prrior to its appearnace in print. There is no reason to doubt that the source is an RS as academically edited and published by an established institution, even if if were shown that some parts of the content were not very well researched.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 987:
As far as the author of the paper having earlier edited the WP article - rather unlikely. The following sentence was inserted by [[User:Piotrus]], who edits under his own name, in December 2004: "Over the 16 years following the battle (the so-called [[Great Turkish war]]), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth&diff=next&oldid=8091856] Compare to the paper's "Over the next 16 years (during the "Great Turkish War"), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." in [http://www.sze.hu/blszk/CEIC2008vol.pdf], p.242. And now the article is using this paper as a reference for the sentence...[[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:All said, this sentence is hardly controversial. I am more interested in the reliability of other parts of our article, referenced to this article; in particular about the economy of the PLC. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
The paper also contains several sentences taken verbatim from the WP [[Międzymorze]] article - see its talk page. These sentences were inserted by [[User:Logologist]] in September 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mi%C4%99dzymorze&diff=23973306&oldid=23769902]. Logo has been inactive since November 2007 and his/her email is not enabled, so it could be hard to find out whether he/she is actually the paper's author. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 994:
:::It's not the first time that an author who is not fluent in English has found text he agreed with, liked the English wording, and borrowed it. This author probably approved of Dziewanowski's article but likely did not have access to the Polish-language original. But it would have been well if she had put the text in quotes and credited Dziewanowski indirectly, and Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia may be developing into a respectable encyclopedia—as did the 18th-century French ''[[Encyclopédie]]''. This incident, however, may also serve as a caution about academic and other authorities. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Technical note: I think this question is applicable to more than this single source, so the issue should be noted and/or discussed primarily at the talk of WP:RS. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
:Link to this thread posted at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=294247913&oldid=294210228]). [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||