Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 267:
Thanks for the feedback. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''R'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
== Facebook or Twitter? ==
Can a post on Facebook or Twitter ever be a [[WP:RS]]? There's an ongoing discussion at [[Talk:Tea Party protests#Mike Huckabee]]. The background (at least from my possibly slanted POV) is that on April 29 President Obama commented on the Tea Party protests. On the same day, former Governor Huckabee posted on Facebook and Twitter "Astounded Pres. Obama still doesn't know tea parties were led by moms, dads worried about future...that's serious and no game!" Huckabee's [http://mikehuckabee.com/ official website] links to both, so I assume they aren't fake accounts. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:Facebook and Twitter accounts might pass muster as Self-published primary sources for use in an article on the account holder (ie Huckabee's Facebook page might be used as a source on the [[Mike Huckabee]] bio article), but not in other articles. If Gov. Huckabee's comment is notable enough for inclusion, a secondary source will have picked up on it and reported it. No need to quote from Facebook or Twitter. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:If a publiched news source quoted the Twitter, then the Twitter becomes a primary source and doesn't need to pass SPS. Whether it's useful to our article to quote Twitter is up for debate. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
::Huckabee's Twitter post was cited by Think Progress, but unfortunately that's not an RS because of Wikipedia's bright-line rule against blogs. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:::That "bright-line" rule against blogs isnt so bright-line per discussions going on in many places. '''IF''' the twitter or facebook quote is useful and needed, ignore all rules comes to mind. I think we see community consensus going against a clear cut line against all blogs.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Depending on how they are used. Still problematic in WP:BLP unless published by a good WP:RS and usually best only for opinion unless it is an individuals whose grasp of facts is impeccable. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Twitter is a micro-blogging service, and as such, anything there can be used in line with [[WP:SPS]]. [[Special:Contributions/24.68.247.69|24.68.247.69]] ([[User talk:24.68.247.69|talk]]) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
== encyclopedia.jrank.org and "contributed articles" ==
Does anyone here know what the story is with the [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/ "contributed articles"] at the http://encyclopedia.jrank.org website? That seems to host Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 stuff, but also some more recent "contributed" articles. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fencyclopedia.jrank.org%2Farticles%2F here] for examples of uses of this link. An example of an article is [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/7430/Manton-Sidnie-Milana.html here]. The disclaimer says ''"Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information."'', but I would like to have more information than that. The [http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ main page] says: ''"NEW Contributed articles – Articles from professional writers on a wide variety of topics."'' Should we need more details than that before using their articles as sources for ours? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:Having looked at the Encyclopedia's articles for Danny Elfman and Dante Alighieri, I'd say not an RS. Since the author of the text is not identified, and its original source is not stated, there is no way to tell how reliable any particular article is. (The Elfman article appears to be original text of unknown accuracy; the Dante article is taken from Medieval art: a topical dictionary By Leslie Ross without attribution).
:Disclaimer? Just what is it disclaiming? [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
== Sources for [[Genetically modified food controversies]] ==
The writings of [[Jeffery M. Smith]] were used as a prominent source for this article, for example the book/website "seeds of deception" published by Yes! books and this news article
*[http://www.seedsofdeception.com www.seedsofdeception.com] (also an external link)
*[http://newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey7.htm GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN STUDY REVEALS HEALTH DAMAGE & COVER-UP]
Are these appropriate sources for this article? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have trouble thinking that Smith being used as a reference twice out of the 55 sources used for the article would make him a "prominent source". Smith is a leading GMO critic and investigative journalist/author so his critism is relevant to the topic. Smith's seedsofdeception.com link is used because his best selling book that details the same events is not available online. The book, which you need to buy to read, is a RS so I see no problem with book extracts from the authors website that you can read free. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
: Neither of these sources are reliable. The book, on the other hand, may be a reliable source. If the extracts on the website accurately reflect the book, and the book was both published by a major publisher and not used for statements of bald fact (as opposed to opinion), and said opinions are notable ("Smith is a leading GMO critic," if true, would make his opinions notable), then the book would be a reliable source. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::Cite the book, not the website. Non-free sources are OK. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:::OK, so if I understand correctly Smith's book is OK as a source of opinion as a notable critic of GMOs, but should not be used as a source for either factual statements about genetic modification, or a source for statements about other people's beliefs? As an alternative, would it be preferable to replace citations of this particular person's views with citations to statements from prominent non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, The Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::::These sources can be used the same way... as citations for statements as to the opinions of each group. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||