Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 1,050:
: Appears to be an advocacy organization. If they are notable, obviously reliable sources will have commented on their statements in the debate. Use those obviously reliable sources. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Media Matters and News Hounds ==
Would either [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters] or [http://www.newshounds.us/ News Hounds] ever be considered reliable sources, like in the [[Gretchen Carlson]] article? There is a question on this at [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Gretchen Carlson]].--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup> 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:: I followed Media matters for a very long time and it might not be black or white. Given its function as a news watch organization its mission entails integrally very political work, and they probably criticize the right more than the left (partially true). On the other hand, they seem neither a tabloid, nor aggressively distortionary like some think talks, political organizations. I don't see "Carlson" on the page noted above. I think scholars with higher standards that wikipedia would use them as a source, but not carelessly assuming fact. --[[User:Ihaveabutt|Ihaveabutt]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabutt|talk]]) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Quite a few reports by [[Media Matters for America]] consist of stating accurately what content can be found in various prominent media outlets. Thus, the work of Media Matters doesn't depend on something like "We heard from a confidential source that Columnist X was threatened with exposure of his adultery if he published this story." It's more like, "Last year, there was a story like this about a Democratic politician, and Columnist X covered it (link), but this year, despite similar reports about a Republican politician (link), Columnist X has been silent." Reports of that type can readily be reviewed by those criticized. If there had been any inaccuracies, they would have been exposed. Media Matters is not ideologically neutral but neither is the ''Wall Street Journal''. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::In this case they are not reliable. They are fringe sources picking at minor, isolated incidents. [[User:John Asfukzenski|John Asfukzenski]] ([[User talk:John Asfukzenski|talk]]) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::[[Media Matters]] is a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" so they should not be viewed as being an unbiased source, but it may be appropriate to cite them in statements such as "liberal groups have criticized x, y ,z" or to cite their compilation of other sources such as videos and quotes from other more reliable sources. -- [[User:Gudeldar|Gudeldar]] ([[User talk:Gudeldar|talk]]) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::John Asfukzenski cites no basis for his charge that Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents". By [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Wallace_(journalist)&diff=293053366&oldid=285192951 this edit] he removed all mention of a Media Matters report that was based on review of ''every'' transcript of "Fox & Friends" interviews of Bush administration officials. That's an example of the kind of information that's perfectly proper. In fact, it's rather dubious that, in a case like that, the information even needs to be identified in text as coming from a liberal group. I agree with Gudeldar that such identification is generally proper when Media Matter is quoted as giving an opinion, however. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be politically neutral, they have to be accurate and reliable. It sounds like the only objections to the use of this source have been made for partisan reasons. No source is 100% free of opinions or world view. As long as those views do not get in the way of the facts then the source is reliable. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:: If there is a real reason to remove a Media Matters report, I don't know. But more generally, it does not seem credible or relevant to claim ''"Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents"'''. On the contrary, that claim seems pulled from the butt and I doubt it would withstand any reasonable scrutiny. Media matters seems to often or usually support its claims with evidence. --[[User:Ihaveabutt|Ihaveabutt]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabutt|talk]]) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
== Video game sites ==
Hi! I'm wondering about the reliability of a number of websites which don't yet have any information on reliablity at [[WP:VG/S]].
* [[ActionTrip]] ([http://www.actiontrip.com/index.phtml home]; [http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/baldursgate2shadowsofamn.phtml sample review])—Currently has a parameter in {{tl|VG reviews}}. Seems to be a largish, fairly professional site. No evidence that I can easily find that it is user-contributed like a blog or wiki.
* CVGames ([http://www.cvgames.com/ home]; [http://www.cvgames.com/?p=28 sample review])—Not even mentioned at [[WP:VG/S]] at this point. Seems to be fairly professional, even if not the largest or most popular of game sites. No apparent user-contributed content.
* The Armchair Empire ([http://www.armchairempire.com/ home]; [http://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/PC%20Games/baldurs_gate2.htm sample review])—Doesn't ''look'' quite as professional as the other sites, but it is a partner of [[GameZone]] (an RS) and has been around for 9 years.
Thanks! –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:ActionTrip.com - I can't really find any information on them. They don't have an About page, no mention of their editorial policy, no physical address, etc.. Our article on them doesn't cite a single [[WP:RS]]. So I would say, no it's not a [[WP:RS]]. I do find a handful of mentions of it by other [[WP:RS]] so it's views might be important enough to include in an article. That's really an editorial decision. BTW, ActionTrip has come up before.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Video_game_refs]
:CVGames.com - Again, I can't find any information on them. Even worse, I didn't find any [[WP:RS]] even mentioning this web site. So I would say not a [[WP:RS]] and it's reviews aren't important enough to include in an article.
:Armchairempire.com - I'm not sure about them. They don't have an about page but do have some sort of staff[http://www.armchairempire.com/staff_masthead.htm]. No physical address and they aren't referenced by a single [[WP:RS]] that I could find. So, I would say no, it's not [[WP:RS]] and it's reviews aren't significant enough for mention in Wikipedia.
:But that's just my 2 cents. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
::Okay; thanks. I'm guessing that eventually ActionTrip should be removed from {{tl|VG reviews}}, since having a possibly unreliable source built into that sort of template seems kind of confusing (that's why I was unsure of it). –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||