Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

For use in science related articles, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) § White and grey literature.

Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [1][2]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Options

• Option 1: Such literature is not always WP:SPS, even if the author and publisher are within the same org, if the org employs a sufficient review process, and/or the org has a well established reputation.
• Option 1 (b): Such literature is not always WP:SPS, even if the author and publisher are within the same org, if the org employs a sufficient review process.
• Option 1 (c): Such literature is not always WP:SPS.
• Option 2: Such literature is always WP:SPS, if the author and publisher are within the same org, and cannot normally be used in sourcing for biography of living people (BLP) unless a non-SPS source makes note of any claim.

Survey

• Option 1 - As was outlined in the long pre-discussions. There are certain organizations that would currently fall under the too strict SPS definition, but do employ editorial oversight (in fact many are in fact oversight watchdogs), which should qualify as grey literature and should be useable for certain BLP coverage if they are also otherwise considered reliable by our other standards. Raladic (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Actual wikipedia practice seems to suggest we don't use Author=Publisher as the guiding principle to determine SPS, more that we try to avoid sourcing where there is no real guardrails/second lookover/resistance to folks just putting their own material out there by themselves. In particular, the author=publisher definition is clearly broken by many more "traditional" publishers, such as when NYTimes-employed writers are publishing within the organisation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The question is always editorial oversight, which is true for basically any source. If we considered them SPS (and thus lower than other sources) because that oversight is within the same organization, then I don't see how we would avoid considering all news sources to be SPS and not regular reliable source level anymore, since all of their editorial oversight for newspapers and other news is within the same organization in most cases. Silverseren^C 03:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 as long as the organization is considered an expert source in their field by more academic or mainstream sources, such as the SPLC for hate and extremist groups. Such sourcing should still likely be attributed in prose to the organization, but to call these organizations as an SPS and what other policies follow from that is too far. --Masem (t) 03:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Option 1(b). Let's read Option 1, which says this grey literature is OK if the org employs a sufficient review process, and/or the org has a well established reputation. Heavy focus on the "and/or", which means that grey literature from advocacy groups can be used based solely on the reputation of the source even if there is absolutely no editorial control whatsoever!! This is obviously intentional, given that the discussion says Depending on result, you could no longer disqualify GLAAD/etc. with WP:BLPSPS if you argue the source is not automatically WP:SPS and Masem's characterization that an organization being "considered an expert source" should be enough to exempt it from SPS.
  The intention of SPS is to exclude sources that do not have oversight. I agree that much of the grey literature that exists today, while technically published by the same entity that originated the content, should be considered reliable due to editorial control. But Option 1 at this RfC goes beyond that to allow editors to judge a source as reliable despite a lack of editorial control. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I said elsewhere I'd support an option with the "reputation" clause removed and I'm amending my !vote to support that. I dislike the option with no guidance. Clarifying that self-publication has a lack of review is the standard we should and currently have. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• We treat FBI crime statistics as reliable, even though they are self-published. Similarly, we accept police or FBI reports on "the identity of the shooter" as usable in BLPs (as long as it isn't written in Wikipedia's voice). Per that alone, I would have to go with Option 1. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This is a WP:PAG question in the guise of a question about reliable sources. The current WP:PAGs outline how expert sources and SPSs should be treated. Is there a problem in them that needs solving? Otherwise, if this is a coy way of asking about specific sources the question should be asked about those specific sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Agree with other "Bad RfC" responses, this is a badly formulated RfC in the wrong venue. And as I said here, you would have been better inviting input from WP:BIOGRAPHY before opening this as that is far and away the most affected project if you successfully sway policy towards allowing the inclusion of 3rd-party BLP claims via self-published material produced by the most politically partisan sources - indeed, orgs whose political motivations are their reason for existing. Void if removed (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since this is now a better forum I vote none of the above. The issue is that:

  • SPS links to WP:USINGSPS to explain what an SPS is
  • WP:USINGSPS says things like company and charity websites are self-published
  • Editors are in the habit of using sources like SPLC's website to make 3rd party BLP claims, usually about not very nice people, white nationalists etc, but this would clearly be an SPS according to WP:USINGSPS, and BLPSPS says an SPS can't be used for 3rd party BLP claims
  • Editors square this by saying WP:USINGSPS is just an essay and carry on regardless

  We have an explanatory essay that says one thing about policy, and editors insisting common practice is to ignore it.

  Either the essay does not explain policy correctly, or common practice is to circumvent policy.

  The solution is to either bring the explicit examples from WP:USINGSPS into WP:SPS (to make policy clear) OR to unlink or change WP:USINGSPS to bring it in line with what alleged practice is. Doing either requires settling which of these viewpoints is correct.

  Trying to create a carve-out for some nebulous concept of grey literature just renders BLPSPS effectively void and skips the actual argument. Void if removed (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Completely banning widely used, cited and reliable sources from 15% of the site, and retroactively ruining plenty of GAs and FAs, over a technicality, is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Since this is potentially amending V and the main RFCbefore was there, I think that's where this RFC should sit, not here, why not just move it there? Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I made a similar comment below, it's a bad fit for this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. This WP:Verifiability question is out of scope for this board, which is about distinguishing individual cases, not measuring consensus on policy issues. BusterD (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment How would we define "advocacy organisation"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect that will fall under the cynic's usual rules, @Slatersteven: Any org's website that agrees with me is okay to use, and any website that disagrees with me is not okay. For example, I've seen an editor argue this year that a formal government report is self-published (the editor dislikes the report intensely), but that press releases(!) from some advocacy groups are acceptable, if they have the right POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• This should be run at a better location, but 'Option 1' would match current practice and the results of RFCs such as SBM. Although I'm not sure this is the right RFC. Removing the problematical wording from the USESPS essay would be a better option. That all authors employed by a publisher are self-published, unless they get a get-out-of-jail card, is overly broad and not backed up by consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Make that formally Option 1(c), some of these sources will have proper oversight others won't. Having flexibility to allow for discussion is the best option.

  Such sources might be biased, but that (and intext attribution) is already covered by WP:RSBIAS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we need an Option 1(d) - not always SPS (if editorial oversight, blah blah)… However should always be presented as opinion, with in-text attribution… followed up with a link to DUE/UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1(bc) Reputation isn't necessarily sufficient, especially as reputable organizations may change over time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• None of the above. Such literature is not always SPS. 1b is one possible reason why it might not be, but it is not the only possible reason (e.g. if clearly reliable sources regard them as reliable, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Note, the discussion was moved to a centralized separate page at this point, so some comments above regarding Bad RfC that had issues with the location of the original discussion at RSN may appear out of context now that it has been moved. New comments should be made below this line. Raladic (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• None of the above, I support "Such literature is not always WP:SPS" without the weird special pleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added your sentiment which also matches @Thryduulf above as option 1(c). Raladic (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• None of the above because the question presented in this RfC is beside the point. Whether or not publications in the grey literature are SPSes or not, each source still needs to be evaluated like any other source to determine whether and how it ought to be used. Does the organization have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking and is it used by others (e.g., The Pew Charitable Trusts)? Or, is it an advocacy organization that publishes biased white papers (e.g., the Manhattan Institute)? Or, is it a completely unreliable dark money organization that bends the truth to advance its funders' policy agenda? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1(c) or failing that option 1, substantially per voorts above. Source evaluation is difficult work but shortcuts like the proposed option 2 are not the way to go. The world is a messy, ambiguous place with all manner of different "advocacy organizations" in it, some of which are reasonably reliable and some of which are definitely not. A bright-line rule will not serve our mission well. -- Visviva (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• None of the above. I think that we need to work on the wording of WP:SPS more generally, and hopefully that work would mostly resolve the question of whether specific grey literature created by diverse organizations (e.g., advocacy organization, governments, think tanks, universities, learned societies, corporations) is or is not SPS, since both this RfC and WP:SPS are silent about most of these. I'll say more about WP:SPS in the discussion below. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC, as I told the OP before it was started. Option 1 as phrased is technically true, but (a) WP:USESPS doesn't actually disagree with that, so this is a poor way to try to expand or improve that {{supplement}}, and (b) "not always" is pretty useless guidance. Does "not always" mean often or rarely? How would you identify the ones that actually are or aren't? The "well established reputation" idea is very bad; at minimum, it needs to be a positive reputation. Think about certain political advocacy groups: They have a "well-established reputation", but it's a reputation for spreading misinformation, and their policy documents (=another name for grey literature) should be considered unreliable for anything except maybe WP:ABOUTSELF. But the US Census Bureau's gray literature (e.g., every report they published about the 2020 US Census) is widely accepted as a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• My most literal opinion here is Option 1(c), because "gray literature" is not in fact always a self-published source, and for a variety of reasons that this RFC's other options don't capture well. But the big issue here is that "gray literature" is a very vaguely defined term, so I actually wouldn't object to calling this a bad RFC either. I don't support any edits to existing policy language based on this RFC, at least, because I think adding explicit mention of "gray literature" in those words will hurt more than it helps. Loki (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I very strongly agree with Loki: I think adding explicit mention of "gray literature" in those words will hurt more than it helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC per whatamIdoing and Bon courage. I was summoned here by Yapperbot Groceryheist (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Some thoughts about Bad RFC votes.
  • To anyone closing this, please discount "Bad RFC" votes by folks who are either arguing that the RFC was placed in the wrong section (We notified all the appropriate venues, and we moved it anyways to its own page).
  • Please also discount those voting "Bad RFC" because they disagree with the options provided. As per WP:RFC If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question. I'm fine with None of the above votes explaining how they would choose to phrase an option or why they think there are other options to consider, but "Bad RFC"ing because you cannot yourself word an answer to a neutrally worded question is frustrating. I attempted to listen to folks feedback on the RFC draft, as well as my own understanding of the pre-discussions, and I either applied advice, or thought carefully about whether other advice should apply or not. If you think you have a better option, one that more correctly answers the question, propose it. If you have a better RFC to run in the future, do it. I think discounting this RFC because you would rather perpetually knitpick instead of proposing your own options is frustrating.
  • I thank everyone for their advice when creating this RFC. This is the best RFC I could propose in the limited time and experience I have, and I welcome others to try either improve on the options or to make a better question that answers the higher question you have when this is all over. I want an answer to this question, though, and would like folks to propose actual options. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's probably not a good idea to start a bad RfC and then demand that the closer ignores people who point it out. That's not how consensus (or sensible human interaction) works. This is a waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  closers are allowed to decide based on strength of arguments, and can discount poor arguments as per WP:POLL. if this ends in no consensus or third option with appropriate explanation id be fine, but closing as a bad rfc because folks dont wants to answer the question would prompt me to ask for a close review. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Threatening the closer if they pick a route you don't like, is also not a good idea. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree that this could have been conducted better but there is certainly a question that needs to be answered here, as if organizations like GLAAD/SPLC/ADL are SPS we need to remove them from a LOT of BLP/BLP related articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Or we need to change BLPSPS, or we need to swap in non-SPS sources that quote GLAAD/SPLC/ADL/etc. instead of citing them directly.

  Deciding that these websites just have to be non-SPS because otherwise we can't include the information we want to include is an Argument from consequences. IMO that fallacy-adjacent thinking is not a good way to understand a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A key issue here is whether people want WP:SPS to follow some outside definition for "self-published" (and if so, which definition), or if it's a term like "notable" that has a WP-specific definition. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I really think it would be a bad idea to make up our own definition of self-published. Traditional definitions vary a bit (e.g., some refer only to books, and do not contemplate the possibility of self-publishing online), so we might have to pick one or adapt definitions, but I would be sorry if we ended up with something like "notable" or "neutral", in which people say "Oh, this is obviously self-published" and we have to reply "Sure, according to every dictionary definition, you're right, but according to the special unverifiable OR version that we adopted, if there humans from at least three different households involved in making the decision to publish it, then that's not 'wiki-self-published', even when we're talking about a press release". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• None of the above because as said before - individual cases will vary, so not all such fit 1a or 1b or 1c. Also I agree, the question presented in this RfC is beside the point in that whether or not a publication in the grey literature is SPS, each source still needs to be evaluated like any other source to determine whether and how it ought to be used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC. Should be at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability among other problems. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is a centralized discussion, as is common for bigger RfC's per WP:RFCTP. Notices have been posted to all relevant noticeboards, including WT:V. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC People coming in from WP:RFCA (such as myself) may wonder if the drafter means "...is not always SPS; it's always full RS instead" or "...is not always SPS; it's always completely unusable instead." Or worse, they may guess and not wonder. Rephrase and try again. My take on the probable intent is that "gray literature" covers a huge and variegated group of publications, some of which are full RS, some of which are "use with caution," and some of which are nearly unusable. My take on rule wording is that we should assume that anything we put down will be treated as gospel even if it's marked "guideline" and that the interpretation may shift considerably in only a few years. Say only what is needed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 (a~b), but with a lot of caveats; the presumption should be that they don't have such a policy - I would even say they are usually a non-RS, and extra care is required because they often assume the structure and appearance of an RS without actually being one. The distinction between a and b bothers me because while they do definitely need to have that process, I think that the way we determine that process is ultimately via reputation; I dislike how a seems to set reputation and process as separate categories, but I dislike how b seems to imply that we should just evaluate the process ourselves rather than looking at what people say about its results. But either way, if someone can demonstrate that a source has such a process and that that process enjoys a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then it would be absurd to try and argue that it's a SPS. I should add that some people above seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of SPS; per WP:SPS, a SPS is a category of non-RS. Its original definition was mostly aimed at solo publishers with no reputation (as the description says) and at people who publish through a vanity press, as opposed to ones who have a reputable process to examine the work by a person other than the author. The author and publisher are within the same org is a bizarre and poorly-considered criteria that doesn't really reflect that conventional definition and which has never been part of policy; I strenuously oppose using it in any context. It would exclude virtually all news organizations, as well as many academic publishers and many indisputably-reputable websites; and though we can make carve-outs for them the mere fact that that's necessary shows that it doesn't work (at that point we are validating the reliability of sources based on their mere superficial structure.) At the same time, one of the originally central targets of SPS - self-published authors using a vanity press - would fall outside it! The important question isn't who owns the process but whether the publisher is using a reputable editorial and fact-checking process; for our intents and purposes, such a process is considered independent of the individuals doing the writing. If high-quality sourcing says that their process is trustworthy, it is completely inappropriate for editors to say "well, but I don't think it's trustworthy due to being from the same org, so we should treat it as a SPS." --20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquillion (talk • contribs)

I agree that The author and publisher are within the same org is a bizarre and poorly-considered standard. That's like saying the Guardian is a "self-published source" because people at the Guardian decide what the Guardian should print. XOR'easter (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1(b). The original option 1 is broken both by "and/or" and by failing to specify what kind of reputation (reputation for what?). Lots of orgs have very prominent reputations, but negative ones when it comes to the accurancy of their material (most often because of statistics "doctoring"). That said, various medical and other science organizations that engage in forms of advocacy may also have stringent review processes (about equivalent to high-end journal peer review) when it comes to their position statements. While I've argued long with WP:MEDRS regulars that these necessarily remain primary sources (they are statements of organizational opinion and medico-politcal stance, albeit well-informed statements that probably mean well), they are not the same sort of publication as, say, a political activism group's exaggeratory spin about some social issue, or a government agency snowing the public in an effort to try to justify its budget and its policy-position decisions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Only natural persons are able to self-publish. Self-publication occurs when one, or a small group, of natural persons publish a work. This includes submitting to a disseminator that hardly exercises any control over what is published, such as a vanity publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jc3s5h, do you happen to have a source that says only natural persons are able to self-publish? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's how I interpret the following passage from the 18th edition of Chicago Manual of Style.

  ¶ 14.36 Self-published or privately published books. Books published independently by the author, like traditionally published books, should be cited according to the information on the title page or copyright page or otherwise known. Unless the book has been published under a publisher imprint name (in which case it can be cited like other books), "published by the author" can stand in for the publisher's name. (Because "author" is more logical than "self" in this context, Chicago now prefers this phrase in sources citations over the term "self-published.") The name of any self-publishing platform or distributor such as Amazon is usually omitted...

  Jc3s5h (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds like a statement about how to format the citation, rather than a statement about what it is. Also, it says that if the author has made up "a publisher imprint name", then "it can be cited like other books". I do not want editors to cite Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer "like other books" just because the authors decided to do a bit of paperwork to legally create a "publishing company" (that only publishes books written by them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, and Jc3s5h's stance is basically self-contradictory because "one, or a small group of natural persons" resolves to "a natural person, or a group" (a group is not a natural person); meanwhile a publishing company, a university, a government, or something else we'd consider a conventional publisher is also a group, made up likewise of natural persons (at least until the AI revolution is complete). So, there is no difference between a conventional publisher and Jc3s5h's "small group of natural persons", other than potentially the number of those persons. Yet in most cases we have no idea at all and no means of finding out how many actual persons compose the publisher. (Nor any means of objectively defining what "small" is supposed to mean; a tiny operation of 3 people is "large" compared to a single person - three times the size! - but every publisher on earth is small compared to some other groups of natural persons, e.g. the US Army.) I know off-hand that various smaller but topically reputable academic publishers are small operations, especially discounting the persons without any editorial-control authority, and probably smaller than the number of people editorially controlling various fansites and other blogs we'd treat at SPS (or perhaps as small-scale UGC). And it's not just blogs. E.g., a certain cult I've had some interaction with (a former housemate got involved with them) churns out books by its leader, and as a publishing operation probably has a staff of dozens of people, now in multiple countries, but is still clearly self-publishing by any sensible definition that WP would use (no one has any editorial control other than the cult leader and probably an inner circle comprising a handful of ghostwriters and cleanup editors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• 1.5. With 1.5 being such sources are presumptively SPS, and that editors wishing to define them as non-SPS demonstrate that the organization has an editorially independent review process, and that it is reasonable to believe the content went through that review. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• One of the variations of 1, with determination being made at RSN on a case by case basis. I get the impression that actual practice is quite closely aligned (if perhaps not identical to) to whether we would consider, looking at the editorial controls of the organisation alone and not considering expertise of authors, whether we would consider the review sufficient to make the publication in question GENREL. I see no need to explicitly codify that, however, so 1(c) would be fine, 1(a) is a little awkward due to the transcription error but I'm hoping people will use common sense, and I don't see a issue with 1(b). Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1(c) - this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and an editor demonstrating that an org has a review process should not be necessary when, for example, the source in question is widely used by reliable sources for content about living persons.Flounder fillet (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  If the source in question is widely used by reliable sources, Why not use those reliable sources instead? Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Useful content may not exist in those sources. (For example the only source for an academic notable by WP:NPROF criterion 2 receiving a prize that makes them notable under that criterion may be the organization that awards that prize). Flounder fillet (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  /Bad RFC per XOR'easter below. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 because the others do not adequately reinforce that material from think-tanks should be treated with extreme suspicion always. This is the fountain source of climate change deniual, culture insurgency propaganda, trickle-down economics and so much other bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Using the idea that they're self-published as the only metric that makes them GUNREL is tricky IMO since, as others have pointed out (though, I suppose it's not actually in option 2) there tends to be an exception given to "traditional publishing structures", and a lot of think tanks try and set up things that look like "traditional publishing structures" naturally just to make themselves look better. Either way, we should still be primarily relying on the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (in other, non think-tank, reliable sources) standard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG Most of our usage of advocacy groups onwiki is left wing ones. The most impactful result of option 2 being passed would be to ban using the SPLC and ADL on BLPs, which would result in us having to remove classifications and information on... basically every hate group! If that's what we want to do, but that's what's going to happen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA, if we're going to make an Argument from consequences, let's at least get the consequences right: It will not have any effect on our articles about hate groups at all, because "groups" are not "living people".

  I clicked on a handful of articles that link to Southern Poverty Law Center. Here's the list:

  • Arthur Jensen: He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply. (Also, there are two other sources for that same sentence.)
  • Elie Wiesel: He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • J. Philippe Rushton: He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • Jewish Defense League: A group is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • Ku Klux Klan: A group is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply. (Also, it mentions them, but cites a newspaper article.)
  • Oklahoma City bombing: An event is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply. (Also, it cites another news article.)
  • William Shockley: He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • Constitution Party (United States): A group is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • American Legislative Exchange Council: A group is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply.
  • Harrison, Arkansas: A group is not a person, so BLP doesn't apply. (Also, it cites a book.)

  I'm sure there are instances where it might apply – assuming we didn't change the BLPSPS rules to permit it anyway, which we actually do have the authority to do – but I'm tired of clicking through articles. (I also found a couple that link to the SPLC article only in a navbox.) I hope you've noticed the pattern so far: In every single case, even if SPLC is declared the most self-published source in the history of the universe, it wouldn't make any difference at all, because it's either a case of "He's dead, Jim" or a case of a WP:BLPGROUP not being a living person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing It's not going to be all cases. Ones that are dead will obviously not be relevant. BLP group does not say that, it very much says the opposite: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group". So I would judge this to say that it is a BLP issue to use the SPLC to deem any current group a hate group under these rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  BLPGROUP begins with the words This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities. It is true that sometimes a "group" turns out to be "a person who is pretending that they're a whole organization", or "a couple of people", but those tend not to be notable. I've seen discussions recently about "the Integrity Project at Yale Law School", for example, which turns out to be two profs posting stuff on their employer's website. BLP probably applies to them.

  But:

  • The Constitution Party has more than 137,000 members. It does not require "complex" judgment to determine that BLP does not apply to large groups.
  • ALEC claims thousands of individual members and hundreds or thousands of corporate members, each of which in turn represents even more people. BLP does not apply to large groups.
  • The KKK's membership peaked at several million, and currently has many thousands. BLP does not apply to large groups.
  • The JDL's membership peaked at 15,000 members. BLP does not apply to large groups.

  This is not nearly as difficult as you are trying to make it out to be. BLPGROUP isn't usually accepted for something as large as a local school. Or even a local school sports team. The cutoff is usually in the single digits, and I've seen editors argue that it shouldn't be any higher than about four. If you genuinely think that BLPGROUP applies to groups with tens of thousands of members, then all I can say is that the community disagrees with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  BLPGROUP begins by saying groups that may be deemed "legal persons", saying that it may be different for groups that are not legal persons. Most hate groups are not legal entities or corporations. I would say that they are interpreting it incorrectly from how it is written, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Whether they are corporations depends largely on which part of the world they're located in. In the US, you can safely assume that larger groups are corporations until proven otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  It should go without saying that we would not use ALEC, the KKK, JDL or any other such group as a source for any statement of fact. In terms of membership, any claim they make would be self-serving and inevitably interpreted as including everyone even tangentially connected (as the Alliance of British Drivers did). Interest groups with outsize megaphones don't need our help in promoting themselves. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  The argument here is that BLPSPS would somehow prohibit us from citing a self-published source (e.g., the SPLC website, a political campaign website) that talks about a political party or the KKK, ALEC, JDL, etc., because these corporations with thousands/millions of members need to be protected against (e.g.,) being described as hate groups. In other words, he'd have it that it's okay to cite ALEC's self-published membership numbers but not any other organizations's self-published estimate of ALEC's membership numbers, because ALEC deserves BLP protection against self-published sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not in my experience, but it wouldn't matter either way. Advocacy groups are not reliable sources of fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that consensus differs from the community's given how several advocacy groups are marked GREL on RSP. But if we want to change that, that's fine, but we should do that knowingly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  While they certainly aren't always, they can be sometimes. GLAAD and the SPLC are both listed explicitly as green on WP:RSP, and there are other cases where an advocacy organization is usually reliable for facts. For instance, we often use the Guttmacher Institute as a reference for the abortion laws of a state or country even though it's a pro-abortion-rights advocacy group. Loki (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't use GLAAD, and SPLC should always be WP:ATT in my view. They do great work, don't get me wrong, but what they publish is opinion, and in my view opinion only becomes notable if someone other than us has noticed it. Thus "X is identified as a hate group by SPLC, source, SPLC website" would be problematic, but "X is identified as a hate group by SPLC, source, Washington Post" would be absolutely fine. And if everybody identifies them as that, we find a source that states as fact that they are a hate group.

  Sorry, I know this sounds dogmatic, but the world currently appears to be trying to replace empirical fact with ideological Truth™ as the determinant of reality, and I really hope that we will be the very last place to fall into line with this. Belief and fact are different things. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  We require attribution for WP:BIASED sources in most cases, and advocacy groups are... well... probably biased in favour of whatever they're advocating for, it's in the name, but whether they're reliable for a statement or self-published should be a separate determination, and ignoring the stated RfC choices, I'm more or less in favour of making the determination on a case-by-case basis (instead of creating some general prohibition) as we have for Science-Based Medicine and Quackwatch, to slightly different results, for example. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that we declared Science-Based Medicine and Quackwatch to somehow not be SPS, despite literally being blogs, just so we could use them on BLPs, is a sign of how stupid this whole thing really is. There is no functional difference between those two publications vs any other expertsps, except we declared they weren't because we wanted it to be because we wanted to be able to call people quacks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  QuackWatch was only declared to partially non-self-published.

  SBM seems to work more like a magazine, which pushed the into the "traditional publisher" exception (along with all newspapers, just in case anyone had forgotten again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  If they're unreliable I fail to see why their unreliable statements would become any more reliable laundered by a newspaper. If we decide they're unreliable we should not be using them anywhere quoted or otherwise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG, I wonder what you mean when you say "advocacy group". I think you probably have a rather political set of organizations in mind. Maybe they pronounce someone to be transphobic. Maybe they demand that abortion laws match their view. Maybe they spend their days trying to change the amount of taxes that they (or someone else) is paying.

  But these are also advocacy groups:

  • American Cancer Society
  • American Psychiatric Association
  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
  • Internet Engineering Task Force
  • International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

  All of these advocate for certain things (e.g., a cure for cancer, a free internet). I'm happy to cite any of them (as appropriate) for statements of fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  You missed the OG: the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, and its spinoffs in the climate change denial movement.

  My litmus test when looking at groups such as those you named is: are they there to serve a practical function (funding research, rescuing disaster victims, or whatever), or is their main aim to undermine the understanding of empirical fact where it collides with financially inconvenient ideological Truth(TM).

  The British Medical Association is a membership organisation devoted to maintaining standards in medicine. It has an advocacy function, but it is primarily there to serve an objectively valid purpose - there's no need to promote the use of medicine. The British Homeopathic Association (now Homeopathy UK) exists to try to hold back the march of reality. The major threat to adoption and funding of homeopathy is the objective fact that it doesn't work, and their "research" is entirely devoted to trying to wave away the laws of physics. They are an advocacy group. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  What matters here is:

  • We can expect people to disagree over whether certain groups are "advocacy groups", so basing a rule on that classification would lead to drama. For example, when you name the BMA as a fine example of a primarily non-advocacy organization, I assume you missed their vote in July to publicly oppose the Cass Review and demand unrestricted access to hormonal treatments for trans kids and teens. (After an unusual membership backlash, they partly backed down.)
  • Whether an organization is or isn't "an advocacy group" doesn't really tell us anything about whether the publication process is self-publishing vs non-self-publishing. This is more about the business model than about the POV. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst's rival newspapers were famous for their advocacy, but those newspapers were never self-published.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  JzG, should be treated with extreme suspicion always. This is the fountain source of ... bullshit makes it sound like you're focusing on whether they're RS rather than whether they're SPS. This RfC is about the latter. Have I misunderstood your comment? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that they are inherently unreliable means we should not be using them in the first place, self-published or not. The question "is this self-published" should be interpreted in the sense of "is this unreliable source self-published". That makes the sourcing question a great deal easier to answer case by case, and removes the need for a "sometimes acceptable" consensus that risks abuse by POV-pushers.

  Don't use think tanks and activist websites as sources. That applies to things like the Pesticide Action Network every bit as much as to the Cato Institute. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, the community doesn't agree with you that they're all inherently unreliable (see, e.g., Perennial sources#GLAAD and Perennial sources#Amnesty International). But again, this RfC isn't about whether they're sometimes or always unreliable; it's about whether they're sometimes or always SPS, and I think it's important to disambiguate those two dimensions when talking about classes of sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your source on them all being unreliable being? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC for the reasons articulated above. Option 1 and sub-options are in the neighborhood of reasonable, but the concerns raised in the other "bad RfC" !votes are real problems. At a bare minimum, "well established reputation" is far from adequate phrasing to articulate what that sub-option seems to be going for. "Gray literature" is amorphous and ill-defined, and there's no indication of which policy/guideline pages are supposed to be modified as a result of this RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) is an essay with no consensus behind it that hardly sees any use and is not actively maintained. (It refers to ScienceBlogs, for example, which has been defunct for years.) A proposal to upgrade it to guideline status back in the spring met with considerable opposition and ended without consensus. Comments included the observation that Large parts of SCIRS are copy-pasted from (an old version of) WP:MEDRS, but with some words changed. There may be a place for a SCIRS but it would need to be more specific and content-appropriate than this. Pointing to that essay as the implicit ground truth on which all options agree is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bad RfC, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. XOR'easter (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 With or without BLP status, advocacy groups have been used to unduly problematize various individuals and orgs here. They should, in fact, always be considered WP:SPS if there were no external, reliable venues for them to publish their findings in. Roggenwolf (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Roggenwolf do you have any specific examples of what you'd call "unduly problematizing" an organization or person? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Roggenwolf?uselang=en#top-edited-pages looks like it has some hints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Lol oh boy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• bad yucka-poopoo RfC. Any request for comment where the question is "should _____ always _____?" is obviously doomed, since "always" is a very dumb word to put in policy. In the event that this silliness ends up being judged as an honest consensus of the community, though, put me down for option 2, I guess -- although it's so bad as to seem deliberately written to fail, I am particularly sick of arguing with people who want to slop think-tank puke on articles because it happens to be a two-column PDF and therefore superficially resemble the output of an academic process. jp×g🗯️ 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• None of the above. Self publishing is when the author and publisher are actually the same person. It is not enough for author to be a member of the publisher organisation, or for the author to be an employee of the publisher. If a civil servant writes a government report, the civil servant is the author, the government is the publisher, and civil servant and his employer, the government, are not the same person. In that case, the cost of publication is not being paid by the civil servant at his own personal expense, it is being paid by the government with money from taxes. Government literature is generally never self published. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Some notes from previous discussion

The essay, WP:IDSPS, remains a clear point of contention and confusion among all. This RFC exists to see current community consensus and practice, possibly update examples of SPS and non SPS in that section, and be a source to point to in future arguments. Organisations that are not traditional publishers may include Governmental, non-governmental organisations, think tanks, advocacy groups, international organizations, universities, museums, foundations, corporations, learned societies, awards, among other groups. Issues such as whether a source is reliable, independent, due or primary are distinct from whether it's self-published and may still be brought up for any sourcing. [3] regardless, the result of this RFC has significant implications for WP:BLPSPS. Depending on result, you could no longer disqualify GLAAD/etc. with WP:BLPSPS if you argue the source is not automatically WP:SPS. An organization might have both non-self-published and self-published content (e.g., a NYT article vs. comments on that article, a government report vs. a government hearing transcript), so in determining whether a source is or isn't self-published, people should focus on the specific source and not the organization. [4] Some sources are written by political parties, think-tanks, or other organizations with a clear agenda. Whether these sources are self-published depends on whether the organization has done independent editorial review on the source, in the same manner a WP:NEWSORG would fact-check an article before publication. Even if it has, assume material put out by an advocacy organization is WP:BIASED and attribute it.

@Chess

• you are free to make another option to vote on, as per WP:RFC
• i advertised this for multiple days at WT:V and WT:RFC and though i faced some criticism nobody pointed that part out.
• option 1 says “not always sps” on purpose. i originally wrote “not sps” and was gonna constrain it significantly more but decided to leave it vague for a future community discussion if it gets there.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't watch either of those pages, which is why I didn't see it. That being said, I would support Option 1 if and/or the org has a well established reputation was deleted. I would call that Option 1 (b): Such literature is not always WP:SPS, even if the author and publisher are within the same org, if the org employs a sufficient review process. That would be a more accurate statement of current practice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the contention that brought this whole discussion and this resulting RFC however. As was pointed out above by @Guettarda, we do even currently with our practices trust many organizations because of their well established reputation for reliability and thus the current BLPSPS was already never uniformly applicable.

This new wording proposed in the RFC just codifies it, that we as the community do trust the fact-checking of a fair amount of organizations that under our current definition are SPS, but really should be considered grey literature and thus can be useable for say BLP usage. They do of course need to be considered generally reliable to begin with, but we have many such organizations, whether it be GLAAD that kicked off this discussion that is currently cited on a few thousand articles, the FBI or other such generally reliable sources. The problem with only having the "employs a sufficient review process" in the definition is, that many of the organizations don't precisely publicly publish what their review process is, we just generally assume/know they have one as they are producing high quality factual content (and typically link to the sources backing it up). So if we remove the second part of the sentence, then it leaves the door open for some editors to just come straight back here complaining that they can't see inside the review process and thus disqualify the same source again on a different technicality. Raladic (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah, this topic is complicated enough (see previous discussions), i gave up and used the specific wording not always SPS, so folks can still debate if it's SPS or not if option 1 wins. It is vague so that Option 1 folks will agree that public comments on GLAAD hosted websites or some other weird scenario is still SPS, not cuz its hosted by an advocacy org, but cuz it meets other definitions of SPS.

The RFC question is more of an aspirational question and if someone can specify a good concise option, instead of my vague-ish options, feel free to add it in above. I'll add in Option 1 (b) above regardless. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Silently adding another option after people have started weighing in is a poor show, and indicates to me this was badly thought out to begin with. You need to make it clearer this has been added and when, and why. Void if removed (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not at all unusual, it's in fact quite common to happen during RfC procedures that sometimes a new option comes up during discussion, resulting in modified wording, which is why it is spelled out in the guidelines for Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC participants that the participants should make themself familiar with before responding to an RfC. Raladic (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am aware: I said Silently and You need to make it clearer this has been added and when, and why. When was option 1 b) added? This is a mess from inception to execution and a bit more time actually working to a compromise in the RFCBEFORE instead of rushing ahead with the "let's carve out a vague, arbitrary exemption in a secondary essay for the activist orgs we really, really want to use" idea would have been wise. Void if removed (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this. What is the "activist org" being hidden behind this request (one gets so sick of POV-pushing disguised as meta-questions on Wikipedia). Can't the question just be about that source, per the RSN instructions? Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage This one was about GLAAD, but previous discussions along this line have been had about the SPLC and ADL. I think most agreed it was generally reliable, but Void and some others believed as it is an advocacy org it is an SPS and then cannot be used for BLP material no matter what. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not because it is an advocacy org it is an SPS. It is because, according to WP:USINGSPS, that includes Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including: ... Business, charitable, and personal websites.

Author, editor, publisher are all in-house, all the same org - no traditional publishing structure comparable to news, books or academic journals. The "advocacy" part has nothing to do with it. They could be a dry cleaners for all I care.

Which makes "reliability" a side-issue (and thus not suitable for a debate on WP:RS). It isn't about reliability, it is about whether they actually have the sort of clear, traditional, publishing structure we require (or I believed we did) of sources in the one specific case of making WP:BLP claims about third parties.

If we deem it doesn't apply in this case, I can't see many cases where it does meaningfully apply.

This RFC does not fix the tension between WP:USINGSPS being offered up as an explanation of policy on both WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS, and the way some editors really want to ignore it. IMO, it only exacerbates it. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why does the "traditional publishing structure" exempt a news org if the "Author, editor, publisher are all in-house, all the same org"? This seems to be an arbitrary cop out. Plenty of news organizations employ inadequate review, lesser than many non-news organizations. Being "traditional" is not what we should be judging them on. Reliability is not a side issue at all, because the reason that we cannot use SPS on BLPs is that they are considered less reliable. You have it backwards.

My issue is more this would retroactively downgrade sources that have been argued about reliability wise for years (again SPLC, ADL, off the top of my head), without discussion on those sources themselves. If we want to have these sources be considered unreliable for most topics they're used for, then sure (and I will be happy to assist in their removal), but people should be aware that is what that this means.

I agree that this RFC does not fix the issue. The essay has no power, anyone can write anything in any essay, it is not a policy or a guideline or any rule, but there is an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The most significant example IMO is probably WP:SBM. Past discussions have reached a specific consensus that SBM is not self-published, solely on the basis of some claimed editorial oversight (although later discussions have questioned that, since some authors can (or could) apparently publish whatever they like with no oversight).

In reality, SBM is a group blog. What is the material difference in publishing structure between SBM and any group blog that takes guest submissions? There is none I can see, other than that it has an air of sciencey-authority, and it usually pokes holes in niche content and pseudoscience, so is useful in that regard if editors feel strongly that hole-poking is due for articles on that subject.

without discussion on those sources themselves

I agree about that, but it is impossible to have a debate about whether source X is a self-published source unless there is clarity about what a self-published source is, and doubly so as long as people keep conflating self-published with reliability more generally. Without that clarity and separation, the SBM precedent makes all these discussions go in one direction: anything short of a single-person blog can be determined to be not-self-published, as long as it is saying the "right" things. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: The essay has no power, anyone can write anything in any essay, it is not a policy or a guideline or any rule, it can be confusing to a not-so-experienced editor like me when the policy links to the essay, telling people right at the top of the section that the essay has "further information." It is especially confusing when the policy provides almost no guidance about how to determine whether something is SPS, the limited guidance is relegated to a footnote, and the footnote isn't even appended to the most relevant main body text (which in this case is arguably the first sentence of the section rather than a later sentence talking only about expert SPS). Clearly some of that can be addressed by simply moving the footnote into the body of the text. But I want sufficient guidance in the policy itself, and I want guidance that addresses diverse kinds of publications, not just material published by advocacy groups. Is there agreement that "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content"? Should this be rewritten so that it doesn't conflate SPS with RS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need more clarification, and I don't blame Void for thinking that, as this whole thing has revealed that we don't have a functional definition of SPS in policy.

I don't think it needs to be rewritten to not conflate these things, as the whole reason we can't use them on BLPs is they are considered less reliable, on account of being self published. I don't like the definition much either. What do non-Wikipedia sources typically define a "self-published source" as? We should be looking to those for comparison for our use cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few dictionary definitions:

• "issued directly to the public by the author rather than through a publishing company" (Collins)
• "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources" (Merriam-Webster)
• "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher" (Cambridge)
• "to publish or issue (one's own book or other material) independent of an established publishing house" (Dictionary.com)
• "publish (a piece of one's work) independently and at one's own expense" (Oxford American)
• "publish by oneself or with one's own money" (American Heritage)

I haven't been able to find definitions in other sources (e.g., academic writing), though didn't try to do a thorough search. Reliability is not a consideration, though libraries may note that self-published works have varied quality for acquisition purposes. The focus is on whether the author pays for the work's publication and/or whether the author uses a traditional publisher; those intersect, but they're definitely not the same (e.g., material written by an employee is not self-published according to the first, but is often self-published according to the second). The definitions do not mention reviewers at all, though this UC Berkeley Library guide for evaluating resources contrasts self-publishing with having "outside editors or reviewers"; however, it's not clear how "outside" is determined (e.g., is review by another employee an "outside" review?). I disagree with conflating SPS and RS; a source can be any one of the following: SPS and RS, SPS and not RS, non-SPS and RS, non-SPS and not RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Again: this is not about reliability. Off-wikipedia, self-publishing does not refer to reliability at all, it refers to a commercial structure. This is true for newspapers, books and academic journals, as it is for music, art, films and video games.

When it comes to WP:BLPSPS, the intent all the way back from the inception of the policy was to use the fact that someone whose business is publishing is willing to put their reputation to a piece of work and bear some responsibility for it being accurate and not defamatory or outright nonsense as a small layer of accountability and safeguarding against libelling them on Wikipedia. By my reading, editors have argued back and forth ever since whether it should only apply to "controversial" info.

These are not new or settled arguments from my reading of past discussions.

And I think this comment from 2021 sadly still applies, and is exactly the conclusion I've come to after days of discussing this round in circles:

if groups like the ADL, SPLC and Bridge Initiative are self-published there's only two potential conclusions:

* there is an ongoing pattern of non-adherence to editorial policy on Wiki, evidenced by the frequent use of these groups (especially the SPLC and ADL) as sources on pages related to controversial BLP subjects

* there is a lacuna in the SPS policy, and the policy needs to be clarified to make it clear these sources are permissible

At first I wondered what I was doing wrong. Now I see I've just walked into one of Wiki's intractable tar pits. Void if removed (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the next day, Noteduck, the same editor you just quoted, added a third possibility:

• think tanks, advocacy groups and research groups (if group projects) are not "self-published sources" for the purposes of Wiki policy

FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, though tbh I think that is just option 2 restated, ie if that's true, that's the gap that needs filling in policy. Void if removed (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's kind of both. There definitely is an ongoing pattern of non-adherence to editorial policy and best practice in Wikipedia. It seems like in whole domains where its expedient WP:BESTSOURCES is ignored entirely. And, much like the over-reliance on journalistic sources this leads to an over-reliance on advocacy groups and NGOs.

However I think that the reason for this is because there's a disconnect between what we generally see as notable and what we consider a reliable source. As such we often find ourselves faced with either using less-than-ideal sources to be able to create an article on a notable subject or to ignore notable subjects.

This leads to articles like Matt Gaetz where, out of 367 references, we have 311 sourced to news, 46 sourced to primary sources, 11 sourced to advocacy groups and NGOs, 3 sourced to other tertiary sources and only 1 academic source... which appears to be somewhat WP:SYNTH in context.

Now, as a major political figure at the moment, Gaetz is likely notable, but the reliable sources are all of lower quality. Literally 0% compliance to WP:BESTSOURCES since the only academic source used was synthy and as there are literally no books being used at all. So this leaves editors with a perverse set of choices: either delete Gaetz or use sources that are less than ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

BESTSOURCES is a misleadingly titled WP:UPPERCASE. Here's the entirety of its text:

"In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk."

One might expect it to say something like "Editors should use the best sources they realistically can" or even "It'd be great if you used the best possible sources, but the most important thing is to use a source that is good enough".

Instead, it only says, as a neutral observation of fact, that if you happen to use the best sources, the article will probably benefit from that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"When it comes to WP:BLPSPS, the intent all the way back from the inception of the policy was to use the fact that someone whose business is publishing is willing to put their reputation to a piece of work and bear some responsibility for it being accurate and not defamatory or outright nonsense as a small layer of accountability and safeguarding against libelling them on Wikipedia." I never took it like that, it seems to me the policy is suggesting they are just flimsier sources generally - if a source is an SPS, it is inherently less reliable for lacking the independent review process (as that is what the policy takes issue with). What gave you this other idea?

And yes, but does anyone meaningfully refer to works from organizations like GLAAD, ADL, SPLC (sorry for using these three examples over and over again they're just the only three I've ever had to deal with onwiki lol) as self published?

I do think that your interpretation is out of step with the community's. I don't care much, I just want consistency, and if we decide to declare say, GLAAD unreliable for BLP topics on these grounds, the ADL and SPLC should get the same treatment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite accurate to say all the way back from the inception of the policy was to use the fact that someone whose business is publishing is willing to put their reputation to a piece of work and bear some responsibility for it being accurate. For one, although the inception of the policy was also before my time, the chronology doesn't quite match up with that. As far as I can tell, the original iteration of SPS was added to BLP in December 2005 in a form mostly focusing on use in ABOUTSELF scenarios, and that's about 3 months before the EXPERTSPS exception was expanded on in V (though a precursor was added to RS earlier that same December) and over a year before it was decided it didn't apply to BLP content. The original addition does mention critical third party input but implied the level required to satisfy it was quite minimal. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

isnt wikipedia based on current consensus? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I was responding to the from the inception comment, Bluethricecreamman. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think from a general reading of discussions around policy around that time, I get the sense that defamation was indeed a key consideration, and that the fact checking of newspapers were considered more reliable than those of self-published company websites. A publishing process that defends against publishing libellous claims comes up time and again as a core part of Wikipedia's understanding of reliability, and as a recurring issue in the evolution of policy in this area. Strengthening BLP policy to prevent publishing defamatory claims about living people was necessary because of continual complaints that threatened the survival of Wikipedia in its infancy. However, initial discussions at the time don't really separate "self-published" from "reliability", but my reading is that only the strongest, most reputably published sources should be used for such claims, specifically because they are less likely to publish libellous falsehoods or hyperbole about living people without fact-checking it or running it past lawyers first. BLP was heavily concerned with avoiding defamation, and V and RS evolved to make clearer distinctions between self- and non-self-published sources, and which could be used for what purpose in that context. This is all just my impression of having skimmed talk page archives on V, BLP and RS to try and understand how policy evolved, which is all well before my time so I could be misunderstanding it all badly. Sourcing was very different back then, so its all a bit apples/oranges, but this just seems like common sense to me, and is exactly why I think this current move is reckless. Especially when we're explicitly talking about marginally notable people (or else there'd be better sources).

And here you can see in 2008 exactly the same dispute that has played out here, with no clear conclusion. I strongly believe this needs resolving, but that this RFC is just a fudge for a longstanding issue, and the wrong way to go about it. Void if removed (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Void, all I can see from the discussions you've linked are that the reliability that comes from having an editorial process is the primary concern. I don't disagree with my reading is that only the strongest, most reputably published sources, we should always be using the best sources available to us, but that is not the claim you made in the comment I replied to, which is that this is not about reliability. [...] it refers to a commercial structure.

The first discussion you linked does indeed mention legal liability, but aside from being the opinion of a single editor, I think it rather makes the opposite point that you're trying to (or rather, if we took that as the requisite commercial structure, I'm afraid we'd have definition of non-self-published quite a bit broader than anyone would want to propose these days). Neither of the last two discussions linked in that paragraph really have anything to do with whether BLPSPS focuses on reliability versus commercial structure, the former being something like Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, which we do consider, but only to a limited degree: Note that that essay mentions that it was rejected as a core principle of BLP — this is, as far as I am aware, accurate. I don't actually disagree that the inception of stricter standards around BLPs were focused around defamation, but if you note what is actually in my comment, that was never what I was disputing.

Personally I think marginally notable living people who have a habit of being controversial should probably just be deleted, but it's not a hill I particularly want to die on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage The precipitating incident was someone adding material from this page to a non-BLP: https://glaad.org/gap/julia-mason/

The material added was to quote the final line:

SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people.

In questioning this, I pointed out this was a SPS. It clearly is, by my reading of WP:USINGSPS, which explicitly calls charity websites self-published. This is just a website, with no named author, no recognisable publishing process, no external publisher, no external oversight, no corrections policy, and the material added is in fact plagiarised with trivial editing from the underlying citation, itself another self-published activist website.

The fact that this entire website appears to exist to collect negative claims about living people from various other low-quality sources and give them the GLAAD stamp of approval seems to me to be a fantastically dangerous thing to redefine as not-self-published, and it is pretty obvious nobody would be making this case if it was, say, the Heritage Foundation listing their "woke enemies" or some other partisan nonsense. People can argue about the different reliability and reputation of the two orgs all they like, but that is not the point - in either case, I would argue that (again, by my reading of WP:USINGSPS) they are self-published, and thus other considerations are secondary when it comes specifically to BLPs.

This then prompted a debate on RS which then relocated to Verifiability. The responses I got were to call my interpretation of SPS silly, and to insist USINGSPS is "just an essay" and "everyone" ignores it. If that's true, then the guidance needs sorting out for the benefit of editors like me who are literally just reading SPS alongside USINGSPS to the best of my ability, and certainly a fairly even split seemed to agree, while just as many insist that being able to include material from GLAAD's website in BLPs is earth-shatteringly important. Unwritten rules are absolutely no use to me.

So in the RFCBEFORE, that is what I have been arguing needs to be sorted out - if there is a conflict between SPS/USINGSPS and actual practice, make it clear and fix it. This "grey literature" carveout in a different essay solves nothing. Void if removed (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "carveout in a different essay"? the RfC clearly say it's about WP:SPS, which means, we'd amend the policy to correct its current wording (which as we've now proven is wrong even today based on practical usage of editors), other essays then just follow from that. As for your specific issue on the GLAAD Accountability project - this is why this clarification is needed as the GLAAD Accountability Project has clear reliability and according to this article from the Hill from 2021, was cited over 60,000 times. It was launched over 10 years ago and has gone through various iterations up to the current point of being the general GAP and is being regularly cited by reliable media around the world as it is reliably reporting on accounts of anti-LGBTQ actors. So very clearly, at least this section of GLAAD is definitely reliable and usable for BLP topics and thus should not be subject to the current SPS restriction, which is why this whole RFC is there, so that editors can't just say "nah, this is SPS, so can't be used, even though every reliable media outlet in the world is using it to hold BLPs accountable", which is bad WP:WIKILAWYERing. Raladic (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "carveout in a different essay"

The RFC links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#White_and_grey_literature

This is the essay the RFC purports to change, yes? It is proposing adding one of the options to that essay, not change SPS as you say. If that's not what this RFC is doing, it is even more badly worded than I thought.

And please don't argue about the reliability of GLAAD with me, this isn't the forum. And in any case:

regularly cited by reliable media

So cite that on BLPs, job done. Void if removed (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They're not going to cite every single publication they make, what they're saying is that being cited by other reliable media is a sign that it is also reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They're not going to cite every single publication they make

Then not every pronouncement they make is worthy of inclusion. If the only source saying something about a 3rd party living person is SPLC, it shouldn't be here. Void if removed (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that idea from?

The RFC has 3 links in the RFC question:

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

The actual Wikipedia article of grey literature, the policy of WP:SPS, which is being discussed to exclude certain grey literature, which then means it would not be subject to the sibling policy of WP:BLPSPS.

That is the question, period. The bottom note of identifying what is grey literature is just that, an addendum note, it's not part of the RFC question, it's just there to help explain what is grey literature in the context of science. It's an essay, but this RFC is very clear, as the question says, above if SPS applies to grey literature, we codify such things in the policy, not in some essay. Raladic (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The RFC starts:

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

It then links to the following essay, which actually defines "Grey Literature" for the purposes of Wikipedia, which neither of the previous two policy links even mention:

For use in science related articles, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) § White and grey literature.

It then offers three forms of words as potential additions. Not one of these makes sense to add anywhere to WP:SPS or WP:BLPSPS as written, but they make complete sense as an additional sentence in the linked WP:SCIRS essay. The final paragraph of the "grey literature" section of that essay reads:

Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position. If such statements are necessary to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear.

And if you were to take one of the 2 3 4 options verbatim and append them to this paragraph, they would make sense.

this RFC is very clear

It really, really isn't. At no point does it say explicitly which page this change is intended for. It even links to the previous discussions, which all centred on WP:USINGSPS, an essay not even mentioned in this RFC.

There are at least four possibilities for what the outcome could be, and only one of them makes any sense as written, and that is adding a sentence to WP:SCIRS, which is pointless. Void if removed (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Bluethricecreamman intended the specific wording of any of the options to be added to anything, but was only identifying survey options for responding to the question. I do understand why you interpreted it as you did, but I think it's a misinterpretation. I agree with Raladic that this is a question about policy, not about essays. It was clearly advertised as a P&G RfC, and essays are neither policies nor guidelines. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

also, as per WP:RFC, Do not end an RfC just because you think the wording is biased. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• This seems an odd place to have this RFC. This isn't a matter of source reliability but of policy. Surely this is better suited to WT:V or the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested I think it is somewhat a matter for this noticeboard, as it would make some hotly debated sources like the ADL and SPLC unreliable on BLP-related topics, which is a substantial portion of what they were discussed here for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  This would be the place to discuss those sources if policy does/doesn't change. The policy page or the village pump is a more appropriate place to discuss whether policy needs to be changed or clarified in a general sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  We can just put a notification at WT:V about this discussion, just as I already did at WT:BLP yesterday. Raladic (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nvm, apparently @Bluethricecreamman literally already crossposted it to WT:V and I just now crossposted the notice to the Policy Villagepump, so now all parties that subscribe to either are notified and we can continue this RfC here. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed - "allowing the inclusion of 3rd-party BLP claims via self-published material produced by the most politically partisan sources" well we've already been doing that for years so nothing would really change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

So you want to change policy to endorse bad practice, and this RfC is in the wrong venue for that. Void if removed (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's "endorsing bad practice", given that many such organizations are widely viewed as reliable in their topic areas and are widely cited in their matter of expertise. I do think it would be extremely funny if we banned the ADL, GLAAD and the SPLC from articles that contain BLP material, but that would be such a shitshow that I can't even pretend to endorse it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think material simply placed on the websites of either GLAAD or The Heritage Foundation should be used to make BLP claims about third parties, because they are self-published. I think this is a consistent position in line with my reading of policy, based on the essay giving an explanation of policy, and it's not a qualitative judgement of the sources for any other matters. I don't think it is funny. If people disagree, this RFC is neither the appropriate wording nor venue to resolve it. If people disagree because editors have been ignoring this policy or it's explanation for ages with impunity, because they think WP:USINGSPS is wrong or bad then either the essay or policy needs clarifying for the benefit of everyone else. Void if removed (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The essay has no power. Anyone can say almost anything in any essay. And I disagree with your first point very strongly, given the much more significant and widely used sources (ADL, SPLC) this would also make unusable, ruining several GAs and FAs and necessitating the removal from tens of thousands of pages because of an essay technicality. Dumb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a singly-sourced SPS BLP claim of the sort you think would need removing? Void if removed (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the specific source that you have declared an SPS. They vary widely in reliability, use by others, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You're the one saying the impact is huge. I'm asking for an example. Void if removed (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh, I misinterpreted you.

We use articles from the SPLC very often for material relating to living persons in far-right person or group articles such as, Proud Boys, Sovereign citizen movement, David Duke, Alex Jones, Richard B. Spencer, etc, off the top of my head. A lot of it are specific aspects of their careers and background that most journalists do not have the expertise or background to comment on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

So looking at those for examples, I had a quick scan of Richard Spencer and material cited to SPLC:

The Southern Poverty Law Center of the United States describes the common thread among contributors as antisemitism, rather than White nationalism or White supremacy in general.

There's a secondary source, so no issue, and in any event this is about a website, not Spencer.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Spencer has advocated for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race", and called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of what he describes as "white culture".

There's 3 citations. The Daily Beast one doesn't say anything about SPLC, so it seems to be a bad cite for the wording. The Telegraph source does though. Again, it could be limited to what the Telegraph reports SPLC said with no significant change, and improved to attribute the Daily Beast correctly.

A 2022 publication by the Southern Poverty Law Center stated "Spencer's efforts to stage events, and the alt-right movement around him, crumbled in March 2018" following violence outside a Michigan State University event where Spencer was speaking. Following this, Spencer largely ceased to be an effective leader of the movement.

This would go unless you have a better source. But then I find this claim is in the lede too, unattributed, in wikivoice:

Spencer largely ceased to be an effective leader of the alt-right movement after March 2018, following violence outside a Michigan State University event where he was speaking.

That's as far as I got at first glance, frankly I think this article has problems and placing SPLC's claims unattributed, in wikivoice, in the lede of a BLP is bad. I don't think we should have lax standards for BLPs of "baddies", and I'm not on board with trying to retroactively endorse this sort of thing with policy changes that suggest material written by SPLC employees, edited by SPLC employees, approved by SPLC employees and posted on SPLC's website is somehow not self-published just because Spencer is a nazi.

Which is really what this seems to boil down to. BLPSPS is clear, but editors really want to use SPSs about bad people, so lets fudge SPS. Void if removed (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Even apart from white nationalists I think that defining such groups as “SPS” is such a bizarre wikipedia-brained decision that no one who hasn’t spent too long here reading our rules would think. This whole thing is ludicrous, no one outside of Wikipedia would ever classify these groups as self published sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider the BLPs about notable academics. NPROFs may be very influential in their field, but get no coverage by traditional publishers (depends on the field and whether they've won an extremely notable prize, such as a Nobel). But they get coverage by universities and professional societies. By your preferred definition of SPS, the university and professional society coverage is SPS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) recently introduced an exception into the wording of BLPSPS to allow some of this material; not sure whether you would or wouldn't agree with that exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think rather than fudge what an SPS is, it is a better route is to suggest BLPSPS permits certain innocuous claims from certain SPS that are close to the subject. The point of that rule is to preserve neutrality and avoid inflammatory, contentious, gossipy or partisan claims. A university saying X won a prize is not contentious. Void if removed (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing SPS with RS. A source can be any one of the following: SPS and RS, SPS and not RS, non-SPS and RS, non-SPS and not RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion The crux of this discussion is the fact that SPS can never be used on a BLP ever. Never. No circumstances. This is the hardline rule. Even if it is a widely respected, highly cited SPS, we cannot ever use it on a BLP or to say anything about anyone living. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

They cannot be used to make claims about 3rd party BLPs, yes.

If such claims are meaningful and significant, and from notable and respected advocacy organisations, better, secondary sources will have picked them up.

If they don't, then they shouldn't be here. ABOUTSELF is still fine. Void if removed (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn't true at all. And ABOUTSELF trumps all, it's irrelevant to this conversation, we can use any source no matter how terrible SPS or otherwise for aboutself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. But you keep saying things like "many such organizations are widely viewed as reliable in their topic areas and are widely cited in their matter of expertise" and it's irrelevant here whether they're RS. What we are trying to resolve here is whether they are SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion The reason I'm saying that is to illustrate why making them unusable for BLP material site-wide is a bad idea. No other reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That standard practice doesn't match the definition in an essay means that it's a bad essay. Also the question is whether or not these are self-published sources, if they are not self-published then they are not BLP claims via self-published material. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Then the RfC should clarify the policy, or the essay. This achieves neither. Void if removed (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is close to my comment in the survey section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what this RfC is here for, to clarify the policy and add the above wording to it? Raladic (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Replying to me to point this out *after* it's been moved from RSN is kind of redundant. Void if removed (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Buster - The relevant other boards at WT:V, WT:BLP, and Policy Village Pump have been notified of this discussion here. Raladic (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Which doesn't refute my point at all. We don't hold article deletion procedures at the COI noticeboard, and add notices to the correct locations later. This is policy-related and needs to be in a centralized space like two of the three locations linked. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

i am fine if folks move the rfc to the correct page. i apologize for posting it on incorrect page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that RSN is a pretty centralized location, but we of course can move this discussion over to a different venue, or even its own subpage, given that it's already gaining size, so we might even just create a centralized subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature as is common when we spin out bigger RfC and leave notices behind at the relevant noticeboards. Raladic (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly moved the page to this centralized page now as is common for larger discussions and left the relevant move notices behind from where it came from. Raladic (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage - Yes, there's a problem with WP:SPS that needs solving. To the extent that "self-published" is defined there, it's only in a footnote: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." But it doesn't speak to how to determine whether a COI exists/whether a reviewer is sufficiently independent, and that text also seems to conflate SPS and RS. The footnote lists some examples of SPS, including "the material contained within company websites," but several people in the RFCBEFORE discussion disagreed with that, as they believe that such material is generally reviewed by a sufficiently independent reviewer. The WP:SPS text is totally silent about other kinds of entities that might be used as a source for WP content (e.g., governments, think tanks, universities, learned societies, advocacy organizations), and we may have to guess about which content they produce was independently reviewed and which wasn't. So the text for WP:SPS needs some work, though I don't think that this particular RfC makes sufficient headway with that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

For organizations that aren't traditional publishers, it can be hard to even how to know whether specific material is reviewed. And although the definition is worded in terms of "material," I see a lot of people talking about organizations instead (e.g., "is GLAAD a SPS" rather than "is this particular material published by GLAAD a SPS"); Options 1 and 1a of this RfC are also framed in terms of the organization rather than the material. I'd like WP:SPS to explicitly mention some of the content in the "Some notes from previous discussion" section, specifically the third and last 2 bullets. WP:SPS should say that if there is no reviewer, it's SPS, where we add a bit to the existing examples (e.g., add newspaper ads, despite the fact that most newspaper content undergoes sufficient review). WP:SPS should be explicit that a reviewer may not be sufficiently independent (e.g., political campaign material, marketing material). But the main question question for me is: if we keep "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content," we need to add something about how to assess whether a reviewer is sufficiently independent, recognizing that this may not always be clear, or we at least need to add examples of non-SPS material (and if the consensus is that non-SPS material is sometimes grey literature and not just material from traditional publishers, the examples should include some of the former). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@voorts - it isn't completely beyond the point, because currently WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." - this sentence is the whole crux of why this RfC came about, because the sentence does not reflect current usage on Wikipedia and is being inconsistently applied and needs amending as it outright bans ANY such literature, regardless of whether they are RS or not. Of course we also need to evaluate the content of whether it is RS and no one is arguing against it, but the problem is that currently often such discussions are summarily ignored by some editors that oppose a source as they just say "it's SPS, so you can't use it, even if it's reliable". Raladic (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is with SPS, then I think there should just be an RfC to repeal that sentence. An exception for grey literature would basically mean that that sentence is the exception, instead of the rule. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's precisely what this discussion here is trying to be about, to amend/clarify that policy rule and add the *exception that SPS is not always unusable for BLP usage, by using the exception criteria that certain grey literature if all else is good for it, can be used. Even as @FactOrOpinion pointed out above, this current policy use of SPS has been problematic and apparently was amended in the sub-page of WP:BLPSPS, so this now is basically a broader discussion for the main WP:SPS to amend the "never" sentence with the above discussed wording to carve out that actually, sometimes we can use it for BLPs. Raladic (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my point is that the exception would be so broad that there would in effect be no rule. Just start an RfC to repeal the rule, not create a massive exception so that the rule becomes meaningless. That's very confusing and unnecessary WP:SCOPECREEP. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair point and personally I'd agree that we should just stick to the RS rules we already have in place, so maybe outright removal of the problematic sentence would be fine? Though I think that there may be hesitation from some editors of outright removal of it, which is why this exception discussion came up as kind of a middle ground as you can see from the two pretty long discussions linked above in the RFCBEFORE. Raladic (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@voorts, as worded, the current RfC is not an exception for all grey literature. There's lots of grey lit it doesn't address, from personal blogs to grey lit produced by entities such as governments, museums, and corporations; and for Options 1/1b/1c, the text only says that advocacy org. grey lit may not be SPS, but doesn't specify a means for determining whether it is or isn't. That's the main reason that I have a problem with this RfC: we need a definition of SPS that applies to diverse entities and gives us better guidance about how to determine which material produced by some entity is/isn't SPS. @Raladic, this RfC doesn't suggest that "SPS is not always unusable for BLP usage"; rather, it proposes that at least some of the material published by these kinds of organizations is not SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wording and ever-increasing options aside, given all the discussion beforehand it is perplexing that this RFC isn't even targeted at either SPS or USINGSPS (the policy and essay actually in contention and discussed beforehand) but another, science-specific section of a different essay, where it will simply create further confusion. Void if removed (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, a WP:SPS is a category of generally non-WP:RS; it is defined as one of the sources that are usually not reliable, and the description lays out a specific way in which a source might fail to meet the standards of RS. There are a few limited exceptions that allow a SPS to be used in narrow cases, and of course a source that is generally reliable can still contain unreliable parts (including parts that are self-published, eg. WP:FORBESCON.) But overall it is not possible for a source to simultaneously be generally reliable and generally self-published. So the idea of regardless of whether they are RS or not doesn't make sense - outside of a few very narrow exceptions, a SPS is axiomatically not a RS. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing that confuses me that seems to be just assumed in all these discussions is how are news sources not SPSs? They publish their own material, their editorial oversight is within the same organization, they meet all the current definitions of a self-published source just as much as any of the other groups we're discussing here. Is the answer essentially "oh, they're traditional media, so they don't count, just because"? And if that's the answer, I call super BS on that one. Does anyone have a better answer? Silverseren^C 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You can check out the discussions linked above in the RFCBEFORE that actually asked exactly that question and essentially yes, that's what some editors said and arguably is a shaky ground to begin with. Raladic (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

tldr from prediscus: there is a carveout for "traditional publishers" WP:USESPS. some have argued that since USESPS is an essay and not a policy, there still remain the ambiguity. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To be more specific, because it's an essay, it's completely useless. It has no weight whatsoever in any discussion. I wouldn't exactly call that ambiguity. Silverseren^C 18:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To the extent that an essay provides useful information, then it may have a lot of weight. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is also "just" an essay, and you have cited yourself.

More pointfully, the "carveout" for traditional publishing houses comes from dictionary definitions, not from Wikipedia editors. These are the three models that we have identified as traditional publishing houses:

• The book publishers model: The authors pitch books, the publishing house rejects most of them, and then works with the author to improve and publish the one(s) the publisher choose. The authors cannot force the publisher to publish their books.
• The news organization model: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists; the editor assigns stories to the journalists; the journalists write them; the editor and publisher/publication's representatives decide whether to publish what the journalist wrote. Some stories get killed, and their authors cannot force the publisher to publish them.
• The peer-reviewed journal model: The authors submit papers. Editors send the papers for external review and uses that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors cannot force the publisher to publish their papers.

IMO the important question is whether this fourth model should be considered a traditional publisher:

• The government report model: Government agencies are prolific publishers, and some of them are required to produce reports. The authors do not have complete control over what they write, either because some contents are specified by law/regulation (e.g., always include demographic information in the annual school report), or because they have been assigned by management. Even if the report is written, its publication might be suppressed internally (e.g., the head of the agency wants to wait until after the election), or by someone in a different agency (e.g., due to the presence of classified information or to avoid embarrassing a friendly nation).

What these complaints usually come down to is one of these two:

• I want to criticize a BLP who has been discussed by reliable sources using one or more of the above models, but the sources that I agree with are small non-profit advocacy groups, commercial business websites, small group blogs, internet chat forums, etc.
• Seriously, as long as there are at least two people involved – one to write it, and any second human to post it on a website – then we really shouldn't care. Donald Trump on Twitter is self-published, but if Donald Trump writes something and tells his campaign website manager to post it, then that is "an editorial process" that magically makes his content no longer self-published.

This RFC lumps the tiny advocacy website into the same category as the US Census. I don't think it's a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar - I'm not sure the blanket addition of "However should always be presented as opinion.. quite works - that would mean say if a cite is currently citing say the CIA factbook, which I think no one really would disagree with as reliable, we'd then need to add "In the opinion of the CIA....". That's why these blanket restricting sentences have such weird consequences, and why we're even here, as the current blanket sentence of "Never ever use SPS" is also factually unusable. The determination whether a source is considered WP:BIASed is a separate question and is better answered by WP:RS, where sources are determined to be reliable on the varying degrees and some are called out that they should be attributed and we do so, but it's covered by that process, so we shouldn't interfere with it by introducing a new blanket statement that doesn't always apply. Raladic (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTION for any biased source always applies. Advocacy orgs are biased.

As per previous discussion, Issues such as whether a source is reliable, independent, due or primary are distinct from whether it's self-published and may still be brought up for any sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and that's fine for biased sources like advocacy orgs, but not every grey literature will be a biased source, which is why I'm arguing it shouldn't be tacked on to the sentence we're discussing. That's why I brought up the example of the CIA Factbook. If it's used for say the sentence "The current president of Austria is Alexander Van der Bellen.", then that's correct and would be a fine use, even though it makes a BLP statement. Which under current policy, or @Blueboar's ammendment wouldn't be allowed as it would have to say "In the opinion of the FBI, the current president of...". Raladic (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Bad example, as I am sure that we could find lots of other sources to support saying (in wikivoice) who the current president of Austria is. If some wikilawyer argued that the CIA factbook was an SPS, we could easily cite one of those other sources instead.

I have said this about other sourcing disputes, but it holds here. Sometimes it is better to “let the wookie win”. Trying to argue that “source X is fine” often takes more time, effort and aggravation than simply swapping in source Y.

And in the event that the CIA factbook (or any other single source) actually is the only source to note some factoid, I would argue that the factoid should be presented with in-text attribution (or better yet, deemed UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For topics less well covered than whole countries this proves an issue. If they're statements of opinion it should be attributed in any circumstance but with facts that aren't disputed and for which happens quite often with the CIA Factbook, there are no other options with more obscure topics, what you suggest is unworkable. It's also just foolish, this would also declare news organizations to be SPS if not us giving them an arbitrary exception (but only in the essay - as policy is written news sources technically could be interpreted as SPS) PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, first, this RFC asked specifically about advocacy groups and other similar orgs and their relationship to SPS. So my amendment would not apply to news orgs or the CIA etc… unless you want to argue that they are advocacy groups (which I don’t think would gain consensus).

Second, yes, there are times when information taken from news orgs is better presented as opinion (and thus attributed in-text) and not as fact (stated in wiki voice). This is true regardless of whether the source is deemed SPS or not.

Finally, if no one is disputing the factoid, then it does not really matter if the source supporting it is technically an SPS… if no one challenges it, we can leave it be. There is no dispute to resolve. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but I view the more pertinent question at hand to be what exactly an SPS is, as there doesn't seem to be any practical definition that doesn't rule out some manner of widely used source.

That is not true because we cannot ever use any source that is an SPS on a BLP, which is what started this whole mess. This is not a matter of contested facts (to which I would agree we be cautious on BLPS), but any fact at all. If a source is an SPS it does matter, because then you can't use it on 15% of the site! PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is intentional. If the only source to note something about a BLP subject is an SPS, then we should think long and hard about including it. This goes beyond Verifiability and Reliability… Neutrality and UNDUE will come into play. It is often more appropriate to omit, unless there is better sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this - BLPs are supposed to be conservative. If reliable, secondary coverage of a person is minimal and banal outside of the strong self-published opinions of political advocacy orgs, perhaps the article should be minimal and banal. Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If the only source to note something about a BLP subject is an SPS then (a) we cannot use it unless it's ABOUTSELF, and (b) we're still faced with the question of how we determine whether that source is self-published. if no one challenges it, we can leave it be But what if someone does challenge it, or what if an editor is trying to figure out whether a source can be used in the first place? The RFCBEFORE discussion was kicked off because people disagreed about whether a specific source was self-published. WP:SPS isn't clear enough. I don't think this RfC really addresses that more central issue. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is debate… then we have three options: 1) leave the factoid out (omit), 2) phrase the factoid as opinion and include with in-text attribution, or 3) look for another (non SPS) source to support including it in wiki voice as fact. This isn’t rocket science. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You've ignored the option that arguably makes the most sense: develop clearer text for WP:SPS, so that there are fewer disagreements about whether a given source is or isn't WP:SPS, and so not-that-experienced editors like me have better guidance in the first place. Option 2 is a non-option: attributing a fact to a source does not turn it into an opinion, and BLPSPS also doesn't give opinions an exemption. Option 3 is iffy; even when a fact is verifiable, reliable, and due, it might only be found in a source that is arguably self-published, such as a newsletter from a professional society. This situation is what led Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) to introduce some exceptions into the text of BLPSPS in response to a question I asked at the Teahouse. But there was no PAG discussion of modifying BLPSPS in that way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, when in doubt, leave it out. If there is only one single source supporting a factoid, I don’t really care if that one source is technically a SPS or not. I would have serious concerns about including the factoid anyway… on UNDUE/trivia grounds.

As is, we have multiple policies all saying “yeah, better not… especially in BLPs”. These policies all support each other. No need to muddy the waters with “what ifs”. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "what if." In the case that I mentioned, there were several sources supporting the fact that this NRPOF had gotten notable national and international awards, but all of the independent ones were SPS (e.g., professional society and university grey lit). And the policies only support each other if people are clear on what they mean. For example, in the RFCBEFORE discussion, you said "I don’t think company websites are the issue here. ... material about people who are directly connected to the company would be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF." But BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," and BLPSELFPUB limits ABOUTSELF to "living persons who publish material about themselves," both of which suggest that a company making a statement about an employee is excluded from an article about the employee. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not every topic has 80 sources about them - you only need three or so to be notable, after all. This gets to be a bigger problem when you are discussing more obscure topics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What do news outlets have that many of these groups don’t? The content is written by an employee of the organization, making them an SPS. So should we not use news sources on BLPs? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, I think this question has been asked and answered several times, but let me try again.

A newspaper has a publication process that separates the person/role who writes the source ("journalist") from the person/role who decides whether to publish the source ("publisher"). Additionally – and this is the important part – we know that the second person/role actually does refuse to publish some of what's written.

Compare the traditional publishing processes:

• Authors submit their books to Sage Publishing. The publisher rejects most of them and makes suggestions about how to improve the rest of them.
• Researchers submit their research papers to Elsevier's journals. The journals reject a lot of them and make suggestions about how to improve the ones they are considering publishing.
• Journalists pitch their story ideas and submit their news articles to the editor and/or publisher of The Guardian. They reject a lot of the ideas and some of the articles, and they make recommendations about how to improve the ones they accept.

However, compare the self-published :

• Authors send their books to a vanity press. The printer takes anyone who can pay, and they don't care if the result is garbage.
• Researchers submit their research papers to a predatory publisher. These journals take anyone who can pay, and they don't care if the result is garbage.
• A self-declared citizen journalist directly posts his news article to an unmoderated website. The website takes anyone who can pay, and they don't care if the result is garbage.

Do you understand the difference now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are more logical usages, but the definition we are using is “the publisher employs the writer”, which does count newspapers. And some “advocacy groups” or government organizations or whatnot do perfectly fine outside review. So is it about the relation of the publisher to the writer or is it about the review process? The former is what we are using, but the latter while not perfect makes some sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we aren't using that definition. The definitions we are actually using are:

• "publish (a book etc.) oneself rather than through a publishing house" – The Canadian Oxford Dictionary
• "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher" – Cambridge Dictionary
• "To publish a work independently, without the assistance of a publishing company." – wikt:self-publish

Note that employment status is not mentioned in any of these definitions. All of these definitions require two separate facts:

1. author = publisher, and
2. publisher ≠ traditional/ordinary publishing house

Looking at the review process is how you determine whether the publisher is a publishing house. A review process of "Ah, another lovely book by Me, Myself, and I, so I'll post it to Amazon Kindle tomorrow" is not a traditional publishing house. A review process of "Hey, you know how ____ has been trendy recently? A new author sent me a sample chapter and an outline this morning, and I think we should consider making an offer" is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

“You need two pieces of information:

Who is the author or creator of the work?

Who is the publisher of the work?

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published.” This applies to both newspapers and most advocacy groups. The writer, by being an employee of he group, is part of it and it is therefore self published. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a whole/part confusion. A publisher and an employee of a publisher are not the same. Bon courage (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with that! But people have been arguing that it does in fact count, hence this whole discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree with that, because coca-cola.com is both written and published by the company through its employees.

I think the main thing is that editors do not agree that an ordinary newspaper is both author and publisher. I think editors would say the journalist is the author and the newspaper is the publisher.

To add a dimension to this, and a question I brought up years ago and has come up again, how does this work out in a situation where a journalistic publication's publisher writes articles for the publication? As hypothetical examples, if Exclaim!"s publisher Ian Danzig or The New York Times's publisher A. G. Sulzberger write pieces for their respective publications, are those SPS?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

For the non-news websites that we've been talking about, I think that editors would say that an advocacy group is both author and publisher of the contents of its website. This will be especially true for unsigned content, but it will often be true for signed content (e.g., blog posts) as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In re If the only source to note something about a BLP subject is an SPS: I think the bigger problem is "What if there are many sources to note something about a BLP subject, but all of them are SPS?" It is not unusual for certain subjects (e.g., hot-button political issues) to have multiple "independent" self-published sources saying the same thing.

If I've got a dozen bloggers and a dozen tiny advocacy shops saying that the newly appointed Under-secretary of _____ is a known hater on my identity and is therefore patently unqualified to hold that post, then "everyone" (in my filter bubble) is saying this, so why can't I cite all these sources that I personally trust and "rely on"? The Trump campaign is announcing his appointment picks. This is not theoretical. Yes, much of it will be sourceable to mainstream media, but other criticisms won't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman, Options 1 and 1b say "if the org employs a sufficient review process." Would you elaborate on how you would assess whether the org employed a sufficient review process for specific content? (For example, are you just assuming that if the organization is GREL, then it has a sufficient review process except for content like user comments?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If it has a similar review process as "traditional publishers" in WP:USESPS, though that can remain up to debate after RFC. I argue the phrasing "sufficient review process" is enough for an RFC anyways, to keep the RFC terse and to the point.

Policy/essay regularly uses short phrasing like this without going into a full legalistic/deterministic definition to avoid instruction scope on wikipedia. If I go through some other policies on Wikipedia, the wording remains up to debate by folks who wanna debate for the heck of it

• WP:SOURCEDEF - Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Wait, what is a "reliable publication process"?
• WP:QS - Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process. Same question, what is quality control in the peer-review process? What exactly is a good peer-review process, how many peers?
• WP:MEDBOOK - In addition, most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources. what is exactly independent fact-checking/peer-review in this context?

If we are looking for an RFC to end all debates about SPS on wikipedia, you won't find one. And if you think this RFC can't end any debate, the answer to the question should be self-evident to all. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I'd disagree with enshrining a specific assessment process. It's going to heavily depend on the source. Making it clear self-publication should be assessed on editorial review instead of ownership of the physical printing presses is a good addition because it focuses discussions on what matters. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Every corporate social media account has "editorial review". Without some definition of what this means, how you establish what it is, and some minimum bar for acceptability, it is a meaningless standard. Void if removed (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman, in RFCBEFORE, you'd framed your proposal as adding wording to WP:USINGSPS. Your reference to "Author=Publisher" in your survey response suggests that you still have USINGSPS in mind, but the RfC has been interpreted in other ways by other editors. For example, Raladic said the RfC clearly say it's about WP:SPS, which means, we'd amend the policy to correct its current wording, and Void if removed said The RFC links to: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#White_and_grey_literature This is the essay the RFC purports to change, yes? Would you (Bluethricecreamman) please clarify what text you’re proposing be updated in response to this RfC? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The framing of RFCBEFORE is not relevant, what matters is what the actual RfC discussion now is about. I don't know how VIR focused on a footnote link on explanation of what grey literature is and ignored the actual policies linked that the question of the RfC is asking about changing. See my reply to him, but re-iterating here for convenience:

The wording of the RfC is what matters as that is what people are discussing, which is very clear in that it discusses ammending WP:SPS to carve out exception for certain grey literature and as a result excluding it from the "never" rule of its sibling WP:BLPSPS, the question of the RFC clearly links to the 2 policies we are discussing of ammending: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?.

We codify things in the policy pages and this RfC is tagged a a policy discussion. We don't codify policy amendments in essays, as those are not enforceable. The essays just get adjusted following the amendments of the policy, so as to reflect the correct explanation of the policies in more details. An explanatory essay's purpose is to explain the codified policy it's referencing, it can't explain something that isn't codified. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the RFC:

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

For use in science related articles, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) § White and grey literature.

Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE

Please highlight the very clear wording which discusses amending WP:SPS.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, 1c wins: "Such literature is not always WP:SPS.". Please indicate where in WP:SPS this text should go, and if it is to go in WP:SPS why it is linking back to itself.

I don't think any of that is at all clear, or makes any sense whatsoever. By contrast, lets see the effect on the linked section of WP:SCIRS, which is emphasised and italicised in the middle of the RFC, making it read (to me) like it is the target:

Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position. If such statements are necessary to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear. Such literature is not always WP:SPS.

To me, that looks like a very simple addition, the proposed wording makes complete sense in context.

I simply don't see how you're claiming this RFC is "clearly" worded to amend SPS. It looks far more "clearly" written to amend WP:SCIRS. If that's not the intent, it is confusing indeed. Void if removed (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The nature of that footnote is that it is an indented italic footnote, as is common in footnote typography.

You'll notice how footnotes are often times indented and italicized in texts to note that they are just there to help the actual text above.

We even do this on Wikipedia with the indented italicized WP:HATNOTEs, which are a form of footnote. I really don't know where you're getting at that the actual question above the footnote the actual content of the RM with the options in response to the question. Raladic (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm actually kinda giving up on editing any policy/essay with the result of this. I'm happy to wait for result of this RFC in 30 days, but I'm assuming most likely result is either no consensus, or some version of "Option 1", but with caveats/it depends. I would like an RFC to point to though for folks if this comes up, so that folks know there is no current cut and dry answer.
• I mostly did the "author=publisher" framing because of the immense amount of arguing about if SPS is literally just the dictionary definition (I think Void and WAID are on this side) or if Wikipedia has an idea of SPS that is dependent on context.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• One final thought on this… not all advocacy groups are the same. The appropriateness of mentioning what a specific advocacy group says about a BLP subject depends on DUE/UNDUE more than SPS.

In order to establish the DUE aspect of what a particular advocacy group says, we need to show that reliable sources that are independent of that advocacy group are noting that they have said it. And if independent sources are noting this… we can cite them instead of the advocacy group. At which point, the SPS status of the group becomes irrelevant… as we have other sources to cite. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that may be some version of option 2. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Markbassett, the RfC isn't beside the point. While you're correct that each source still needs to be evaluated for reliability, etc., if a source is SPS, it cannot be used for BLP statements (unless it falls under ABOUTSELF), even if it's otherwise considered reliable, independent, due, etc. That's why the question highlights "subject to WP:BLPSPS." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I obviously disagreed, saying for the RFC "Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?", that "whether or not a publication in the grey literature is SPS, each source still needs to be evaluated like any other source to determine whether and how it ought to be used."

Whether BLPSPS applies depends only on the specific source bit for the intended article content, solely on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Whether it was grey from government or charity or whether the source is judged SPS or not simply does not make the decision nor make a step to be skipped, this is an unnecessary extra digression that is beside the point of just going directly to -- and only to -- the specifics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether BLPSPS applies depends on whether the source is or isn't self-published. If the source is judged SPS, then one simply cannot use it for a BLP claim, as BLPSPS applies. In that sense, the question of whether a source is or isn't self-published might indeed make the decision. If the source is not self-published, then BLPSPS doesn't apply, but the source still has to be evaluated in other ways (e.g., is it a reliable source for the specific claim?). I don't understand how it's a digression to get clearer on the community's consensus about whether publications from these kinds of organizations are always SPS or not always SPS (where the decision then depends on details). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Kyohyi, would you say a bit about how one might demonstrate that the organization has an editorially independent review process, and that it is reasonable to believe the content went through that review? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, first would be to try to determine if it has some sort of review process period. If they publish their organizational structure you can probably find that out. Then you can look at the content that they publish. Do they only publish pieces in line with a mission/organization? If so, they are not likely editorially independent of the mission/organization. If they publish pieces that are critical of the mission/organization then they are likely editorially independent. Pieces that are neutral to the mission/organization are lesser evidence that a source has some editorial independence. Basically we are trying to find evidence that truth/factuality is the driving factor of the review process, and not ads/funding/prestige/advocacy or any other potential interest. The second part is that organizations could have an independent review process, such as universities and university presses, but do we really believe that a research groups pages on the university site is actually going through the university press for review? We should have positive evidence indicating that the independent review process is what is controlling the publishing button. Like being on the publishing groups portion of a university website, as opposed to just on the research groups portion. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that efforts like "Do they only publish pieces in line with a mission/organization?" is a good question. Another good one is "Do they publish anything written by people who aren't in the organization?" (For example, an Op-ed, which is an opinion piece countering the views of the newspaper's editorial board.)

Separately, I wonder how much we are assuming a large organization that is engaged in communication. I don't think that's a relevant assumption in many cases.

Years ago, in a pre-Facebook world, I was involved in a couple of local non-profits. The sizes ranged from about five to 50 people (staff+volunteers). The publication process usually looked like this: If someone wanted something on the website, you told the one person who knew how to edit the website what to post, and he posted it. This is probably the usual approach for non-profits. Mermaids (charity) says it has 18 employees. ACT UP appears to have zero. Tourette Association of America has 34. National Council on Severe Autism has zero. These are all advocacy groups I have seen editors want to cite, or could easily image editors wanting to cite, and none of them are big enough to support an elaborate publication process.

I know size isn't everything; there are many legitimate book publishers in this size range. In fact, a small press usually has only a couple of employees (some have no full-time staff), and a midlist publisher frequently has no more than 10.[5] But for the most part, I think we can safely assume that advocacy groups don't meet this standard until proven otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Noticed this a while ago and thought someone else would mention this but since no one has, I don't think Guettarda's claim above about the FBI SPS is accurate from my experience at WP:BLP/N. I'm fairly sure we would treat it the same as we do for stuff like court transcripts including court jugdments where we recently had an RfC where there wasn't even consensus to use them for simple things like reporting case outcomes not reported in reliable secondary sources.

Note there is an important distinction here which I wonder if has been missed. IMO we would not mention the identity of a shooter if our only source is a FBI press release or whatever. However if reliable secondary sources mention that "according to the FBI, the shooter is ABC", then it would generally be fine to mention even if these reliable secondary sources are just relaying what the FBI have said. This is one reason while I do not believe we would do so, I'm not aware of any cases where this has come up. For something simple like that there is almost definitely a number of reliable secondary sources who have reported on the FBI identification. In fact while I can't remember for sure, I think there might have been cases on BLPN where we removed material because our only source was some FBI press release although it was more complicated than the identity of a shooter.

To be clear, if some reliable secondary source has published what the other party has said, regardless of where it came from and even if they attribute it solely to this other party, that reliable secondary source publication isn't consider self-published. The source has decided this information is something worth publishing and reporting about this person so one of our key concerns is allayed. IMO we also assume they have used their judgment on the information at least in whether to trust the source enough to relay that they said this without further clarification. While some media more or less republish press releases, they are the sort of media we avoid. Interviews are a complicated exception since while the reliable secondary source has decided to publish the interview, the assumption is generally that there's a far lower standard of checking on anything said but this is getting fairly outside the RfC.

AFAICT in the above and earlier discussions, most people do appreciate this difference when it comes to the sources being discussed. The issue isn't when the SPLC/GLAAD/ADL/Bridge Initiative/etc publish something about person D and reliable secondary sources report according to the SPLC/GLAAD/ADL/Bridge Initiative/etc, person D is..... I mean we still have to consider issues like WP:DUE weight etc so there might not be automatic inclusion, but SPS isn't the problem then. The issue is when no one has reported that the SPLC/GLAAD/ADL/Bridge Initiative/etc reported such a thing but instead our sole source is to these organisations.

Crime statistics etc are IMO a litte distinct. It seems clear that the primary issue of concern here is BLPSPS which disallows self-published things except when solely about the person self-publishing. In the case of crime statistics, whether you want to consider it self-published but one of those cases where we can use such information since it comes from an expert or not self-published or whatever is IMO fairly moot. Note that in the particular case of where person E says there's too much crime since person F took over, it was perfect under me, using crime statistics to rebut this person is a problem regardless of reliability due to WP:Syn.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen them used plenty of times against how you describe it, though I've never used it myself. I'm quite surprised by you saying that actually. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Unclear precisely what you're referring to but there's a lot of stuff which IMO doesn't comply with BLP that goes on. Generally it's dealt with successfully when it comes to BLPN. This isn't unique to SPS, for example birthdates is another area where have a lot of problems. If you were specifically referring to cases where our only source for the identity of a shooter is directly from the FBI (e.g. their website or press release) and there are no secondary sources which mentioned what the FBI has said, can you give specific examples? For further clarity, I think it only matters if this continued to be the case days later. WP:Recentism and the rush to be first means I'm sure a lot of people add a name the moment it's uttered in a press conference. I don't think this is ideal but it's also IMO not actually that much of a problem since in reality 99.9% or more of those times within hours we have many reliable secondary sources relaying the FBI claim. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Whatever specific example I had in my head at the time, I have since forgotten. I think I was thinking about general FBI statements on terror groups, terrorist participants, the like, particularly internationally or Top 10 most wanted. Things like that, you see them used often in some more obscure pages. I was not referring to either identities or birthdates, or more breaking-news type things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that there is anything on the top 10 that isn't covered in RS although it may be true our articles fail to use them. Statements on terror groups I can imagine but unless these are very small groups of in articles on specific individuals probably not BLP issues. Statements on partipants do sound like problems but your description makes me think these are the typical problems we have with BLP compliance in obscure poorly watched articles. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, but I think defining government publications as a “self published source” is still extremely bizarre and arbitrary, and clearly not what we meant to do when the policy was written. No one off of Wikipedia would ever say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If they are SPS though, we shouldn't be using them on crime statistics, or at all in any case relating to crime, because that involves BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about If they are SPS though, we shouldn't be using them on crime statistics ... because that involves BLPs. I've interpreted the BLP restrictions as applying to identifiable living people (including people not named, such as "so-and-so's spouse" or "the board of directors of XYZ organization"), but not to mass groups of people (e.g., not to a claim about "immigrants in country A"). There are all sorts of sources that might be self-published (depending on what definition we settle on) and that make claims about mass groups. I've assumed that it's OK to cite SPS discussing those, as long as they're expert sources writing in their field of expertise, and I'd think that FBI crime statistics falls in that category. Have I misunderstood who WP:BLP applies to? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but it's a bit more complicated than that because of the variety of claims that could be made. For example:

• BLP has an interest in "Eve Esdropper is on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" because it's an identifiable person (easy solution: find a non-SPS source that repeats this claim).
• BLP has no interest in statistics such as "24,009 cases of jaywalking were reported last year" because there's no identifiable person (just figure out if it's RS).
• BLPSPS does have a problem with "Chris Candidate claimed that Paul Politician's policies caused crime rates to rise" (solution: find a non-SPS source that repeats Chris's claim, and use WP:INTEXT attribution appropriately).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Perhaps I misinterpreted "them" in "If they are SPS though, we shouldn't be using them on crime statistics." I was thinking that "them" referred to perhaps-SPS like FBI publications with crime stats, whereas PARAKANYAA may have been referring to your third case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just want to follow up. I realised later I didn't properly distinguish SPS vs WP:PRIMARY in my comment. The bigger problem we have with court transcripts etc is WP:BLPPRIMARY, we don't really comment or care whether it's an SPS since it's forbidden either way. However despite my mistake, I feel it doesn't significantly affect the thrust of my argument which is that we do not accept such sources in BLPs.

Also didn't read this until now but I interpret PARAKANYAA's comment the same way and likewise agree it's wrong. While crime statistics may largely relate to living persons, it's not a BLP issue to simply comment on crime statistics generally as per WP:BLPGROUP. It's not just crime statistics where this comes up either. A more common case might be criticism of a medium sized company. This is generally not a BLP issue unless it specifically relates to an identified person e.g. the CEO. This is despite the fact that the CEO arguably always to some extent responsible for anything that goes wrong with the company.

About WhatamIdoing examples I largely agree with them. I sort of dealt with this at the end of my original comment but to add to their last example, I'd say even if it's only one living person it's still an issue. So for example if person A says "crime rates are so high nowadays or the homicide rate is now X%" or anything where they aren't really commenting on a specific person we still shouldn't rebut this based on either SPS or primary sources. Instead we should be finding reliable secondary sources which have commented on the issue.

Note, this doesn't mean person A gets to say whatever nonsense they want and we repeat it without challenge if no secondary source has chosen to comment on it, as seems to be a common criticism of this approach. We shouldn't be repeating this nonsense in the first place unless it's been repeated in reliable secondary sources. But if several reliable secondary sources have said person A said whatever nonsense, but none of them challenged it, well it's IMO WP:RGW for us to try and correct this based on primary sources or SPS.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm responding to your 03:08, 18 November comment here, so as not to interrupt the Survey section further. In this comment, I listed the dictionary definitions that I'd found. If you have others, I invite you to add them. As I noted then, the focus is on whether the author pays for the work's publication and/or whether the author uses an established publishing company; those intersect, but they're definitely not the same (e.g., material written by an employee is not self-published according to the first, but is often self-published according to the second). Many of the definitions seem focused on written material, especially books, whereas WP needs a definition that addresses much more diverse material.

My opinion is that both definitions have problems. Characterizing self-published in terms of the author having to pay for publication would result in things like tweets, hearing transcripts, and WP edits not being self-published, which I expect most editors would disagree with, as there's zero barrier to the speaker/author saying what they want. Characterizing self-published in terms of not using an established publishing company would result in publications from diverse organizations (e.g., the Brookings Institution, the U.N., the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the federal government) being self-published, even when they have equivalent editorial processes to an established publishing company, and I again expect most editors would disagree with that; it would also lead to things like like NYT advertising rate sheets (which you've said that you consider self-published) not being self-published.

I don't know that there's a good definition. The current definition is "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content", and that seems to capture the consensus, but in many cases, we're forced to guess about whether there are independent reviewers / what it means to not have a conflict of interest. For ex., do reviewers for marketing and campaign materials necessarily have a conflict of interest because they essentially serve as a conduit for the owner's goals, and so, how do we bound the situations where a reviewer is not serving as a conduit for the owner's goals? ("Owner" doesn't even capture the situation well, but I'm not sure what word would be better.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactOrOpinion (talk • contribs)

First, I don't think that WP:V has a definition. Saying something "is characterized by" is not the same as saying what it "is".

Second, I agree that definitions that focus on books and payment are not responsive to our needs. Ergo, I lean towards the others, which focus on the lack of using a traditional/established publishing house.

Finally, I don't think that we've established that the sorts of organizations you name are 100% excluded from the concept of an established publishing house. But let's stipulate that they are. The next question is: So what if they are? How often do you cite these organizations for information about a BLP who is not part of that organization? We cite the Brookings Institution to say that they favor free markets – not to say something about an individual person. We cite the UN to say that they are in favor peace and harmony – not to say something about an individual person. We cite the NCTM to say that they support effective math classes – not to say something about an individual person. We cite the US federal government to say how many people lived in a given place on April 1, 2020 – not to say something about an individual person. So why would it matter if we called them all self-published sources? Self-published does not mean bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need sufficient guidance to be able to assess whether most sources are or aren't SPS. Agreed that even if they are SPS, they can be used as expert SPS for non-BLP content. But they are sometimes used for BLP content. For example, NCTM is cited for claims about someone being an editor of one of their journals, serving on their board, winning their Lifetime Achievement Award, developing curricular materials for them, etc., and similarly for other organizations, and sometimes the biographical info sourced to those organizations covers things that the person did elsewhere (e.g., a museum might give a bio about an artist whose work is on exhibit, an institution might give a bio about their new director, a university might give a bio about a guest speaker). Now, you've said that you believe this falls under ABOUTSELF. But BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (emphasis in the original), and BLPSELPUB says "There are living persons who publish material about themselves..." Both of those suggest to me that your interpretation of ABOUTSELF is too expansive, as these things weren't published by the subject of the BLP claim. Maybe this means that we need a clearer exception to the BLPSPS rule (along the lines of the text that Andy Mabbett introduced about employers and awards), where it gets broad consensus. Or maybe it's not an issue, depending on the consensus around what is/isn't a SPS in the first place. If publications by an organization like GLAAD are determined to be SPS, their statements about people unassociated with them certainly wouldn't fall under a BLPSPS exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Things like "being an editor of one of their journals, serving on their board, winning their Lifetime Achievement Award, developing curricular materials for them" is exactly the case of "employers and awards": They are employed as an editor of a journal and writing materials for them. They won their award.

I wonder what you are looking for with "getting broad consensus". Have you actually seen editors in serious disputes prevailing with an argument like "We can't use the website for NGO, Inc. to say who's on its Board, because that's self-published, and this webpage in which the org literally talks about itself doesn't qualify for ABOUTSELF"? I haven't. We already have a broad consensus for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment "We cite the NCTM to say that they support effective math classes – not to say something about an individual person," and I lost track of the preceding "a BLP who is not part of that organization," sorry. (FWIW, editors of NCTM's research journal generally aren't employed by NCTM. They're generally employed by research universities, and this falls under professional service. I still think it's fine to source the info to NCTM; they know who edits their journal.)

I don't know that most editors consider these sources to be SPS in the first place. A number of people have said that they aren't, and if they don't consider them SPS, they wouldn't dispute sourcing BLP content to them (as long as they're reliable, etc). Editors definitely do cite these kinds of organizations for information that goes beyond what I see as ABOUTSELF/the-BLPSPS-exception (e.g., a foundation gives an artist a grant, includes her bio on their webpage about the grant, and an editor adds some of the other info in the bio to the artist's WP article, citing the foundation's webpage), which again suggests that people don't see them as SPS. As for consensus, when I told SMcCandlish about the addition to BLPSPS (because he and others had been talking about merging WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF), he said "Given the level of nit-picking over every single word in that policy material, I'm skeptical that Pigsonthewing's undiscussed addition would survive consensus scrutiny. It seems overly specific, like someting that would be in a list of examples in a guideline or essay, and is not policy wording." I'm a much less experienced editor than either of you, and I'm just trying to keep in mind what I'm hearing from different experienced editors. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the SPS provision was written with blogs and Lulu.com books in mind and then as we started facing increasingly complicated sources to evaluate it got more and more detached from what we originally intended it to do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That. It's about blogs and self-published books, not orga with internal review processes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The original version focused on "Blogs, personal websites, or self-published books". (Also, it permitted even these sources to be used in "rare exceptions".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The following isn't specifically about "grey literature" and advocacy groups, but I think it is implicated by some of the discussions here and depending on what is decided it could be dramatically affected by the decision as well: Where do publications, and more specifically, per the examples here and what's prompting my question here, arts and entertainment publications that aren't published by a separate company but are owned by a particular individual or individuals, fall? Things like Alternative Press (prior to 2020), MetalSucks, Metal Injection (prior to 2022), Consequence (prior to 2016), HM, or Stylus Magazine have long been considered reliable, but some interpretations of WP:SPS and WP:V here seem to exclude them. Generally, the rationale has been, per WP:MOSALBUM, Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc.. And that's been the approach taken by discussions at WikiProject Albums and discussions at RS/N. But, MOSALBUM is an essay, and WP:V does not make such an explanation. The "traditional publishing" suggests that these would automatically fail as independent, non-self-published sources, yet they've been accepted as reliable, sometimes for over a decade. Thousands of articles use these. Whereas, something very, very obscure, like Untombed Magazine, would technically count as RS because it owned by a separate company. The approach for the past decade has been to evaluate based on the quoted text in tandem with WP:USEBYOTHERS. But has this all been misguided?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, after this RfC concludes, I'm considering creating an RfC for WP:V about the definition of SPS. Seems to me that there are at least 3 different views on what it means for something to be self-published:

• View 1: self-published material only refers to things like personal websites, social media posts, wikis, podcasts, reader comments on news sites, vanity press books, and music released without a label, where there is no barrier to an author publishing whatever they want.
• View 2: self-published includes the above and also material published by larger organizations (e.g., advocacy groups, governments, museums, think tanks, companies) if either of the following apply: (a) the organization does not have a sufficient review process (and people differ on whether that's presumed based on the quality of their publications or if it has to be demonstrated more explicitly), (b) when the material is ABOUTSELF (on the assumption that there is too great a COI). An organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material (e.g., the Congressional Research Service reports aren't SPS, but congressional hearing transcripts are SPS).
• View 3: unless the material is published by a traditional publisher (e.g., a newspaper, a standard book publisher, a peer-reviewed journal, a record label), the material is self-published, and even then, a small amount of material from traditional publishers (e.g., unreviewed ads, reader comments, advertising rate sheets) are self-published.

But I'll have to review the discussions here and in RFCBEFORE to see if I'm right that there are 3 main views and that I'm accurately capturing them. I have no experience with the publications you mention, so I'm not sure if they'd shift how I'd word the above, or if they'd necessitate a 4th view. I've never created an RfC and am not that experienced an editor, so I'm a little antsy about doing this, but I think there are dramatically different views of what SPS means, and it would be good for the community to achieve some consensus. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think right now, on the question I posed, some editors believe that so long as there is a distinct publisher with staff under them, and an editorial system in place, the sources generally would fall under No. 3, with some room to make judgment calls. Whereas others would argue that they would be excluded by No. 3. I think part of the tension here is that WP:V seems to lean into option 3, WP:SPS seems more to be option one, at least as written, and then either way you argue it, the types of sources I mentioned are in this weird middle area. I did also elsewhere raised the question of what happens if the publisher or site runner writes something for the publication. And in that case it's considered an SPS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@3family6, I am confused by "The "traditional publishing" suggests that these would automatically fail as independent, non-self-published sources".

First of all, Wikipedia:Independent sources is a red herring, as whether a source is independent has nothing to do with whether the source is self-published.

Second, since one of the "traditional publishing" models is:

• Professional journalist writes something for The Daily Whatever.
• The Daily Whatever's editors decide whether to publish it.

then why would sources that use the model of

• written by professional journalists
• publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial...staff

"fail"? That sounds like an exact match for the traditional publishing model to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's how I've understood it for over ten years, WhatamIdoing, but some editors, and some of the WP:V wording (if only by omission) seem to lean more to "author writes for entity, which is published by third entity", even if it is just NYT being published by the NYT company. While that more narrow construction might generally be good for finding the best sources, and for ascribing reliability, it's not always practicable. Maybe this just needs explicit clarification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)