Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Recent dispute: Questionable sources section

EEng changed the text:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

to

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for statements about themselves, for example in an article about such a source; see below. They are not suitable sources for anything else.

Bbb23 reverted to the text as edited by Flyer22, and there has been some subsequent back and forth.

Can we please come to agreement here rather than in edit summaries while the policy page goes back and forth? DES ^(talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

views on the substantive issue

• This does at least slightly change the meaning. I, for one, prefer "especially in articles about themselves" to "for example in an article about such a source" as this is the main place where use of such sources is proper. As to whether it can be said that such sources are not suitable for "anything else" or only not for "contentious claims about others", I would like to know what sort of non-contentious statements about something other than themselves and their views such sources might properly be cited for? DES ^(talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DESiegel (DES), I was just about to state the following, before you beat me to posting: As seen here, here and here, EEng and Bbb23 are in disagreement about content that EEng recently added. I agree with Bbb23 that EEng did change the meaning. The text "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." is obviously different than the text "They are unsuitable as sources for anything else." And neither text is consistent with the WP:SELFPUBLISH section, since questionable sources may be used in cases where the topic is not specifically about the source. For example, they may be used for exclusive interviews (for instance, a site that interviewed a celebrity). If we classify that as "about self" because the interview is coming specifically from that source, then disregard my "they may be used for exclusive interviews" statement. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad my bold edit has stimulated discussion, since there's clearly a gap between should only be used as sources of material on themselves and not suitable sources for contentious claims about others, as DES has observed; I leave it to wiser heads than mine to find the ultimate resolution on that. The heavy hand on the revert button was unwarranted, I have to say. EEng (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per what I stated above, the "should only be used as sources of material on themselves" part should be changed to include "usually" so that it reads as "should usually only be used as sources of material on themselves." Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember, form and procedure is more important that substance

@EEng: I can't believe you had the temerity to go back in yet another time and change the language. You boldly change a policy. You incorrectly call the changes copy edits. You are reverted. That's when you stop and go to the Talk page. That would be true even in an ordinary article but even more true with respect to policy, and, forgive me, even more true when an administrator reverts you. I have trouble discussing the merits of the changes when an editor is this disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Disruptive"? Oh, please. Get your finger off the revert button and make an effort to evaluate a good-faith edit on its merits, even if you have to take time from your busy, busy admin's day to do so. And if you don't have the time to do that, leave the review to others who do. Like it says at the top of this very page, "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." As should have been instantly obvious on seeing my edits (sorry if my second ES was inaccurate -- my fault there) there's a built-in contradiction between those two adjacent provisions, and I was making a stab at resolving it. And what happened to that wise old rule that the default revert summary should only be used for vandalism? EEng (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) I didn't think anyone used the word "dagnabbit". :-) I didn't undo your changes because of vandalism. Although it uses the word "reverted", it included an edit summary, unlike a vandalism revert. It's just the way I undo two or more consecutive edits instead of a single edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) My apologies. I was so pissed off by your "forgive me" comment that my brain went haywire on the ES issue. But I still mean it about the rest -- slow down, please. Dagnabbit. EEng (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) EEng, I somewhat disagree with Bbb23 on the "even more true when an administrator reverts you" part, at least as far as articles go. That is, unless it's a policy matter (for example, a WP:BLP issue). Our administrators have also been wrong at times when it comes to how they interpret policy. But I do agree with him on how you went about this. You clearly weren't being intentionally disruptive; in my opinion, you were acting in good faith. But, as noted, this a policy page; it's not a good idea to edit war over long-standing material at a policy page. It's usually not good to edit war at all. And I state "usually" because I've seen necessary edit wars, such as tag team cases that were needed (I don't mean the problematic tag teams that the disputed WP:Tag team essay currently focuses on). And I state "usually" because the WP:Edit war policy has exemptions; your reverts on this case clearly don't fall under one of those exemptions. That stated, your edits on this matter have, as you've noted, highlighted a contradiction that should be remedied. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) It wasn't an edit war. And if we peons are supposed to show special deference to admins' edits, then admins need to start putting "Better watch it, I'm an admin" in their signatures, and Wikimedia needs to put their edit summaries in red or something. I'm certainly not going to go around checking user rights every time someone reverts a change (with several separable bits) with a superficial dismissive edit summary. EEng (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) We disagree on the edit war aspect then. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is a policy page, not an article. Even so, an admin should not carry any greater weight than any experienced, respected editor. But as per WP:BRD, when one has been reverted after a bold edit, one stops to discuss, rather than re-reverting. Granted that BRD is an essay and not a guideline or policy, it is a widely-applied essay. On a policy page in particular, I think one should be especially careful not to edit war, nor to do anything remotely like edit warring. Indeed I for one don't favor bold edits to policy pages, but rather making and refining proposals and obtaining consensus on the relevant talk page before changing the policy page. I think a number of other editors hold this view. But now that the edit has been made, and reverted, and re-reverted and disputed, can we actually discuss the substance of the suggested change, rather than who did or said what in making or reverting it, please? DES (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) I was just going to say the same thing. EEng (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Now then... Given that, in all the confusion, this edit [1] has survived for 12 hours, can we now agree to add on Flyer's suggestion, so that are now at --

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should usually be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

--? EEng (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't include the "Exclusive interview" exception urged above. Should it? If a subject chooses to give an interview to a questionable source, and there is no serious suggestion that the interview was simply invented by the source, then it is the subject's words, wherever they are published. I haven't seen this exception on any of the relevant policy or guideline pages, but perhaps it makes sense. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, but are we OK on the "usually" language so far? As to interviews...

But are they the subject's words? Interviews are always edited to at least some extent (removing "er... um... wait, let me back up... um", selecting/omitting Q/A pairs, etc.) and I'm not sure that the same qualities that make us doubt a source's judgment for straight facts shouldn't also make us doubt their reliability in presenting the interviewee's responses in an undistorted light. Certainly the National Enquirer routinely says, "In an exclusive interview, Celebrity X said '[totally made up bullshit]'. When asked [outrageous question], he added, '[absurd alleged answer]'.". I wonder if the "usually" language isn't enough to allow the possibility of interviews, without inadvertently making a blanket exception for them. EEng (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For what I mean by exclusive interviews from questionable sources, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. It addresses reliability, trustworthiness, reputation, and so on. I wasn't suggesting that we mention anything in the policy about exclusive interviews; I was simply giving an example of where a questionable source may used for something that is not specifically about itself. I agree that the "usually" wording is enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I suggest you go ahead and make the "usually" change. Either that, or I will. There is no valid excuse for having the aforementioned inconsistency on the policy page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I changed the heading of this section by adding ": Questionable sources" on to it, so that is clearer what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Continuing

Done. But there's something else. How about changing

They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

to read

They are normally unsuitable as sources for other kinds of material, and should never be used to support contentious statements about others.

This emphasizes the general unsuitability (while still leaving the smallest bit of wiggle room, per "usually") while drawing a bright line at contentious statements about others (though I've never really understood what contentious really means, but that's another story...).

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The "never be used to support contentious statements about others" suggestion can conflict with the aforementioned exclusive interviews aspect. It might even conflict with an expert weighing in on something that others might view as a contentious statement about someone. As for what is contentious, the fact that there are different interpretations is seen at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Defining the term Contentious and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material. All are recent discussions. The final two are very big discussions, especially the last one. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So we accept a questionable source's report of what a "reliable source" (i.e. expert being quoted, or person speaking about himself in an interview) says? I guess that's the question. EEng (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT - An interview with an expert can certainly qualify as a non-RS "questionable" source... when there is reason to doubt whether the source is accurately reporting what the expert actually said. For example: A questionable source might cherry pick statements by the expert - omitting qualifying statements - so it appears as if the expert supports a particular POV... one that that the expert may not actually support. In this case it isn't the expert who is questionable, it's the publication. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you're repeating what I already said above: "Interviews are always edited to at least some extent (removing "er... um... wait, let me back up... um", selecting/omitting Q/A pairs, etc.) and I'm not sure that the same qualities that make us doubt a source's judgment for straight facts shouldn't also make us doubt their reliability in presenting the interviewee's responses in an undistorted light." You've reverted the addition of usually, thus restoring the logical inconsistency discussed above. What do you propose? EEng (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any logical inconsistency... and I have a problem with adding the "usually" qualifier. I don't think we should allow an interview published by a questionable (ie unreliable) source... even when the person being interviewed is an expert... because it is highly likely that a questionable source will edit the interview, and cherry pick the expert's statements in an effort to make it sound as if the expert agrees with the source's POV. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, there is indeed a contradiction. There is this sentence: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below."

As noted above, that sentence is at odds with the WP:SELFPUBLISH subsection. Self-published sources are clearly questionable sources (often enough anyway). The WP:SELFPUBLISH section does not state or indicate that "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves." In fact, it clearly allows leeway, as opposed to the "should only" wording you reverted to. And as I pointed out above with a link to a WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion, exclusive interviews by questionable sources are sometimes allowed. Since they are sometimes allowed, it is not true that "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves," unless we are stating that the exclusive interviews classify as "about self" because the interview is coming specifically from that source. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

EEng, going back to my statement that your "never be used to support contentious statements about others" suggestion "might even conflict with an expert weighing in on something that others might view as a contentious statement about someone," well, the WP:SELFPUBLISH section does state "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." So your suggestion is close to what is already stated on the policy page, though the "What is contentious?" debate still exists. Flyer22 talk) 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer... can you give us some specific examples of exclusive interviews by questionable sources that were allowed?

I have to wonder if perhaps you are assuming that all Self-published sources are automatically questionable?... or that all questionable source are self-published? Neither is accurate. While most self-published sources can be considered questionable, not all are. Also, questionable-ness often depends on context (for example, an expert's self-published blog is not "questionable" when he/she is writing on the topic of his/her expertise... even though it might be questionable when discussing other things.) Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate that I pointed to two recent examples above; these examples are now seen at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?. In what way would you not consider the Daily Mail a questionable source, given its reputation and that so many experienced Wikipedians reject it as a source because of that reputation? The other example is comicbookmovie.com; it's what editors call a self-published source, and yet editors were clear, in that noticeboard discussion, that it may be used for exclusive interviews. Like I also noted above, that discussion addresses reliability, trustworthiness, reputation, and so on. Comicbookmovie.com's reputation is good, but it is no doubt considered a questionable source by experienced Wikipedians simply due to the fact that they'd place it in the self-published category. From my experience editing Wikipedia since 2007, experienced Wikipedians always consider a self-published source a questionable source. And why wouldn't they when the definition for questionable sources at the policy page states that "[q]uestionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."? Comicbookmovie.com has no demonstrable editorial oversight, despite its good reputation. So as for you wondering "if perhaps [I am] assuming that all Self-published sources are automatically questionable?", I already stated above in response to you, "Self-published sources are clearly questionable sources (often enough anyway)." Notice my qualification of "often enough anyway." I am well aware that not all questionable sources are self-published. I am not a WP:Newbie, or someone who otherwise lacks experience with the topic of sourcing reliably. The Daily Mail, for example, is not self-published; that, however, doesn't make it any less of a questionable source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: SELFPUB always being QUESTIONABLE... Not quite... for example, we have the "expert exemption" to WP:SELFPUB... an expert's self-published blog would not be considered questionable when the expert is writing on a subject within his/her field of expertise. It would be unreliable, and might be questionable when he/she is writing on other subjects.

As for the Daily Mail... I don't think the Daily Mail (or any other major news outlet) qualifies as a QUESTIONABLE source... at least not in it's entirety. Yes... I would label it's celebrity gossip stories with the word "questionable"... and sure, there are lots of news outlets that are more reliable (and thus would be given a lot more weight if what they say conflicts with what the DM says) ... but... The DM (and every major news outlet) falls on the "reliable" side of the line for most of its content. There is a fair amount of legitimate journalism within its pages.

As for Comicbookmovie.com, I gather it is user generated. That would define it as being an unreliable source... but it would not necessarily make it a QUESTIONABLE source. Questionable sources are a sub-set of unreliable sources... and there are plenty of unreliable sources that do not qualify as "questionable". Based on its reputation, I would place it in that category (i would do the same for IMDB). Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I was not stating that self-published sources are certainly always questionable; that is why I included the qualifier of "often enough anyway," no matter that it is in parentheses. I did, however, state that "experienced Wikipedians always consider a self-published source a questionable source." I've seen it for years, and I still see it. To my knowledge, you are the first experienced Wikipedian I've come across to not consider a self-published source a questionable source (I mean, you're the first I've seen to clearly relay that). So your view of distinguishing the two is not what I would call a widely held view at this site. And your view on the Daily Mail is certainly debatable, as indicated by the aforementioned discussion regarding it, where "questionable" is indeed a factor in that discussion. The Daily Mail being so shunned by experienced Wikipedians, as seen in this search of archives at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and in this search of archives at the WP:BLP noticeboard, is why I avoid using that source at this site. Then again, because of the aforementioned interpretations of what is "contentious" (and debates I've seen at the WP:Edit warring talk page about what is or is not a WP:3RR violation, and other interpretations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines), such different views are not surprising to me. I see a contradiction without "usually" being where EEng placed it; EEng obviously sees the contradiction. You don't. I see no where left to go in this discussion, so I'm done discussing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am hardly the only editor to think that major news outlets are generally reliable. We have discussed the reliability of news orgs many many times on RSN... and specifically discussed the Daily Mail multiple times... Just to give a few examples, read: here, and here and here. You will see that our experienced editors take a more nuanced approach to the issue of reliability than you are presenting.

As for the issue of applying the term "questionable" to news orgs: I was one of the editors who helped draft the SELFPUB section... and what I can tell you is that major news outlets (even the tabloids) were not what we had in mind when we used that term. We were thinking more along the lines of fringe authors and hate group websites. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't state that you are "the only editor to think that major news outlets are generally reliable." I stated "your view on the Daily Mail is certainly debatable," and pointed to searches of archives showing it. I am out there editing and WP:Patrolling Wikipedia articles daily, in addition to seeing this site's various talk page and noticeboard discussions, and so I know that your argument that "our experienced editors take a more nuanced approach to the issue of reliability than [I am] presenting" is generally not true when it comes to the Daily Mail. Many times a year I see editors yanking the Daily Mail out of articles simply because it's the Daily Mail. Our experienced editors taking "a more nuanced approach viewpoint" when it comes to the Daily Mail is the minority viewpoint, as the vast majority of the aforementioned archives I pointed to above, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Time to axe the Daily Mail, show. Our experienced editors generally consider the Daily Mail a terrible source, not just for WP:BLPs but for almost anything; in some cases, they consider it a terrible source for everything. And some of them have tried to get the site banned or blacklisted (not the spam type of blacklisted noted at WP:Blacklisted); the aforementioned archives, including the "Time to axe the Daily Mail" discussion, show that. They call the source unreliable, questionable, rubbish, "the Daily Fail," etc. Pointing to a few discussions of "a more nuanced approach" doesn't change that. The main reason our experienced editors call the Daily Mail unreliable, questionable, rubbish, "the Daily Fail," etc. is because of its reputation for fact-checking and tendency to fabricate entire stories. And what does our definition at this policy page for questionable sources state? I repeat: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." The Daily Mail's trustworthiness is shot to hell. So our experienced editors are not wrong to call the Daily Mail a questionable source, even if it's being used to source a video game or an inclusive interview.

Whatever you or the others intended for the WP:SELFPUBLISH section as far it's message goes does not stop different interpretations of the section and sections under it; this is why I noted above that it's common for editors to interpret our policies and guidelines in different ways. When they do, it is also common to tweak those policies and guidelines so that there is less room for interpretation. I understand that you think adding "usually" will increase interpretation of the policy, and not in a good way. And so we are at an impasse. I already stated that I don't see this discussion going anywhere, and sure enough it isn't; right now it is a debate about the reliability of the Daily Mail. As I've stated, I disagree with you about the "usually" addition. And since it's just you and me debating the matter, and this discussion is essentially stagnant, I see no need to continue this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, it's a shame discussion has broken down, though without more participation (than the three of us) it's obviously not going to end with a change to the text, which as it stands –

Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

 – certainly contains a logical puzzle, since it says "Q is used only for T; Q is not used for C", where T and C are not complements of each other, leading to uncertainty about whatever's outside both of them. If this were part of MOS we could always take refuge in MOS' standard "occasional exceptions apply" disclaimer, but this is a policy page, with no such disclaimer. I might point out that questionable isn't the same as completely unusable, and room for rare exceptions should probably be provided. EEng (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability and Wikidata

The text of this policy does not mention Wikidata at all, so my question is this. Assuming:

1. A piece of information exists in Wikidata, and...
2. ...is appropriately referenced in Wikidata, and...
3. ...is retrieved from Wikidata into a Wikipedia article using e.g. the #property parser function...

...is it necessary (or even desirable?) to provide a reference for that statement in the article itself? In other words: does WP:V extend to Wikidata in a sense that Wikidata references count towards verifiability? GregorB (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it should be treated as information obtained from any other Wikipedia Foundation site; there must be a reference in the article. This is particularly true since Wikidata often obtains its information from Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect the reference was imported from Wikipedia too without being read, in many cases.

I would go further; it is wrong to import a piece of data from Wikidata, which has a reference in that database, unless the person importing the data reads the reference and confirms it truly exists and supports the claim.

An additional point: Wikidata currently is broken with respect to dates before AD 1, and insists that all dates are in the time zone 0 (no offset from Universal Time, such as Britain in winter). Thus all birth dates and death dates for events not located close to 0° longitude are wrong. I would say no dates should be imported from Wikidata until these flaws are fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Jc3s5h here (except I have no knowledge on whether or not dates before year 1 are handled correctly nor about time zone offsets). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote "appropriately referenced", I meant "referenced in a way compatible with WP:V", i.e. using reliable, non-circular sources.

In order for Wikidata to be truly useful for Wikipedia, properties must be used en masse, chiefly in an automated fashion, which would obviously preclude manual checking of each claim.

Suppose dates get fixed one day on Wikidata, and suppose e.g. {{Infobox person}} is enhanced so as to fetch the date of birth/death from Wikidata, using properties P569/P570. Take Michael Jackson for example: currently, 175 Wikipedia editions have his bio, each giving his DOB and (ideally) providing a ref. (I'm assuming here for the sake of the argument that all these articles have infoboxes, which of course is not true.) Also, when he died, 175 wikis had to provide the date of his death, again providing a ref. This is highly wasteful and redundant, which is one of the main reasons we have Wikidata in the first place. However, a strict interpretation of WP:V (sourcing within the article only) would completely preclude this scenario of Wikidata integration - unless, perhaps, referencing is completely decoupled from data (i.e. "fetch DOB/DOD from Wikidata, but reference them locally"), which would probably be even worse than what we have now. What is the way to go regarding Wikidata then and can WP:V be made compatible with it? GregorB (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)