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. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcut: WT:V

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 10 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

Self published photos

It appears that there is some confusion about the self-published source section. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation. - the argument is that you can't use self published photos of article subjects. The disputed image is Monckton of brenchley.jpg. Personally, I never thought that the policy had anything to do with self-published photos of people, but what do others think? If this is fine, then perhaps we should consider a small tweak to the section to clarify this point. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLPSPS and user-generated images of living persons. I've modified WP:BLPSPS slightly to note the current long-standing practice of encouraging user-generated photos. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem with self-taken and published photos is: how do we know that they are what they purport to be? Even professional photographs are subject to distortion and misrepresentation such as the famous case of The Falling Soldier or the recent case of The Leaping Wolf. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I don't know when the following was added. I only noticed it because Jc3s5h mentioned it above. I find it problematic:

Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

This makes the issue very subjective. The paragraph above it sets out much more clearly what's required of an SPS, and I don't think we should do anything to weaken it:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

My preference is to leave that in place, and not add anything to dilute it, because we really shouldn't be encouraging the use of self-published sources. 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It was added here as an import from RS, of all places. 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's position goes against the concept that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a source is cited without comment, or favorably mention by numerous reliable sources, there is a good chance the author has written something published by a reliable independent publisher. That does not mean, however, that the typical Wikipedia editor can find it without help from a research librarian at a university library. So if we can't find an independently published work by the guy, we can't use the work that all these other good sources is just fine? --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit WP based on reliable sources. We don't allow people to use questionable sources, because we'd end up with a questionable encyclopedia. If reliable sources cite an SPS, it does not confer reliability on the SPS. We have very specific rules for when we may use SPS, which SV quoted above, and I see no reason to dilute these rules and reduce the quality of our sources. Crum375 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. When a substantial number of sources cite an SPS, that DOES mean it is a reliable source, and there is no justification for excluding it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When a substantial number of sources cite an SPS, it may be notable, but not necessarily reliable. We have no reliable and objective way of judging reliability via citation by others. Therefore, we rely on the clear criteria which make up the current policy. Crum375 (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is rather strange to claim that if a person publishes an article in a reliable publication, that makes his self-published works in the same field reliable sources, and yet claim that citation of the specific work in question by scholars does not make the work reliable. The only difference I see between publication in a peer-reviewed journal and citation after publication is the point in time when the approval of other scholars is given. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, Jc. The policy says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That covers what you're saying, does it not, or have I misunderstood? 05:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that the expert's expertise may be established because lots of other experts cite his self-published work, even if he never published with a reliable publisher (or maybe he did, but I can't find it). This assumes, of course, that the citations are favorable either because the other sources say nice things about the work, or implicitly trust it by building upon it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not being able to find a publication would be unlikely, given Amazon, Google Books, and access to public library databases. It would be an odd situation where lots of experts were citing this person's self-published work, but no publisher had seen to publish it. I know there are issues like that in popular culture, but by and large they ignore this policy anyway, because they use self-published websites and blogs as sources that normally wouldn't be allowed. But outside pop culture, can you give an example of the kind of scenario you envisage? 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if lots of published experts are citing his self-published work, we can use them as sources instead. 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As an example, Duncombe wrote a chapter on computational techniques in Seidelmann's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (1992, University Science Books). He or she gives as a reference a self-published book by P. Herget, Computation of Orbits (1948). A Google search shows that there are lots of citation to this book. I haven't read it, but if I did, I might like it (all those experts did). I might want to use it in an article. But I have not found any works by Hegert that were published by a reliable publisher.

Another situation that comes up is that some standards organization publishes a standard that is around 10 pages long, and charges $100 for it. Some kind person puts a nice summary of it on his or her web page, and the web page is cited by many experts. If I want to write something about the standard in a Wikipedia article, it would be really nice if I could not only avoid shelling out $100 myself, but help our readers save money as well. --Jc3s5h (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see two references for P. Herget in Seidelmann. One is a paper in the Journal of Astronomy, the other looks like a PhD thesis or similar (see p. 379). So he was a published expert. I take your point that this is just an example, but I don't think I've seen a real example on WP where a genuine expert has self-published work in his field of expertise, but nothing published in that field by a third party. The point of using work produced by publishers is that they have a process of fact-checking and legal checks, and that's not something we should relinquish lightly.

Regarding your second example, the website would just be a courtesy link. The standard would be your source. 06:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A courtesy link is a link to an online copy of a work; a summary is a different matter. Also, the standard would only be my source if I could read it online for free at the nearby college library, or get it through interlibrary loan. I wouldn't pay for the standard unless I was on an expense account. If we use your system, we would just have to avoid covering the standard until an editor with access to it came along. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If the website summary is used by other published experts, we use them as the source. If it isn't, we can't use it. There would be no way of knowing whether it was an accurate summary, and this is the point of the policy. There's no guarantee that if a journalist writes about it, it's an accurate summary either, but at least you know it has gone through an editorial process that is intended to ensure it's accurate, even if the process often fails. But with a self-published source, there is no process. 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I permanently disagree with your position. If it ever comes up, I will ignore all rules and you will have to take me to arbitration to stop me. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give one real example of a self-published expert source who is being used in violation of this policy (I promise not to turn up and remove it)? It's important to know that we're dealing with a real issue here, and not a misunderstanding. The only examples you've offered so far were (a) where the SPS was indeed a published expert, and (b) where we could have used as sources the experts who were citing the SPS. The reason I ask for an example is that I've never seen a genuine case that this policy couldn't cope with -- not counting some bizarre pop-culture articles e.g. about people who believe they're animals, where the only sources are discussion groups about how they're not really human but are really rabbits and kangaroos. But for all serious articles, the policy is usually able to cope, so I'd be interested to see a real example where it can't. 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on here. The addition of the above-mentioned text on Self-Published Sources is contradicted by practice in many areas - and quite rightly so. Following the mantra "some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found" would lead to absurdity. For example, if there's an article, or set of articles, about a TV programme, then it's quite reasonable for much of the content to be sourced by the relevant broadcaster (eg CBS, NBC, FOX, BBC, ITV) even though there will not be substantial independent evidence of their reliability in many of those cases. Articles about new media, particularly on internet culture, are likely to be sourced (and need to be sourced) extensively from websites - many of which are likely to be self-published. If I tried deleting all such references, and demanding all self-published sources be deleted, I'd soon be accused of vandalism.

All the new(ish) text is doing is putting up a false barrier. The requirement is for a reliable source - that is, a source that can reasonably be regarded as reliable for the information being provided. Just because a source is self-published does not, of itself, say anything about its reliability. It may, quite reasonably, be a cause for taking care - particularly if it is in a subject matter where normally you'd expect peer reviews and quality checks (as would be the case for a science topic) - but in those cases the reason a source may not be acceptable isn't because it is self-published, but more because it cannot be shown to be reliable.

The other point, of course, is that this text says nothing on the verifiability policy - it just repeats what is on the WP:RS guideline page. There's no need to make this policy page longer by keeping it. Hibbertson (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My revert

Hibberston, I reverted your edit in part because self-published sources are not a subsection of questionable sources. The former are often reliable sources published by experts, not questionable at all. 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hibberston, just because a source is self-published does indeed, of itself, say something about its reliability. Specifically, it says that the material has not had any third party editorial oversight, and thus the material is inherently less reliable. That's why it's a very bad idea to try to water-down this longstanding part of the WP:V policy. Jayjg 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Jayjg's intent, I object to the term "third-party". A contract usually exists between the publisher and the author, so the author and publisher would be the first and second party; independent reviewers and those who cite the work would be third parties. Since we consider a work reliable if the publisher is considered reliable, we do not require third-party evaluation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Second-party too. :-) Jayjg 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And obviously Hibberston's change re BLP [1] would have been a major change to this and the BLP policy. 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg's comment appears largely geared towards more scientific and academic subjects, where evidence of quality review or peer review is important in establishing reliability (amongst other things). But WP deals with all subjects - in particular, I've noted new media, internet culture, TV programming - in many cases of which self-published sources are going to be the best sources for some information. The lack of editorial oversight is not necessarily a problem here - in fact, it can be beneficial in some circumstances as an individual's view will not get altered by editorial changes made by someone else. The fact that someone has paid me to write a column on their internet page, rather than me writing the same text on my own internet page, says nothing about reliability. It is wrong to say that the presence of editorial oversight (which might be no more than proofreading a text) makes something more reliable. There are plenty of quack theories on astrology, say, that have third party publishers that have provided editorial oversight.

It is not disputed that where a source is self-published that it is sensible to ask the question "is this reliable?" more deliberately, and inquisitively, than one would ask it if it were published in, say, a peer reviewed journal. But that is all. If the lack of oversight is a problem, that is why it is unreliable, not because it is self-published.

Incidentally, no-one's commented on the point that this is more an exposition of what a reliable source may be that has derived from WP:RS - there's no need to duplicate text or concepts on lots of different pages. Hibbertson (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

These are major changes, and the BLP change would not fly here or at BLP. No matter what people may have added to RS, this is the policy, so the material has to be here. 06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Hibberston, your last edit summary suggests you may have misunderstood something. Nothing was recently added. Something was recently removed because an editor had imported it here from RS without discussion. 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hibberston, my comments are geared towards all subjects, and editorial oversight is required for all of them. A newspaper has editorial oversight too, even if not a scientific or academic source. Jayjg 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with self-published sources, provided the policy is assembled properly. I am thinking of things like zines. Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read and re-read Slimvirgin's and Jayjg's comments carefully. I think in terms of conclusion they are astonishing. Slimvirgin suggests that the guidance on self-published sources is not a sub-section of "questionable sources". I must say, if a self-published source is not questionable, then I really cannot see what problem anyone should have if it is used. I see no difference here if the unimpeachable self-published source is used to source something on a living person. Jayjg suggests that editorial oversight is important. Maybe it is (but surely it depends on the nature of editorial oversight). However, whether something is a self-published source or not is not directly relevant to this. A self-published source can employ an editor - and certainly much self-published material is very well researched and sourced itself. Similarly, a third-party published source may have undergone very limited editorial oversight - perhaps just copyediting and a read through by a libel lawyer - or perhaps not even that. Any which way, it would be best not to confuse the question as to whether a potential source has had adequate editorial (or other) oversight, with the question as to whether it is self-published.

I remain of the view that whilst a source being self-published may indicate that special care should be taken to ensure it is reliable, the answer as to whether a source is permissible should be determined by reference to its reliability, not by reference to whether it has been self-published or not. Hibbertson (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WT:Editing policy

I have started an RFC at WP:Editing policy that could use your input and comments. I think the dispute will have an impact on how WP:Burden (and other policy statements that allow for the removal of problematic material) is percieved and enforced. (see: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#RFC should this policy include both WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE) Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing allowed

I have revised the policy to refer to WP:Citing sources#Inline citations rather than [[WP:Citing sources#Footnote system because only referring to the later falsely implies that using Parenthetical referencing does not provide the verification required by this policy. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suicides

The list of suicides is mostly unsourced, and I started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) This is a highly important discussion about a potentially contentious/controversial article topic, and I request all who read this message to participate. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability"

Questions for article:

This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

IHS Europe: Infrared Heating Systems for Home and Business.