Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Other people

    [edit]

    User:Bob K31416, about this: "Other people" means not counting the editor who put that material in the article in the first place. (I don't object to its removal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NEWSBLOG

    [edit]

    Should this section cover Liveblogging? Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume that it does, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't they two different things? Blog hosted by newsorg, Liveblog by same newsorg
    where the first is what I assume is meant by newsblog and the second is live reporting of news, two different things, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both cases, it's still bona fide journalists posting things on their newspaper's website without going through the full editorial process. Live blogging presumably has more of an element of Breaking news, so it's not identical, but it's still the same kind of thing as far as we're concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will set about adding that, because we are all the time adding NYT, WAPO, NBC, BBC, etc, liveblogging as if they were normal RS. If that's not the case, needs to be flagged up so there is a point of reference specifically.
    Btw, its not bona fide journalists in the first case, that's anyone at all, which might include one or two bona fide journalists but the hosting newsorg explicitly disowns them as their POV. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me?
    I don't think we need to say anything specifically about this in this policy. Generally, I recommend avoiding adding something like this to the policy unless we have experienced at least two disputes over this question that were significant, independent of each other, and actually difficult for the community to resolve. That would mean something that goes beyond "Gee, I wish someone else replaced these weak primary sources with better ones" and into disputes that usually end in no consensus, or need long discussions with many editors to reach a consensus. Have you seen any such disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I have seen one and given Horse Eye's Back comment below, that's two. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me? Did you not look at the link I gave, click on "Apply for a blog". Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, including this convo, it's three. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed that the non-liveblog has an "Apply for a blog" link. I do not understand why the non-liveblog page is supposed to tell us anything about what happens on the liveblog page. Every single name on the liveblog page is the newspaper's own staff.
    • Nothing on this page is a content dispute. So you've seen one dispute. Would you please post a link to it?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single name on the liveblog page is the newspaper's own staff. That's what I am saying, yet you keep saying that hosted = live? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I keep saying that when a blog of any kind is (a) on the newspaper's website and (b) written by the newspaper's own journalists, then it is already covered by NEWSBLOG, and we do not need to add any WP:CREEPY text to NEWSBLOG to say "BTW, this also includes liveblogs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    K, I don't agree with your interpretation here. You are making the equation live news reporting by qualified journalists = a blog. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a fair or accurate representation of what I have written. There are multiple types of live news reporting by qualified journalists. There is the old 'CNN model' of "it's news because I can stand in front of it with a portable television camera rolling", which is live news but not a blog. There is traditional breaking news, in which television shows get interrupted for an announcement. There is also the traditional Newspaper extra, which is as close to live news reporting as paper-based publication allows. But when a webpage actually says 'liveblog' on it, and the contents of the page are the sorts of content one would expect after reading a dictionary definition of liveblogging, or from reading our article Liveblogging, then yes, you're right, I do happen to call that a liveblog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "liveblog" is just a buzzword, some say blog others don't (like the BBC example below). But they are the same regardless. Live reporting of news, "breaking" for all practical purposes, so subject to WP:RECENT. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that one should not exclude news blogs solely because the marketing department picked a different buzzword, just like one should not classify a source like Science-Based Medicine, or press releases from corporations, as being a blog merely because the IT departments chose to use a type of blogging software for the publishing process. But in the case of Times of Israel, both the facts and the label align, and it appears to be obvious to everyone that their professional liveblog falls under NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe another example will clarify, do you assert that https://www.bbc.com/live is a blog? Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assert that it is covered by NEWSBLOG. It is a type of "online column" which "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and Wikipedia editors should "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    K, so what is your objection to writing that up so it is clear? Because that is certainly not clear to me at the moment and I think it would not be clear to a lot of people. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection is:
    You have not demonstrated that there is an actual, significant need for a clarification.
    AFAICT all the editors in this discussion agree that the Times of Israel's liveblog contents are covered by NEWSBLOG. You have shown zero evidence that anyone in the world disagrees with the three of us.
    Therefore I ask, again: Please give us links to discussions in which editors say things like "No way, dude, everybody knows a liveblog is totally not covered by NEWSBLOG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why is Al-Jazeera green? (and there other discussions leading up to this one). Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have linked to a discussion that says Al-Jazeera's liveblog should be treated under NEWSBLOG. Where is the discussion in which editors can't decide whether a newspaper's liveblog counts as a NEWSBLOG? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid going around in circles, I have added a clarification to WP:NEWSBLOG. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted it. Your clarification contained a factual error. Also, it's redundant to WP:RSAGE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted, I clicked on column which is what you referred to above and copied the sentence from there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly in WP:PRIMARY does it say that breaking news is a type of column? Because that's what you wrote: "breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources (columns)". That means that that breaking news are written by columnists. This not true, and it is not in PRIMARY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It says For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. I added columns in paren because columns is actually easter egged to primary so that needed to be clarified as well. Maybe word it differently, I'm easy about that as long as the "breaking news" thing is in there because I can assure you that many are treating it (live, liveblog, breaking) as RS regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you wrote is a factual error. Regardless what you intended, what you actually wrote is that breaking news is a column. This is false, and you need to remove this factual error from the policy.
    Consensus is really important in policy editing, and re-reverting your own additions in, over direct opposition, is a bad idea. The usual standard for major policies is no edit warring at all: if your change gets reverted, you should not revert back within minutes.
    In terms of consensus, here's where we stand:
    • We do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence from the other policy and into this policy. You have not even attempted to explain why this particular sentence needs to be in multiple policies. Is there something defective about the other policy, so if you quote it in a discussion, people tell you that it's not a True™ policy and so doesn't matter?
    • We additionally do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence into this particular section. The accurate parts of this sentence apply to far more than just NEWSBLOG, so why should it be minimized and relegated to this sub-section?
    I suggest that you self-revert immediately, at least until you have one other editor explicitly agreeing that this duplication should be an exception to the policy that policies should not be redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we agree it's just the two of us, I will go with WP:3PO Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing There have been confusion around this and it seems to have contributed to an arbitration case dispute found in the link below. Personally I think a news liveblog is different from what Wikipedia defined in the NEWSBLOG section. Maybe need to clarify that a news liveblog is not the same thing, or if it is a similar concept that should be under the NEWSBLOG section. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Peleio Aquiles Wafflefrites (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really, @Wafflefrites? I see comments from three different editors there:
    • @Selfstudier (the editor who started this discussion) asserting that live blogs on news websites aren't WP:NEWSBLOGS.
    • XDanielx pointing out that WP:ALJAZEERA at WP:RSP explicitly names the Al-Jazeera liveblog as falling under NEWSBLOG. (RSP says "Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs".)
    • Red-tailed hawk, in the admin section, saying it's okay that someone "tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance", which indicates that liveblogs fall under NEWSBLOG.
    Nobody here, or anywhere else, has suggested that liveblogs from news sites are exempt from the rule in NEWSBLOG that editors can only "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
    BTW, I looked through all 13 of the discussions about Al-Jazeera linked in RSP, including the one in which you asked whether their live blog falls under NEWSBLOG, and were told that it does. I did not notice a single comment suggesting that it's exempt from NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing I actually agree with Selfstudier that blog columns hosted by news sources are not the same as liveblogs, which is rolling text. Maybe “rolling text” should be added for clarification? Wafflefrites (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t seem controversial to me to add a few additional words for clarification: “Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns or rolling text they call blogs.”
    Columns are not the same as rolling text. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all blog posts in an ordinary news blog are technically columns, either, but we seem to be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing What about ““Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs.”? Wafflefrites (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original problem was basically that this policy says "Hey, WP:BLOGS are bad, so don't cite them", and then an editor says, "Okay, so these things written by actual bona fide journalists and published by an actual bona fide newspaper that they call a blog are bad sources?" And they're not bad sources, so we tried to say "Well, okay, personal blogs are still bad, but things 'they call blogs' aren't True™ blogs within the meaning of this policy. They're, um, we'll call them WP:NEWSBLOGS. News blogs are okay."
    Our potential sources include "pages, columns and rolling text" that are called blogs, and "pages, columns and rolling text" that are not called blogs, and so long as they're written by a journalist and published by a newspaper, we don't really care either what it is (e.g., a column or not) or what they call it (e.g., a blog or not): it's not a banned source. We do want editors to treat them like primary sources, but we don't want editors to get hung up on the specific language. This is trying to communicate a general principle, which needs to be generalized. This is not trying to provide an exact or exhaustive list of all the things that the media's various marketing teams have attempted in their ongoing effort to get people to read the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I got it, a personal blog is an unreliable source that should not be used, but a news organization’s publishing of “blogs” published by its employees or contractors is more a situation where a better source might be needed. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly, plus it's also a situation in which you need to consider WP:DUE (is this an opinion or point of view? If so, is it worth including in this particular article?) and WP:BALASP (just because a journalist posted something – even if it's strictly factual – about the color of the politician's clothes doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to say what color clothes they were wearing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't they are distinct things, a live blog is equivilent to a twitter feed not a news blog. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tagged the sentence I find lacks clarity and gave the reasons for that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, @Selfstudier, your reasons are:
    • you don't like the word columns (as in Columnists) linking to WP:PRIMARY, which has a footnote naming "columns" as a type of primary source, and
    • you are concerned that not all sources are labeled with the exact word blog.
    Are these your actual and only questions, or are there others? I'm asking because I have noticed that they don't actually have any overlap with your original question, which does not mention columns at all and is entirely about something that actually is labeled as a blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know the old saw, never assume. Anyhow, no time for this sort of pettifogging, so bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:EXCEPTIONAL

    [edit]

    Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, however, these sources need not themselves be exceptional (extraordinarily reliable, accurate, respected, authoritative, and so on). Therefore, I believe it is misleading to write that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The reader may be mislead into believing that the standards for reliability and verifiability are higher for such sources. ComeAndHear (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing would probably be more accurate, but there are also higher standards for the individual sources when it comes to exceptional claims. That's what "high-quality" refers to in the first sentence and the subsequent bullets clarify that e.g. primary and self-published sources, whilst acceptable elsewhere, are not sufficient for exceptional claims. That's an issue of quality, not number, – Joe (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a change to "sourcing". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a restatement of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but modified to fit Wikipedia reliance on sources. I'd support the change to 'sourcing' as it makes it clearer what is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made this change. I doubt that anyone will object, but if someone reverts it, we can discuss it further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. We just need multiple good, well-known, sources, not borderline or sketchy ones that barely squeeze by as RS for ordinary claims. Many ordinary claims are so uncontroversial we only need one RS. This is a different animal, so we need several (3 or more(?)) to confirm the claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the number needed is going to depend on the subject and the nature of the claim in question. One unimpeachable source is better than three ordinary ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:VNOT

    [edit]

    Under what circumstances does WP:VNOT permit us to exclude information from articles? The context to this is that some editors have been arguing that VNOT can override WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, enabling us to exclude views and aspects that are significant as assessed by their prominence in reliable sources.

    My interpretation is that all VNOT does is say that verifiability alone is not reason to include information; reasons based in other policies also need to be provided, and if those reasons are provided then VNOT cannot be used as a rebuttal to those reasons.

    I interpret it this way because WP:VNOT says Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and WP:CONSENSUS says consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Together these would appear to mean that including or excluding information isn't based on editor opinion, but based on whether other policies support its inclusion or exclusion.

    In addition, I believe that interpreting it otherwise would legitimize WP:POVPUSHING; it would empower editors to exclude views and aspects that they disagree with, even when those views and aspects are significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I interpret VNOT as primarily an admonition against indiscriminate collection of information. Our mission is to write precise summaries of topics, which can mean a few thousand words to cover a subject that entire shelves of libraries are devoted to. VNOT is not intended as an excuse to violate policies like NPOV, but it can be taken as advice that endlessly adding more and more may not be the best way to achieve balance. Finally, taking "editor opinion" out of "consensus building" is wishful thinking since "policy based" arguments can be written for or against all but the most clearcut positions. Zerotalk 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since some editors appears to be primarily directed at myself as it relates to an ongoing RFC at the NPOV noticeboard, I would add that VNOT is not something that just gets trotted out by itself, it will usually be part and parcel of a larger argument for exclusion, which is the reason why that RFC is being run. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the context. @ScottishFinnishRadish, your RFC at NPOVN has 399 comments and is a quarter million bytes long – and we're only six days into it. Would you mind splitting it off to a separate page (e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier)? The best time to do that would have been about five and a half days ago, but the second-best time is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basic question - it doesn't. It only says that verification alone is not a reason for inclusion, reminds editors to build consensus, and that those seeking to include information should seek that consensus. It doesn't say anything on removing content on the basis of VNOT. Content still needs to be disputed for a valid reason, which VNOT is not -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although verification alone doesn't require inclusion, there still has to be a valid policy reason for exclusion. VNOT alone is not a valid policy reason for exclusion. Others policy reasons may apply, but I would suggest looking to NPOV instead. (You can't blank the main page and demand that other editors build consensus before putting it back, you would need a valid policy reason for blanking it in the first place). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since WP:Consensus is policy, reaching a consensus to exclude is itself a valid policy reason to exclude. While discussion of other policies can certainly help a consensus to form, consensus can form due to non-policy based arguments. It doesn’t happen often, but when it happens it is still a valid consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, but if it's not based on policy then ity also not based on VNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree with that, with the exception that NPOV cannot be overridden by consensus, and thus any consensus which does override NPOV is invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty (or one of them at least) is that NPOV is subject to interpretation and consensus as well, it’s not just a question of verifiability. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup… consensus is HOW we determine whether something is NPOV (and whether omitting that something would violate NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wondering if that whole "non-negotiable" quote in NPOV needs a re-write or an explanation. The contents of the NPOV policy are subject to negotiation; whether and how a given article complies with NPOV is subject to negotiation. The only thing that you can't decide is to write a non-neutral article on purpose. We ban editors from deciding that (a) replacing Suicide methods with an admonition to please seek help would be non-neutral because it wouldn't be a neutral description of the subject but (b) we're going to do it anyway. We do not ban editors from deciding that an article on that subject is neutral if it describes the subject in the context of suicide prevention, and non-neutral if it doesn't mention suicide prevention efforts repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another ONUS debate (in VNOT clothes for a change). Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say I'm a fan on VNOT as a shortcut as it's to close to WP:NOT, which is a separate thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&oldid=1235960275"