Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Enforcement

I notice people saying on the page that its decisions are enforceable. Is this true? If so, what about other noticeboards? Is this information given anywhere (e.g. policy/guideline pages)? Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Enforceable" is a strong way of saying that consensus reached on this board is evidence of consensus. THF (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What is "enforceable" is WP:Identifying reliable sources (WP:RS) and our other polices and guidelines. What this page helps determine is whether WP:RS needs to be inforced in a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What people were saying was that, if this noticeboard decided something & local editors ignored the decision, the matter could be dealt with at ANI.

As to your more general remark, I have been complaining in various fora for well over a year that WP has no effective procedure for enforcing content policy & so resolving content disputes. Nobody has ever replied by informing me of any such procedure, so I've gone on assuming this was right, until I came across those remarks. What I'm trying to find out is whether there is in fact such a procedure. That is, is it possible for any content dispute, after adequate attempts have been made to resolve it by discussion, to be effectively dealt with; e.g. refer it to the appropriate noticeboard (will it always reach a consensus?), & if necessary get their decision enforced at ANI? Is anyone going to give me a straight answer? Peter jackson (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution for as close to a straight answer as exists. There is de facto enforcement of content disputes in certain subject areas where admins are both active and the vast majority share the same point of view: e.g., climate change articles, where admins will enforce their point of view without bothering ANI. There are vast swaths of Wikipedia that are effectively owned by individual editors or cliques that disregard written content policy with impunity, simply because it is so exhausting to try to get them to conform to policy, and not enough people with authority care about the subject area to override the walled garden consensus. Sort of like those areas of rural Utah that still engage in polygamy. In general, whether ANI will get involved at an early stage will often depend upon how politically correct the offending editor's point of view is. THF (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a serious battle sometimes. Few editors are interested in putting in the effort to deal with people who push a specific POV against policy. Wikipedia does have procedures as THF mentions to deal with these disputes but it is exceedingly time consuming.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you seem to have the same impression as I have. However, your remarks still don't make clear whether the procedures can actually be expected to work in principle if somebody wants to put the time & energy in. To be more precise:

1. If an RS question is raised here, will a consensus be reached?
2. If so, & if the local clique ignore it, & if somebody raises it at ANI, will admin enforce it?
3. Same questions for all the otehr NBs, especially POV, which is the most important.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I my limited experience "no" they will not enforce it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "It depends." A POV-pusher insisting on unreliable sources promoting conspiracy theories will be quickly blocked if she is interfering with articles that an administrator cares about. Someone trying to get a global-warming article to comply with policy has a Sisyphean task even if you could get a consensus on a noticeboard that the status quo is wrong. My personal view is that Wikipedia is enough of a mess that it's better for one's mental sanity to avoid the articles where cliques reign and focus on identical problems that will exist in thousands of other articles. Feel free to email me if you want advice about a specific article. THF (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at the overall picture. Both of you seem to be confirming my existing impression that there's no generally effective system. That was what I concluded well over a year ago. As the system is fundamentally flawed, I don't edit articles, though I do still comment. Maybe that's inconsistent. Peter jackson (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing by cliques, now often abetted by those with administrative privileges, is pervasive and institutionalized in Wikipedia. Correcting this fundamental flaw in the production of an unbiased encyclopedic treatment is something that can only be done at the highest levels of this medium. I'm not optimistic at all in that regard.

That being said, I would invite anyone, in deference to their obligation for administrative oversight, who is of the opinion that this wikipedia concept and process hasn't, perhaps, been corrupted beyond redemption and is in a position to make a difference, to have a go at making a good faith edit or 2 via an icognito account in one of the numerous politically charged and contentious articles that MIGHT be perceived as supportive of a right of center position. I'm confident it would be a rather rapid, perhaps eye-opening, experience. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't want people making edits in support of any political position, whether it is perceived as right or left is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not the place to push your viewpoints. Dlabtot (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't want people making edits in support of any political position...

Of course not, nor was I advocating that for anyone but someone at a higher level than even administrator. However, in reconsideration, it's not really necessary anyway. The MO is rather readily apparent. All it should take is a bit of observation. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? Is it in any way related to the reliable sources noticeboard? Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is...or I wouldn't have appended my comment.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I must assume you are trying to make some point with your oblique, cryptic comments. What is that point? Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to choose words carefully and to express my thoughts as clearly as I can. I did my best and can do no better. I guess you'll just hafta try harder to work through your confusion. Re-reading the thread might help. Then again, if you're simply having a bad hair or wrong side of the bed type day, the floor is yours...Over and Out. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unable to express yourself coherently. Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I have altered the automatic archiving from 8 days to 5 inactive. This page is currently a monster at 575 kilobytes. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is still a monster. I propose replacing MiszaBot with ClueBot III as an automatic archiver because it can accept more options. For example, it can be told to archive material that has been marked resolved in addition to automatically archiving material that has been stale for a certain number of hours. Whether we change to ClueBot III or not, how would others feel about adjusting the stale from 5 days inactive to 4 or even 3? (Does anybody know if either ClueBot III or MiszaBot can be set not to archive entries without responses?) Alternatively, would it be a good idea to consider subpage transclusion for lengthier discussions? Barring objections, I may inch the archive down to 4 days, but would hate to lose listings that have received no replies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the page is a monster because of archiving issues... I think it is a monster because of the nature of the topic... the simple fact is discussions about the reliablility of sources often last a long time and require a lot of space. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think moving the archive to 4 days inactive would be a bad idea, then, or more a matter of applying a bandaid to an open jugular? :) Do you think subpage transclusion would help, or are we more or less stuck with the status quo? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... Four days is pushing it... It does not happen often, but I have seen one or two cases where a question has gone unanswered for about that long... only to have a discussion suddenly start up. To be honest, I don't really mind this page being as large as it is... so I don't see it as being "stuck" with the status quo. Is tweeking the archiving really needed? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might not, but from what I understand it can be a problem for some people. :) I know it's not an article, but Wikipedia:Article size says, "With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all." If this is true, this seems like it could prohibit some users from taking advantage of the forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot proposal seems a good idea to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made my best effort to switch over to ClueBot III, with the same "stale" parameter as MiszaBot was using for now. This will permit automatic archiving of sections tagged {{done}} or {{resolved}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest archive was to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard58. I've attempted to fix it so that it follows the previous format. I've used an underscore instead of a space in the last position, so hopefully ClueBot III will know to treat it as a space instead of ignoring it. I'll move the improperly archived content into the proper page shortly. Reach Out to the Truth 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This kind of thing never goes exactly as I expect it to. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection... just don't see a need. If others do, that's fine. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is personal opinion an appropriate title for an RS/N discussion sub-section?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed contains a sub-section entitled "The last time I will waste my time on WND". As the RS/N is attempting to address WND's status under WP:RS, doesn't this sub-section title abuse the process by injecting undue prejudice and affording undue weight to a single editor's opinion? That title itself, after all, gets listed in RS/N index. Hardly appropriate I should think. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not inappropriate for those who disagree with you to express their opinions. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that everyone understands that every post is a matter of each editor's personal opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the design concept of noticeboards, a sub-section title is hardly the equivalent of an individual comment. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot and Quest... this was not something to get worked up about. But if it will make Jake happy... we can make the sub-section title less personal. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly appreciate that you might consider my happiness to be relevant, I had frankly hoped for a bit more substantive consideration of the issue...and, just perhaps, a corrective edit free of snarkish peeve in the edit summary. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should sub-section titles be any different than section titles? Editors routinely put their personal opinions in the section titles. Most of us are smart enough to realize that's just one editor's opinion on something. Personally, I try not to do it, but I don't think we can stop other editors from doing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor with a contrary view can always express it in a new section "I'll continue to use my time productively on WND!". Yeah, nothing to get worked up about. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. Dueling sub-section titles. That should certainly serve to enhance reaching some reasoned consensus. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's on RS/N then it's likely already passed the point of obtaining consensus by involved editors. I can't see the difference between dueling sub-secttion titles and dueling paragraphs. Indeed it might make it easier for a 3rd party to see the positions and POV of the editors! Depending on the context it's likely a bit juvenile, but that's nothing new around here :-) --Insider201283 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Archival of ongoing RS/N - Reversion

User:Dlabtot archived an ongoing discussion in RS/N which I have reverted. Comments are solicited as to the propriety of such an edit. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are really determined to continue your filibuster, go ahead. Dlabtot (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A "filibuster", by definition, precludes response or dialogue. It is rather ironic (perhaps even amusing) that you would opt to characterize, in such a manner, my contributions to this RS/N given the subject of this comment section. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Application of "Resolved" Tag - Revert

I am reverting the inappropriate application of a "resolved" tag by User:Hipocrite to the WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed RS/N. IAW the Wikipedia guidance for use of the "resolved" tag, while the template is primarily intended for application within a "talk" environment, it's application to "notice board" discussions is reserved for "...admin processes to note that an action item reported to a notice board has been dealt with...". He, therefore, lacks the required authority to apply this tag to an ongoing RS/N article. Comments on the propriety of this edit are welcomed. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edging close to disruptive. I suggest that if you are unwilling to listen to the consensus of editors telling you that your proposed source is unreliabile, you are likley to be restricted from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this comment section is the Wikipedia propriety of your edit adding a "resolved" tag to an ongoing RS/N discussion. User comments in that regard or on my reversion itself are both solicited and welcome. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He added the resolved tag because the issue has been resolved. There's nothing wrong with that - we do it here all the time at RSN, especially when there exists an overwhelming consensus that one or two editors refuse to accept. Dlabtot (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A "resolved" tag is simply a visual note to other editors that a discussion seems to have reached a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with any editor adding a "resolved" tag if he/she thinks an issue has indeed been resolved. Editors do not need to have any "authority" to place a "resolved" tag on a discussion.

That said, a "resolved" tag does not "close" the discussion. The tag is not "official" in any way. If another editor wishes to reopen or continue the discussion, he/she may simply remove the tag and continue the discussion. What would be improper is to edit war over the tag by adding and removing the tag repeatedly.

And that said, continuing to push for something if there is a clear consensus against it can be considered disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with any editor adding a "resolved" tag if he/she thinks an issue has indeed been resolved. Editors do not need to have any "authority" to place a "resolved" tag on a discussion.

While you are certainly entitled your opinion, I will, again, refer you to Wikipedia guidelines for the use of the template within a "notice board" environment (emphasis mine)...

"This tag can be (and is) also used in admin processes to note that an action item reported to a notice board has been dealt with..."

I believe the criteria and authority for use of the "resolved" template within a notice board environment is rather clearly deliniated, your opinion that there is "nothing wrong with" this use by any editor, regardless of Wikipedia authority to do so, notwithstanding.

"If another editor wishes to reopen or continue the discussion, he/she may simply remove the tag and continue the discussion."

I respectfully suggest that the employment of what might be a legitimate (and Wikipedia recommended) edit within an appropriate (and deliniated) environment such as talk, is simply not applicable to an administrative level determination (and placement) of a "resolved" tag within a "notice board" environment.

And that said, continuing to push for something if there is a clear consensus against it can be considered disruptive.

I appreciate your counsel and the spirit in which it is offered. Perhaps you might wish to consider the following comments from the RS/N before arriving at a determination that some "clear consensus" on WND RS/N has been attained and that any further dialogue on the topic might be non-productive or, perhaps, deemed "disruptive"...

User:Xenophrenic: "Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion." and "...we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking."

User:Niteshift36: If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable.

User:Beyond My Ken: "If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability..."

User:Biophys: "A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author." and (quoting user:Xenophrenic) "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources.

User:Squidfryerchef: "There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source." and "...it appears some examples given that were supposed to show WND as unreliable actually don't."

User:Momma's Little Helper: What is the source for the claim that it has a poor reputation for accuracy?

And "that" said, further remarks on this issue are neither related to or appropriate in this discussion. You are certainly free to offer any observations you might have in that regard either on my talk page or in an environment designated by Wikipedia as more appropriate for those type of considerations. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RSN is not an admin process. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does, as does this discussion. Assuming that any user, regardless of Wikipedia assigned "rights", is free at their discretion to place or remove a "resolved" tag within any "notice board" discussion to be a correct reading of the recommended template usage, then my allegation of "impropriety" is incorrect and I will certainly acknowledge that and retract it, and offer an appropriate apology to you for my incorrect allegation. In the interim, please feel free to consider my deletion of your tag placement as a reflection of my disagreement with your opinion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting the "closed" tag as well. We might have to agree to disagree on the result of the discussion, but the archiving should happen per the normal process; a bot takes it away after 7 days of no further discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we don't usually add resolved tags to sections. In fact, I just checked the most recent archive[1] and I don't see a single section marked as resolved. Generally, we leave discussions open until they get archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We now have people adding resolved tags to other sections too, like the debate over Twitter that was still ongoing. Better nip this in the bud now. PS sorry if my reverts got confusing, its difficult with a page of this size. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally agree with Squidfryerchef, but I'm behind him 100% on this one. We don't normally mark discussions as resolved and we rarely ever close them. We simply allow them to go archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. I never use the tag anyway. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent for doing this. Especially when the so-called discussion is not actually productive. One current example - but there are many more in the archives. In a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's neither surprising nor unexpected that it is challenged, but the suggestion that it is in some way inappropriate or unprecedented is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That was closed by you. Not to mention that the question wasn't appropriate for this noticeboard. It was originally ask at WP:V where someone gave them bad advice and referred them to this noticeboard.[2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I closed it. Because it was disruptive. Just like the filibuster about WND. Not sure what your point is. Dlabtot (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My points are that a) you cited yourself to justify your actions (circular logic) and b) the situations are completely different. The latter question doesn't belong on the WP:RSN whereas the former does. In any case, if you think someone is being disruptive, isn't the proper venue for this complaint at WP:ANI? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why am I suddenly very tempted to slap a resolved tag on this thread. Seriously, do we usually note that discussions are resolved on this noticeboard?... no. Does that mean doing so is "against the rules"?... no. Is it simple enough to remove a tag that is prematurely applied?... absolutely. In other words... you are all making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Placing a "resolved" tag may be something more than a "mole hill". From this talk section (emphasis mine & tags inhibited)...

I've made my best effort to switch over to ClueBot III, with the same "stale" parameter as MiszaBot was using for now. This will permit automatic archiving of sections tagged {done} or {resolved}.

--JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was invited by JakeInJoisey to weigh in here. If "resolved" tags are being used inappropriately, the automatic archiving can easily be modified to ignore the tag. OTOH, if a ticket is marked resolved and archived early, it can also be brought back to the noticeboard, if the problem is not a frequent one. Resolved and closed tags do allow tickets to be closed early when they are no longer needed, for instance when the original questioner is satisfied or consensus is obvious or, as with the one currently on the board, when it is the wrong forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Leaving aside further consideration of the Wikipedia propriety of the tag's use in this case (though I believe resolution of the question would be worthwhile), I have already suggested within the second WND RS/N that both of these RS/N's might better be hosted within Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. That being said, while I didn't author either RS/N, both discussions appear to be progressing. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate move to subpage / Archival

One of our editors forked the WND discussion off to a separate page. I believe this is inappropriate, as we don't have subpages for any of the other sources we discussed, and this was by far not the only disucssion we had on WND. The funny thing is, the bot would have archived this automatically by now, but with all the attempts to move this discussion around, the clock keeps being reset. Can somebody who's a admin revert those changes and speedy the subpage? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been at least one previous attempt to close this pointless discussion but somebody reverted it. At the moment it is occupying over one-third of the entire page. I've had some success in dealing with situations like this but obviously it could only work if everybody agreed to the move. No "clock" is being reset; the archiving bots depend on timestamps in the text. What keeps the discussion on the page is sheer bloody-minded determination in the face of consensus. --TS 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me to be a pretty blatant attempt to wear down the other editors through obstinate persistence. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the prevailing "obstinate persistance" is the persistance of those asserting WND's "unreliability" declining to provide cites to demonstrate same. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put the whole discussion into an archive box in an attempt to close it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand that "FACTS" that might support a valid and legitimate "consensus of WND unreliability" are, thus far, non-existent and that BOTH of these RS/N's call for a resolution of that question and NOT a resolution on specific cites? Shouldn't assertions of WND "unreliability" be subject to the same level of support VERIFIABILITY mandated by WP:RS? This is, as suggested by another active participant, the ONLY forum in which to resolve this question. How, in the name of the spirit of WP:RS could you even consider shutting it down? Are you aware that active discussions are underway in BOTH RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to continue arguing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that moving the discussion to a sub-page was inappropriate (archiving, on the other hand is acceptable). I also agree that continuing the debate is becoming disruptive... and the disruptive behavior is happening on both sides of the argument. Looking through the archives, at multiple discussions on this topic, it seems clear to me that there is a strong consensus that each and every citation to WND needs to be assessed individually... that WND may be either reliable or unreliable, depending on the specific statement that WND is being used to support. In other words... we have refused to issue a blanket statement on this issue. Both sides in this debate need to accept this and move on. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. My opinion on this is fairly represented in Table of contributors views below.Biophys (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that moving the discussion to a sub-page was inappropriate (archiving, on the other hand is acceptable).

The archival of both of these RS/N's is not only almost unprecedented (the prior attempt by User:MastCell rejected by a consensus of those who chose to respond), but User:David Eppstein has now cited User:MastCell's rationale as the basis for yet another attempt to shut this discussion down. And what is the purported User:MastCell rationale?...

Per MastCell, we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material...

I have prepared the following table reflecting what I believe to be a fair and legitimate representation of contributor's views within the 2 WND RS/N's...

RS/N - Contributor's Views

RS/N's: WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed and Worldnetdaily, again UserName RS Facts Can be RS Facts RS self only Unsure / No Opinion Not RS Facts Hate Site Cites? Comment User:Jon Osterman File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png "Is it an RS or is it a conspiracy/hate site?" User:Hipocrite File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png Lack of "...reputation for fact checking and accuracy" and "WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for facts." User:Niteshift36 File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png ...to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. User:Xenophrenic File:Check yes small.png Offers prior "consensus" and ; "I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards." User:Beyond My Ken File:Check yes small.png "Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it." and "If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability,..." User:Wikidemon File:Check yes small.png It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes... User:Woogee File:Check yes small.png Offers prior "Consensus" and "WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself." User:SaltyBoatr File:Check yes small.png ...seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". User:JakeInJoisey File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png Shouldn't the same WP:RS mandates for "Verifiability" be applied to an assertion of WND's failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability"? User:Dlabtot File:Check yes small.png Offers prior "Consensus" User:Biophys File:Check yes small.png Quoting User:Xenophrenic: "Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". "No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources." User:Squidfryerchef File:Check yes small.png File:Check yes small.png "There was no consensus to only allow WND for opinions." User:A Quest For Knowledge File:Check yes small.png "I don't have an opinion on the reliability of this particular source." User:Weakopedia File:Check yes small.png "If the contributors here have evidence of a consistent lack of fact-checking at WND they should perhaps edit the article with some reliable sources instead of referring back and forth on noticeboards..." and "I don't think WND deserves the reputation it has here for consistent inaccuracy." User:KillerChihuahua File:Check yes small.png "If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or not notable..."

Given those stated views, does anyone believe that the assertion of "a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..." is credible or defensible? Notwithstanding the question of the very propriety of archiving an ongoing RS/N, this archival attempt is unfounded in its purported "consensus" assessment and I am reverting.

In addition, I have renamed this discussion section to reflect the archive issue as well. Comments welcomed and appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors speak for themselves; your characterizations of other editors viewpoints is not helpful, and speaking only for myself and my views, not accurate. I agree with Hipocrite below. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did speak for myself! My words are accurately portrayed above and I don't see a problem in them being above since this is a talk page and I am free to correct the situation should I desire.

A large part of the discussion about WND could have been avoided by reliably sourcing a good article on them. Wikipedians have been discussing whether WND was a reliable source while at the same time Wikipedia has been an unreliable source on WND. At some point one of the scores of people involved in this matter should actually try and justify their claims of WND being a consistently unreliable source by reliably sourcing those claims for the article itself. The way to end the debate on the reliability of WND is to have an article on them proving one way or the other their reliability. Weakopedia (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

At some point, one of the scores of admins on this page should just tell JiJ that he is being disruptive, and any future attempts by him to disrupt RSN will result in immediate blocks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have taken myself off of this chart, as it misrepresents my views. The simple fact is, we can not issue a blanket statement about WND, either reliable or unreliable. We need to judge each citation individually and see if it is reliable as used. Both those who are arguing that WND is reliable, and those who are arguing that it is unreliable seem to want to skip over this important point. The question "is WND a reliable source?" is a flawed question... such questions must be focused and rephrased as: "is WND material X a reliable source for particular statement Y in specific Wikipedia article Z?". Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, what I said to JJ applies to you too: this talk page is not the place to discuss your opinions on the reliability of WND. It is ok to discuss whether the closure of the thread is appropriate, but not to continue the thread here. Please do not take part in JJ's ongoing filibuster. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I appear to have misrepresented your views, and an opportunity to clarify or correct was one of the rationales for alerting you. As I now understand your position, you are simply not inclined to offer an opinion on the current RS/N based upon the manner in which the question is framed. Very well. That being said, do you believe that David Eppstein's archival assertion,...

...we appear to have a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material...

...to be an accurate summation of the content of these RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Discussing our opinions as to the reliability of sources is exactly what this noticeboard is for. Ah, wait... I see what you mean... talk page vs. noticeboard itself. OK. sorry about that. But I think my comment does apply. I am in favor of closing and archiving the thread, both here and on the actual noticeboard... I am in favor of that because we can not answer the question as phrased... because we can not issue a blanket statement one way or the other. If JJ wishes to ask a more focused question (along the lines of: "is WND material X a reliable source for particular statement Y in specific Wikipedia article Z?" that would be different. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that JakeInJoisey has asked me to come here to restate my opinion about WorldNetDaily. When I look at policy I see that a reliable source is judged by its reputation as a publisher for fact checking and accuracy. According to my judgement, World Net Daily has a lousy reputation in this regard. Also it appears that JakeInJoisey here is out-of-line with the consensus of the other editors. Over the last few years I have noticed a general trend here at Wikipedia towards an upgrading of the quality of the references, and a general increase in the reputation of Wikipedia being a 'high quality' encyclopedia. Therefore, I think it part of a natural progression away from poor reputation sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my note to you on your talk page was as a courtesy to advise you that I had attempted to represent your position as an element in consideration of the propriety of David Eppstein's archive of this RS/N. Given the above table, do you believe that these RS/N's represent "...a consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..."? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My position among the consensus is already well known: WND should not be cited for anything factual, and also probably shouldn't be cited for opinion and WND-centric content either, as it is likely to be fringe, non-notable or irrelevant even if accurate. However, I've been just as guilty as JakeInJoisey in keeping the discussion active, hoping to further clarify the basis for the obvious consensus. I strongly disagree with Blueboar's contention above that "we can not issue a blanket statement about WND, either reliable or unreliable." We can issue such a blanket statement about other news sources, such as The Wall Street Journal, so why not about WND? I don't think there should be a wishy-washy gray area where Wikipedia editors of differing opinions (and sometimes agendas) get to argue for the occasional use of sources considered to be, even somewhat, less than reliable. A publication should either meet Wikipedia's RS standard, or it does not. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We are, as I believe you understand, seeking the same end...a credible, VERIFIABLE resolution to the question of WND RS. However, the more immediate problem is the declaration of an alleged "...consensus that WND is not acceptable as a source for factual material..." and the premature archival of the RS/N's. Now, the purported "Consensus" may be your position, but do you believe that statement fairly reflects the deliberation thus far in these RS/N's? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

I give little credibility to the fancy chart above, as it does nothing to reflect the dozens of editors who have in the past consistently rejected WordNetDaily as a reliable source for anything beyond their own opinions. They do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I've seen this asked and consistently answered many, many times over the last five years. It is plainly clear that JJ refuses to accept consensus, and is here to right some Great Wrong(s). I propose that his continued campaign to make this an argumentum ad infinitum be treated as disruptive behavior -- stop feeding the trolls, and move on to WP:RBI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of removal of dissenting opinions, and/or cherry picking opinions to (mis)represent consensus is unacceptable. I've consistently made my opinion on this subject known, and I think the fact that JJ went so far as to try and remove dissenting opinion only validates my point above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)