Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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

Why is Time Magazine green?[edit]

RSP says there is consensus that Time is generally reliable, but I'm not seeing that in any of the discussions cited. The linked discussions all 10+ years or older, the only exception is this 2019 discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#Karol Markowicz writing for TIME which, to my reading, finds that a particular source is not reliable but makes no finding about Time in general. I think Time should be removed from RSP altogether, there isn't enough discussion of it to make a pronouncement on general reliability one way or the other. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a procedural argument or do you you have reasons to think it's not reliable? Alaexis¿question? 23:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly procedural but I'm not sure of its reliability. I'm more alarmed though that this isn't the first time I've looked up a source on RSP and found the linked discussions don't support the listing and I wonder how we got here. Levivich (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume it is useful to remove a site that once was discussed, Levivich? (Assuming nobody contests its rating, of course. The table clearly says that "generally reliable" is a rating from 2019. I can easily assume this remains the case now in 2024) For your other "alarming" cases, you will need to be more specific - just sweepingly claiming there is some issue without going into detail isn't going to help anyone. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr: the reason Time is green is that no editor has found any reason to change that rating. CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: the point is is that the the last time that the reliability of Time (magazine)itself as a discrete source was discussed was in April 2012. Over a decade ago. It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that the 2019 discussion discussed the magazine at all. It did not. It discussed the reliability of Karol Markowicz as a source. These are clearly not the same things, and I think it's pretty clear Levivich did not say they were.
FTR, I make no comment as to whether it should be green or otherwise. All I know of Time is that, according to Ginsberg,
FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Frank Costello syndicate
mouthpiece meeting in Central Park, New York weekends,
reported Time magazine.
All the best! ——Serial 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion back in 2011 and this one from 2012 it's pretty clear that everyone agrees that Time is generally reliable. Unless there's reason to believe that consensus has changed since then, I'm fairly comfortable saying that wikipedia editors generally consider Time a reliable source. That said, I agree with SN and Levivich that the 2019 discussion doesn't really address whether Time is generally reliable, and the fact that the RSP entry lists the last discussion as 2019 is at best potentially misleading: Time's general reliability has not been discussed since at least 2012, and even then there was no actual discussion of whether it's generally reliable – a bunch of people said that it's obviously generally reliable without much real evidence and nobody disputed it. In general I do think we should be stricter on what's actually listed on RSP: our inclusion criteria currently say two significant discussion or a single request for comment, but I would not consider one or even two discussions to be evidence that the source is a "perennial" topic! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I think you've explained my concerns better than I did. I think in "modern Wikipedia," people think that "green" means we had a "1-4 option reliability RFC" and it came back as a 1. Some green entries are exactly that. Others, like Time, are a couple of decade-old discussions. It shouldn't be listed, IMO, not because of its reliability or unreliability, but because it doesn't meet WP:RSPCRITERIA (which, I agree, should be changed from "two or more" to some higher number, and maybe even bounded by time, like 3+ discussions within 10 years.). Levivich (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More an FYI on Vice[edit]

Vice to stop publishing on their website, though Refinery29 will remain. We have Vice Media as yellow, but there's implications that the website may vanish and that might affect how we present Vice Media in the table. — Masem (t) 13:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do return to this once you have reason to question its current rating. No need to have a discussion beforehand. CapnZapp (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid, self citation, and unscientific academic journals[edit]

Is there a list of academic journals, academic book publishers, academic vanity publications that are not reliable?

they should be included and if consensus found unreliable, added to list of unreliable sources.

  1. paper mills
  2. self citation journals
  3. niche journals with little circulation among a tiny academic research base
  4. vanity best of publications
  5. vanity publications such as ones where each faculty member in a single college department writes a chapter and every student taking the introductory course in that department is required to buy a copy of the book
  6. circular citation journals
  7. journals featuring repeated low quality articles such as studies of self reported polls, or articles with a small sample size.
  8. journals established to promote the editorial team’s own research
  9. journals with a low subscription count
  10. defunct journals
  11. citations from academic books, not peer reviewed treated as reliable sources.
  12. articles based on a sample of internet messages

wikipedia should not be a commercial place to promote an academic persons field of study, the importance of a particular academic person.

For example, citing an encyclopedia of a particular academic field where the encyclopedia is 25 years or older. That is a decaying reference as it ignores all post publication research. Same holds for dictionary of an academic field.

this is particularly true for biomedical and social science fields.

Wikipedia should consider evaluating sources systematically from academia and deemphasize those sources with repeated unscientific articles.

small research fields are prone to self congratulatory publications since no academic researcher puts their career in jeopardy by criticizing other research.

this is a large long term problem with Wikipedia sources where many cited references are based on faulty research or are citing faulty research as a base reference.

Extension to citation of news articles which cite faulty research is needed. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:B985:C3AA:ADBE:5E18 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have script that identifies such things but don't run it robotically because of false positives and false negatives. See User:Headbomb/unreliable, which explains the issue and tells signed-up editors how to have it in operation.
So I would strongly encourage you to register, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. You may do so anonymously. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Universe[edit]

Hi. I have been recently finding Funding Universe as a ref on quite a few corporate pages. I don't think it is that accurate. Take Walkers Crisps for example, on Funding Universe it says Frito-Lay purchased the business, however articles in business magazine UPI and the New York Times from the time definitely reported PepsiCo Inc directly purchasing the business, not its subsidiary. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this should probably be discussed on WP:RSN which is the board for particular sources - including examples is very good too - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN.com reliability question[edit]

I was wondering if ESPN is considered a reliable source of news for sports news (Like Player trades for example)? ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussions I can find (here and here, from November 2020) suggest that ESPN is considered generally reliable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, ESPN is generally regarded as a specialist WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but there's an important caveat. When reporting on a trade, if the article says "sources tell" ESPN that it's happening, that means that it hasn't happened yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The caveat Muboshgu mentions isn't anything specific to ESPN; it's a sports journalism thing, not an ESPN thing. ESPN is as reliable as they come for sports reporting. WP:SPORTSTRANS offers more granular guidance on how to treat player trades when editing Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's correct, I should have been more specific about that. ESPN is as good at sports reporting as any other top notch organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Forbes Russian edition[edit]

Greetings, all. The Russian online & print edition of Forbes magazine has been purchased by Magomed Musaev, described in various media as a "Kremlin-connected" "oligarch."[1][2][3] At the same time, there have been reports about the Russian magazine's loss of editorial independence.[4][5] Should Wikipedia continue to trust unreservedly the Russian magazine's coverage of Russian and world events? -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an excellent question to raise on WP:RSN. We've tended to just accept the many other editions of Forbes as presumed WP:NEWSORGs up to now, but that might do with some examining - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ward, Alexander; Berg, Mark; Bazail-Eimil, Eric (8 October 2023). "Former top intel official says to nix Forbes sale". Politico. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  2. ^ Belton, Catherine; C.Frankel, Todd; Dwoskin, Elizabeth (20 October 2023). "Russian tycoon claims he is behind Forbes purchase, audiotapes show". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  3. ^ Svetlovna, Ksenia (27 December 2023). "Was Russia's McDonald's franchise sold to a straw man for supersized profits?". Times of Israel. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  4. ^ Osetinskaya, Elizaveta (1 August 2018). "Forbes Russia Is Losing Its Independence. Should the World Care?". The Moscow Times. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  5. ^ "RSF backs Forbes Russia's fight for editorial independence". Reporters Without Borders . 1 August 2018. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

Is CBS News reliable?[edit]

Would anyone please add CBS News to the list of sources? I want to know if it's reliable or not, and information about its reliability. Ar Colorado (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Any_reason_CBS_News_is_not_listed_in_the_RS/P? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting WP:RSN-discussions with the purpose to include stuff on WP:RSP[edit]

Like at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Sabah_reliable_sources?. Are we for it or against it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]