Shell Kepler (T-H-L-K-D)

Shell Kepler was a soap opera actress who passed away earlier this week. When WP editors sought to update the article about her, they sourced the information from:

1. backseatcuddler.com, which is a low-rent Hollywood gossip blog, and
2. tmz.com, which is the television equivalent of the National Enquirer.

Is this the level to which "reliable sourcing" has sunk at WP?

When sourcing articles touching on popular culture, the only available sources are the sources of popular culture itself.

Keep in mind that WP only pretends to be a scholarly encyclopedia rivaling Britannica. In reality, it's an up-to-date compendium of popular culture, masquerading as an MMPORG. (Or is it the other way around?)

TMZ, for better or for worse, is very reliable for information on celebrities. They've got a proven record. Think of them as the internet version of Entertainment Tonight rather than the National Enquirer, which doesn't have anything close to resembling the reliability that TMZ has shown.

Most Wikipedia editors imagine that only the Internet exists and you can't source to a printed work.

There was even a recent proposal to prohibit sourcing to print works... luckily that was rejected.

It's adopted in practice every day by users who strip print sources as being "unverifiable."

That said, where else are you going to source gossip? Using it for a death with mainstream coverage seems wrong, but TMZ is one of the pillars of celebrity worship. Perfectly fine source in the area of its competence.

I must have missed something. Please tell us again what the hell "sourcing gossip" and citing "pillars of celebrity worship" have to do with putting together a reasonably reliable general use encyclopedia?

It's not my cup of tea either, but I believe that Wikipedia's core competence is fancruft. If we were writing an encyclopedia with lengthy articles on, say, the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case, TMZ might be a reliable source of commentary.

In 2008, Wiktionary has officially redefined 'Encyclopedia' to mean 'a compendium of popular culture'.

What!?! Jimbo's cult has seized Wiktionary? To think that not so long ago, they were talking about doing things to Commons!

I best go digging trenches and building pillboxes around WikiSource and WikiQuote now.

I see two issues. One is whether or not to include this sort of stuff in an online encyclopedia. I could argue that one either way, depending on my mood at the time. The other issue is whether, if you were going to include this sort of material, it would be appropriate to cite TMZ. My answer to the second question would be "Hell, yes." I'd also use The National Enquirer.

Oh sweet Jesus, please tell me that was a resounding rejection.

And I don't see a problem with using TMZ as a source, but you should look for something better first.

The Game of Wikipedia has to be played in universe. It's not appropriate to invoke academic reality. It just spoils the game to do so.

Probably not. I've done my share of explaining to people just because a link has died, that does not mean that the statement is unsourced. The fact that newspapers actually issue paper copies as well, which live for many years in libraries, frequently throws them.