This is a passage from a work of fiction, The Tailor of Panama by John le Carré, an author who has always impressed me with his political acumen. For the fictional name of "Hatry" you could substitute any number of real-life names, like, say, "Rupert Murdoch."

I'd like to start a discussion of the WP:RS policy, because the question of sourcing seems to me to be a conundrum (particularly for inclusionists.) Under present WP practice, it seems that the most unimpeachable of sources is an article in a major Anglo-American press organ. Yet, I think it can be demonstrated that such organs have been historically unreliable. Is there a way that the RS policy could be revised so that newspaper and magazine articles will not be ipso facto taken as gospel?

Because the people who first wrote the first versions of WP:RS decided that info from "mainstream news organizations" of "high quality" are like unto a conversation with the Burning Bush on Sinai. Just drop those tablets right here, while they're still glowing....

This causes many lulzy moments, when some larger print paper says something about WP itself that it doesn't like. But dealing with hypocrisy is well within WMF's comfort zone, fortunately. Quite often, the fact that the paper got something about WP wrong is taken as evidence that the story is NOT high quality. Because WMF knows the truth, and therefore has the upper hand on knowledge. You see, they just put out a press release and cite themselves. And failing that, they just change the article.

Meanwhile, WP editors who realize that newspaper articles are written by lazy people with deadlines and other stuff on their minds (and often with the most cursory of editorial and fact checking), have a problem. As does anybody who has firsthand knowledge of the events of ANY news story, since without fail they always get something wrong, and it's impossible to prove it (since they don't get the same privileges as the WMF foundation, nor the the people who run it). This has been the source of a good deal of fighting and banning on WP, among people who don't really actually believe everything they read in the newspapers.

The Tom Tomorrow cartoon just reminds me of all the years that people
have accused the NY Times of pro-Jewish and/or pro-Israel bias.
And nowadays, they're accused of being anti-Jewish almost as much.

And now, for my next magical trick, I'm gonna quote....
the Wikipedia article about the NY Times.
Because although verbose and not very detailed, it's a decent summary.



SO......anyone wanna count up all the NY Times citations in Wikipedia, and
delete 40% (or 73.7%, or whatever) of them for being "biased"?

Not me. What I want to do, if it is possible, is to establish criteria for evaluating media citations on a case-by-case basis, rather than assuming every media cite to be reliable.

In my pre-disillusioned days, that was one of the bees in my bonnet. SlimVirgin was one of the main protagonists who had an apparently unshakeable belief in the inherent reliability of newspaper articles, apparently because newspapers always check their facts with many eyes and many sources. The ID Cabal also mistakenly got involved as they assumed, as they do, that any attempt to change policy must be a de facto attempt to subvert reporting of scientific issues so any rational discussion of the issues would be derailed. Eventually attempts to fix were undermined when it was declared that RS was not policy and the right place to change was WP:Verifiability. I always assumed Slim was biased because she saw herself as part of the press and had her own beliefs as to how the press worked - any suggestion that the press were not entirely reliable was a personal attack.

Also rejected was the principle that newspapers are not simply organs of factual news dissemination, but they are gossip columns, magazines, editorials and platforms for political grandstanding. Despite this obvious problem that exists even within the more reliable publications, there was a determination to hold them as being of a similar or greater standard than other sources.

The trouble is that also newspapers tell of the story as it is known at the time. Often they do not revisit old stories when the facts become known. So for example, the great airline crash into the Hudson has many column inches of speculation dressed as fact, but when the official report comes out, it will be rejected, under SlimVirgin logic, as a primary source, and we are supposed to look to further newspaper reports on that report to ensure the reporting is from an appropriate secondary source. Of course, the newspaper reports will focus on what they deem will interest the public, rather than a dispassionate summary of the issues.

Or, they will focus on the line that is desired by the cartels that own them. The recent cartoon in the Murdoch-owned New York Post, with its depiction of Obama as a bullet-ridden chimpanzee, was probably not selected because they thought it would appeal to the interests of the American people.

Incidentally, I always thought that the WP:V approach was designed to enshrine as policy the very problems of bias that I am raising here.

Oh, most sources are biased, terrible, and full of errors.

But you can not do any better as Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's end accuracy ends up comparable to other respectable publications, that is not so bad. Only a fool would believe you can publish anything and not have it be full of errors. At least, no one ever has, so the empiricist in me (which is ~100% of me) is satisfied.

Ah, but then you suppose that WP users are able to evaluate an individual case based on such criteria. Currently, most of them use this very simple and useful criterium: if the cite supports their pov, it's reliable (and if it doesn't, they may misquote to make it look like it supports their pov.)

There's quite a difference between peer-reviewed journal stuff where the article is written and sweated over from days to months, then goes through an editorial cycle of peers lasting months, then goes BACK to the original author(s) for changes, then goes BACK to the reviewers to see if they are satisfied, THEN to the journal editor who copyedits it, then the markup manuscript goes BACK to the original author to see if THEY find errors, then is published. And we still have post publication erratum to go.

After that, the community of scientists, or whomever the professional community is, has a whack at it. And they're not shy, nor are they limited to letters to the editor (though they have that, also). They write their own articles undermining the articles that go before, if they think their data is wrong, or the conclusions drawn from them are bad.

Nothing even remotely like this happens at a newspaper. The fact-check is some schlub who has a couple of hours to do it. The subject MIGHT if they are lucky have some stuff read to them over the phone (a fraction of the article) but never sees the whole article, with his contributions, in context, before publication. For many newspapers this is actually POLICY. Copyedit takes minutes and the original writer may or may not see the result. Cycle-time from article start to publication can be a fraction of a day. Post-publication eratum is limited to really embarassing things like calling a senator a representative or getting their state wrong, and is designed to save the paper's face, not get it error-free.

The only comparable thing to peer-review that happens in historical writing, is historical journal articles and books which boil down the truth of events from journals, testimony, and other evidence, in the ensuing months and years after "primary" news stories take the first swing.

But on Wikipedia, news articles are held to be on par with science publication. Yep, the papers of Nov. 23, 1963 report that the president was shot and wounded mainly in the back of the head, so it must be true.

I think it is possible to argue that building an article of newspaper accounts, or other vehicles of journalism for immediate consumption, is in fact original research. This would pass the burden on to sources that use authors who research the journalistic accounts, vet them and the convince a publisher of the value of the work they have done. Much different than the "if it bleeds it leads" type of thing often relied upon now. Of course this would trim back what articles deserve inclusion, which would be a very good thing indeed.

I remember a hilarious exchange on Wikipedia. It might have been our old friend Fred Bauder, in the role of guy talking some sense, but I'm not certain. Anyway some fancruft editors where slaving away on articles about every Star Trak episode. They used the episodes themselves as sources. As in Star Trek, First Folio, Episode XXII, The One About the Trebels. Fred or whoever just couldn't get them to see why this wasn't appropriate. This is really not that different than using newspaper accounts when you think about it.

Ain't that the truth?! In my largely forgotten (by me, mainly) days of attempting to resolve disputes I used to say that having X reference in the article was fine as long as Z was also included, but the disputant parties would have none of it - they wanted only their reference, and the other lot BANNED for wanting the other one. I doubt things have changed in my absence.

Not that I can tell. One of the worst things about Wikipedia is what you've just outlined above... and being able to tell which side is "right" when you're not even familiar with the subject.


Regarding newspapers as reliable sources, for dates of events, I prefer contemporary (from the same period) newspaper sources over later-day recollections written in books. A microfiche search can pull up a lot of botched history retold. But a peer-reviewed paper is always better than a newspaper article. It's all about context; I'm not sure a blanket WP:RS policy will ever succeed in explaining those nuances to many Wikipedia editors. I've seen highly-recommended sources rejected by Wikipedia editors based on WP:RS policy.

Something has changed. Nowadays, more often than not the other lot actually DOES get banned.

An example of a recently featured, controversial, article where the best newspaper articles haven't been discussed adequately.

They are. But, as in Orwell's tale, some are more equal than others.

In fact, the whole issue of sources is the discussion on which of them are more reliable on each particular issue. But, under WP:Crazyness, this would be WP:OR, wouldn't it?

Or "do we have a source" for the idea that the Washington Post is more reliable than the Washington Times?

Luís Henrique

Why, yes. SlimVirgin says that kind of thing, when writing ex cathedra in WP:RS. And you see, the cool part of it is that WP policy doesn't have to be sourced, because it's policy. So the epistemological trail as to the reliability of knowledge on WP sort of gets narrower and narrower, and finally winds up disappearing down a rabbit hole. And there's the rabbit hole. In case you were wondering.

So, let me see if I understand it correctly. Is there a policy according to which the Times is more reliable than the Sun?

My impression is that either all sources are equal, in which case there would be no reason to prefer the Encyclopedia Britannica to the Junior Woodchucks Guidebook, or that the hierarchy should be sourced - because discussing it case by case in the Talk Pages would be original research...

... and, of course, imposing the hierarchy top-down from the admin clergy upon the common mortals would mean that "anyone can edit Wikipedia", but some can edit it more than others.

Gee, second time I quote Orwell today. Ominous.

Luís Henrique

Judging from how it's depicted in the comics, the Junior Woodchucks Guidebook seems to have reliable information about just about everything... it's almost as good as the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

You don't need a policy to establish that. Each reader can decide for themselves if they put more faith in the Times or the Sun.

The real problem is that the reader has less than zero information about how the multitude of pseudonymous editors synthesized the unsigned article from the spectrum of dodgy and/or reliable sources they consulted.

In a real encyclopedia, a small number of identified authors, chosen by the supervising editors, crafted each article. This establishes a structure upon which reputations can be established and trusted.

In a real encyclopedia, one can read the article and be done with it. In Wikipedia, one scans the article for the salient points, then reads the authoritative bibliographic sources to obtain a reliable education on the subject. That's the main value of Wikipedia: it usually gives one a quick list of relevant bibliographic references to consult. But the reader chooses which of them to consult and rely on.

The reason high-quality newspapers have to be included in the list of reliable sources is that it's often the press that takes on other reliable sources. For example, in the Prem Rawat articles, his supporters tried to argue that newspapers shouldn't be sources because it was the press that pointed to his multi-million-dollar houses, the press that called him a cult leader etc. His supporters wanted only scholarly articles as sources, because they tended to be more circumspect.

Including good newspapers as reliable sources is essential for NPOV. It's something I've fought hard to keep in WP:V for that reason.

And once all the newspapers go out of business, as seems to be happening these days, what sources will be left for any new facts?

The Medium Is The Message

OOOOOOO … Is that the Ghost of Sinbad I see before me ???

Jon

The comics seem to somewhat overrate it...

Manuale_delle_Giovani_Marmotte

Manuel_des_Castors_Juniors

See Edizioni or Édition for details.

Luís Henrique

The point is that newspapers can be good sources, but it has to be evaluated on a case by case basis (not just issues of the nature of the article, editorial, guest piece and so on but is it an in depth research piece that looks good or is it a hack summary of others work, not to mention the issue of a single press release gaining spurious credibility by being reprinted in a number of publications, giving the impression of being a story more widely authored than it was) and it has to be suspect to hold a newspaper summary of a source as a higher quality than the source it is quoting itself (which I think is the "many eyes" theory which does not stand close scrutiny).

The whole thing on primary sources got really screwed up because it argued from theory, then extrapolated to a general rule.

The other issue is that writing element by element rather than gaining a solid knowledge of the subject then supporting the writing with references that justify the whole rather than an individual sentence, which is the route to selective quoting. Articles end up as jigsaws hammered together (as opposed to the works of individual authors who nurture an article of their favourite subject).

Yes, of course, but the real source of the problem goes back to the fact that the Ruling Classes of Wikipedia couldn't care less about the hard scholarship of writing a reference work — they're an infantile gang of scoop chasers with delusions of USAUK 2DAY journalism who are there to put their spin on the ephemera of the instant.

Jon Awbrey

Well, that was the conclusion I came to, anyway.

Nooooooooze of Wikipedia!

Good, now that we've established WP:CORNCENSUS about that, let's do what they never do in Wacky Wikipedia World and ask The Next Question™ —

• Why is that Gang Of Infants the Ruling Class in Wikipedia?

Jon Awbrey

Because it's a lot easier to get 'em to buy into your bullshit if you get 'em while they're young.

And then came Awbrey...

“Look history over and you will see. The missionary comes after the whiskey — I mean, he arrives after the whiskey — I mean, he arrives after the whiskey has arrived. Next comes the poor immigrant with ax and hoe and rifle; next, the trader, next the miscellaneous rush; next the gambler, the desperado, the highwayman, and all of their kindred in sin of both sexes; and next the smart chap who has bought up an old grant that covers all the land; this brings in the lawyer tribe; the vigilance committee brings the undertaker. All these interests bring the newspaper; the newspaper starts up politics and a railroad; all hands turn to and build a church and a jail — and behold, civilization is established forever in the land.'' —Mark Twain (1835-1910), social observer, quoted in Stephen Longstreet, The Wilder Shore: A Gala Social History of San Francisco, 1849-1906 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1968)

Thanx, Puck, y'made my day.

For that corntribution you have earned the highly coveted



Careful, don't look at the above pic, as it's bound to be jam-packed full of Spy-Versus-Spy-Ware.

Jon

It's a bit of a conundrum, because often the Big Press is the only reliable source available, whereas on other occasions, it is a vehicle for the most unsavory political projects. Wikipedia is a microcosm for this problem.

I agree with all of that.

The primary-source thing is much misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with using primary sources, and often they're the best ones to use, so long as you use them well, but lots of people don't. Hence the rule that, where there's doubt, secondary sources should be consulted to check on the suitability of the primary source and that what it's saying, and the relevance of it, is generally agreed upon. Otherwise we end up with primary sources showing Jesus was an animal rights activist, and so on.

As far as I recall, newspapers are primary sources.

Luís Henrique

It depends on what you are talking about.

There are important differences between journalist-speak and scholar-speak in this regard — the cube reporters of Wikiputia don't get any of it right, of course, certainly not in practice, but they lean in their fevered imaginations toward the wearing of floppy fedoras and what they imagine Newspeek might be all about — and so it's always been all the more mess for anyone who's trying to write an Encylopedia instead of the USAUK 2DAY Almanack of Conventional Wizdum.

Jon Awbrey

It depends on what we are talking about, and it depends on how we are talking about it. Henry V may be a secondary - or tertiary - source on the battle of Agincourt, but it would be a primary source on Shakespeare's style.

But newspapers are usually primary sources. At least from the POV of a historian.

Luís Henrique

Wikipedians will extol the virtues of newspapers because they are secondary sources. These secondary sources must be better because they have been honed by the analytic skills of hundreds of highly educated editors, sub-editors, lawyers, barristers and so on, all of whom live in fear of instant dismissal if there should be so much as a misplaced comma to make the text ambiguous. On Wikipedia, this is thought to be a most plausible idea.

At one point there was a serious attempt to get primary sources banned as obviously no upstanding journalist had verified the detailed scientific summaries of scientists, or judges writing their opinions and so on, so they are clearly suspect.

At some point it seemed that the goalposts for sourcing moved from "see I am not making this up" to "the only acceptable content is plagiarism".

Like I said …

Obviously, some newspapers are treated as "Journals of Record" for the events of their day. Others are treated as evidence only for the event that someone succeeded in printing this or that. But there is never any reason to let terminology get in the way of common sense. I mean, we already know where that leads.

Jon Awbrey

Well, they are primary source, and I have a source for that:

Defining Primary and Secondary Sources



Which means that Wikipedia doesn't know what sources are, how they work, and to what they can be used.



I have the impression the goal of at least some people there is, "to keep false information in the articles, through smart manipulation of sources".

Luís Henrique

There was never an attempt to have primary sources banned that I'm aware of. Can you say when and where, or provide links?

True, but the guideline is not particularly well formulated, and somehow most WP users (those without original thoughts of their own) seem to think that using primary sources is the same as doing original research.

We are not interested in HFO's real or affected Lack of Awareness.

If HFO = SlimVirgin, then HFO is known to be a Pathological Liar of Major Diss Proportions, and I'm not going to waste time chasing down records that we know SV to have a habit of hiding or deleting.

I was there, I saw it happen.

Get Wise Or Die, You Fools.

Jon Awbrey

Besides which, what's the point of labeling somebody a "cult leader" when it's a rather ill defined and perjorative term anyway? Do we talk of monastic orders as cults, or convents as cult-programming centers? No. Religions get old and respectable, and no matter how much they want to control your life, the newspapers start to treat them with some amount of detachment.

Wikipedia, remember is ostensibly the place where you are supposed to be able to write an article about Hitler without calling him a monster or even "evil." You just describe his actions and let the reader make the judgement. I would think the same would certainly be true of Catholics, Scientologists, Moonies, ultraorthodox Jews, Navy SEALs, and "Prem-ies."

Let's see how this works in practice.

In History of the Jews in Brazil, we find this gem:



It is at the moment unsourced, but I know the source for it. It is a secondary source. It doesn't link the curious statement above to any primary source. It does list five sources in its bibliography. Two are broken links; two point to Amazon.com and Amazon.com doesn't allow any further research; the fifth also links to Amazon.com, which allows an inside the book research. I could not find this strange statement, or anything similar, on it.

Well, I can try to see if a public library has a copy of any those books.

On the other hand, I can do some Original Research, and using that tool that I have between my ears, ask myself: "why would anyone ever record the opinions of slaves?" Or, "considering the use of slaves was of economic interest, would some masters actually give days off to them, beyond what was strictly required by law or customs?". Or, finally, "Does this (secondary) source have an interest in such bizarre statement?"

This is, of course, the reason I will by no means add the proper source to such statement: I don't believe it to be true, even if it is verifiable (ie, we can "verify" that somebody uttered such falsity).

Evidently, a primary source could convince me that I am wrong. But no secondary source can do that.

To Wikipedia, it is the contrary. If I can "verify" that someone made such statement, I must accept, not the statement, but the "fact" it refers to, as encyclopedic material.

Luís Henrique

Well, the purpose of WP is to freely spread knowledge. Something known to be false is not knowledge, so any policy that would induce you to favour such falsehoods, should not be followed. But of course I stand rather alone in this interpretation.

It's not clear from the statement that they're _not_ - e.g. sundays by law and saturdays by customs.