Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

What to do when the primary source for something is on a website considered an unreliable source?[edit]

In this specific case, the founder of a movement posted the ideals of the movement on tumblr, would this be considered unreliable as it is from a user generated content site, or would this be an acceptable source as it is the founder publicly stating the ideals of the movement (there is no dispute that this user is the founder of the movement, which personally pushes me to it being an acceptable source, however others editing the article have disagreed, and i would like to understand how this works in this edge case?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeTheFae (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable.
Using it as a source would likely fall under WP:SOAP without a supporting independent source to provide the necessary encyclopedic context and show that mention is due. --Hipal (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters I find the title Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable to pretty much to present a distortion as it portrays more than half of articles presented as being significantly inaccurate.
"Likely" is interpretation and I'd argue that issues can be taken on a case by case basis. All sources can be reliably expected to service their own interests. If a scoop has been scooped by an outlet of whatever level of reputational questionability, other outlets will then be less likely to carry that story once it has already entered the newsfeed. The same story may be mentioned once in a source that has, on other issues, proven to be reliable and be entered into Wikipedia while another while the same reporter might submit the same information to a source that has, on other issues, proven to have had unreliability, with result here that the source can't be cited. The source might even present documents and other forensics and I'd say that cases may legitimately made for citation. GregKaye 06:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with GregKaye, and I would also say this situation could be interpreted as the founder self publishing a primary source on the Tumblr platform. If there is no dispute of the Tumblr user being the founder then it really shouldn't matter if he WP:published the ideals on a scrap of tissue and photographed it for posterity to post somewhere on the internet and be made available to the public. Huggums537 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this effectively makes the founder and his principles the source not Tumblr. The principles would be a primary source self published by the founder, and Tumblr would be more like a hosting service. This founder could have published on any public hosting service. The fact they just so happened to choose one called "questionable" by Wikipedia is meaningless tripe in this case with the single exception of making absolutely sure the user on Tumblr is in fact the founder. That would be the most important and crucial part of reliability I would consider relating to Tumblr in this case. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like saying, "We can't accept this fixed medium paper book source on Wikipedia, because Print Your Own Books, inc. is a questionable source." when in reality, Print Your Own Books, inc. isn't a source at all, they just did the printing and distributing. The book itself, and the author are the source. Likewise, Tumblr isn't a source at all if an author self publishes on their platform. The author, and whatever they fixed upon the Tumblr medium is the source. That is why they call it social media. It is clear that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,... per WP:ABOUTSELF. Huggums537 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a MA thesis[edit]

I think MA theses from accredited universities should be considered reliable sources in the same manner as dissertations. They are both supervised and edited by full-time faculty members. While the guideline rightfully says that dissertations should be cautiously accepted, I see no reason my Master's theses should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriateness of any source depends on that source's reputation in the greater world; a frequently cited Master's Thesis would, hypothetically, be more "reliable" than a Doctoral Thesis which is ignored and never further cited. Reliability is not a checklist, and it is not a set of binary conditions. We can't say "all X are reliable". We can only say "What makes this one X here reliable or unreliable" by applying principles of WP:RS to assessing the source. --Jayron32 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard to imagine any content that would be WP:DUE for inclusion, but could only be sourced to a master's thesis. Levivich 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not RS. Way too broad a category. Way too many institutions and supervisors, and the standard for acceptance of an MA paper varies widely among the institutions, departments, and supervisors. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masters' theses are unreliable by default because they don't meet our standard for "published." Any source, of course, can theoretically have exceptional extenuating circumstances that make it usable despite falling into a category like that that would normally not be usable, but you will have to ask about the specific master's thesis you are interested in to find out if it is such an exception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered a master's thesis that was the only paper of its type cited for decades (1980s, on engineering circular lightening holes, last studied in the 1950s and not again until the 2000s). It being a master's thesis doesn't make it reliable – it being cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources does make a significant case, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khwezi Lomso Comprehensive School[edit]

It was created in 1983 and is situated in Zwide 105.248.206.61 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what this page is for. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should primary sources be used for whole sections like these?[edit]

Example: Gillingham railway station (Kent)#Services, with the only source being a National Rail timetable (a primary source). SK2242 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say that regardless of the source, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:NOTGUIDE, though no doubt Wikiproject Trainspotters or whatever they call themselves would argue otherwise. Note that there are already external links for train times, making it all rather redundant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the debate about if this type of thing belongs in the article aside, why wouldn't a primary source be used if it is just verifying simple straightforward factual descriptions of the timetable that don't require any interpretation? What possible use is there for any author's personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts on this simple timetable from any secondary sources? Huggums537 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized my answer to the OP is just only questions. The answer is Yes. You should absolutely use the primary source in this case since a secondary source offers nothing of any real value for this purpose. What I would usually do in cases like this is back up the primary source with a secondary source (if there is one) just in case you have some kind of paranoid secondary sourcing Nazi that wants to have a heart attack about it. Huggums537 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is **No** and Andy's answer is the correct one. There is no reasonable answer to the OP's question, because it can't be answered: "The typical off-peak service in trains per hour" is not encyclopedic content IF no secondary source has written about the the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station. --Mvbaron (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is only your opinion while I have linked to policy that says otherwise. Also your opinion about anything not being encyclopedic content if no secondary source has written about it can easily be proven as an uneducated interpretation about sourcing by referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, where it clearly explains that encyclopedic content about current events is added without secondary sources fairly often with the support of primary news sources. WhatamIdoing gives a good example of this here. Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what? where is the policy that says we can add information about the typical off-peak service of Gillingham railway station (and related non-notable things)? Mvbaron (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy that says we can't?
Without some kind of information on how busy it is, readers will not understand the subject properly. Imagine someone saying that we shouldn't mention passenger volumes at airports, because it's not "encyclopedic" to notice that ATL is much busier than a dirt airstrip in the middle of nowhere. They'd get laughed at. I have some doubts that this current draft is the ideal way to go about it, but there is no rule against providing some notion of whether a train station is a central hub, or a nearly unused wide spot, or somewhere in between.
@Mvbaron, the question I have for you is whether you are really looking for a secondary source or an independent one. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to answer your question, the policy [guidance] that says you can add "non-notable" things to articles and lists can be found at WP:NNC, where it says that notability guidelines don't apply to content within articles. It sounds to me like you are regurgitating bad ideas you heard from some other morons on Wikipedia, but I would stop listening to other people if they are not linking to anything to support their ideas if I were you. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to note that the “section” in question really consists of three sentences. Having three sentences that are supported by a primary source is hardly outrageous. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a question of WP:DUE / WP:NOTGUIDE than WP:RS. Uncontroversial factual details which don't carry any interpretive implications or the like are the sorts of things we can cite to primary sources... but that doesn't mean we should, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This is the sort of thing where it would make sense to ask for an independent secondary source not because it's strictly necessary but because it helps establish due weight and provides the necessary interpretive context for what this means. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting hairs, National Rail technically isn't a primary source, The primary source would the train operator. National Rail is owned by the Rail Delivery Group, of which the train operators are shareholders, but they would not directly be in the actual publication of a national timetable. Reality is that for any service information on a transport operator or piece of transport infrastructure, the cites almost always will be primary. As long as they are being used to confirm basic facts, then primary cites such as this are not bad per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. 03:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kremorne (talk • contribs)
I will say that’s an essay, not a guideline. SK2242 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being an essay does not mean you should do the opposite. Insofar as it does a really good job of clarifying the status of primary sources at Wikipedia, which it does, then it is a quite apt thing for someone to have you read in this discussion. --Jayron32 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did WP:RS or WP:VERIFY ever have a note about the use of religious texts[edit]

I'm sure I remember a note about this or something similar. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller WP:RSPSCRIPTURE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång not sure I see the point of the redirect. In any case. It was a note on one of the above pages. Thanks though. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the redirect is to easily show someone what religious texts are good for on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång sorry, for some reason I missed that. The note I recall was something like that, and I'm not sure why it was removed. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RNPOV is somewhat related, but probably not what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstracts and editorial discipline[edit]

There is a general problem, not limited to Wikipedia (we are frankly great compared to most other media), of misreading and/or unfaithfully summarizing the claims and conclusions of academic papers (excluding reviews). In the past editors have correctly argued that sources should not be cited based on reading their abstract alone (and this is MEDRS policy). However, I would like to workshop an additional guideline, with possibly a variant to MEDRS – something like

"If a claim is not significant enough to be in the abstract of a study, it should probably not be quoted", or
"Avoid reporting any conclusions from a study that are not noted in the abstract."

This is preliminary, so I appreciate any feedback and alternative suggestions. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting at a level of granularity we don't need; citing studies directly from research journals is already discouraged, we should only be presenting secondary analysis, not primary research. --Jayron32 16:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we all track different articles, but currently every WP tab I have open (except a movie) cites at least one raw study: Chaco_War, RationalWiki, Replication_crisis, Global_spread_of_the_printing_press, ... shall I go through my watchlist? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Songfacts.com[edit]

I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of songfacts.com as a source in articles. If you would like to join the discussion, please contribute here. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220706114045/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RS

Leave a Reply