User:Butlerblog/Essays/When reliable sources are wrong

Some editors tend to take the need for an article to rely on secondary sources to an unintended extreme in which primary sources are avoided or ignored altogether. That's not the intent of the editing guideline. Primary sources can (and should) be used when they are not being used in an interpretive context. In other words, if it's citing a fact, a primary source is fine. From Wikipedia's guidelines on primary sources: a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

Similarly, in the Film and Television projects (and others), when plot information is provided, a primary source may be used - as long as there is no interpretation of the plot elements. The same goes for items that are included in the credits, such as actors, producers, and crew. These can be cited from a primary source. From the Television MOS: Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given.

Additionally, if it is information that meets the criteria above (i.e. it is "fact" - plot summary, credits, etc) and it's a film (or a television episode that is mentioned in the article), a citation is not necessary since the film or episode itself is presumed to be the primary source (see MOS:FILMPLOT). [C]iting the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. This extends to television films, or episodes (assuming it's an episode article, or the specific episode is referenced in prose).

Not every editor understands this. In fact, even experienced editors get this wrong. To put this into perspective, the following is an actual occurrence in WikiProject Film, although the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

EagerEditor came across a situation where the credits of a film were incorrect. There was a conflict between the film's actual on-screen credits and the credits that were listed by American Film Institute at their website. In a back-and-forth reversion, another editor, EagerReviewer, (who should have known better) insisted that the secondary source be used because (1) it was a reliable source and (2) because it was a secondary source (i.e. "primary sources cannot be trusted"). The film's actual on-screen credits completely contradicted the AFI source. EagerEditor reached out to a third-party editor, MrExperience, who was experienced in the Film project for a second opinion. MrExperience said the same thing and backed up EagerReviewer's position, that it must be cited by a secondary source and if the secondary source disagrees with the primary source, the secondary source must be used.

Mind you, there are situations where this would be appropriate, and even required - such as matters of opinion - or something that an individual says about themselves, such as in an autobiography, that is contradicted by factual evidence presented by a secondary source. But Wikipedia's editing guidelines are not an excuse to leave your brains at the door. When it is a matter of verifiable fact rather than opinion, such as on-screen credits of a film, even if a reliable secondary source contradicts that, the fact is the fact.

Because of the way third-party intervention works on Wikipedia, and because there are experienced editors who sometimes actually do leave their brains at the door, the article's film credits had to remain in an incorrect state based on the error of the secondary source.

Sometimes you'll win the consensus discussion, and other times, if the masses determine otherwise, you'll lose. Sometimes, you'll run across editors who snidely tell you that if you don't like what the sources say, then get them to change it. In this case, EagerEditor did exactly that (although no one specifically told them to do so). EagerEditor reached out to the American Film Institute and questioned their listing of the credits in this particular film. AFI acknowledged the error and subsequently updated their data. EagerEditor was then able to update the article using the secondary source. (And ironically, neither EagerReviewer nor MrExperience ever acknowledged this.)