Jump to content

User:FactOrOpinion/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Test#1 (no, didn't work, perhaps I took the wrong oldID): permalink1, permalink2, permalink3 Test #2: (permalink1), (permalink2), (permalink3) - yes, that worked

Some info to keep track of for improving Treisman's article

[edit]

Note: some of the info below is from his CV or from biographies that are given on various websites (e.g., his UCLA Curtis Center bio), and I'll have to see if I can find confirmation of them elsewhere. Right now, this is in no particular order, and there may be a bit of duplication if I came across the same info in different places and didn't keep good track that I'd already added it.

  • add that he is a University Distinguished Teaching Professor (find UT link to cite)
  • add that he was included in a "100 Years of Change" special issue of Black Issues In Higher Education (December 22, 1999) list of 20th century leaders (source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211021175214/https://www.diverseeducation.com/faculty-staff/article/15076714/100-years-of-change, whom they describe as people "whose vision, sacrifice and, in some cases, mischief made a difference" in access to higher ed for people of color - list is diverse, includes MLK Jr.
  • check whether the article also notes that he's a professor of public affairs, and if not, add that, using UT source
  • check whether the article notes his overall focus on issues related to equity
  • Dana Center: "Uri’s research and professional interests span mathematics and science education, education policy, social and developmental psychology, community service, and volunteerism." See if there are citations for this, or at least parts of this. was a founding member of the Texas Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service, appointed by then-Gov. Ann Richards and reappointed by Bush
  • create an Early life and education section
  • for Early life, include: born into a Jewish family (cite Tough) in Brooklyn (https://www.utdanacenter.org/who-we-are/our-history), oldest of 3 kids (cite Austin Am. Statesman), father was diagnosed with schizophrenia shortly after he was born (include this? or is it undue? Tough), grew up in Brooklyn (Tough), working-class family (both sources) [Treisman: "I take special pleasure in teaching students with backgrounds like my own—those from families with limited financial resources and college experience." -- https://www.utdanacenter.org/blog/why-i-teach], tutoring to earn money, learned algebra and calculus on his own in order to be able to tutor it (Tough), graduated from Erasmus Hall High School and went to Israel to work on a kibbutz where he was bitten by a pit viper and was sent to L.A. to recover (not sure why he was sent to L.A. rather than NYC) (Tough), then worked as a groundskeeper at Los Angeles City College -- now merges into education; a 2011 CV identifies him as Philip Michael "Uri" Treisman
  • this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/02/12/integrating-identities/5da75a52-7f6c-4c9d-82b0-e0c18f18a4ac/) says that he was 52 in 1999, so he was born in either 1946 or 1947 (odds are '46); describes Henkin as "almost my father"; not sure if it's worth revisiting the column after I've added text to the article, to see if it adds anything else to what's there (e.g., about his having learned Cantonese to learn from the Chinese students? who were 1st generation immigrants according to: https://www.berkeleysciencereview.com/article/2011/08/29/the-mathematical-duo-steve-chin-and-hugo-ramirez-of-the-professional-development-program)
  • for Education, include: being invited by community college prof. to discuss math after the prof noticed him regularly eating his lunch outside and listening to math lessons, the prof's encouragement that he enroll and study math, attending two community colleges (names in Tough) before transferring to UCLA, where he completed his B.A. (or is it a B.S.? I've seen both, and the UCLA website doesn't say; also have seen 1969 and 1970 as his graduation year, UCLA site says 1970) and was awarded the "Sherwood Prize for outstanding achievement and exceptional performance in mathematics at the undergraduate level" (source: https://curtiscenter.math.ucla.edu/about/#uritreisman ), was Phi Beta Kappa (not sure that it's worth mentioning these, except that these are accomplishments for a first generation college student who started off not going to college and then at community colleges), note that his Ph.D. is interdisciplinary in math and education (part of SESAME) and Leon Henkin was his advisor and "is the model for his professional career" (quote from Dana Center). Other ed info: as an undergrad, studied "horticulture and mathematics" (his Dana Center bio)
  • probably discuss his doctoral dissertation and it growing into Emerging Scholars next (initially the PDP Mathematics Workshop, might see if I can find a bit of info about PDP, check the description from Leon Henkin on Eric Hsu's BFC site); confirmation that by 1989 he was assoc. director at PDP (p. 102 of Everybody Counts, 1989, National Academy Press, https://ia800704.us.archive.org/24/items/everybodycountsa003730mbp/everybodycountsa003730mbp.pdf). maybe note that he's continued to teach calculus along with diverse other work; add a bit about Emerging Scholars research and that the program has been replicated across the US with parallel models in other STEM fields; see Bok and Dana Center below re: #s of programs; was already dozens of programs in 1992: Paul Selvin (November 13, 1992). Math Education: Multiplying Meager Numbers. Science, vol. 258 (https://people.physics.illinois.edu/Selvin/PRS/PSCV/Articles/Multiplying%20the%20Meager%20no.Science.pdf); mentioned in AAAS's Project 2061 (http://www.project2061.org/publications/bfr/online/Equity/text.htm); will want to add text about the role of struggle/perseverance/learning that understanding doesn't always come right away even if you're smart (can cite Tough for that a bit), while also not discouraging Ss too much (which is one reason why it's important that Ss can see other Ss struggling as well, that understanding can come out of joint effort
  • this discusses PDP and the Summer Math Institutes a bit: https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/11/09_henkin.shtml (and think about revisiting Henkin's page to add a bit, including mentioning Treisman); that page also needs to have some of its puffery trimmed, and the references section might be revised, as over 1/2 the citations are to different parts of a single edited volume); ditto: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-16-me-henkin16-story.html; Treisman re: Henkin: "He put it in me that America depends on the complex interaction of lots of different communities, that the generative tension that comes from this interaction matters and that segregation is dangerous." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/02/12/integrating-identities/5da75a52-7f6c-4c9d-82b0-e0c18f18a4ac/)
  • In 1989 he went to Swarthmore College as E.M. Lang Visiting of Mathematics and Social Change, moved to UT in 1991
  • perhaps too much puffery, but here in case I want: UT chemistry professor and then-Vice Provost David Laude described Treisman as the “Michael Jordan“ of calculus teaching (source: Lara Korte. "An author spent years studying higher education. Here’s what he learned about UT." Austin American-Statesman, 10-30-2019. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/education/2019/10/30/author-spent-years-studying-higher-education-heres-what-he-learned-about-ut/2378781007/)
  • in 1988, he founded the Charles A. Dana Center for Innovation in Mathematics and Science Education at UC Berkeley, funding came from the Dana Foundation (source: Asera, already in references) and was executive director until June 2023, when he stepped down (partial source: https://www.utdanacenter.org/who-we-are/meet-our-staff/uri-treisman); the center was initially at UCB and then moved with him to UT (https://www.utdanacenter.org/who-we-are/our-history); the name has shifted a bit over time (e.g., the Charles A. Dana Center for Educational Innovation)
  • will need to figure out whether I should add any of the following to his list of awards and find confirmation: Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award, The University of Texas System (2017); The President’s Award, Complete College America (2017); Ross Taylor/Glenn Gilbert National Leadership Award from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (2016) -- also 2015 NCSM Kay Gilliland Equity Lecture Award; Catalyst for Educational Change Award, E3 Alliance (2016); Minnie Stevens Piper Professor Award, The University of Texas at Austin (2016), Academy of Distinguished Teachers, The University of Texas at Austin (2015), Natural Sciences Council Faculty Service Award, The University of Texas at Austin (2015); Texas Exes Teaching Award, The University of Texas at Austin (2011); Founder’s Award, AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) (2004), Lifetime Achievement Award, Center for the Study of Diversity in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (2000); Honorary Degree, Doctor of Humane Letters, Marymount Manhattan College, New York, 1992; Doctor of Science, Honorus Causa, Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, 1994; one of “25 American Innovators on the Cutting Edge” (one of three in education), Newsweek, 1989;
  • was a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Education Commission of the States from 2013–2021 (https://www.ecs.org/award/2020-philip-uri-treisman/), member of their Policy and Priorities Committee
  • see if I can find confirmation that he's a fellow of the International Society for Design and Development in Education (and look up ISDDE, not sure this is worth including)
  • rephrase and add that his focus is "equity-minded reform of mathematics education at scale" (source of quote: Curtis Center) and is "best known as a designer of educational programs that promote high achievement among students from groups historically underrepresented in mathematics-based professions" (ditto); note that his initial focus was college calculus but over time, his work came to encompass K-grad school efforts (for grad school, I think there's an Asera article about the Summer Math Institutes, though that may only discuss work with upper level undergrads) and policy work (will need to figure out sources)
  • mention some of his work at the Dana Center? Ex: director of the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative / managed development of the state's mathematics and science curriculum frameworks
  • think about whether to give examples of national boards, committees, etc. of educational organizations that he's served on, and if so, which to include (and will need to search for citations for most of these; might be able to use downloaded JCASP+CoversationsDr.+Uri+Treisman-+Five+Decades+of+Postsecondary+Innovation.pdf for a few); potential examples:
  • probably add something about Claude Steele (and Josh Aaronson; and others?) citing the ESP work in the context of stereotype threat; check Steele's book (Whistling Vivaldi: and other clues to how stereotypes affect us) out of the library as a possible source
  • add an external link to any videos? possibility: https://vimeo.com/65731353, "Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize," NCTM 2013;
  • learn how to create a redirect, and make one for Uri Treisman
  • add his name to List of University of California, Los Angeles people (Academia, …); figure out citation (perhaps MacArthur link?)
  • see if TWL can help me get a copy of this chapter: Drew, David E. "STEM education, economic productivity, and social justice." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. 2020.
  • create a Selected publications section; see below
  • add a Personal life section? (if so, can say that he married Linda Chaput, see a Harvard newsletter for citation)

Citation: Tough, Paul (2019). The Inequality Machine: How College Divides Us (originally published as The Years That Matter Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us), chapter 8: Getting an A. HarperCollins. Some notes (some of this is already above, in the Early life notes): in 9th grade, he taught himself calculus from a library book in order to tutor a neighbor; had previously taught himself algebra from a library book and the librarian then gave him an undergrad algebra text that he tried to learn; born in Brooklyn, lived in a Jewish neighborhood in Flatbush; confirms founder and director of the Dana Center, which works to improve math ed K-16; confirms serving on lots of boards, commissions, etc. around the country; went to PS 179, then Ditmas JHS, then graduated from Erasmus Hall HS; HS math dept. chair sent him to City College in 10th and 11th grade to take college analysis and complex analysis; Henkin was his advisor; grew up in a poor immigrant family (but mother born in US?); Jewish -- mother was atheist but maternal grandfather (Isadore) was an orthodox mystic, and Treisman went to Hebrew school and studied the Talmud; father was diagnosed as schizophrenic shortly after Treisman was born and was institutionalized when Treisman was in kindergarten; has younger brothers; born in the 1940s; in HS, joined a Labor Zionist youth movement, Hashomer Hatzair and after graduating from HS, joined Kibbutz Dalia, a Hashomer Hatzair farm, in Israel; a year later, he nearly died after being bitten by a pit viper, and Hashomer Hatzair flew him to Los Angeles to recover (doesn't say why L.A.), and after he recuperated, he worked for a friend's father for a couple of years doing gardening/landscaping and elsewhere doing auto repair, and while he was working on landscaping at L.A. City College, he started eating his lunch in a location where he could listen to math classes, and a professor, Jack Stutesman, invited Treisman to sit in on his class and would discuss math with him; he took a year of math there, then took some classes at San Fernando Valley State College, then transferred to UCLA, and after 3 more semesters, he'd completed his bachelors and was awarded the department's Sherwood Prize; describes himself as coming from a working-class family; first generation college student, didn't feel smart (partly affected by not having been placed into advanced math classes when in public school); went to Cal for grad school

Other books that I might look into: Derek Bok. Higher Education in America: Revised Edition (2013). Princeton University Press. Says "Multi­sectioned classes offer further opportunities to compare the effectiveness of different teaching methods. One of the most influential efforts of this kind was Uri Treisman’s well-­known experiment in an elementary calculus class to see whether studying in groups would improve the performance of African American students." (p. 200) "Particularly striking findings, such as those from the work of Uri Treisman and Eric Mazur described in chapter 9, were widely noticed and adopted by hundreds of instructors around the country." (pp. 215-216) -- that's probably a better citation than David Arendale's for the uptake across the country, or use both; either way, might want to include his bibliography: https://www.arendale.org/peer-learning-bib/; can also cite https://www.utdanacenter.org/who-we-are/our-history#1990s for "the Dana Center has supported the dissemination of the Emerging Scholars Program model to more than 200 colleges and universities around the country," though that's not independent, but could give a sample of the kinds of work it does, using ABOUTSELF and linking to that; there's likely research that can be cited about the replication, for ex., see if this does: Duncan, H. and T. Dick, 2000. Collaborative workshops and student academic performance in introductory college mathematics courses: A study of a Treisman model math excel program. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7): 365-373. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb18178.x.

perhaps useful:

Some possibilities for the Selected publications section:

  • Cullinane, J., & Treisman, U. (2010). Improving developmental mathematics education in community colleges: A prospectus and early status report on the statway initiative. Community College Research Center Working Paper. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Hsu, E., Murphy, T. J., & Treisman, U. (2008). The Emerging Scholars Program turns 30: Supporting high minority achievement in introductory collegiate mathematics courses. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics education. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.
  • Treisman, U. (2006). Emerging strategies for strengthening American high school mathematics education. In Proceedings on the challenge of high school reform: Thirteenth conference. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
  • Treisman, U., & Surles, S. A. (2001). Systemic reform and minority student high achievement. In The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in the health professions. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 260–280.
  • Treisman, U., & Fuller, E. J. (2001). Comment on “Searching for evidence of the effectiveness of systemic education reform.” In Diane Ravitch (Editor), Brookings papers on education policy: 2001. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, pp. 208–218.
  • Alexander, C. D., Gronberg, T. J., Jansen, D. W., Keller, H., Taylor, L. L., & Treisman, P. U. (2000). A study of uncontrollable variations in the costs of Texas public education. The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin.
  • Treisman, U., with staff of the Charles A. Dana Center. (1998). Increasing enrollment, retention, and graduation in Texas public higher education: Four studies for the Texas Senate Education Committee. The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin.
  • Mathematics Achievement Among African American Undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An Evaluation of the Mathematics Workshop Program. Robert E. Fullilove and Philip Uri Treisman. The Journal of Negro Education Vol. 59, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 463-478.
  • Treisman, U. (1992) Studying Students Studying Calculus: A Look at the Lives of Minority Mathematics Students in College. College Mathematics Journal [this is listed in external links, move it to Selected pubs] -- notes from his 1992 Dolciani Lecture, gives background on what led to the development of the PDP workshops, not sure whether it's worth including in select pubs (maybe); might reference it for "I had the opportunity to sit in on some of Mary Dolciani’s courses at Hunter College while I was a high school student" and it sounds like he was originally at the dissertation stage in math when his research into improving the teaching of calculus / development of PDP workshops started; was already working for PDP; notes that "Four widely-held beliefs about the causes of minority student failure surfaced in the responses to our survey. The first was that there is a motivation gap. ... The second argument named inadequate preparation as the culprit. ... The third problem was a conjectured lack of family support or understanding of higher education. ... The fourth idea is a corollary of the great liberal dream: 'It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity at all. Income is the dominant variable. If you control for income, all the differences disappear.'" Also describes the study to some extent, but read Asera's longer paper to see if that's a better source.

Thinking about how to word an RfC for WP:SPS

[edit]

Possible issues to raise on WT:V later, not as part of the RfC

[edit]

I'll want to think about other ways I think the WP:SPS text should be modified (i.e., related to the SPS section but not to the definition):

  • Add a sentence that makes it clear that an organization might publish a mix of SP and non-SP material (including a couple of examples), so an editor may need to think about the specific material, not just the publisher.
  • Issues such as whether a source is independent, biased, primary, etc. (reliable might be included in this list, depending on the RfC results) are distinct from whether it's self-published and may still be brought up for any sourcing.
  • "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" should be modified so that it explicitly includes material published by groups that reliable sources themselves regularly draw on (e.g., if the SPLC publications are considered SPS, they should still be allowable on non-BLP material about hate groups, as they're seen as having expertise on that subject). I think this is already community practice, but the text should be updated.

Possible queries to others before posting the RfC

[edit]

Some notes if I post a topic to WT:V alerting people that I'm going to post this RfC:

I'm planning to open an RfC about the meaning of "self-published" in WP:SPS. (Here's a draft, if you want to see. Feel free to comment there, but I'd rather that you not modify the draft itself.) I haven't ever created an RfC before and would like a bit of guidance:

  • An RfC about whether advocacy org grey literature is always SPS was opened on 11/10. Does anyone feel strongly that I should wait until that RfC is officially closed? (A closure request was submitted on 12/2. On 12/12, an editor volunteered to close it, but so far hasn't had time. There's no telling when it will actually be closed.) I don't think the closure in that RfC has strong implications for this RfC, and I'm inclined not to wait.
  • Should I open this is here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
  • I think "policy" is the right category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC/A subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?
  • In terms of what text will appear at WP:RFC/A, I only plan to include the first sentence, as I think that gives a good enough description, and posting the entire text of the options strikes me as too long.

Other than the text of the RfC itself, is there anything else I should be thinking about in preparation?

Take 1

[edit]

This RfC is to determine (1) the consensus about the kinds of publications that should be characterized as self-published, (2) whether WP:SPS's text about this is sufficiently clear and matches the consensus interpretation, and (3) whether additional examples are needed in WP:SPS to clarify the consensus interpretation.

RFCBEFORE took place here and here. This RfC is different from the previous RfC in that it's not limited to grey literature or to publications from advocacy and similar organizations, but is instead trying to get at how people define "self-published."

"Traditional publishers" includes: newspapers/magazines, non-vanity book publishers, peer-reviewed journals, music labels that represent lots of artists

"Non-traditional publishers" includes: advocacy organizations, universities, governments, learned societies, corporations, think tanks, museums, foundations, political campaigns

1: Which of the following views best represents the kinds of publications that you'd say are self-published? Please elaborate if you need to modify a view in some way to better capture your thinking, or if you think there's some other view that should be in the list.

  • 1a: "Self-published" only refers to things like personal websites, social media posts, wikis, podcasts, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, advertising, and vanity press books, where there is no barrier to the author/creator publishing whatever they want. Other kinds of material from both traditional publishers and non-traditional publishers are not self-published.
  • 1b: "Self-published" includes those identified as self-published in View 1, and ALSO to material published by traditional and non-traditional publishers if either of the following apply: (a) the material does not undergo a sufficiently independent review process, (b) the material is about the publisher itself (e.g., marketing/campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text). An organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material (e.g., you might conclude that a Congressional Research Service report isn't self-published, but a congressional hearing transcript is self-published; you might conclude that a newspaper's articles are not self-published, but their marketing materials are self-published; that most of a professor's university webpage is self-published, but copies of his/her peer-reviewed articles are not self-published; that articles in Forbes magazine are not self-published, but Forbes online contributors' articles are self-published; that a professional society's newsletter is self-published, but an edited book under their imprint is not self-published). An organization can be assumed to have a sufficiently independent review process based on features such as size and positive reputation.
  • 1c: "Self-published" includes those identified as self-published in View 1, and ALSO to material published by traditional and non-traditional publishers if either of the following apply: (a) the material does not undergo a sufficiently independent review process, (b) the material is about the organization itself (e.g., marketing material, annual investor reports, "about us" text). An organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material (e.g., you might conclude that a Congressional Research Service report isn't self-published, but a congressional hearing transcript is self-published; you might conclude that a newspaper's articles are not self-published, but their marketing materials are self-published). Whether an organization has a sufficiently independent review process cannot be assumed; it has to be demonstrated more explicitly (e.g., by an explicit editorial structure).
  • 1d: With the exception of ABOUTSELF material, publications from traditional publishers are not self-published, but all other kinds of publications are self-published.

2: To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a footnote that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." Would you say that this definition captures your view well and is sufficiently clear? If your answer is no, please explain how it fails to capture what you think it needs to express, or suggest what you think would be a good definition.

  • 2a: yes
  • 2b: no

3: The policy currently lists some examples of self-published material; these all seem to come from category 1a. Are these sufficient? If your answer is no, please say why and suggest additional examples that you think would be helpful.

  • 3a: yes
  • 3b: no

Take 2

[edit]

This RfC is to determine (1) the consensus about the kinds of publications that should be characterized as self-published, (2) whether WP:SPS's text about this is sufficiently clear and matches the consensus interpretation, and (3) whether additional examples are needed in WP:SPS to clarify the consensus interpretation.

The RFCBEFORE took place here (a recent RfC) and here. This RfC differs from the previous RfC in that it's not limited to grey literature or to publications from advocacy (and unspecified similar) organizations, and it also addresses the definition and examples.

Background definitions for the questions:

  • "Traditional publishers" refers to organizations such as newspapers/magazines, non-vanity book publishers, peer-reviewed journals, and music labels that represent lots of artists.
  • "Non-traditional publishers" refers to organizations such as advocacy groups, universities, governments, learned societies, think tanks, corporations that are not in the business of publishing, museums, foundations, and political campaigns.

Depending on your views, an organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material. For example, you might believe that a newspaper's articles are not self-published, but its ads are self-published; that a professional society's newsletter is self-published, but an edited book under their imprint is not self-published; etc.

1: Which of the following kinds of publications would you say are self-published? Please elaborate if you need to modify a category in some way to better capture your thinking, or if you think there's another category that should be in the list. For example, your answer might be "only 1a," "both 1a and 1b," "1a and 1c(i) but I'd exclude traditional publishers," "I'd also include a category (e), which is ...," etc.

a) material such as personal websites, social media posts, wikis, podcasts, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, internet forum posts, personal blogs, advertising, press releases, and vanity press books, where there is no barrier to the author/creator publishing (or paying for someone else to publish) whatever they want;

b) material from traditional and non-traditional publishers about the publisher itself (e.g., marketing material, campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text, "how to use our products" material, advertising rate info, "how to apply" info), even if it gets reviewed by another employee prior to publication;

c) material from traditional or non-traditional publishers if it does not undergo a sufficiently independent review process; please also say whether such a process (i) can be assumed based on features such as the organization's size and positive reputation, or (ii) cannot be assumed and instead must be demonstrated in some explicit way (e.g., by an explicit editorial structure);

d) all material from non-traditional publishers.

2: To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a footnote that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." Does this text capture your view well and is it sufficiently clear (yes or no)? If your answer is no, please explain how it fails to (clearly) capture what you think it needs to express or suggest what you think would be a good definition.

3: The policy currently lists some examples of self-published material, almost exclusively from category 1a. Are these sufficient (yes or no)? If your answer is no, please say why and suggest additional examples that you think would be helpful.

Take 3

[edit]

This RfC is to determine (1) the consensus about the kinds of publications that should be characterized as self-published, (2) whether WP:SPS's text about this is sufficiently clear and matches the consensus interpretation, and (3) whether additional examples are needed in WP:SPS to clarify the consensus interpretation.

The RFCBEFORE took place here and here. This RfC differs from the previous RfC in that it's not limited to grey literature or to publications from advocacy (and unspecified similar) organizations, and it also addresses the definition and examples. Note: this RfC is solely about what counts as self-published; it is not trying to assess whether publications are reliable, independent, due, biased, etc., which are distinct from whether it's self-published.

Publications can vary along multiple dimensions, such as form (e.g., print, audio, video) and purpose (e.g., news, legislation, research, marketing, software, entertainment). Depending on your views, an organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material. For example, you might conclude that a newspaper's ads are self-published, but its articles are not self-published; that a professional society's newsletter is self-published, but an edited book under its imprint is not self-published; etc.

(Where would I place radio and TV broadcasts and movie productions? These are probably a mix. For WP's purposes, it probably doesn't matter for performing arts and would only matter for journalism and documentaries, which probably mostly fall under Traditional.)

RfC questions

[edit]

1: For each category below, say whether you think the material is always, sometimes, or never self-published, and if the answer is "sometimes," please say what feature(s) distinguish the self-published material from the non-self-published material. If you need to modify a category in some way to better capture your thinking, or if you think there's another category that should be in the list, please note that too.

a) material such as personal websites, social media posts, wikis, podcasts, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, internet forum posts, personal blogs, advertising, press releases, and vanity press books, where there is no barrier to the author/creator publishing (or paying for someone else to publish) whatever they want;

b) material from traditional and non-traditional publishers about the publisher itself (e.g., marketing material, campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text, "how to use our products" material, advertising rate info, "how to apply" info);

c) material from traditional publishers other than what's in categories (a) and (b), where "traditional publishers" refers to organizations such as newspaper and magazine publishers, non-vanity book publishers, peer-reviewed journals;

d) material from non-traditional publishers other than what's in categories (a) and (b), where "non-traditional publishers" refers to organizations such as advocacy groups, universities, governments, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international NGOs, museums, foundations, and political campaigns.

2: To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a footnote that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." Does this text capture your view well and is it sufficiently clear (yes or no)? If your answer is no, please explain how it fails to (clearly) capture what you think it needs to express or suggest what you think would be a good definition.

3: The policy currently lists some examples of self-published material, almost exclusively from category 1a. Are these sufficient (yes or no)? If your answer is no, please say why and suggest additional examples that you think would be helpful.

Take 4

[edit]

This RfC is to determine (1) the consensus about the kinds of publications that should be characterized as self-published, (2) whether WP:SPS's text about this is sufficiently clear and matches the consensus interpretation, and (3) whether additional examples are needed in WP:SPS to clarify the consensus interpretation.

Background

[edit]

The RFCBEFORE took place here (an RfC: "Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?") and here (a more general discussion). The previous RfC concluded _______. This RfC differs from that one in that it's not limited to grey literature or to publications from advocacy organizations, and it also addresses the definition of "self-published" and examples. Note: this RfC is solely about what counts as self-published; it is not trying to assess whether publications are reliable, independent, due, biased, etc., which are distinct from whether it's self-published.

Depending on your views, an organization might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material. For example, you might conclude that a professional society's newsletter is self-published, but an edited book under its imprint is not self-published, etc.

There seems to be community consensus that:

  • (i) The following kinds of publications are self-published, as there is no barrier to the author/creator publishing — or paying someone else to publish — whatever they want: personal websites, social media posts, wikis, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, internet forum posts, personal blogs, advertising, press releases, vanity press books, and most youtube videos and podcasts. This list is intended to give a broad sense of the kinds of publications that have no barrier, but it is not exhaustive.
  • (ii) Most material from organizations such as newspaper and magazine publishers, TV news outlets, non-vanity book publishers, and peer-reviewed journals is not self-published. These organizations are sometimes referred to as "traditional publishers." Items in (i) above are an exception (e.g., a newspaper article isn't self-published, but reader comments about the article would be). Items in (1)(a) in the RfC below may also be an exception, depending on your views.

Sorry for the long preface.

RfC questions

[edit]

1: For each category below, please say what feature(s) you consider in distinguishing self-published material from non-self-published material. You might say something like "it's all self-published because D," or "none of it is self-published because E," or "it's a mix of self-published and non-self-published, and I focus on F and G in separating the self-published from the non-self-published." If you think another category should appear here, please note that too.

  • a) material about a publisher itself (e.g., marketing material, campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text, "how to use our products" material, advertising rate info, "how to apply" info);
  • b) material from non-traditional publishers, other than what's in category (1)(a), where "non-traditional publishers" refers to organizations such as advocacy groups, universities, governments, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international NGOs, museums, foundations, and political campaigns.

2: To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a footnote that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" (emphasis in the original).

  • a) Does this text capture your view well and is it sufficiently clear (yes or no)? If not, please explain how it fails to (clearly) capture what you think it needs to express and/or suggest what you think would be a good definition.
  • b) If you find the definition above satisfactory, how do you assess whether a reviewer exists and is independent?

3: The policy currently lists some examples of self-published material, almost exclusively from category (i) in the Background section. Would it be helpful to modify this list? If so, please specify examples of self-published materials that you'd like added or removed, and/or examples of non-self-published materials that you'd like added.

Take 5

[edit]

Can I come up with something shorter and more actionable?

This RfC is to determine whether WP:SPS's text defining "self-published" captures the consensus about what it means to be self-published and is sufficiently clear, and whether additional examples are needed in WP:SPS to clarify the consensus interpretation.

The RFCBEFORE took place here (an RfC) and here (a more general discussion). This RfC differs from the previous one in that it focuses more directly on the definition of "self-published" and examples. Note: this RfC is solely about what counts as self-published; it is not trying to assess whether publications are reliable, independent, due, biased, etc., which are distinct from whether it's self-published.

In thinking about the questions below, you may wish to read the Background discussion below, which attempts to capture a few key aspects of the RFCBEFORE discussions.

RfC questions

[edit]

To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a footnote that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" (emphasis in the original). Both the WP:SPS section and the footnote give some examples of self-published material, almost exclusively from category (a) in the Background discussion section below. Please choose among the following:

1) The WP:SPS characterization of self-published captures your view well, and the text and examples give editors enough guidance to accurately determine whether diverse sources are/aren't self-published. (If this is your answer, please say how you assess whether a reviewer exists and is independent.)

2) The WP:SPS characterization of self-published generally captures your view, but the text and/or examples should be improved in order to give editors better guidance for assessing whether diverse sources are/aren't self-published. (If this is your answer, please say how you'd reword the text and/or specify what examples you'd add/remove, possibly including examples of non-self-published material.)

3) The definition/characterization doesn't capture your view well. (If this is your answer, please say how you think it should be defined and what examples you'd include to help other editors understand this definition.)

Take 6

[edit]

This RfC is to determine (1) the consensus about which kinds of publications should be considered self-published, and (2) whether WP:SPS's current text and examples match the consensus view and give sufficient guidance.

RFCBEFORE discussions took place here (an RfC: "Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?") and here (a more general discussion). The closer for the previous RfC concluded _______. That RfC differs from this one, as this one addresses the definition and examples in WP:SPS itself, and it's not limited to grey literature and publications from advocacy organizations. The categories and survey questions below attempt to capture key distinctions in the previous discussions.

The survey questions use the following categories:

  • No-barrier materials = materials such as personal websites, personal or group blogs, social media posts, wikis, preprints, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, internet forum posts, vanity press books, personal podcasts, individual Substacks, and personal Youtube videos, where there is no barrier to the writer/creator publishing — or paying someone else to publish — whatever they want, even if it's sometimes removed after the fact (e.g., a tweet that's removed for violating X's terms of service). Sometimes the author is one person; other times, two or more people are authors (e.g., a co-authored vanity press book or a preprint), but corporate authors aren't included. It's possible that an author hires an editor to help them, but that editor cannot prevent publication.
  • Publisher-itself materials = materials where the content is about the publisher itself, such as marketing material on a company's own website, advertising (where a newspaper or TV station is essentially working as a vanity press), political campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text, instructions for how to use the publisher's products, advertising rate info, and info about employment with the publisher. The publisher might or might not have editors working for them who can prevent publication of specific material.
  • Traditional publishers = organizations such as newspaper and magazine publishers, television broadcasters, non-vanity book publishers, publishers of peer-reviewed journals, and record labels representing lots of artists.
  • Non-traditional publishers = organizations such as advocacy groups, universities, governments, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international NGOs, museums, foundations, and political campaigns.

Note: this RfC is solely about the interpretation of "self-published"; it is not trying to assess whether publications are independent, primary, biased, etc., which are distinct from whether it's self-published.

RfC Questions

[edit]

1. Which of the following best corresponds to your view of the kinds of materials that should be categorized as self-published? If the best option corresponds pretty well but not exactly, you might also say how you'd modify it:

a) No-barrier material is self-published. Everything else is non-self-published.
b) No-barrier and publisher-itself materials are self-published. Everything else is non-self-published.
c) Most material from traditional publishers is non-self-published; materials from non-traditional publishers are self-published, as are all publisher-itself and no-barrier materials, even from traditional publishers.
d) Regardless of the type of publisher, if there's no editor, or if the editor cannot prevent publication, then the material is self-published; otherwise it's non-self-published.
e) Other (please state your view).

2. To the extent that "self-published" is defined in WP:SPS, it's in a reference note at the bottom of the page that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" (emphasis in the original). Both the body of the WP:SPS section and the note give some examples of self-published material; most examples are no-barrier materials. Considering your answer to Question 1, which of the following best corresponds to your view of this definition and the examples:

a) The WP:SPS characterization captures your view well. You think it's generally clear whether material has been reviewed by someone and whether that person has no conflict of interest when it comes to checking the material's accuracy. You think the text plus examples give editors enough guidance to accurately determine whether diverse sources are/aren't self-published most of the time.
b) The WP:SPS characterization of self-published is a good starting point but the text and/or examples need work (e.g., you may think that reliability is too central to the definition, that in practice it can be hard to determine whether an independent reviewer exists, and/or that the examples don't give editors enough guidance because they're mostly no-barrier situations). Please suggest ways to improve the text and/or examples.
c) The definition/characterization doesn't capture your view well. Please say how you think self-published should be defined and what examples you'd include to help other editors understand this definition.

Take 7

[edit]

Should the current WP:SPS definition and examples be kept more or less as is?

1) Yes, though perhaps with minor tweaks.
2) No, there are significant problems with the definition and/or examples.

Before answering, you might consider issues such as whether:

  • this definition reflects current consensus;
  • WP editors can usually figure out each of the three key features in the current definition: whether a reviewer exists, whether that reviewer has a conflict of interest, and whether that reviewer is assessing reliability (rather than, say, only assessing grammar and clarity);
  • the definition plus examples provide sufficient guidance, and most of the time, WP editors will come to conclusions that are consistent with consensus;
  • there's a better definition for "self-published," and you'd like consensus to shift.

In the Discussion section:

  • If your answer is 1, consider suggesting tweaks you think would improve the definition and/or examples.
  • If your answer is 2, please describe your concern(s) and consider proposing a different definition and/or saying what examples you'd include to help other editors understand this definition.

Notes for a possible Take 8

[edit]

OK, I think I now understand why the current "definition" conflates SPS with reliability: that's the point. As I noted at WT:V:

As best I can tell, SPSs are singled out because editors think SPSs are much less likely to be RSs. For example, the WP:SPS section appears in a larger section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable," the current definition refers to the lack of an independent editor "validating the reliability of the content," and an early ArbCom conclusion (referred to here) said "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking ..." (That text was introduced into WP:RS in 2006, and although there was text in WP:V about self-published sources at that point, there was no attempt to define self-published, and the examples were totally limited to situations where one or a few individual persons had total control over whether their own work was published. The current WP:SPS characterization was introduced in 2011.) I assume that this is why the expert source and ABOUTSELF exceptions exist: self-published content written by experts in their area of expertise is much more likely to be reliable than other SPS content, and SPSs are often reliable sources about the author (but not about others or if the content is too self-serving; for that matter, we also have to beware of non-self-published sources producing self-serving content, as might occur in their marketing material, though some consider such material SPS).

Some questions now:

  • Does it make sense to conflate reliability and self-published, even if reliability is the main concern? (But note: it isn't simply reliability, it's also the involvement of a reviewer.) Making reliability such a central concern is kind of a weird definition of self-published. Seems like some people (like Alanscottwalker) are saying "no, self-published only means something like published using an individual's own resources / without any barrier to publication," and some (like Vir and WaId) are saying, "no, self-published only means something like not published via a traditional publishing house, with an exception for things like marketing material even when published by a traditional publisher), and some (like ActivelyDisinterested) are saying "no, it's a matter of the existence of editorial control (in the sense that the editor can block publication) and that its not about the publisher itself" (e.g., AD in an RSN discussion: "Does someone other than the author have editorial control? If yes then it's not self-published. The quality of a source needs to match the content it's supports, and there are many factors to reliability of which being self-published is just one," see also their comment on my talk page, which is about the kind of material I've been calling "publisher-itself"). However, some (like Loki), do seem to have settled on something involving reliability (e.g., Loki: "To determine whether a source is self-published, rely on whether the publisher and the author both have the authority to independently fact-check the work, not whether the author has literally published the work themselves. ... [where 'authority to independently fact-check' means] 'independently of each other'. If they both have the same COI they wouldn't be independent. ... just having the same bias or opinion towards the topic is not a COI, which is what's going on with GLAAD. GLAAD has a COI about GLAAD the specific organization but it doesn't have a COI about gay rights in general," but where it's unclear to me what creates the COI, presumably between reliability and looking good, though as Rotary Engine and I noted in the RSN discussion of the proposed preprint essay, some organizations do value reliability, so such a COI doesn't always have to exist).
  • What I'd been calling a "footnote" is really text in what's identified as a reference (presumably because it also identifies/quotes some possible references). Is that still considered to be part of the WP:SPS policy itself or is it only reference info, meaning that there really is no SPS definition? I'm guessing the former, since it isn't reference material per se, and perhaps this was just a mistake on the editor's part to click "citation" rather than "footnote."
  • Figure out how to add "some government publishers" to the traditional publishers examples? (Or leave it to WAID to modify in her answer if she wants?)
  • Confused once again about how to word this. Maybe I'm going about it backwards, and it's essential from the get-go to highlight that the current characterization of WP:SPS involves (a) the existence of a reviewer, who (b) has no conflict of interest, and (c) is validating the reliability of the content (i.e., quote the text and point out the three features), then note that in the RFCBEFORE discussions, multiple editors have questioned this characterization, and the questions have come from several different directions. (Saying "see summary of previous discussions? Probably, then add what follows there.) For example, some editors think that whether a source is self-published is distinct from whether it's reliable (a source might be one, the other, both, or neither), so (c) shouldn't be part of the definition, even if it's the case that self-published material (however it's defined) is less likely than non-self-published material to be reliable. Some think that in practice, we often can't tell whether there is a reviewer in the first place, much less whether that reviewer has characteristics (b) and (c). The interpretation of "conflict of interest" may itself be unclear (one of the interests is presumably "reliability" — which in itself WP never actually defines, though it is linked several times to a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" — but what is the reviewer's other interest that might or might not be in conflict? is it the interests of the reviewer's employer, and if so, how do you determine what those are? does a reviewer always has a conflict of interest when checking content about the reviewer's employer? etc.). If "conflict of interest" remains in the definition, should it be linked to the mainspace COI article? Some think that the characterization doesn't reflect the consensus practice. Some note that for creative content (e.g., music, fictional books/movies/TV shows), editors aren't concerned with reliability, so either (c) needs to be dropped, or it should be made clear that it only applies to potential sources for fact and opinion. Some think that we should use a dictionary definition, not "wikijargon." Depending on the definition, it may be that a couple of the examples (e.g.,"the material contained within company websites") should be removed, and/or that there should also be examples of things that aren't self-published, and/or that we need some examples that are closer to the borderline between SPS and non-SPS, to help highlight what feature(s) establishes the border. Perhaps just start with a survey about (1) In your view, do the definition and examples reflect consensus practice? Y/N (2a) If you answered Y, and if you think the the definition and/or examples can be made clearer, please propose changes. (2b) If you answered N, what definition and examples would you say do reflect consensus? (2c) Or, if you hope to change the consensus, what definition and examples do you think would serve WP better? Note that the definition has significant implications for what can be used as a WP source, since the only exceptions for using SPSs are EXPERTSPS and ABOUTSELF. Of course, even if something isn't self-published, it still may not be reliable for the content in question, or that content may not be DUE, etc.
  • Maybe just note that government publications are sui generis when assessing self-published or not, as government entities vary tremendously in size, they publish/host a huge variety of materials (hearing transcripts, videos, edited books, court documents, newsletter-ish stuff) for a huge variety of topics/contexts (this is all US-specific: national parks, Smithsonian, National Archives, Congress, agencies that serve the public in different ways, as large and small employers), across a huge variety of countries with different standards for government content, ...
  • Not sure what examples might be included besides definitions (the current reference note also has three old-ish quotes). More complete CMOS quote: 14.14 Authority and permanence. Much as they do for printed publications, authors must weigh the authority of any electronic sources they choose to cite. Electronic content presented without formal ties to a publisher or sponsoring body has the authority equivalent to that of unpublished or self-published material in other media. Moreover, such content is far more likely to change without notice—or disappear altogether—than for­mally published materials. On the other hand, self-published material from an authority on a given subject can usually be relied on. Authors should note that anything posted on the internet is "published" in the sense of copyright and must be treated as such for the purposes of com­plete citation and clearance of permissions, if relevant (see 4.2, 4.64-69). The UC Berkeley page from which that quote was taken was entirely about evaluating websites and not about any other kind of material, nor did the page make any attempt to define "self-published." The current corresponding page does not contrast self-published with businesses of any kind. The current one mentions self-published in this context: Were there any apparent barriers to publication? Was it self-published? Were there outside editors or reviewers?
  • Might add a bit of history to the discussion: early on (for ex., here), the only examples of SPS were from the no-barriers category.
  • Some WP uses of "self-published" in policies and guidelines is circular. For example, the Reliable sources section on self-published sources says, in part, "Self-published books ... [are] examples of self-published media."
  • Some WP uses of "self-published" in policies and guidelines are unhelpful. For example, the Reliable sources section on self-published sources says, in part, "Self-published books ... [are] examples of self-published media.
  • Loki wrote: "The advice I'd give is that the most useful and actionable RFCs propose specific wordings of a specific section of a page, and usually a short section. So keep in mind where this text would actually go. Personally, what I'd propose is replacing the first two sentences of WP:SPS with (changes bolded):

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why material published without independent editorial review such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.

"and then also add the following section:

Advocacy organizations Some sources are written by political parties, think-tanks, or other organizations with a clear agenda. Whether these sources are self-published depends on whether the organization has done independent editorial review on the source, in the same manner a WP:NEWSORG would fact-check an article before publication. Even if it has, assume material put out by an advocacy organization is WP:BIASED and attribute it."

The WT:V REFBEFORE discussion has been archived: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 83, so if I use text above about the BEFORE discussions, I need to edit the link (already corrected below).

Take 8

[edit]

This RfC is to determine whether the current definition and examples in WP:SPS match the consensus view for the meaning of "self-published," and if not, to figure out what the consensus is, so we can revise the definition and examples to reflect that consensus.

[place signature here]

RFCBEFORE discussions took place here (an RfC: "Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?") and here (a more general discussion of what "self-published" means). This RfC differs from the previous one in that this one addresses the definition and examples in WP:SPS itself, and it's not limited to grey literature and publications from advocacy organizations. Debates about the characterization of "self-published" go back much longer than the RFCBEFORE discussions. For example, these 2020 and 2021 discussions circle around some of the same issues.

Notes from the RFCBEFORE discussions (hatted below in the Discussion section) is an attempt to summarize key elements of the BEFORE discussions, and you may want to read that hatted summary before responding to this RfC. Some RfC choices refer to "no barrier" materials, "publisher itself" materials, and "traditional" publishers. The RfC text provides a couple of examples to explain the meaning of each term, but if the examples don't make the meanings clear enough, there's more info in Notes from the RFCBEFORE discussions.

RfC questions

[edit]

WP:SPS explains the meaning of "self-published" via examples in the body of the text and in a reference note that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" (emphasis in the original), where that reference note also includes some other examples of self-published material and a few quotes from sources that mention self-publishing. This characterization quote will be called a "definition" below; see WP:SPS and the reference note for the examples and source quotes.

Please choose among options 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, selecting the option that best represents your view about the current definition of "self-published" and the examples. If the best option corresponds pretty well but not exactly, just say how you want to tweak it.

Option 1. We should keep the current WP:SPS definition and examples. That definition reflects current consensus, assessing the three key features (whether a reviewer exists, whether that reviewer has a conflict of interest, and whether that reviewer is assessing reliability) is generally straightforward, and it makes sense to define "self-published" in terms of these features. All of the examples are consistent with the definition, and the definition + examples provide sufficient guidance most of the time.

Option 2. The current definition and examples are problematic in some significant way(s); for example, the definition doesn't reflect consensus, or you think it doesn't make sense to define "self-published" this way and you hope to generate consensus around something else. The WP:SPS definition and examples should be revised to reflect:

  • a) Materials are self-published if there is no barrier to someone publishing — or paying someone else to publish — whatever the person wants (e.g., personal blogs, vanity press books, preprints). Everything else is not self-published.
  • b) Materials are self-published if they're either no barrier materials or they're materials about the publisher itself (e.g., marketing materials, "about us" text). Everything else is not self-published.
  • c) Material from "traditional" publishers (e.g., newspapers, book publishers, and peer-reviewed journals) is not self-published, unless it's either no barrier material (such as reader comments on a news article) or publisher itself material. Everything else is self-published.
  • d) Other. Please say how you'd characterize the kinds of materials that are and aren't self-published. If it helps explain your view, include a few examples.

Note: this RfC is solely about WP's interpretation of "self-published." It is not trying to assess whether a source is independent, primary, biased, etc., as these aspects are distinct from whether the source is self-published. Also, if consensus forms around one of the options in 2, we don't have to settle on the precise wording of the replacement here. Right now, the goal is to figure out the consensus view.

Survey / Discussion

[edit]
Notes from the RFCBEFORE discussions
[edit]

Sorry if this feels too long to read (though it's a lot shorter than reading the BEFORE discussions!). People raised lots of issues in the previous discussions, and this is my (imperfect) attempt to capture the most salient. I've also added a couple of notes from concurrent related discussions at WT:V, BLPN, and RSN. I've tried to remain neutral in the sense of including people's varies perspectives; however, specific views below may not be neutral, as people sometimes had strong views.

The definition of self-published has significant implications for which sources can be used for WP content, especially for content about living persons, though of course even if a source isn't self-published, its use still has to meet other standards. The only exceptions for using SPSs are EXPERTSPS (and then only for non-BLP content) and ABOUTSELF.

Some editors distinguished among different categories of publishers:

  • Organizations such as newspaper and magazine publishers, television broadcasters, non-vanity book publishers, publishers of peer-reviewed journals, record labels representing lots of artists. Some people call these "traditional" publishers, characterizing them as being in the business of publishing.
  • Organizations such as advocacy groups, universities, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental bodies, museums, foundations, and political campaigns. Some people call these "non-traditional" publishers.
  • Governments might be sui generis. They have huge variations in size (e.g., local, national), vary significantly both across and within countries, and they publish diverse types of materials (e.g., hearing transcripts, legislation, edited books, court documents, hurricane advisories, regulatory guidelines, info about government-funded healthcare).

Depending on your views, a single publisher might publish a mix of self-published and non-self-published material. For example, you might conclude that a professional society's newsletter is self-published, but an edited book under its imprint is not self-published; that a transcript of a congressional hearing is self-published, but a Congressional Research Service report is not; etc. You might also conclude that some publishers have an arm that functions like a "traditional" publisher and another arm that functions like a "non-traditional" publisher. For example, you might conclude that the US Government Publishing Office is a traditional publisher, but the Department of Defense is not; that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is a traditional publisher for its research journal, but not when it's engaged in advocacy; etc.

There seems to be consensus about the self-publishing status of some kinds of publications:

  • Materials like the following are self-published: personal websites, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs), social media posts, wikis, preprints, reader comments on websites, music/games released under the creator's own label, internet forum posts, vanity press books, patents, personal podcasts, individual Substacks, a live-blog from a journalist, Forbes.com "contributors" material, and personal Youtube videos, where there is no barrier to the writer/creator(s) publishing — or paying someone else to publish — whatever they want, even if it's sometimes removed after the fact (e.g., a tweet that's removed for violating X's terms of service). Sometimes the author is one person; other times, two or more people are authors (e.g., a co-authored vanity press book or a preprint). In most cases, there is no editor; if there is an editor, the editor cannot prevent publication. (In the RfC, I called these "no barrier" materials for ease of reference, though that term wasn't used in previous discussions.)
  • Most material from "traditional" publishers is not self-published. No barrier materials are an exception (e.g., a newspaper article is not self-published, but reader comments on the article are), and there might be a few other exceptions (see below).

On the other hand, there does not seem to be consensus about whether the following kinds of material are always/sometimes/never self-published, and if it's "sometimes," what features distinguish the self-published materials from the non-self-published ones:

  • Materials from non-traditional publishers and governments.
  • Materials where the author is an organization rather than a natural person.
  • Materials where the content is about the publisher itself, even if it's edited by someone who can block publication, and even if the publisher mostly publishes non-self-published material. Examples include marketing material on a company's own website, advertisements (where a newspaper or TV station effectively serves as a vanity press), a politician's campaign material, annual investor reports, "about us" text, advertising rate info, information about staff, and information about employment with the publisher. There may be some disagreement about which things are in this category (e.g., does it include technical information about the company's products?). (In the RfC, I've called these "publisher itself" materials for ease of reference, though that term wasn't used in previous discussions.)
  • Material authored by a person who owns a media company that might be considered "traditional," when the material is published by that company.

The word "publisher" can be interpreted in more than one way. Someone might or might not call a "host" (e.g., a social media site) or a "printer" (e.g., of a vanity press book) a "publisher." "Publisher" could mean "any entity that publishes," or instead be limited to "an organization in the business of publishing." The word "author" can also be interpreted in different ways. "Author" might mean "the person(s) who created the work," or instead be used in a way that includes organizational authors.

Dictionary definitions of "self-publish(ed)" include:

  • "issued directly to the public by the author rather than through a publishing company" (Collins)
  • "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources" (Merriam-Webster)
  • "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher" (Cambridge)
  • "to publish or issue (one's own book or other material) independent of an established publishing house" (Dictionary.com)
  • "publish (a piece of one's work) independently and at one's own expense" (Oxford American)
  • "publish by oneself or with one's own money" (American Heritage)
  • "That is or has been published by oneself; chiefly spec. (of a book or other work) prepared and issued for distribution or sale by the author" (Oxford English)

In these definitions, the meaning of "author" might be ambiguous: does it include organizational authors, or is it only meant to include natural persons? Some definitions highlight (1) whether the author pays for the work's publication, some highlight (2) whether the author uses a "publishing company" or "established publishing house," and some highlight both. Although (1) and (2) intersect, they're definitely not the same. For example, if material is written by an employee and published by the organization the employee works for, the material is not self-published according to the first (at least if you exclude organizational authors), but may be self-published according to the second. None of the dictionary definitions explicitly mention anything about a reviewer, independence/conflicts of interest, or validating reliability.

In reasoning about what is or should be considered self-published, people drew on diverse considerations, and a single person's reasoning often involved several considerations. Below are additional facts/opinions/questions that various people introduced. A single paragraph may include conflicting claims from different people:

a) Many BLPs include content sourced to materials that some people consider self-published, and we need consensus so we can figure out whether it needs to be removed.
b) Overall definition: The many debates about what is/isn't self-published show that the current definition doesn't work. Some prefer a different definition and want to try to generate consensus for that definition. We shouldn't change to the definition just because people want to keep some article content that's sourced to materials that are arguably self-published; that's an argument from consequences. The definition is overly broad, characterizing some (or many) things as self-published when they should instead be characterized as non-self-published. The definition is overly narrow, characterizing some (or many) things as non-self-published when they should instead be characterized as self-published. WP:SPS directs editors to the essay Identifying and using self-published works for further information, and the definition there is quite different than the WP:SPS definition; some would like the essay's characterization to replace WP:SPS, and others strongly disagree. We should use a dictionary definition, not "wikijargon." Dictionary definitions are easy to apply to some kinds of sources (e.g., books, music), but WP editors use many kinds of sources, and it may be unclear how a dictionary definition would categorize those other kinds. Outside of WP, people often use "self-published" only for no barrier materials.
c) Reviewer: Depending on the source, it may be hard to know whether material is reviewed by someone, and if so, whether that reviewer is in a position to block publication.
d) Conflict of interest: COI is distinct from bias. How do we assess whether a conflict of interest exists? Is one of the interests always "reliability" (which WP never actually defines, though it is linked several times to a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), and if so, what is the other interest that might or might not be in conflict? For example, is it the interests of the reviewer's employer, and if so, how do we determine what those are? Does a reviewer always have a COI when checking content about the reviewer's employer, but seldom otherwise? Is there always a COI if the author and reviewer both get paid by the same entity? If "conflict of interest" remains in the definition, should it be linked to the mainspace COI article?
e) Reliability: It may be hard to know whether a reviewer is assessing the reliability of the material; for example, a reviewer might instead only be checking things like grammar and organization. Although self-published material may be less likely to be reliable than non-self-published material, the definition conflates self-published and reliable, when a source might be one, the other, both, or neither. Presumably, the large overlap between "self-published" and "not reliable" is why most SPS cannot be used as sources, and why the EXPERTSPS and ABOUTSELF exceptions exist (i.e., self-published content written by experts in their area of expertise is more likely to be reliable than other SPS content, and within limits, SPSs are reliable sources about the author). WP highlights the overlap of self-published and non-reliability in several ways. For example, WP:SPS appears in a larger section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable," the current definition refers to the lack of an independent editor "validating the reliability of the content," and an early ArbCom conclusion (referred to here) said "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking ..." (A bit of history: that text was introduced into WP:RS in 2006, and although there was text in WP:V about self-published sources at that point, there was no attempt to define "self-published," and the examples were limited to no barrier materials. The first text about SPSs was introduced into WP:V earlier in 2006. The first text about SPSs was introduced into WP:BLP in late 2005, and there too, the examples were limited to no barrier materials. The current WP:SPS characterization was introduced in 2011.)
f) More on reliability: Sources might be creative work (e.g., music, games, fictional books/TV shows/movies). Most of the time, they're probably used as sources for material about their own content, so it's often not critical to assess whether they are or are not self-published (i.e., even if they're considered self-published, their use would often fall under ABOUTSELF). Still, the current definition doesn't work for them, as they're generally not sources in which reliability would be assessed, and thinking about what would lead you to say that a creative work is (or isn't) self-published may be helpful in thinking about how you interpret "self-published" more generally. It's also unclear what it means for a reviewer to validate the reliability of a subset of non-fiction, such as opinion pieces and interviews.
g) Other features: Who is responsible for distribution and marketing might factor into whether something is self-published. Ditto for legal matters such as copyright, liability, licensing, and contracts, though those matters might vary by country.
h) Overall review process: Some think that an organization can be assumed to have a sufficient review process based on features such as size and positive reputation. Others think that whether an organization has a sufficient review process cannot be assumed, and it has to be demonstrated more explicitly (e.g., by an explicit editorial structure).
i) Examples: The examples would provide better guidance if some of them were removed (i.e., they're not examples of self-published material), or if some other examples were added (e.g., there should also be examples of material that isn't self-published, additional examples would better illustrate where the border is for self-published / not-self-published), or both.

Other things people mentioned, not about the definition or examples of "self-published" per se:

  • The reference note includes a few quotes from sources, and depending on the RfC results, it may be time to update those.
  • It's a mistake to leave the definition of self-published in a reference note. It should be moved into the body of the WP:SPS section.
  • We might think about whether there should be other changes in the WP:SPS text. For example, should the EXPERTSPS text be modified to allow a group to qualify as "expert" in its field if academic and/or mainstream sources regularly treat the group as having expertise? (That may already be consensus practice.) Should WP statements sourced to EXPERTSPSs and advocacy organizations always be attributed?
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:FactOrOpinion/sandbox&oldid=1266029560"