Wikipedia talk:Suggested sources

Comment

FWIW IMDB is usually considered unreliable (as it is community generated) except in specific circumstances where the cites a reliable source (in some credits). Also; for biographies I recommend the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a good source (mostly historical). Also JSTOR is good for academic material/topics.(ODNB and JSTOR would be examples of the very best sorts of sources) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrable reliability - draft list of suggested sources in the mainstream media

There are thousands of reliable sources

Really - who says so? Given that this essay forms one of the building blocks of Wikipedia editorial policy on source reliability, and itself receives numerous citations in disputes between Wikipedia editors about the reliability of UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, it's ironic that not one reliable, academic source is cited in support of this assertion. Note in particular that the first eight suggested sources in this draft essay suggest what may be reliable (or not) mainstream media sources in the USA, UK, etc, for which no independent, reliable source is citied.

For UK and worldwide news: BBC News, The Guardian (London), (The Observer), The Times (London), The Daily Telegraph (London), The Independent (London), The Scotsman (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun.

What is the basis for this list? Again, where are the reliable, academic sources to support this assertion? Why should Wikipedia editors generally avoid British tabloids (a printing format) rather than non-tabloids? Is the Times, partly owned by Rupert Murdoch, necessarily a more reliable source than the Times' stable mates, also partly owned by the same person? If so, then, again, cite the independent evidence that supports this assertion.

How in fact do we measure or assess the reliability (as opposed to the citability, prestige or influence) of a non-academic, mainstream, media source that publishes daily or even more often, always to a very tight deadline, and is not subject to pre-publication peer-review, or at least not in the same way that is an academic journal? Is the current reputation of the publication, or TV or radio broadcaster, the most important factor, or is the identity of the journalist a better guide? What role does the reputation of the news editor, or of the editor, or of the Editor in Chief play? What role here, if any, is played by the reputation of the owner for fairness, impartiality and detachment from the editorial process or disengagement from the national political process?

Does the fact that a journalist has won journalistic awards affect the likely reliability of what they write or broadcast?

Does the number of times that a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster is sued successfully for libel affect their reliability? Sometimes damages awarded by the jury to a successful litigant in a libel case can be nominal, reflecting the jury's belief that, while libel was proven, the damage to to the litigant's reputation was very small. Should the damage to the litigant's reputation, reflected by the amount of damages awarded by the judge or jury, be taken into account when using libel cases to assess the reliability of journalists, editors, newspapers and broadcasters?

Should the number of successful complaints to a complaints body about a journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster be taken into account? The absolute number of successful complaints - or the proportion of actual complaints? Should circulation numbers and audience sizes be taken into account when comparing successful (or unsuccessful) complaint rates against newspapers and broadcasters?124.186.93.5 (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this criticism. There is no reliable, NPOV mechanism in place to determine the reliability of sources on Wikipedia, yet editors love declaring sources "unreliable" based on ideological disagreements. I fear that the entire process of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable journalistic sources is just a massive exercise in confirmation bias. TBSchemer (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the above and with TBSchemer. In fact, seeing this list above for "worldwide news" made me cringe. Zezen (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting MSNBC but not Fox News

The list of suggested US and UK news sources mostly all share a left-wing bias, and some (MSNBC for one) are rather extreme and overt in their bias. I tried adding one with a right-wing bias, Fox News (which happens to be the most-watched television news network in the United States), and it was reverted. Is there any reason beyond overt political bias to suggest left-wing sources while omitting and explicitly recommending against right-wing sources? TBSchemer (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing MSNBC. Gamaliel (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• So what about Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times, all of which express a left-wing bias? When Paul Krugman goes on a tangent about how evil the Republicans are, is that somehow more reliable than when Rachel Maddow says it? What exactly is the standard for inclusion on this list, or exclusion from it? TBSchemer (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with your assessment. They are all high quality sources in a way that MSNBC and Fox are not. For example, see List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Given that the Pulitzer Prize has also been criticized for heavy left-wing favoritism, your example doesn't really contradict my point. What qualifications make a source "high quality"? TBSchemer (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suppose we adopt a standard for televised news that takes into account how much air time and money is spent on opinion pieces vs purely factual news pieces. By that standard, Fox News and CNN are comparable, whereas MSNBC is far inferior. So if CNN should be there, Fox probably should be there too, shouldn't it? TBSchemer (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Pulitzer Prize has long been an indicator of quality in the professional journalism field, while measuring budgets has never been accepted as such a metric. I gently suggest perhaps before you recommend sources as high quality or low quality to other editors or attempt to create your own new untested and unaccepted metrics that you familiarize yourself a bit more with what sources are considered high quality in that field and what metrics are actually used there as a measure of quality. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Pulitzer Prize is certainly not an indicator of quality to the many people who consider it an institution for rewarding left-wing political bias in news reporting. An argument from authority is not a valid basis for establishing authority, especially when there exists a political conflict of interest. You are not only failing to address my concerns about political bias in the construction of this list, but are in fact reinforcing those concerns. If we do not have any objective means of evaluating the quality of news sources independent of political bias, then I think it is impossible to have a selected list of "suggested sources" without it becoming a tool for editors to push their political views on others. This list either needs to be politically balanced, or needs to be deleted entirely. TBSchemer (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Source Reputation

Regarding this diff, reputation among whom? What standard are you using to define reputation? All of the sources I added had received Pulitzer Prizes. For instance, why is the Orange County Register excluded and the Christian Science Monitor included? Also, I had removed PBS.org because it is mostly government-funded, and their reporting reflects this (a classic example of an unreliable type of source). TBSchemer (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The way this works is that people find a real issue (some contested text with a source in an article) and ask at WP:RSN whether the source is suitable to verify the specific text. Generic questions such as "is Fox News a reliable source?" are generally ignored as they indicate a desire to have a pointless discussion about who-knows-what. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet, here we have an entire essay devoted to those pointless discussions about who-knows-what. Either this essay needs to have an objective standard for the selection of sources, or it shouldn't exist. TBSchemer (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I concur with TBSchemer that there must be a NOPV measure of reliability of a source (in short: academic research on "how often they lie") to be included here. Otherwise, this essay should read "it is contentious, so we do not list any". Zezen (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

National bias re ‘intervention’

I opened a discussion on this topic at Identifying reliable sources and invite your comments there as the issue is germane to both articles. Humanengr (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally avoid tabloids

The Guardian has now adopted the tabloid format. The recommendations are therefore internally contradictory.

As it happens, I read The Guardian online; but along with the adoption of a tabloid format, the editorial standards have plummeted, and I no longer consider The Guardian reliable. I am trying to wean myself off this horrible propaganda organ.

I do not think The Guardian should any longer be considered RS. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Observer is essentially the sunday edition of The Guardian. If tabloids should be avoided, then avoid also The Observer. Both papers purport to be left-leaning, and both have been engaged in a disgraceful two-year-long campaign of vilification of the Labour Party leader. These papers push a strong POV, and it is a neocon POV with a very strong pro-Israel bias. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)