| WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) | |||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
| ::::Um... no, patent examiners do not reject the claims made in a patent application. What they are checking is whether the product would violate an existing patent. I could invent a gizmo, claim that it supplies unlimited energy and perpetual motion... and as long as my gizmo does not violate an existing patent, I will be granted a patent. The patent office does not care if my invention actually works or not. | ::::Um... no, patent examiners do not reject the claims made in a patent application. What they are checking is whether the product would violate an existing patent. I could invent a gizmo, claim that it supplies unlimited energy and perpetual motion... and as long as my gizmo does not violate an existing patent, I will be granted a patent. The patent office does not care if my invention actually works or not. | ||
| ::::More to the point... the patent office does not edit or change the supporting documentation that is submitted with an application. That supporting documentation is definitely self-published. And it is the supporting documentation that is usually what people want to cite in Wikipedia. About the only things that aren't self-published in the patent process are the patent ''number'' and the date that the patent was issued. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | ::::More to the point... the patent office does not edit or change the supporting documentation that is submitted with an application. That supporting documentation is definitely self-published. And it is the supporting documentation that is usually what people want to cite in Wikipedia. About the only things that aren't self-published in the patent process are the patent ''number'' and the date that the patent was issued. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::I think Jc3s5h has confused the issuance of a patent with the publication of the patent application. Issuance—granting the legally protected limited monopoly for the inventor's idea—is controlled by the patent offices. Publication—putting it up on their website so that other people can read it—is controlled entirely by the inventor/author. The author of the patent specification and claims can have that published at any point in time, including before review, during review, after review, after issuance, or after rejection. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| {{OD}}I could be wrong but my understanding of the difference between regular publishing and self-publishing is on who gets to decide whether a work is published. So, let's say that I'm an author and I write a book about widgets. I submit my book to Random House. Random House can decide whether or not they want to publish it. It's their decision, not mine. On the other hand, if I take the same book and hire a printing-press or a self-publishing company to print it, then it was my decision to print it. Similarly, if I'm a journalist and I write an article for the New York Times, NYT has editorial control. They can edit it, request changes or decline to publish it altogether. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | {{OD}}I could be wrong but my understanding of the difference between regular publishing and self-publishing is on who gets to decide whether a work is published. So, let's say that I'm an author and I write a book about widgets. I submit my book to Random House. Random House can decide whether or not they want to publish it. It's their decision, not mine. On the other hand, if I take the same book and hire a printing-press or a self-publishing company to print it, then it was my decision to print it. Similarly, if I'm a journalist and I write an article for the New York Times, NYT has editorial control. They can edit it, request changes or decline to publish it altogether. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:42, 7 May 2012
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
 | To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
 edit | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) |
|---|---|
| |
 Archives (Index) |
|---|
| Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
[edit] Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page
- Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
[edit] Newspapers
Care needs to be taken with newspapers. The editor should be sure that in fact that newspaper professionals did report & edit the story firsthand. Example; A newspaper reports that "Mr Smith said that event XYZ happened." That verifies that Smith said it, but does not say the newspaper itself verified XYZ. Newspapers in 2012 usually are careful and say "we have not verified XYZ" but in the old days they often did not. In this example the newspaper story is not a RS when it comes to event XYZ. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Each case should be taken on its merits. It is over the top to require that the report was written first-hand - many newspaper stories are bought from news vendors such as Reuters, Bloomberg etc. Moreover, the journalist might have combined their sources with the sources from news vendors.Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- reports from Reuters etc have to be specifically attributed to Reuters etc. (too often it's attributed to the local paper that reprinted the story--the local paper is not a RS) Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- What is mandatory is that the Wikipedia editor cite the source that he/she read. Judgement should determine whether any attribution within the source be repeated in the citation. There is absolutely no requirement that the Wikipedia editor track down a sub-source mentioned in the source and cite the sub-source instead of the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- reports from Reuters etc have to be specifically attributed to Reuters etc. (too often it's attributed to the local paper that reprinted the story--the local paper is not a RS) Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)- If a newspaper reporter finds info that is the reliable source and that source must be identified. You can verify that source ABC said XYZ but if ABC by itself is not a Reliable source then it's no good for Wikipedia. How did ABC know about it when it did not have a reporter anywhere nearby? Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This would have the undesirable effective of excluding any newspaper report that is a secondary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The question is reliability. How reliable was the Ft Wayne Gazette in 1890 when it said, "we read from other [unnamed] papers that XYZ"?? Not very reliable, I'm afraid. We just had a taste of the problem (March 29) when many media reported -- falsely--that the governor of South Carolina was about to be indicted. Turns out they all relied on an obscure tweet from an unreliable source that went viral in a couple minutes. see NY Times report What it comes to is editors have to have some evidence about reliability if report a statement as reliable. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of otherwise reliable newspapers who have had to publish retractions a number of times. Half the time they don't even bother to retract anything. They're newspapers... they're going to be wrong occasionally. It's not our place to make those sorts of judgements, as Wikipedia editors cannot be relied on to have the expertise or experience to make those judgements. You or I may personally have the ability to do so, but there's no way to prove that sort of knowledge so it's best left alone.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)- every time you edit you have to decide if a source is a RS or not--it can't be escaped. The original point was this: a media story is reliable if and only if the story was covered by a journalist. A letter to the editor or an ad does not meet that criteria. The question is handling reprinted stories, and I suggest the Wiki editor has to figure out if a journalist did the original reporting. Material issued by others (like press releases and ads) fall into the "self published" category -- like 99% of what's on Facebook. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok... I agree with just about all of that, generally (I don't know about "every time", but I don't think that is a central issue here). I agree with respect to letters to the editor and advertisements which appear in publications (magazines do that too), but I would point out that editorial opinion is a reliable source for contemporaneous views on a subject. To me, all of this is more about writing style rather than anything which is policy related. sort of, at least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)-
-
-
- I think a more appropriate way to state this is "A paid advertisement is not a newspaper article." I doubt that Rjensen will find much opposition to this rather basic statement. WP:MEDRS addresses the problem of letters to the editor directly, in response to a serious problem with a few POV pushers trying to pass off such letters as being the equivalent of peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm not sure that the problem is significant enough to need to spell it out here, but if you all think it is, then we can add a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- agreed. what perhaps we all agree is that when a journalist covers a story & it appears in a newspaper that is a RS ---many other things appear in newspapers as well and are not RS.Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work that way. The editorial is written by professional journalists, and it may or may not be reliable for the same uses that we put regular articles to. Dave Barry is a famous professional journalist, but you wouldn't treat his humor column the same as a regular newspaper article. Some newspaper articles are written by people whom I wouldn't describe as journalists of any sort (especially in very small publications), but they look just like a regular newspaper article, are paid for the article, and the result is just as reliable as a newspaper article written by a full-time professional journalist. (Are you a "journalist" if you only write a single article in your entire life?) We need to look at all the facts and circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- agreed. what perhaps we all agree is that when a journalist covers a story & it appears in a newspaper that is a RS ---many other things appear in newspapers as well and are not RS.Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I think a more appropriate way to state this is "A paid advertisement is not a newspaper article." I doubt that Rjensen will find much opposition to this rather basic statement. WP:MEDRS addresses the problem of letters to the editor directly, in response to a serious problem with a few POV pushers trying to pass off such letters as being the equivalent of peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm not sure that the problem is significant enough to need to spell it out here, but if you all think it is, then we can add a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Ok... I agree with just about all of that, generally (I don't know about "every time", but I don't think that is a central issue here). I agree with respect to letters to the editor and advertisements which appear in publications (magazines do that too), but I would point out that editorial opinion is a reliable source for contemporaneous views on a subject. To me, all of this is more about writing style rather than anything which is policy related. sort of, at least.
- every time you edit you have to decide if a source is a RS or not--it can't be escaped. The original point was this: a media story is reliable if and only if the story was covered by a journalist. A letter to the editor or an ad does not meet that criteria. The question is handling reprinted stories, and I suggest the Wiki editor has to figure out if a journalist did the original reporting. Material issued by others (like press releases and ads) fall into the "self published" category -- like 99% of what's on Facebook. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of otherwise reliable newspapers who have had to publish retractions a number of times. Half the time they don't even bother to retract anything. They're newspapers... they're going to be wrong occasionally. It's not our place to make those sorts of judgements, as Wikipedia editors cannot be relied on to have the expertise or experience to make those judgements. You or I may personally have the ability to do so, but there's no way to prove that sort of knowledge so it's best left alone.
- The question is reliability. How reliable was the Ft Wayne Gazette in 1890 when it said, "we read from other [unnamed] papers that XYZ"?? Not very reliable, I'm afraid. We just had a taste of the problem (March 29) when many media reported -- falsely--that the governor of South Carolina was about to be indicted. Turns out they all relied on an obscure tweet from an unreliable source that went viral in a couple minutes. see NY Times report What it comes to is editors have to have some evidence about reliability if report a statement as reliable. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A part of the confusion I see in the above is terminology ambiguity, using "reliable source" to refer to two completely different things. WP:RS means meeting certain Wikipedia criteria, whereas real world RS usually means that they are a reliable source of correct information regarding the statement at hand. Sources meeting WP:RS criteria are often wrong or unreliable, and highly real-world-reliable sources (on the matter at hand) often don't meet wp:RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- North, could you give us an example of a "real-world-reliable" source that does not meet WP:RS criteria? Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, for the statement "various suppliers sell SS Titanic coffee mugs" and, as a reference, point to a web portal page that lists 50 places to buy SS Titanic coffee mugs. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, most of the time common sense will prevail and it will be recognized that the source is reliable with respect to establishing that particular sky-is-blue statement. But if there is a wikilawyer working the article on behalf of the "Anti-Coffee Mug Society", they can and will delete the statement saying "not a wp:rs". North8000 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um... I would argue that the website of a coffee mug manufacturer, advertizing SS Titanic coffee mugs for sale, is a reliable (albeit primary) source for that statement. I would certainly say it passes wp:rs if the issue were raised at WP:RSN. Of course, this is one of those "reliability depends on context" situations. The same source probably would not be reliable for most other statements. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, most of the time common sense will prevail and it will be recognized that the source is reliable with respect to establishing that particular sky-is-blue statement. But if there is a wikilawyer working the article on behalf of the "Anti-Coffee Mug Society", they can and will delete the statement saying "not a wp:rs". North8000 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, for the statement "various suppliers sell SS Titanic coffee mugs" and, as a reference, point to a web portal page that lists 50 places to buy SS Titanic coffee mugs. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- North, could you give us an example of a "real-world-reliable" source that does not meet WP:RS criteria? Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- A part of the confusion I see in the above is terminology ambiguity, using "reliable source" to refer to two completely different things. WP:RS means meeting certain Wikipedia criteria, whereas real world RS usually means that they are a reliable source of correct information regarding the statement at hand. Sources meeting WP:RS criteria are often wrong or unreliable, and highly real-world-reliable sources (on the matter at hand) often don't meet wp:RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ One area where many editors fall down is when a politician makes a statement to "sex something up" but in the small print adds a caveat to cover himself. A normally reliable newspaper, that likes the "sexing up" publishes the story and hints at the caveat. A Wikipedia editor who is not au fait with the whole story then quotes the politician's sexed-up comments without the caveat as though they were true. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to Blueboar's question, the one that the wikilawyer POV warrior would most likely use to knock out material would be "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." from wp:ver. Many sources that are very reliable for the material which cited them do not meet this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Our goal here is to frame a suitable guideline for using newspapers as RS. We already specify columnists; we should add letters, ads, speeches and editorials. We can specify, perhaps, "a story covered by a newspaper or magazine reporter can usually be considered a RS. The editor should include the name or affiliation of the reporter (such as Reuters, Associate Press, etc.)" Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see why newpaper articles are given more primacy than primary source scientific reports. In science writing, citing primary sources is discouraged (though not forbidden) because people see what they want to see. I think that in history, single witness testimony and single-reporter journalism fills this same role (at best). It might serve in the short interval when no better reports are available, but after a time given for verification and the work of historians to sift many reports, news reports from single journalists should be replaced as fast as possible in favor of synthetic published history. For example, All the President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein (a book) gives a far clearer and more accurate picture of Watergate than do (say) the original Washington Post news "investigative reports" by Woodward and Bernstein. That is because by 1974 there was a lot more info-- from the Watergate Hearings, the tapes, etc. By now we wouldn't quote the original Washington Post 1973 material as RS except for historical data about who thought what, at the time, in 1973. SBHarris 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Sbharris that when a good book is available it is preferable to a newspaper report. That happens for very famous events like Watergate, but not for most events. Reporter are NOT a primary source -- they are secondary sources--that is, trained observers who tell what the main actors were doing. They tell us what a candidate said in a speech and how the audience reacted, for example. At Watergate reporters were not at the original break-in; they were at the Senate hearings and court trials and tell us what witnesses and Senators said. (In the scientist analogy, the scientist is making things happen in his lab.) Rjensen (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actuallly it is scientists who are the trained observers, telling us what happened in their experiments. Why then are their reports not considered secondary? Journalists sometimes have training and sometimes not-- do you think Bob Woodward had a degree in journalism? LOL. And journlists don't always report on observations, often they simply repeat hearsay in what people told them, and when they do-- sometimes they don't tell us WHO told them, as in the case of Deep Throat (who turned out to a good source) or Judith Miller's screwups in the NYT about WMDs before Iraq 2003, gotten as hearsay on deep back ground from Ahmed Chalabi, who turned out to be a very BAD source. [1]. That got her fired, but this doesn't happen enough. The chain of evidence for what you read in investigative journalism, is generally broken. So why should you trust it more than a primary science paper?
Let me tell you why newspaper reports are used so much on WP: it's easy. After a time they are available on-line, whereas historical books are simply not. Google books is not what it used to be, and so WP editors turn to e-newspapers. It's as simple as that, and as seductive, and as damning. SBHarris 19:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if we ever wanted to change the situation so that wp:rs starts meaning actually reliable, we're going to have to throw away the broad brush. And realize the two main metrics and that they are context sensitive. Knowledge and objectivity, and both with respect to the item which cited it. And say that the strength (per those criteria) must be commensurate with the situation at hand. A source with weaker metrics would be sufficient for an uncontested "sky is blue" statement. Much stronger metrics would be required as a cite for a controversial and questionable statement. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actuallly it is scientists who are the trained observers, telling us what happened in their experiments. Why then are their reports not considered secondary? Journalists sometimes have training and sometimes not-- do you think Bob Woodward had a degree in journalism? LOL. And journlists don't always report on observations, often they simply repeat hearsay in what people told them, and when they do-- sometimes they don't tell us WHO told them, as in the case of Deep Throat (who turned out to a good source) or Judith Miller's screwups in the NYT about WMDs before Iraq 2003, gotten as hearsay on deep back ground from Ahmed Chalabi, who turned out to be a very BAD source. [1]. That got her fired, but this doesn't happen enough. The chain of evidence for what you read in investigative journalism, is generally broken. So why should you trust it more than a primary science paper?
- I agree with Sbharris that when a good book is available it is preferable to a newspaper report. That happens for very famous events like Watergate, but not for most events. Reporter are NOT a primary source -- they are secondary sources--that is, trained observers who tell what the main actors were doing. They tell us what a candidate said in a speech and how the audience reacted, for example. At Watergate reporters were not at the original break-in; they were at the Senate hearings and court trials and tell us what witnesses and Senators said. (In the scientist analogy, the scientist is making things happen in his lab.) Rjensen (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see why newpaper articles are given more primacy than primary source scientific reports. In science writing, citing primary sources is discouraged (though not forbidden) because people see what they want to see. I think that in history, single witness testimony and single-reporter journalism fills this same role (at best). It might serve in the short interval when no better reports are available, but after a time given for verification and the work of historians to sift many reports, news reports from single journalists should be replaced as fast as possible in favor of synthetic published history. For example, All the President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein (a book) gives a far clearer and more accurate picture of Watergate than do (say) the original Washington Post news "investigative reports" by Woodward and Bernstein. That is because by 1974 there was a lot more info-- from the Watergate Hearings, the tapes, etc. By now we wouldn't quote the original Washington Post 1973 material as RS except for historical data about who thought what, at the time, in 1973. SBHarris 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Our goal here is to frame a suitable guideline for using newspapers as RS. We already specify columnists; we should add letters, ads, speeches and editorials. We can specify, perhaps, "a story covered by a newspaper or magazine reporter can usually be considered a RS. The editor should include the name or affiliation of the reporter (such as Reuters, Associate Press, etc.)" Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Rjensen, you seem here to confuse "secondary" with more important concepts, like "independence". You might like to read WP:Secondary does not mean independent and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. What makes a source secondary is the way that it deals with the information: it interprets or analyzes information that was first reported elsewhere. "Eyewitness" news reporting is always a primary source. It may also be the best possible source (depending on what you're trying to support in the article), but it's always a primary source. Primary is not an indication that the source is unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's not the way historians handle evidence--reporters are rarely treated as primary sources (although sometimes the reporter does play a role along with the main actors--eg Couric's 2008 interview with VP nominee Sarah Palin)). When a reporter write, "President Obama said ABC and Governor Romney later said XYZ," it is Obama and Romney who are the actors and their words are primary sources. I think you're confusing the TV appearance where Obama says ABC--that indeed is a primary source because it reproduces Obama's words. I never suggested that "primary" sources are unreliable. The Wiki rule is that a Wiki editor's interpretation of the meaning of a primary source is dubious. Reporters select what the primary actor is saying and reports what the reporter considers important. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Rjensen, you seem here to confuse "secondary" with more important concepts, like "independence". You might like to read WP:Secondary does not mean independent and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. What makes a source secondary is the way that it deals with the information: it interprets or analyzes information that was first reported elsewhere. "Eyewitness" news reporting is always a primary source. It may also be the best possible source (depending on what you're trying to support in the article), but it's always a primary source. Primary is not an indication that the source is unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Newspaper reports on historical topics are quite clearly a primary source. They lack an adequate system of internal analysis and contextualisation to make them readily readable as the record of the past. Reliance on newspapers for historical articles is effectively original research; as wikipedia editors are conducting themselves as historians by claiming to be able to derive a record of the past from untrustworthy texts. User:The ed17's articles on battleships show how to write using newspapers in relation to a historical article of such minor importance that the topic isn't over saturated with scholarly secondary sources—by relying on secondary sources, and using primary sources such as newspapers for backfill where the secondary sources have already established the broad structure, weight, importance etc within the article. (I've notified The ed17 that I commended them here.) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Fifel, that's much appreciated. I think you're referring to my newspaper citations in South American dreadnought race. The interesting thing about newspapers is that they can reveal the thought or mood of a certain topic in a certain time period. In this case, I've used newspaper citations as an indicator of the general hysteria surrounding a Brazilian order for two dreadnoughts, or to show the rumors surrounding the various ships (ie at least two publications stated that the Greeks were going to buy one dreadnought off Chile, but obviously that never happened, so I've noted the rumors in the article to bolster the general fact that many people thought these ships would be sold). So, I guess my generalized main point is that they are invaluable resources, especially if you have time to go through the many newspaper archives (both dead tree and online), but you have to be careful how you use them. They are secondary sources in that they are professional accounts of an event – even though they are written without the benefit of hindsight – but not everything they say will turn out to be true later. My advice is to write a full article to give yourself the general picture, then add in the newspapers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whether we decide newpapers are primary or secondary, it's clear that we give them too much credence on WP. What makes things so bad is when WP in effect constructs WP:RS so that it essentially makes reporters ipso facto "reliable sources" in their analysis of the primary material that they turn into a news report, so long as it gets published in the right newspaper. However, reporters are NOT particularly reliable in many situations. No more than the average Wikipedia editor, and sometimes a good deal less if they're writing about a technical subject on which the WP editor has personal expertise. So that's what makes the WP system, where easily-publically-findable cited attribution (what we call "verifiability") counts even more than the knowledge or good judgement necessary to sift truth from falsehood. If it weren't for WP:IAR, WP would consist mostly of the journalist's poorly-fact-checked views of reality. It's bad enough now. People making this policy complain that we have no way of checking our own editors' credentials, but we have no way of checking the credentials of the average person writing the AP story, either. And if we do, we don't have their sources. So, rumors and lies like Curveball's blatherings get turned into official U.S. testimony before U.N. hearings and then onto the front page of WP:RS newspapers and finally you've bootstrapped nonsense with no good source into Wiki-reliability (and into a major war, too-- Wikipedia isn't the only one fooled by these chains of reliability-creap).
But, by contrast, here's how science works: When a bunch of Italian physicists reported that their neutrinos were traveling faster than light, nobody really in physics really believed it. Neutrinos are known to have mass. Even when the experiment was repeated with different beams, nobody believed it. The newspapers reported it breathlessly. Science magazines had pictures of upside-down Einsteins. WP had a "balanced" article based mostly (not entirely) on news accounts, even though we were looking at reports that were like reports that astronauts didn't really land on the moon, but faked it. A few editors dug in their heels and kept this stuff from getting into every article that had anything to do with light or the speed of light. And (you guessed it), it all finally turned out to be due to equipment failure, including a loose fiberoptic cable. Two physicist-managers at the project were fired. See Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly and particularly its early versions and TALK page. Those who knew some physics and about neutrinos from SN1987A and their arrival time with respect to light, demanded extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim, as North8000 suggests above. But in order to do this on any article, the WP editor has to know enough to do it. Too many subjects in WP don't get treated with the WP editorial skepticism they deserve. SBHarris 02:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- One possible "big picture" solution is at Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:ver and wp:nor need additional source metrics, and a way to apply them Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whether we decide newpapers are primary or secondary, it's clear that we give them too much credence on WP. What makes things so bad is when WP in effect constructs WP:RS so that it essentially makes reporters ipso facto "reliable sources" in their analysis of the primary material that they turn into a news report, so long as it gets published in the right newspaper. However, reporters are NOT particularly reliable in many situations. No more than the average Wikipedia editor, and sometimes a good deal less if they're writing about a technical subject on which the WP editor has personal expertise. So that's what makes the WP system, where easily-publically-findable cited attribution (what we call "verifiability") counts even more than the knowledge or good judgement necessary to sift truth from falsehood. If it weren't for WP:IAR, WP would consist mostly of the journalist's poorly-fact-checked views of reality. It's bad enough now. People making this policy complain that we have no way of checking our own editors' credentials, but we have no way of checking the credentials of the average person writing the AP story, either. And if we do, we don't have their sources. So, rumors and lies like Curveball's blatherings get turned into official U.S. testimony before U.N. hearings and then onto the front page of WP:RS newspapers and finally you've bootstrapped nonsense with no good source into Wiki-reliability (and into a major war, too-- Wikipedia isn't the only one fooled by these chains of reliability-creap).
- Thanks Fifel, that's much appreciated. I think you're referring to my newspaper citations in South American dreadnought race. The interesting thing about newspapers is that they can reveal the thought or mood of a certain topic in a certain time period. In this case, I've used newspaper citations as an indicator of the general hysteria surrounding a Brazilian order for two dreadnoughts, or to show the rumors surrounding the various ships (ie at least two publications stated that the Greeks were going to buy one dreadnought off Chile, but obviously that never happened, so I've noted the rumors in the article to bolster the general fact that many people thought these ships would be sold). So, I guess my generalized main point is that they are invaluable resources, especially if you have time to go through the many newspaper archives (both dead tree and online), but you have to be careful how you use them. They are secondary sources in that they are professional accounts of an event – even though they are written without the benefit of hindsight – but not everything they say will turn out to be true later. My advice is to write a full article to give yourself the general picture, then add in the newspapers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Why does it use the word "mainstream" when any reliable source is acceptable?
In a current AFD, someone read the following section to mean you could ignore reliable sources that are not mainstream.
Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors.
If something is determined to be a reliable source, then it is accepted. Always has been. To claim that "mainstream" sources are more reliable, causes problems. There are magazines dedicated to just one specific thing for instance. Scientific journals aren't mainstream. Is there any reason to state otherwise? Any objection towards me removing it? Dream Focus 07:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your edit remove the underlined text from News organizations:
- News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
- That change needs to be reverted. The old text is saying there are two kinds of content in news sources (reports and editorials). The removed text used to say that reports were reliable providing the source was mainstream. Now, the text makes no assertion about content—it just says editorials can be used for attributed opinions. Since there are lots of junk sites claiming to be news sources, of course only "mainstream" sources are in fact reliable for fact.
- Guidelines should not be adjusted to suit a particular use/misuse on an AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Junk sites are not reliable sources, so its not a problem. All places considered reliable sources are of equal value, not just the mainstream ones. Dream Focus 09:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that all reliable sources are of equal value. Some sources are considered more reliable than others. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, nowadays, for news reporting, "mainstream" media is more likely to mean a particular bias if its on political issues. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yup... many news sources slip biased editorial commentary into their news reporting... but having a bias on political issues does not make the source unreliable for basic news facts. Both Fox News and CNN are unashamedly biased (in different directions) and are notorious for blending editorial commentary into their news reports... but both are reliable when they report the basic facts... For example: that an earthquake occured on a given day, and registered 3.0 on the Richter scale... or that Obama urged congress to pass a particular law during his State of the Union address. It is often difficult to separate "reporting" from "editorializing"... but once we do so, we then know how to phrase what we say in our articles - we know whether we should present it as a statement of unattributed fact or as a statement of attributed opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just a "nit" with "established." If a few or number of experienced, highly regarded editors and writers get 50 million to start a brand new online news site, it may not be established but it may be highly reliable. Would "established and/or mainstream" be better. Or maybe " meet a high editorial standard"?? CarolMooreDC 12:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Would "Major news outlet" be better?... purpose of this section is two-fold:
- 1) to make it clear to editors that (even though they may be biased in their editorializing, and even though they make the occasional error in their reporting) the big, well known, major media outlets are in fact considered generally reliable (and yes, this includes that news outlet, the one you hate due to its political bias). This has been a perennial issue at RSN, and is a point that needs to be made.
- 2) to note that the nature of the source content determines how we write about it in Wikipedia... we need to distinguish news reporting from news analysis/editorializing... we may phrase material we get from news reporting in the language of "fact" ("An earthquake registering 3.0 on the Richter Scale occurred in Moose Flop, Manitoba on April 3rd, 2011 <cite New York Times report>"). However, we should phrase material we get from news analysis/editorials in the language of "attributed opinion" ("According to Fox News financial reporter Neil Cavuto, the earthquake was responsible for the collapse of the Canadian dollar <nowiki><cite Fox News program>"</nowiki>). Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- To add context to this discussion this suggestion was made regarding a disucssion at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Wakaba-Soh where one user was citing WP:NEWSORG as a deletion rational because the sources used were not mainstream.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just a "nit" with "established." If a few or number of experienced, highly regarded editors and writers get 50 million to start a brand new online news site, it may not be established but it may be highly reliable. Would "established and/or mainstream" be better. Or maybe " meet a high editorial standard"?? CarolMooreDC 12:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yup... many news sources slip biased editorial commentary into their news reporting... but having a bias on political issues does not make the source unreliable for basic news facts. Both Fox News and CNN are unashamedly biased (in different directions) and are notorious for blending editorial commentary into their news reports... but both are reliable when they report the basic facts... For example: that an earthquake occured on a given day, and registered 3.0 on the Richter scale... or that Obama urged congress to pass a particular law during his State of the Union address. It is often difficult to separate "reporting" from "editorializing"... but once we do so, we then know how to phrase what we say in our articles - we know whether we should present it as a statement of unattributed fact or as a statement of attributed opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, nowadays, for news reporting, "mainstream" media is more likely to mean a particular bias if its on political issues. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that all reliable sources are of equal value. Some sources are considered more reliable than others. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Junk sites are not reliable sources, so its not a problem. All places considered reliable sources are of equal value, not just the mainstream ones. Dream Focus 09:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Restricting it to "major news outlets" means "your independent, local newspaper is not a reliable source".
Dream, I believe that the primary point being made here is that tabloids and the gutter press aren't being included in this statement. "Mainstream" also effectively excludes publications that say they are "newspapers" or "magazines" but actually are propagandistic newsletters, e.g., any "magazine" published by the National Rifle Association or the National Organization for Women.
And we really do need to directly address the issue of biased/partisan sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Self publishers
Leaving a message on this page was suggested on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list. Comments and help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- That discussion is rather long, so let me give the short version: After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've created:
- List of self-publishing companies in article space for notable self-publishing houses
- WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space for notable and non-notable self-publishing houses
- Editors are welcomed to help expand and improve both of these. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Example
What in WP:IRS tells me whether Tiddlywinks Quarterly is/isn't a reliable guide as to how to spell the surname of a Lithuanian tiddlywinks champions? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Who publishes Tiddlywinks Quarterly? Springer? History2007 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- English Tiddlywinks Association, the real name of the magazine is Winking World In ictu oculi (talk)
-
-
- Sorry my friend, that one is way over my head.... maybe you can ask here.... History2007 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- How many pages are you going to ask this on? The diacritics dispute over tennis players' names needs to be resolved at WP:AT, not at RS, WP:V, BLP, or any of the other parents you've been asking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed link to the Wikipedia list of self publishers
There are now two lists: List of self-publishing companies and WP:List of self-publishing companies that help users identify self-published books. On the village pump it was suggested that links be added to those lists from the relevant policy/guideline pages. I am therefore proposing a link to those lists from the self-publishing section here. If there is no opposition, could someone else add that link please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've added them to WP:USINGSPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I did not even know that page existed. But I think most people will look here, anyway, so could you add them here as well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Factual inaccuracy
In this edit I had to remove a statement that is being discussed at length on WP:V and was added here. I have seen no consensus for it, so I do not think it is wise to add it with no discussion. Given that discussions are taking place at WP:V on that, it might be best to discuss it there in any case. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think this kind of thing is not bad:
| == Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy == Verifiable sources in of themselves can present certain POVs and there are times when they will conflict with each other. Such conflicts do not automatically mean that one or more sources are "inaccurate" and are best handled via WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE. However there are rare occasions via criteria very similar to WP:DUCK where an otherwise Verifiable source can be proven through other reliable sources to contain factually inaccurate information. This can range from things like the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline to typos that create historical impossibilities such B52s (first flight in 1952) existing during General MacArthur's occupation of Japan (1945-1951) as presented in the book American Shogun. In such cases simple belief that verifiable information is inaccurate is not enough to justify its removal. Evidence in the form of reliable sources that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, through Clear and convincing evidence, or via Preponderance of the evidence that the information being sited is factually wrong must be presented. This is so discussion regarding source reliability and due weight, rather simply deciding on the personal views of Wikipedia editors can occur and a consensus reached. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely. If consensus is that reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed.[1]
|
- Bearing in mind that a lot of editors interpret things very literally, and need really clear policies in order to overcome the problem that Please take a chair actually means "Please sit down" and not "take one of the chairs away", we do need to be abundantly clear about this. What is "common sense" to x-percentage of our editors may not be "common sense" to y-percentage.
In order not to split the discussion over two pages, though, editors watching this page should ideally be contributing to the discussions here, bearing in mind that consensus-making discussions can always be a bit hard to interpret! There's that whole thing about balancing weight of numbers / argument, and looking at a very big picture. We need to try to work together for the best result, and not get ourselves into a polarised situation, or read things into people's viewpoints which aren't actually there. No assumption of "hidden agendas", for example ;P Pesky (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- So look, lots of people are discussing it there. let us see what happens there, and then just mimic that overall situation. History2007 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, Wikipedia:Inaccuracy seems to be but a recent essay by a small number of editor and has not been subjected to community discussion. It seems to be just the opinion of a rather small number editors and hence has no bearing on issues as such, given its recency and lack of community discussion. Indeed, at first reading the tone of it seems to point the other way from WP:Truth. In fact I would suggest merging WP:Truth and WP:Accuracy given that their overlap may well be unclear to many readers. History2007 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that we should not include the sentence in question ("If reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed") until the larger discussion relating to the same issue is resolved at WP:V.
- If we do eventually include it, I would suggest one change... "...the factually incorrect material should either be removed or presented as an attributed statement of the author's opinion, per WP:NPOV". Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. It is nice to see that we are beginning to agree to get ideas from the community at large at let them figure it out based on a wider discussion. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Is Yancuic.com WP:RS?
Is http://www.yancuic.com WP:RS? Chrisrus (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Could not connect to it, but please ask on WP:RSN. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Question
i keep getting messages on how it is wrong to change any details what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beggsie221 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Follow the links in the messages to learn what reliable sources are and how to cite them. Alternately, you could contact any of the editors leaving the messages and request their help in making your edits. Tiderolls 22:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] YouTube as a source
I have been the primary editor of Justine Ezarik for some time and have consistently tried to eliminate use of YouTube as a source. This includes, citing its pageview statistics as a source for popularity. I have recently been involved in a pair of popular viral videos (Kony 2012 and Cat Daddy) and am now wondering if it is Kosher to cite YouTube for number of pageviews and upload date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would say not so, but please ask at: WP:RSN. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will move the discussion there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. no longer watching here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will move the discussion there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Mr. Mom
Have you ever wondered what would make a man want to be a stay at home man whether Dad or dead beat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.49.28 (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nope... never wondered at all... There are many reasons why a man might want to stay at home... because he wants to raise his children, because he is secure enough financially that he has no need to work, because he prefers the homemaker role, etc. etc. Most (if not all) of these reasons are the same reasons why a woman might want to stay at home. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Essay unworthy of mention
The essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources is unworthy of being mentioned in this guideline. Some reasons include:
- It indicates the size of the publisher does not matter, but for purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines it has always been understood that self-published sources are those where whether to publish at all, and the content of the publication, is decided by one person, or a handful of people. When a sizable organization (for example, the United States Census Bureau) is the publisher, it isn't self-published.
- It contains incorrect examples of self-published works. For example, patents are not self-published because the government agency responsible for granting patents decides whether or not to grant a patent, not the inventor. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I agree with that revert. In general, these "essay items" can just be written by 2 or 3 people, and once linked, if the title looks impressive users may believe them to be of value, given that very few people check the number of author history, etc. This has to be better controlled else will result in chaos. History2007 (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Just to clarify, I don't necessarily agree with the notion that only one person or a handful of people can be a self-publisher, but to treat the Census Bureau as a self-publisher would require massive policy and guideline changes. A pointer to an essay that offers only one definition for self-publishing, which is deeply incompatible with policies and guidelines, only creates chaos. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This is pretty much like every 2-3 drivers writing their own traffic rules... That can not happen if the roads are to remain safe. History2007 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Size of the publisher doesn't matter. Some of VDM's imprints are vanity presses. The key element of self-publication is a lack of an accepted editorial process that determines factual and opinion content prior to publication. Newspapers which are edited have this process. Newspapers which are not edited do not have this process. Institutional publishers (Census Bureaus) do have such an editorial process. Other institutional publishers, such as Patent Offices which do not edit the contents of patents do not have an editorial process. "Size" is a non-starter regarding reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- But in many cases, if a publishers has only printed 3-7 books ever, then is it a reliable source? And if the books are all of the same author? ... History2007 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Again, this isn't a matter of size. Numerous scholarly imprints (think of School of XY at University Foo, a common conference publisher) are reliable despite publishing irregularly, sporadically, and minimally. If a publisher solely publishes works by one author, and if those works aren't subject to positive review by their expert community (historians, grognards, music critics, pokémon fans, etc.) then the press is suspicious because of its publishing mode—not its size. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Size of the publisher in terms like total number of employees, including the janitors and payroll department, does not matter (except if the total number of employees is 2, it's probably self-published). But size, in terms of the total number of people involved in deciding if something gets published, and if so, what modifications are required, does matter. The publications that have good editorial processes have a fair number of people involved in those processes.
-
-
-
- Well, except that it's not a good reason to reject the usefulness of the page, because that is actually all that wikt:self-publishing means, as any trip to any dictionary will prove.
- Jc3s5h's two objections at the top are both wrong. Fifelfoo seems to have dealt with the "size matters" objection; I will direct him to Wikipedia:RSEX#Are_patents_reliable_sources? to learn more about the patent publication process. Alternatively, he could reflect on the meaning of the "Request for voluntary publication", which costs US $130 at the moment. The patent office has zero control over whether a patent application is published, when it is published, or what its contents are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I had not even read that essay in any detail, I just glanced at it again now. It says:
-
- Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work?
- If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.
So if I form a company to publish my book, according to this it is no longer self published because publisher is not equal to author as an entity. And if I form a company and set my cousin as the director? And if I give my cousin 10% of the company shares as a gift so he will take orders over the phone? These are all self-published cases. And people do that all the time and publish with no editorial review. History2007 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- May I suggest that the place to discuss problems with and changes to this essay is on the essay's talk page? Since the essay in question is not located in someone's user space, anyone may edit it... this includes you. So...If you disagree with something an essay says, discuss the issue at the essay's talk page and propose changes. If you meet with resistance, and your proposed changes are rejected, consider writing a "contrary opinion" essay of your own. Remember, essays are opinion pieces... not "the rules". Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the discussion should be on the essay page and not here. But then I think you know my position that although essays are "officially of no value", in my view they can be detrimental when new users confuse them with guidelines, when linked to a section, etc. So let this be the end of the discussion of this essay for me. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- If someone wants to improve the essay, that's fine, but it isn't suitable to be mentioned in it's present form.
-
-
-
- I don't know enough about how the term "self-published" is used when evaluating the reliability of works in discussions outside Wikipedia to say the definition that if the the author and publisher are the same entity then it's self-published is a viable definition. But if such a definition were adopted, then WP:IFR would have to be rewritten to say that self-published sources are sometimes reliable secondary sources and there is no need to require that the author have published works in the field through an independent publisher. Under the new definition, we would have to allow self-published sources with a good editorial process to be allowed in biographies of living persons. That's just the beginning of the policy and guideline changes that would be needed.
-
-
-
- As for patents being self-published, the essay Wikipedia:RSEX#Are_patents_reliable_sources? points out reasons to question whether patents are reliable sources, but it's assertion that patents are self-published is not true. First, patent examiners can and do totally reject patents. Second, patent examiners routinely reject some of the claims within a patent. So although the patent office review is in no way comparable to the peer review of good scholarly journals, it is enough to prevent patents from being self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Um... no, patent examiners do not reject the claims made in a patent application. What they are checking is whether the product would violate an existing patent. I could invent a gizmo, claim that it supplies unlimited energy and perpetual motion... and as long as my gizmo does not violate an existing patent, I will be granted a patent. The patent office does not care if my invention actually works or not.
- More to the point... the patent office does not edit or change the supporting documentation that is submitted with an application. That supporting documentation is definitely self-published. And it is the supporting documentation that is usually what people want to cite in Wikipedia. About the only things that aren't self-published in the patent process are the patent number and the date that the patent was issued. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for patents being self-published, the essay Wikipedia:RSEX#Are_patents_reliable_sources? points out reasons to question whether patents are reliable sources, but it's assertion that patents are self-published is not true. First, patent examiners can and do totally reject patents. Second, patent examiners routinely reject some of the claims within a patent. So although the patent office review is in no way comparable to the peer review of good scholarly journals, it is enough to prevent patents from being self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I think Jc3s5h has confused the issuance of a patent with the publication of the patent application. Issuance—granting the legally protected limited monopoly for the inventor's idea—is controlled by the patent offices. Publication—putting it up on their website so that other people can read it—is controlled entirely by the inventor/author. The author of the patent specification and claims can have that published at any point in time, including before review, during review, after review, after issuance, or after rejection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I could be wrong but my understanding of the difference between regular publishing and self-publishing is on who gets to decide whether a work is published. So, let's say that I'm an author and I write a book about widgets. I submit my book to Random House. Random House can decide whether or not they want to publish it. It's their decision, not mine. On the other hand, if I take the same book and hire a printing-press or a self-publishing company to print it, then it was my decision to print it. Similarly, if I'm a journalist and I write an article for the New York Times, NYT has editorial control. They can edit it, request changes or decline to publish it altogether. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you have it mostly right. But there are 3 issues really: money, effort and reputation. Random House, Prentice Hall etc. will not bother with books that will sell few copies. They only hire experienced in-house managers/editors and the staff time is a key constraint. The "real" publishers pay money upfront as advances and good royalties, and if the book flops their marketing costs (can be significant) will be lost. So they will carefully evaluate the book and the author and will send it out for review to "experts in the field". And these publishers are very careful about their own reputation and seek high quality manuscripts, often rejecting 80% of what they receive. The vanity presses, on the other hand require a heartbeat and a manuscript. That is all. But they charge the author and if you look at Vantage Press also at times rip off the authors. There are huge differences in the eventual manuscript quality. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- A Quest For Knowledge's description is fine when the author is distinct from the publisher. But when the author and the publisher are the same, and consist of a substantial group of people with a credible process for editorial control, such as the 911 Commission, A Quest For Knowledge's description is insufficient to figure out if the work is self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes... the 911 Commission's report is self-published. I think there is a misconception that "self-published" means "bad"... that is not the case. There are limitations on using self-published sources, but they can be used. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- A Quest For Knowledge's description is fine when the author is distinct from the publisher. But when the author and the publisher are the same, and consist of a substantial group of people with a credible process for editorial control, such as the 911 Commission, A Quest For Knowledge's description is insufficient to figure out if the work is self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Horla.le 07 May, 2012
-
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources&diff=491188556&oldid=491181758
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
