Talk:Internet Speculative Fiction Database

Refusal to update author's name change
Currently the ISFDB have refused to update Lee Mandelo's listing to acknowledge the legal and professional name change; Lee has acknowledged that the old name could remain as an "also writes under". https://twitter.com/leemandelo/status/1603165987356004355 All of the past publishers are now listing the books under the new name, which makes the ISFDB's stance difficult to understand. 131.191.61.247 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussing the ISFDB Wikipedia article, not for discussing ISFDB in general. Sorry.  Dan Bloch (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring my edit to the ISFDB page mentioning this issue. The reason for reversion is patently ridiculous considering the other sources considered "reliable" on this page.AdainPH (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversions
Recording a strong disagreement about editor Dan Bloch's insistence on reverting my edit, based on a claim that Genre Grapevine (a newsletter written by Jason Sanford, published on Patreon and Substack) is too unreliable a source to be included on the ISFDB page, which already includes similar types of sources.

The editor claims it is okay to cite Boing Boing on this page: "Boing Boing is addressed at WP:RSP, which says, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law." (This particular page is about the ISFDB, not copyright law, so this seems like an odd thing for Bloch to quote. But for what it's worth, I think using Doctorow does make sense on this page, as he's part of the SFF industry.)

The editor claims it is okay to cite File 770 on this page: "My sense about File 770 is that it mostly flies under the radar, that is, it covers an area where sources are sparse and it happens to be extremely reliable, but it probably wouldn't be acceptable for controversial claims. But one could also argue that it's a mainstream specialty magazine with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (language from WP:VERIFIABLE), which would make it a reliable source." (I mostly agree with that, though File 770 is known more for information gathering and commentary, not so much fact-checking. It's certainly a staple of SFF news, run by Mike Glyer, an established, award-winning fan writer.) The editor claims it is not okay to cite Patreon content on this page: "Patreon content is self-published, basically a blog, so it can only be used as a reliable source under a few specific conditions which your use didn't fulfill (see WP:SELFPUB)." (I agree that Patreon is mostly a blog or a newsletter. Like, uh, the two sources above.)

WP:SELFPUB says: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. 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.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (That sounds pretty reasonable to me.)

So, let's look at that third sentence: "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." Let's take a look at Jason Sanford's Wikipedia page. Subject-matter expert? Check. He's a published author of fiction and nonfiction, active in the SFF industry. Relevant field? Check. He's produced work in SFF and literary criticism in general, and been nominated for a Hugo for best fan writer (the same award Mike Glyer's won for File 770). Previously published by reliable, independent publications? Check. The New York Review of Science Fiction, among others. It looks to me like Sanford's newsletter checks all the boxes to allow it to be considered a reliable self-published source.

As I said when I made my edit, there is no substantive difference between Genre Grapevine and sources already used in this article. The only reason to exclude its use is to erase a controversy about ISFDB. I am quite aware of "how Wikipedia works," particularly when it comes to the handling of material focusing on women and gender minorities; but here's hoping there are other editors who care about consistent evaluation of sources and history sections that actually talk about the history of a page's subject. AdainPH (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First, you're quoting me out of context. I said it probably wasn't ideal to use Boing Boing or File 770.  My exact words were, "Boing Boing and File 770 aren't necessarily reliable by Wikipedia's standards either."  Second, the basis for decisions about Wikipedia content is Wikipedia's documented policies, not what some other editor may have done.  Third, Genre Grapevine is nearly unknown, and the format of your citation gave the impression that this is some random bozo posting stuff on Patreon.  But fine, you've made a case that Genre Grapevine may be a reliable source.  Let's move on.
 * There are also issues with the text ("In late 2022, the ISFDB was publicly criticized for its refusal to update an author's byline. The record remained uncorrected for more than a year, with an editor deploying transphobic talking points and ignoring bibliographic best practices."), of which the two most serious are:
 * The text is cryptic. You don't say who the author is or why he wanted ISFDB to change his name.
 * Whether ISFDB ignored bibliographic best practices isn't in the source. All we know from the source is that Lee Mandelo said they were ignoring best practices, and Mandelo isn't the subject expert.  The ignoring-best-practices thing needs to be rephrased as a quote, linked to an authoritative description of best practices, or left out.
 * Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First, saying "you're quoting me out of context" does not, in fact, mean I am quoting you out of context. I linked to your full comments and, more to the point, if you felt Boing Boing and File 770 didn't belong in the article, you would've edited them out. You didn't. Second, I was following Wikipedia's documented policies, and do not appreciate the gaslighting. Third, if you're unfamiliar with SFF industry publications, that's fine, it's niche. But before reverting an edit I would expect you to actually take a look at what it is you're reverting, especially after I raised the question on your talk page.
 * Strange that you didn't mention a problem with the text earlier. But in answer to your bullet points: I didn't include Mandelo's name because this isn't a page about him, it's about the ISFDB and the policies it implemented. There are now references to professional best practices on straightforward sites rather than overly technical documents. (I question why it's necessary to spell out that bibliographic best practices call for accurate bibliographic data, but fine, now there are links to a library journal and an official SAA source saying so in the context of trans authors.)
 * I do not appreciate your wasting my time with this bad faith run-around. AdainPH (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At no point did I act in bad faith. And I do appreciate that you followed Wikipedia's policies about using the article's talk pages to arrive at a resolution.  But I didn't appreciate you wasting my time pretending not to understand how Wikipedia worked so I would explain it to you.  I'm going to assume good faith and that all of this was caused by communication problems. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)