User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Webliography Reliable Sources

Webliography Reliable Sources is a compilation of resources to enhance understanding of Wikipedia protocol's regarding reliable resources.

Personal list of sources

 * Der Spiegel Der Spiegel International online Strong reputation for fact-checking.
 * The New Yorker The New Yorker Strong reputation for fact-checking.
 * The Economist The Economist Strong reputation for fact-checking.
 * British Broadcasting Corporation British Broadcasting Corporation Strong reputation for fact-checking.
 * This is a "A list of the 238 most respected journalists, as nominated by journalists in the 2018 Journalists at Work survey" National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ).

Key concepts

 * "Verifiability, not truth" WP:Verifiability, not truth
 * Written, published sources

Guidelines

 * Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Sources must be
 * reliable
 * third-party
 * written
 * published
 * with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
 * Most reliable sources
 * academic and peer-reviewed publications
 * reliable non-academic sources, respected mainstream publications
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers
 * Reliable sources/opinions only of reliable authors are not necessarily neutral. "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." including their opinions
 * NPOV
 * fairly represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."
 * Use in-text attribution if the content or source is subject of a disagreement.

Unreliable sources

 * Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources The guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources gives general advice on what is and isn't a reliable source; this essay aims to analyse specific examples of sources that might initially appear to be reliable, yet may not be. If in doubt about a source, discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboard.
 * Questionable sources
 * poor reputation for checking the facts
 * lack meaningful editorial oversight
 * have an apparent conflict of interest

If you are uncertain about a source, discuss this at


 * This essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist provides sources and examples of "Journalistic entities known to have good fact-checking operations"
 * Der Spiegel Der Spiegel International online
 * The New Yorker The New Yorker
 * The Economist The Economist
 * British Broadcasting Corporation British Broadcasting Corporation

Perhaps
 * PolitiFact deals with political statements.


 * The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University mentions: "A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest."
 * The New York Times Company forwards this understanding: "Conflicts of interest...may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company."

Spectrum: from fake news to credible: Zimdars' list
Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College created a controversial Zimdars' list of about 881 sites as an educational tool about journalism/social media/media literacy for her students. She tagged sites as Conspiracy Theory, Rumor Mill, State News, Junk Science, Hate News, Clickbait, Proceed With Caution, unreliable, satire, bias, Political, Credible, or unknown. For example advocate.com, alternet.org, cato.org/blog, oann.com were tagged as political and credible, consortiumnews.com was tagged as credible, nutritionfacts.org as credible, dailykos.com was tagged as political, clickbait and credible. Zimdars reads/watches/listens to "The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes) as well as The Atlantic, National Public Radio, and various local and alternative sources with different political perspectives (Truth-Out) some of which are included on this list. The problem: Even typically reliable sources, whether mainstream or alternative, corporate or nonprofit, rely on particular media frames to report stories and select stories based on different notions of newsworthiness. The best thing to do in our contemporary media environment is to read/watch/listen widely and often, and to be critical of the sources we share and engage with on social media." The list itself has been criticized as not neutral.

Fact-checking

 * Fact-checking websites and journalists
 * FactCheck.org
 * PolitiFact.com
 * Snopes.com

Blank checklist (to copy and use)
The goal
 * What are we trying to do here?

The material
 * What's the material that the ref supports?
 * Is it contentious or contended?
 * Does the ref indeed support the material?

The author
 * Who is the author?
 * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?
 * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?
 * What else has the author published?
 * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?
 * How does the author make a living?
 * What about reputation? Are there any big character markers?
 * Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
 * Anything else?

The publication
 * What is it?
 * Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
 * If not, is there any reason to believe that anyone has checked the author's facts?
 * What's their circulation?
 * What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation?
 * Do they have an agenda?
 * What's their business incentive for veracity?
 * Anything else?

Other
 * Does the source have standing to address the material?
 * Anything else?

Summary

Wikipedia essays
These are Wikipedia essays related to the topic of reliable sources. One of more contributors can create a Wikipedia essay with advice, suggestions, etc based on the opinions of the authors. As such they are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. While some essays may represent widely used Wikipedia policies, guidelines and norms, this is not always the case. An essay can also represent the viewpoint of a single person.

List of suggested readings

 * Excerpt:
 * Review:
 * Review:
 * Review:
 * Review:


 * It's a blog, so it's not a very reliable source itself... and the comments are completely unreliable of course, but interesting and probably true. We couldn't even think about using those in an article, but this isn't one, so read away.
 * Fact-checking at Cosmopolitan.
 * Coates comments on the Niall Ferguson affair and the downfall of Newsweek, and other matters.
 * Fact-checking at Cosmopolitan.
 * Coates comments on the Niall Ferguson affair and the downfall of Newsweek, and other matters.
 * Coates comments on the Niall Ferguson affair and the downfall of Newsweek, and other matters.

Related categories

 * Wikipedia essays
 * Category:Wikipedia essays on reliable sources