Wikipedia talk:Attribution/popculture

This page is devoted to discussing whether we should allow the following exception (or some version of it) in the "Use of questionable and self-published sources" section.

3. Popular culture and other exceptions
 * Some articles concern topics that are notable and encyclopedic but not well-documented by professional sources. Examples include popular culture and fictional topics. Many articles in these areas rely on self-published primary sources (e.g. posts on bulletin boards, blogs, and Usenet) and secondary sources (e.g. fan-written websites and self-published books), because few other sources exist for them. Although they are self-published, these sources are often the best available for those topics. In such cases, the source may be used so long as the material was written by a known individual (including those known by a well-known pseudonym) with established expertise in the subject. The individual need not be a professional in a relevant field. When such sources are used, they should be attributed in prose in addition to having a formal citation; sources of this nature whose reliability or applicability is disputed by other editors in the subject area should not be used, and anonymous sources should never be used. If in doubt about how to use such a source, consult a relevant WikiProject for advice. This provision applies only to topics not addressed by professional sources. Unorthodox or fringe theories in subject areas covered by professional sources — such as science, history, politics, religion, and current affairs — are not included in this provision.

Another suggestion was:

3. Popular culture
 * Some articles about popular culture and fiction rely on self-published posts on bulletin boards, blogs, and Usenet, because few other sources exist for them. In such cases, the material used must have been posted by named, or well-known pseudonymous, individuals with a known expertise in the area, although the individual need not be a professional in a relevant field. Anonymous posts should never be used. Some areas of popular culture also rely on self-published secondary sources, such as well-known fansites. If in doubt about how to use a source in this area, consult the relevant WikiProjects for advice.

A further suggestion was allowing the sources in limited situations. For instance:


 * In articles about themselves (e.g., Usenet posts may be used as examples on the Usenet article)
 * For a plot synopsis.


 * But not:


 * For "Hard" data, including but not limited to, sales figures and direct quotes.
 * For comparisons and judgments on quality (e.g., "X is the greatest game of the 1990s").
 * To describe development history.
 * When the source is anonymous.

Note: this may require a new policy page entirely (see Q1 below)

Questions

 * 1) Can the Attribution properly handle this concern without becoming needlessly bloated?
 * 2) Do the other "exceptions" on WP:ATT cover this concern already?
 * 3) How can the application of this be limited to popular culture given that it is very difficult to compartmentalize the category?
 * 4) Given that this concerns "questionable sources" from the outset, is it possible to determine who is "a known individual (including those known by a well-known pseudonym) with established expertise in the subject"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marskell (talk • contribs)


 * Yes to 1; no to 2; re:3: it's limited by the sentence "This provision applies only to topics not addressed by professional sources"; no to 4: that can be determined only by the people working in that area, although that's what usually happens (historians know about historians; quilters know about quilters). SlimVirgin (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re 3 "This provision applies only to topics not addressed by professional sources"; it has been pointed out that nothing in this will exclude the exception being deployed for pseudoscience and fringe political theories etc.


 * It explicitly says: "This provision applies only to topics not addressed by professional sources. Unorthodox or fringe theories in subject areas covered by professional sources — such as science, history, politics, religion, and current affairs — are not included in this provision." SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize what it says, and I'm having a hard time finding the exact words. Maybe this: it holds together not because of some internal logic, but because of a patch-up attempt through the caveat. Professional sources exist for music and video games, of course, but this will be invoked for particular music and video game articles for which sources cannot be found; professional sources exist for physics, but we're telling people we cannot invoke this kind of clause for particular physics articles for which sources cannot be found. This isn't actually consistent. And then there's the issue of attempting to compartmentalize what exactly is meant by "pop culture". We've already discussed Scientology, for instance. Covered here? What about alternate theories as to who wrote Shakespeare? A long list can be drawn up, I'm sure. Marskell 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are all good points. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re 4. Break out:
 * Well known amateur publishes quilting 101.
 * a) An academic, professional reviewer in reputable publication etc. endorses it. We use the academic/reviewer and don't need the dubious source.
 * b) Other amateurs say—"this is the seminal work." Not good enough.
 * c) People on a Wiki talk page decide it is the seminal work. Definitely not good enough. Marskell 11:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It says: "This provision applies only to topics not addressed by professional sources." If there's a professional source, the others may not be used. I would say that simply an endorsement isn't enough to make the endorser a source, but if there's professional material about the topic, then the amateur can't be used. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (b) would be the point of the exception, however: that, in the absence of professional input, other amateurs say this is a seminal work. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. This is just an infinite regress problem. What sources tells us that the other amateur sources should be trusted? Part of the problem with amateur sources is how they meme-ishly feed off of each other. Marskell 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I may see the heart of the disagreement here. You're looking for ontologically good sources, whereas I'm looking for a way to find a "good enough" source. And the standards for "good enough" change based on what it's about. On BLPs and controversial subjects, "good enough" is very good. But we have to remember, we have one million articles, the vast, vast majority of which have only a few editors, are written by minor contributors who don't engage the Wikipedia community, and are about as controversial as a banana. In these cases, I'm happy to accept a well-respected amateur source. And I'm happy to trust our editors that they're using a well-respected amateur source, and trust our editing process to fix the problems if they're not. I mean, you seem to be very worried about this elaborate process of verification and debate and contention that's just not ever going to happen on 99% of Wikipedia.


 * What if we added a line to the effect of "This should never be used to justify a controversial case. If other editors express doubt about your souce, particularly those who frequently work in the area in question, it ought not be used." I'd still want to tune it so as not to give fire to people who want to torch the popular culture areas nearly entirely (They exist) but I'd be OK with a clear statement like that. Phil Sandifer 14:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a bad idea. It gives opponents of "fancruft" a blank check to express doubt about a source just to force the article to be deleted.  Of course, you could add a clause limiting it to sincere doubt, but anyone can claim that their doubt is sincere, so that really doesn't help. Ken Arromdee 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I've never suggested making the page more complicated—it's the people arguing for an exception that are doing that, so I'm not sure who's most "worried [about] this elaborate process of verification and debate and contention."


 * To get back on the circle: someone must be declaring an amateur source "well-respected". This is meaningless if it's done through an appeal to another amateur source. That's all I'm saying in the last post. Marskell 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (I'm going to use amateur and professional here as shorthand for what we currently call reliable and unreliable sources, but as Carcharoth points out below those aren't the best terms).
 * I can't see how this would ever work. Firstly,it seems if the sources are ever questioned the contributors to the article just have to get together and say "it's a seminal work" (or point at somebody in a blog saying it's great) and the argument is over. Secondly, how are we to know there is no professional material about the topic, or, is it really saying "if professional material is hard to come by"?
 * If the professional material says "it is green" and the amateur material says "it is green with a touch of yellow" is it permissible to use the amateur source? This seems to open the floodgates to questionable sources everywhere - if an amateur says "George Washington had three legs" and I can't find a professional stating he only had two, can I use that? It is, after all, a topic not covered by professionals, or can I only use an amateur source where there is no coverage of the topic of the article at all by professionals, and not just for individual "facts"?
 * The exception starts to spill out into covering notability as well. Do mentions in blogs and web forums now confer notability, when before we rejected them as unreliable? By extension, are we to say that only pop culture topics mentioned in blogs are notable, and not, for example, historical topics? Yomangani talk 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No to both of your questions. In the case of the professional material and amateur material disagreeing over the colour of something, clearly there *is* professional material covering this subject (i.e., the colour of whatever is in question) and therefore an amateur source couldn't be used.
 * In the case of the number of legs of George Washington, there are a number of professionally produced biographies, so there also there is adequate professional coverage. It doesn't apply to the claim being made, but rather to the subject area of the claim.
 * Furthermore, I don't see why a change here would affect notability in the slightest, unless a new source becomes available to verify a claim for notability. In this case, as long as the source is reliable I don't see the problem. JulesH 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it applies to the subject area of the claim would that mean that if there were any professional (or what we currently class as reliable) sources dealing with any part of the article then we couldn't use an amateur source elsewhere in the article? Or if we could, how disparate would the sub-topic have to be? If the professional source didn't mention the fact that we are citing from the amateur, do we assume that their omission was unintentional and therefore assume the amateur to be filling in the gaps? I can't see at which point it becomes acceptable to use the "amateur" source.
 * With regard to notability, you state "as long as the source is reliable" which is exactly the problem, since this exception seeks to restate what is reliable for a subset of topics only. A source's reliability can not be dependent on its subject matter, it must be dependent on the quality of the source itself. An expert amateur in geography must generally be regarded as authoritative a source as an expert amateur in quilting unless it can be proved otherwise. Yomangani talk 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When I said "as long as the source is reliable" I meant the one doing the recomendation, not the questionable source we're attempting to determine the reliability of.
 * In any individual case, the presumption would have to be with how well covered the general subject is, rather than the specifics. So the presumption in a geography article would be against using an amateur source because almost all geography subjects are well covered by professional ones.  In the case of an article relating to, say, Science Fiction fandom, though, there are large aspects of that subject that aren't covered by any professional publications, so we'd be more open to using an amateur source.  In any case, I think there'd be a presumption against using such a source unless it was well established that the subject was one where they could be used.
 * Regarding whether a single article could use both professional and amateur sources, I think so. There may be adequate professional sources that give shallow coverage of a subject, for instance, but we may still need to use an amateur source to go more in-depth.  Or in a case where one aspect of a subject is well covered by professional sources, but another isn't, although (intuitively) I suspect these cases are much rarer than the former. JulesH 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Above, Marskell wrote:
 * An academic, professional reviewer in reputable publication etc. endorses it. We use the academic/reviewer and don't need the dubious source.

I disagree that this will always be possible. A reviewer may well cover a work in a general way but never publish anything as to the specific details of the subject covered. This was the case with the Jefferson Nickel source that was mentioned on WT:ATT: the book was self-published by an amateur expert, according to the editor who wanted to use it was generally considered the only authoritative source on the subject, and had received good reviews in professional magazines devoted to coin collecting, yet those magazines never covered the subject itself in enough depth to source an article from. Other examples that spring to mind include The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5, a fan-written web site which has the accolade of having been described by the author of the series it concerns as "an invaluable resource" which he used while writing the later series to look up details of what happened in the earlier ones. That's an endorsement from an expert who hasn't published anything similar. I don't think there are any professional sources which discuss this subject in anything like as much depth, and frankly there don't need to be: even if there were, the Lurker's Guide would still be the best source. JulesH 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a real example to help: I can delete the Excel Saga article right now with these policies (Excel Saga is an FA). All of the reviews are to anime review websites, which aren't "professional" (depending on your idea of "professional"). My impression is most of the staff at these sites are volunteers, because even running the site can be a financial toll. So they aren't "professional". But if it gets deleted, either the FA process or WP:V process is seriously broken, and I can't determine which one is. ColourBurst 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think people promoting this excessively strict policy change should must nominate the article for deletion, to show how it works.
 * BTW, what do you think about my proposal below - to state that requirements for sources depend on the subject, and to cover required sources for different subjects in guidelines? CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "excessively strict policy change". If anything, I'm seeing the opposite; attempts to relax the current policies to accomodate people who wish to write articles about popular culture items such as video games, comix, etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Amateur versus professional
This whole thing seems to revolve on the often contentious issue of amateur versus professional. It is well known that in some fields amateurs do better work than professionals. And even in some professional fields, some people call themselves amateurs, though they are published and respected experts (working in their spare time outside their paying job). It might be better to avoid specifics here, and to default to the "case by case" judgement, with a note here that there are exceptions to this "attribute to professional, peer-reviewed, publications" clause, but that professional stuff is preferable if available. If not available, then use your judgement. Carcharoth 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I may have repeated a lot of the above. But it's in my own words. As for the 'bloat' issue. I would suggest a short sentence in the main policy, and then more detail in the FAQ. Carcharoth 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather agree that the terms "professional" and "amateur" are very misleading and unfortunate. Many trade magazines, e.g., are highly professional, but print little but disguised adverts (articles commisioned by the maker of a product) and real adverts (payed for by the very same maker). Similarly, computer game magazines are "professional", but very often have only very weak separation of the advertising and the editorial departments. When is the last time you saw a negative review in such a magazine? --Stephan Schulz 08:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How many articles need a popular-culture exception, then?
On being pressed, Phil Sandifer was unable to give many examples that need an exception. I don't agree with the following at all, which is the excuse usually given for a popular-culture exception:

Some articles about popular culture and fiction rely on self-published posts on bulletin boards, blogs, and Usenet, because few other sources exist for them.

If we're talking about things like Spoo, then I'd say that such articles are few in number. And they're covered anyway by "ignore all rules" and the scope given to the commonsense judgement of editors at the article level. (I'd add here that although I'm not in favour of a popular-culture exception, I'm very much in favour of popular-culture articles of all sorts; even the few that can't draw on published sources are fine by me if editors agree, setting policy aside, that they deserve to be in the encyclopedia.)

I've just done something I never thought I'd do and looked up "quilting" on Amazon; take a look here Sources on quilting; Ok, what about clockmaking? Sources on clockmaking! So, come on, someone: if there's such a need for exceptions, show me where.

As a reader of music magazines, I can say for sure that popular music, even when it comes to the obscurest bands, doesn't lack for published secondary sources. And we shouldn't forget that produced works of media and art, for example films, TV episodes, comics etc. can, if necessary, feed on themselves as sources ("this comic tells the story of..."); and, while this process may not produce the most satisfactory species of article, it enables even micropopular culture to find representation on Wikipedia. So, again, where is the need for the exception? In few places, I'd argue.

I've gone into detail on the other page about my reasons for objecting to a popular-culture exception; in sum, they are:

qp10qp 12:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Exceptions ruin the simplicity of policies.
 * 2) There aren't that many articles needing an exception-clause anyway.
 * 3) "Ignore all rules" and commonsense judgement by editors at the article level can legitimately create exceptions within the spirit of Wikipedia.


 * "If we're talking about things like Spoo, then I'd say that such articles are few in number." I don't think they are.  Spend a while clicking "Random Article" and see what you come up with: it won't be long until you find something similar.  OK, most of them aren't as well sourced as Spoo is, but that's something that perhaps we can help fix.
 * "And they're covered anyway by "ignore all rules" and the scope given to the commonsense judgement of editors at the article level." Can we agree on something here?  Having to rely on WP:IAR is bad.  WP:IAR is there to allow for circumstances that are unforeseen and which are extremely rare.  Pushing off a rule change that's been proposed by saying "we could rely on WP:IAR" is a very poor argument, because in the end you could apply it to *any* change that loosens rules.  It is better for the rules to accurately reflect how we want such articles to be written.  And I at least want those articles to use whatever sources are available to them: if there isn't anything "professional" available but a widely accepted amateur source exists, then I think they should use it. JulesH 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Clockmaking and quilting may be part of popular culture now. But in the past, and indeed now, clockmaking is/was a recognised skill, and making your own clothes/bedclothes was a necessity only a few hundred years ago. See Category:Clockmakers and history of quilting. I don't understand these examples being used here. I agree that exceptions should be dealt with at the article level. Carcharoth 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest I think quilting etc. is sort of a red herring here; Phil may have earnestly been trying to think of examples but I don't how much they hold up in terms of what we're discussing. This does IMHO come squarely back to pop culture as generically understood (pop songs, video games, sci-fi etc.) Marskell 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * JulesH, I believe that "ignore all rules" is a very important Wikipedia policy, not a failsafe for the unforeseen. "There are only five actual rules on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit, and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters"(Simplified Ruleset). This gives scope for articles that might not fit the precise rules we list on policies or proposed policies, and so an exception for popular culture (or anything else) is not required. The process is: Spoo is a great article; we can easily see that, so keep. qp10qp 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this question fundamentally misses my point. We have nearly a million and a half articles. If, among all of us, we've read 1% of those, we're dedicated Wikipedia readers. Furthermore, around 99% of those articles are placid, quiet places where only one or two editors have ever worked, and nobody has ever raised concern. I have no idea what articles in that 99% require a clause along these lines. But I think it's a serious, serious concern that we've written a policy that considers only the pathological 1% of articles. The point of a clause like this is to allow editors in the 99% of Wikipedia that never generates RFCs, RFArs, angry mailing list posts, etc to get on with their business. The thing is, that's the 99% of Wikipedia we don't deal with, because we're in the pathological 1%. Phil Sandifer 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the 99% don't interact with the policy anyway, so this is only ever going to be for the 1%. It doesn't bother the 99% what the acceptable standard for referencing is, so under that argument, we could just drop the whole policy. This is essentially for people who have articles going for FA or GA status or have their articles nominated for deletion in one form or another. By adding this exception we get hundreds of articles that would normally be deleted surviving - because we've set the bar lower; a flood of pop culture GAs and FAs - as the citation standards are lower it is easier for them be written and to pass; and people writing in other areas wondering why their article has been deleted when it has been mentioned in hundreds of places of similar standard to the pop culture article that survived, or being unable to pass FAC because although they could source the claims in their article from a website written by an amateur expert they are not allowed to - they must order a scholarly out-of-print work to cite their claim because an amateur expert in history is not equivalent to an amateur expert in Pokemon (ah well, had to say Pokemon in the end). Yomangani talk 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You treat the 99% like they won't interact with policy. If you go onto the talk page of something in the 99%, or contact an editor and ask for a source, they'll add it. What this prevents is elements from the 1% from going on a rampage against the 99% - something that has happened in various degrees before. Phil Sandifer 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil, have you ever edited you Ufology-related pages? This area is asking for a rampage. I certainly go on a rampage when the shit turns up on the main ET page. Your faith in a kind of "diffuse accountability" (somebody'll show up and give you a source) is admirable, but I think you're partly misrepresenting the "trenches". Marskell 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What if we changed to a more pragmatic model - something that amounted to "Such uses must always be non-controversial. If substantial opposition to a source comes up, it should not be used." Thus preserving the 99%. WP:POINT can then be used to deal with malicious rampages. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But can't we use WP:POINT now anyway? It seems to me that this comes round to being on a case by case basis which is basically how it already works. Like it or not, we already see articles cited from respected fan sites making it through to GA and FA and surviving AFD, because the reviewers have judged the exceptions to be acceptable. AFD in particular (generally) gives wide latitude to the intepretion of the policy. I think formalizing that is a bad idea: not only does it set up a official two-tier standards system which is unfair to the people working on articles outside pop culture, but it will encourage people to lower standards in general (why should I bother searching out an obscure professional paper when I can probably get away with quoting the exception rule and using a website?). Yomangani talk 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Saying it endorses it, and we shouldn't endorse it. Marskell 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, in the face of rules-lawyers and processbots, not saying it endorses its being forbidden - similarly bad. Phil Sandifer 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil, do you interpret having rules as the same as rules-lawyering? "It happens, but is explicitly discouraged" is fine with me. These sources should always be the last resort. I'd like to see people begin, if nothing else, to cease promoting articles through to FA that rely on them. To further Yomangani's complaint about double-standards with an example: I got my chops busted trying to get Jaguar passed with weak secondary sources. I systematically removed them and the article is stronger. But, hey, if you post up your video game we're not going to expect the same? Why not? A sentence I posted not too long ago on an FAC: "Would I trust the website 'Obsessed with Wrestling' for any quote, any time? I would say no." It was an oppose, as you'd guess; I'm sure that examples of this sort are far more common than dubious sources on quilting. Marskell 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Preferred sources may depend
I must mention there is an alternate, more consistent solution to the problem, rather than introducing exceptions. The whole reason we need easements for popular culture is that articles require different source reliability and amount of sourcing. A source which would be reliable in describing a movie would not work in an article on elementary physics. Moreover, going broader, a major newspaper may be an excellent source for news on politics, but a very poor source for technical subjects, as we know how often they make mistakes.

So we could avoid making countless exceptions by introducing a varistor into the system. More specifically, we just need to acknowledge that acceptable sources depend on the subject. It is quite simple, easy to remember, and flexible, but not loose. Then some elaboration can be given on general choice of sources without positioning pop-culture as exception. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what, besides pop culture, would or should require an exception. In fact, it's not entirely clear to me why pop culture requires an exception. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exception? I'm talking not about exceptions. Example: A newspaper is a reliable source for political news, and is not a reliable source for scientific details. A book about art (not popculture) is an excellent source for art, but poor for historical conclusions (despite it may discuss historical context). The reason why popculture popped up is just that we would nearly totally lose coverage of that topic under WP:ATT, unless WP:IAR was applied thousands of times. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like this idea of stating that acceptable sources depend on the subject without specifying "pop culture" specifically, but I think that it also needs to be stressed that one should use the most reliable sources available for the topic. For some subjects these will be scholarly journals, for other subjects these will be newspaper articles, and for other subjects these may be usenet postings.  JYolkowski // talk 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliability
I wonder if part of the problem in finding a solution here is the discussion seems to wander towards NPOV issues. I think it would really help to focus on Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. I think everyone can agree that we do not wish to allow WP articles to use unreliable sources. I certainly do not. I hope we can also agree on the following (if you dispute any of this please make a new subsection and lets work out what we can agree on before tackling the questions):


 * Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia should contain articles on niche subjects that do not make the cut in other reference works.
 * Many mainstream subjects have of a lot of reliable material which can be used to write great WP articles.
 * Many niche subjects have of a lot of reliable material which can be used to write great WP articles.
 * Reliable material for mainstream subjects can be identified by the fact that it is published by trustworthy institutions.
 * Similar trustworthy institutions which might publish reliable material on niche subjects do not exist. This is not because there is no reliable material on niche subjects to publish, but rather because such material is not profitable.
 * Professional, on its own, does not equate reliable.

Some questions:


 * 1) Is it possible to identify what is a reliable source, regardless of subject, without discussing the means of publication?
 * 2) If we must identify reliable mainstream material by its publishers, can we write an exception to allow niche reliable material from alternate means of publication which will at the same time not allow unreliable material (niche or mainstream)?
 * 3) If an subject exception is not a workable solution, is there any way we can permit reliable expert sources with do not meet the normal publication requirements?
 * 4) If we must allow that the only way reliable niche sources can used in WP is through IAR, can acknowledge this somehow in the policy?
 * 5) If all of the above questions fail to reach a solution, can we really say that WP:ATT has consensus when it does not address such a large part of WP which for which there is consensus for it's existence and consensus that it must be sourced?

I would just like to ask everyone to try and look at my comments with a fresh eye. Please try to see how they apply to subjects that you believe should belong in WP. Because I believe this discussion applies to a very large number of articles. This discussion can easily be bogged down in talking about how a certain subset of these articles does not belong on WP. However this is not about the inclusion of certain niche subjects. This is about writing a policy which has a way for articles which should belong to use sources which are indisputably reliable.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No
 * Not without massive rules creep and exceptions for every sort of page category; note that part of the problem is that an oblique comment (e.g., "sometimes these rule will be more lenient, depending on the type of article") may seem sensible, but is the worst possible scenario because it will definitely be misused. To have an exception at all it needs to be specified, but this immediately invites the "if this, why not that?" problem.
 * We do this to some extent already in 1 and 2 on the list of problematic sources.
 * As suggested on the main talk, any direct reference to IAR can be subsumed by it. That is, you can't logically provide a rule on ignoring the rules.
 * To answer more fully here: there's more than the pop culture exception to the idea, much as it has been the most contentious. At its simplest level, the idea is a suggested rename from WP:V to WP:ATT. This has consensus, I think. That some streamlinging is in order has consensus. There's still some concern about if/how NOR should be merged into it, which, while important, is a difference in degrees. The pop culture thing is an argument in kind, and thus is sticking out. I think we should confine it to this workshop, and the page can go forward otherwise. Marskell 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * and
 * I can agree that the problems to these ideas are most likely insurmountable. But if anyone has any new wordings along these lines I would like to see them.
 * I do not see how these points allow many of the reliable sources on niche material. 1) on the list is really more about sources that are biased, and the articles on niche subjects are very rarely biographies.  2) as it is currently written does very little for niche material as topics which lack regularly published material also generally lack professionals.  This does help fiction based articles, as they have professional authors, directors, etc.  I do not see how it can be applied to any other niche subjects.  Are there any alternative qualifiers we can put on expert instead of "professional"?  I personally think it is more important that an expert be recognized than that they are professional.
 * I think ignoring this option because you believe it is a logical fallacy is quite silly. We are trying to explain our goals and requirements to people who may not be familair with.  If we can provide some guidance and reasure people we are about common sense; who cares if it is illogical.  Let's be pragmatic here.  Is there anything you would be willing to accept along these lines?
 * There have been long disscussions at WP:V over these issues, and attempts to address them have been made and generally met with a lack of feedback from those who opposed them. I believe issues here will be continue to be worked on at the talk page of either the new policy or WP:V until there is some acknowledgement of the real situation out in the encyclopedia.  I am sure someone will continue to see the same problem I do after I become discouraged with trying to fix it.  I believe that this will continue regardless of who is involved because new people are going to continue to show up and say "Hey according to this policy I can't use the undisputed best resource on Widgets.  Let's fix this."   And I think we all know what happens next.  WP:V has not been a place Wikipedia should be proud of.  Seriously, even if you all refuse to compromise now, this issue is not going away.  It pops up all the time from completely different areas, it is truly a grass-roots issue.  We have an oppurtunity to fix it now.  Let's please make use of this opportunity before we return to endless "reverts to long-standing consensus" without disscusion.  I personally do not edit in these areas.  But I have seen too many very frustrated editors at the talk page to WP:V, who only want to write acceptable articles using acceptable sources, to not speak up for the need to find a solution here.  The desire to not explictly mention the issue with niche subjects only hurts good editors.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I personally think it is more important that an expert be recognized than that they are professional" and "I think ignoring this option because you believe it is a logical fallacy is quite silly." Seems we aren't going far then.


 * Re 5, as suggested to Phil above, I'm tired of the "grass-roots" being misrepresented here. "I'm not allowed to source my widget article" is one side of a coin. The other is "I need a stick to deal with POV-pushers dumping bullshit sources on a page." I've dipped in and out of the policy pages for more than a year, and the latter complaint is at least as common as the former. I spent a month of editing time this summer trying to keep crap out of astrology. The argument faced: because professionals refuse to deal with astrology, we have to rely on astrologers to describe its scientific merit. And now what? Role over when the thin end of the wedge allowing such BS through shows up as a policy proposal? Sure, sure, we'll tell people that it can't be used in controversial cases, pseudoscience articles, etc. and that they must remove the sources if challenged. And, with a healthy sprinkle of fairy dust, people will abide by it and our standards won't slip. I'm not holding my breath. Marskell 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely the stick to deal with POV-pushers should be WP:NPOV? That'd make much more sense.  If using it like that is difficult, that's a problem with that policy that needs fixing.  I've always been very wary of thin-end-of-the-wedge or slippery-slope arguments.  They're easy to take too far. JulesH 11:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Marskell all the way. I don't see why this proposed policy can't just request published sources and leave it at that (discussions of what is published and what is not are best argued out at the level of each specific article, in my opinion). The vast majority of articles aren't sourced properly as it is, so Wikipedia will hardly be decimated by a little bluntness at the policy level.qp10qp 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." You can't properly enforce NPOV unless you have a good sourcing policy to back it up.


 * Re last: The National Enquirer, published by American Media Inc. I mean really. Marskell 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV relies on good sources only in as much as we need good sources to know what majority views and what minority views are. Other than that, I fail to see any real connection between the two.  The intended meaning of the sentence about policies being complementary, as far as I can see, is that to tell if something is acceptable in wikipedia, you must examine it from the point of view of all three.  If it passes each, then it is acceptable.  If it fails one, then it isn't.  I don't think it's supposed to say that having reliable sources solves prolems of bias, or whatever.  JulesH 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain what you mean by "I personally think it is more important that an expert be recognized than that they are professional" and "I think ignoring this option because you believe it is a logical fallacy is quite silly." Seems we aren't going far then.  Those comments were on two seperate points and I don't understand what your comments mean.


 * Re 5,How am I misrepresenting the grass-roots? Bullshit sources are still not acceptable, no one is suggesting that.  If someone is disputing the reliabilty of one of these sources, it will not be acceptable.  I do not think anyone is going to dispute the reliabilty of the Jefferson Nickel book.  This is not about the astrology artcle.  Is about the fact that the policy as written does not acknowledge a subset of clearly acceptable sources.  I am not insisting there be an exception, but there needs to be at least an acknowledgement of the situation.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out two examples I found particularly disagreeable. When you tell me to abrogate logic, then no, we aren't going far. Any attempt to specify or direct IAR could be ignored on the basis of IAR—that's a simple observation. If you want to invoke it in good faith on some pop culture article, then fine; we don't need lines of policy telling people how.


 * Re professional, removing it is the worst choice available here. Despite your odd claim that this isn't about the astrology article (our content policies are no more or less about any article, near as I can tell) it's actually a very good example. An astrologer can have a self-published book on Amazon, legions of fans (who consider their work very far from bullshit), but thankfully no place on Wikipedia. They ARE experts, but they are not professionals because you can't get an accredited degree in astrology. Lest you think that that strays to far from pop culture, consider the example to Phil above. We have extraterrestrial life—a subject of legimitate scientific interest—and one wiki-link away we have a (terrible) article on Greys, which falls squarely in the pop culture camp. "Experts" in this area do not belong here but removing "professional" would go a long way towards allowing them.


 * Now, if in some corner of Wiki (coin collecting etc.) the policy is being violated, I'm not particularly upset—but if we paste up the weakening of standards as policy, these sources could move from the corners to the hallways. Marskell 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marskell - we don't need to formalize a drop in the standard of acceptable sources. We already see articles using sources that are currently listed as unreliable (even FA articles), because in some cases there are exceptions to those rules, but the editors using those sources are required to justify their use. Sometimes they have to fight hard to get them accepted and sometimes they fail, but in my opinion there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that process: it is a method of deciding whether the sources are of an acceptable standard without handing the writer a "get out clause". Sure, sometimes an editor will run into a stickler who refuses to bend beyond the letter of the law, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Yomangani talk 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. WP:IAR You guys are assuming that everyone reading this policy already knows about IAR and knows how to apply it.  What is the problem with saying something along the lines of There exist some reliable sources which do not fit the rules outlined here. These should only be used as a last resort when other options do not exist.  When necessary use common-sense?  I do not understand why you dismiss any possibility of such a wording as a logical fallacy.  These policies need to be written in a way that helps those who wish to follow them, purposefully ignoring a known problem is not helpful. Surely you can agree to some variation of the above for the benefit of people who have not been indoctrinated into the workings of WP.


 * Re. Professional. I understand you find expert alone to be unacceptable.  Is there no other qualifier that you would agree to besides professional?  I personally don't see how limiting it to professionals really helps your position.  After all I am sure professional astrologers exist.  "Professional" excludes reliable amatuers without really preventing the your outlined concerns.


 * Re. FAC I don't see what this has to do with the policy. The policies should consist of the minimum requirements for being acceptable in WP.  Featured Articles should have higher standards than the polices.  If FA requirements are too lose that should be addressed elsewhere.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "There exist some reliable sources which do not fit the rules outlined here." This is just going in circles now—no one has satisfactorily answered how we can determine whether these sources should be considered reliable beyond an appeal to other amateurs/enthusiasts, which just takes us to square one. As for your suggestion, see above about about how an oblique comment can be worse then a specified one; it amounts to a notwithstanding clause.


 * Professional astrologers exist in the "I-get-paid-for-it" sense, but not in the professional academic sense (in the West, anyhow, and it gets a little fuzzy with some psychologists). No, to be honest, I can't think of a qualifier that hits it as well and it does serve my position—I've just given you two examples.


 * But there is something of a compromise possible. To carry the example, no one suggested that an astrologer could not be used, say, to describe the zodiac or how to make an astrological chart. Claims re its efficacy, statistics, etc. were what people opposed. I've been trying to think of wording that could apply across examples and the best I can think of is the "in-universe" and "out-universe" thing. As suggested above, we could use a fansite for a plot description ("in-universe"), but not for sales figures, quotes, comments on quality ("out-universe"). Marskell 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(<)no one has satisfactorily answered how we can determine whether these sources should be considered reliable beyond an appeal to other amateurs/enthusiasts While it may take an enthusiast to reccomend the most reliable source. You certainly do not need to be an enthusiast to determine if a given source is unreliable. This how the whole of WP operates. You trust editors to do the right thing, and at the same time everyone checks each others work to ensure this. These kinds of reliable sources do exist out there, I don't think you are disputing that. We need to help people reading this policy understand what they are to do with them. Imagine how frustrating it must be, for the type of people who like to follow rules, to have a source they know to be reliable and yet it doesn't fit in any of the neat little boxes lined up at WP:ATT. You and I know they should use WP:IAR, but we must guide them there somehow.

I looked up some definitions of professional. I am confused about which one you are trying to use here. The ones which were not about livelihood were either restricted to doctors and lawyers, or else a much wider defintion which was bascially synomynous with "expert". I really do think the common interpretation of this section will allow there to be several professional expert astrologers, while a the same time excluding a majority of the people who draw star charts for money. I would rather see something more along the line of "authoritative." With the idea that some magazine on the subject would have mention the person being and expert for them to be considered authorative. I think this would allow the things like the Jefferson Nickel Book, as there are traditionally publisheed sources on the broader topic of coin collecting which should mention any reliable niche material and/or experts. People who are unknown to reliable sources cannot be considered authorative. The real problem here is with the in-depth niches. There is no traditionally published source which covers the niche in-depth enough to write an article, but at the same time these niches should be touched on by such sources well enough that we can identify what person or work is considered the authority on the area.

I do like your idea of the in-universe/out-universe compromise. It is really a matter of depth. When you are dealling with shallow information, more reliable sources will be available. But as you go deeper into the subject, you have to look for more obsure sources. Still these sources are only acceptable if they are reliable. They cannot contradict what the more reliable sources had to say about the shallower information where they overlap.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, to repeat: in the West, there is no such thing as a "professional expert astrologer". It's a fucking oxymoron (to be a professional in a bogus, unrecognized subject). If you really do think "the common interpretation of this section will allow there to be several professional expert astrologers" then we're on different planets. A "professional expert" astrologer does not exist in the same way a "professional expert alchemist" does not exist. I'm sorry--I don't want to raise examples here only to have to justify the obvious. Astrology has been a pseudoscience for the better part of a century, and you're just confirming my fear as to what this will lead to.


 *  I want to respond to the rest of it, but I can't. Fears confirmed. Marskell 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I do not yet understand how a person who has written several books on a particular subject cannot be considered a professional nor an expert.  I agree that astrology is a pseudoscience, but professional does not mean "scientist".  Maybe if you explained to me how you are defining professional I would understand what you mean.   As I said I looked up  some definitions of professional, and saw nothing that seemed to me along your line of thinking.  It seemed more to do with either how one makes a livelihood, or else a synonym for white-collar, or else relating to a high standard of ethics, or else a synonym for expert, or finally regarding a high quality of workmanship.  The only thing along the lines of "academic" is the white-collar usage  which implies the person is educated.  But I think authors are white-collar, aren't they?  I really don't know how you are defining professional, but either I missed something entirely  or your planet has different dictionaries than mine.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, once you get past the religious stuff: "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation." M-W. I was thinking of suggesting "accredited" instead, but thought a) people might blow their top and b) difficult to define for journalists. I don't know--we can play baby steps. There are the modern Western universities; there are colleges and technical schools; there are the degree mills. There's The Times; there's The Sun; there's The Enquirer. I don't want to debate a list of what to call professional and I'm working on the assumption that English speakers will understand the term (or, put another way, I'm not sure who's wiki-lawyering here). You publish from a Uni. press etc., I'll call it professional. You self-publish several books that make it to Amazon, and I say so what (taken by itself). AFAIK, a plurality of books bought in N.A. are religious tracts and diet manuals...


 * Note, if there is a reference point here, it's broadly "the academy", as this editor understands it—sorry to be predictable, but where else to go?


 * Anyhow, I'm done. I'll debate others on this topic, and I'll debate you on other topics but I've had my fill of shifting goalposts on this particular thread. Marskell 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a subtantial difference in meaning between "profession" and "professional". They do have separate dictionary entries (at least in COED), and I'm pretty sure the meaning that most people will read from the policy as currently proposed is "engaged in an activity as a paid occupation rather than as an amateur." Now, it's still true that most self-published books don't actually make a profit for their authors, although with the advent of Print on-demand technology this is becoming less true. Still, in most cases you wouldn't call it an occupation. But -- for somebody who regularly self-publishes books that sell reasonably well, it could be. Above, you write:
 * To carry the example, no one suggested that an astrologer could not be used, say, to describe the zodiac or how to make an astrological chart. Claims re its efficacy, statistics, etc. were what people opposed. I've been trying to think of wording that could apply across examples and the best I can think of is the "in-universe" and "out-universe" thing.

I think the safeguard that you want relates to not accepting information from an amateur source that the source isn't qualified to give, which is a rather nebulous concept, but could probably be defined better. Thus, an astrologer who didn't have a rigorous training in the scientific method and the interpretation of statistics wouldn't be accepted as a source for scientific claims (that astrology produces useful real-world predictions would fall into that category) or statistics. If an astrologer did have such training, I'd have to question their motivation in becoming an astrologer. The same holds true for the fan site: a fan of a TV show may well be an expert on describing episodes of that show, may in some instances be qualified to comment on themes that are present in the episodes, and on tying together background information. They're not usually qualified to comment on popular reception of the show, sales figures, or any information like that: in such cases, they'd merely be repeating (perhaps even without verification) somebody else's opinion. JulesH 09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to find a way to use astrologers! I just am trying to understand how "professional" excludes them.  I have added "Who is a recognized professional expert?" to the FAQ page.  I do not understand how this phrase is intended to be interpreted.  I originally thought it was meant as "how one makes a livliehood" but this conversation has shown it is not that definition, without pointing me to the correct definition.  I do not think I am particularly stupid, so I must imagine other people will also be confused by this.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reread the last reply by Marskel. I guess I was a bit upset earlier becuase I completely misread it. In fact I did not even notice that he did give me a definiton. I do not know how I missed that and I am sorry for any confusion this caused. I don't believe there have any shifting goalposts. I set out 4 ways the policy could be worked on for coming to a compromise. 2 were immediatlely eliminated and Marskell suggested a fifth option later in the thread. The section dealing with "professional" was #3. I was never trying to support pseudoscience in my above posts. I was trying to better understand Marskell's position so I could better formulate a compromise. I suspected that "professional" did not describe his position very well, but I could not make any good alternate suggestions without a definition. From the definition that Marskell gave for "profesion(al)", I strongly suggest the policy be changed to read "accredited". Although this is not a compromise on my issue, I think it is important the policy is clear and interpreted in similar ways by everyone. "Accredited" better descibes the type person Marskell is intending and feels good about accepting self-published sources from, and journalists are already covered seperately. If other people believe "accredited" is to stringent they should work on another term, that is neither "accredited" nor "professional". The absolute worst thing I believe we can do is agree on a word like "professional" which people are interpreting in such different ways.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about "professional standard"? I'm groping around here, as I can see the objection to professional but "accredited" suffers from the same problems, in that we then have to ask where the accreditation comes from. Professional standard removes the perceived idea of having to be paid, although one person's professional standard may be another's unprofessional standard. Yomangani talk 01:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a big problem with "accredited" is that it leaves the question "accredited by whom?" It's a standard that really doesn't mean anything.  For instance, I have an accredited qualification to the standards of the British Computer Society; does that mean I'm an accredited source for use in computer science related articles? I'd hope not, as I have no understanding of the field above and beyond what many thousands of others have. JulesH 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think accredited is more ambiguous than profesional. It definately has a much narrower interpretation although it will still need to be explained inthe FAQ, I believe.  If you have an accredited qualification as a "Student" or "Associate Member" to the standards of the British Computer Society, I do not think anyone will argue that you are an "recognized accredited expert".  I truly believe that there are very few "recognized experts" which will not qualify as "professionals" under the common defintions.  It will be very frustrating for people to think they have an acceptable source only to be told "No we are defining a professional as someone with 'specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation'"  Professional is often interprated as a person who makes their livelihood in a field most other people make a hobby out of.  When we are talking about academic disciplines no one would think of this definition, but once we venture into model trains or fly-fishing this will cause confusion.  Accredited is not without problems, but it is better than professional.  Regarding "professional standards", I am not sure that this will not be interpreted as though each profession can set there own standards as to who is an expert, which is basically the same as accredited without the formality.  I am not firmly against using "professional standards", but I am not sure that it will work either.  How would you fit it into the sentance?-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The current policy, WP:V, says "professional researcher" writing within his/her field may be used as a self-published source. I prefer that wording to "expert." SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Professional researcher" is unusable. People aren't professional researchers in the area of Jefferson nickels, and Outpost Gallifrey certainly isn't run by professional researchers of Doctor Who episodes. Ken Arromdee 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting "professional researcher" is a suitable compromise for the Jefferson nickel example nor the pop culture dilemma in general. However the search for such a compromise has revealed the wording of the current proposal is likely to interpreted in very differnt ways. To continue to work with a wording that has such different intereptations will lead to problems.  I support the change to "professional researcher" for the sake of clarity.  Neither the problamatic "professional expert" nor the suggestion of "professional researcher" offer a solution to the original problem.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I still don't buy the being paid as the defining part of a good source. I think if other people have utilised the research of the person in question, or the person in question has presented at conventions, then that gives them weight,  But that's my two cents.  I'm not sure we should disregard engineer's opinions in articles about engineering.  As engineers, they are paid for their engineering expertise, therefore they are professional experts.  Don't know how you are going to close this circle, and even if it is necessary.  Consensus should eventually work out what the good articles are and what the bad ones are.  Many times magazines like New Scientist and newspapers will seek the opinions of people from within a field; at times teachers opinions on teaching do become valuable. I think it's got to be contextual.  What is the source being used to convey, that should guide the reliability. Hiding Talk 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is credibility. Being paid does not establish credibility. In fact if you are being paid by a someone or an organization with a conflict of interest regarding the subject matter being paid can diminish credibility. Being a research also does not necessarily establish credibility. Expert researchers are notorious for being narrowly focused, as keeping up in their area with the latest advances precludes time spent in a broader study that could lend perspective. Further professional researchers need to be continue to be funded, meaning they are always advancing their careers by overestimating the importance of their latest finding. WAS 4.250 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. WAS 4.250 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Binary versus continuous relationships
We don't need a pop culture exception. We just need a verbalization of policy that recognizes the world is analog with relationships that are continuous rather than discrete. And forcing everything to be not only in discrete categories but only two (binary - black/white vision of reality) creates absurdities. Saying these are in and those are out and here is our bright line dividing a complicated world into these two sections such that one is accepted and the other is not accepted creates more harm than good. WAS 4.250 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. That's why I think the policy should have wording not as binary, and only note that reliable sources should be used for all information that can be reasonably questioned. It would be good idea to give the idea of the major sources, and leave covering sources selection in detail to guideline(s). It could also be noted that importance of direct sourcing and required reliability should depend on the information, and the more questionable it is, the more requirements to the source. Of course, it should denote that sources which reliability is not certain should be used only in shortage of reliable ones, and cited with caution. This way editors would be clearly guided what to do, yet given enough flexibility for consensus to work without circumventing anything. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change that eliminates need for a pop culture exception.
Expand the last key principle to something like:

How does that sound? JulesH 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it also needs expanding to cover the notion that controversial claims need stronger sources than run-of-the-mill ones. JulesH 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a constructive proposal, but I'd prefer no mention of any of this at all. I don't even agree that professional sources are rare for popular culture or fiction. All that matters in the first instance is the reliability of the publishing process; the reliability of the material itself must be a question for editors at the article level (I do agree that the commonsense judgement of editors is the final arbiter). qp10qp 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sad fact of the matter is that such reminders as this are important. Other policies (V, NOR, NPOV) get cross-mentioned frequently. IAR does not, leading it to often be forgotten, or for it to be unclear how it is meant to apply. Even without a direct reference to IAR here, reminders like this are important in giving a clear sense of what policy does and doesn't do. Phil Sandifer 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the slight change below?-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Building an encyclopedia requires the use of good editorial judgment and common sense.
 * Formal rules are not a substitute for good judgment and intellectual honesty. Formal rules cannot determine whether material is reliable, notable or relevant to a particular topic. Our goal is to represent significant, published opinion fairly and without bias. In some cases, this means using sources that fall outside of the description here.  In rare cases, the best sources for a particular article may be a source that these rules would describe as "questionable".  This is more likely for informal subjects where professional sources offer only shallow coverage (such as popular culture and fiction) than for established subjects where professional sources dominate (like science and history).  In these cases, and where there is good consensus that the sources in question are accurate, trustworthy and reasonably free from bias, such a source may be used.


 * Not fond of the second sentence. Perhaps "Formal rules cannot always determine" Phil Sandifer 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize that sentance is currently in the proposal. I like your version better though. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence:  This is more likely for informal subjects where professional sources offer only shallow coverage (such as popular culture and fiction) than for established subjects where professional sources dominate (like science and history) is an exception for pop culture again. Simply not having it as the title doesn't help. Including that creates the two tier sourcing standards that I was objecting to way up the page. Yomangani talk 01:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree that this is formalized enough to be a two tier standand. But I do dislike having anything close to an example in the policy.  What do you think of: This is more likely for informal subjects where professional sources offer only shallow coverage than for established subjects where professional sources dominate. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think even that is necessary. From "In rare cases,..." onwards seems redundant (that sentence itself merely rephrases the proceeding one). If the sources fall outside the established rules they will fall outside the established rules - we don't need to specify in which types of subjects this is likely, because that is dictated by the common sense and good judgement already mentioned. The last sentence is perhaps more relevant, but only for the mention of consensus. In that case I'd prefer something along the lines of: "If reasonable objections are raised over the use of a source it should not be used". I agree with Phil Sandifer as well: "always" is an essential addition to the second sentence. Yomangani talk 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think explaining what is meant in a reasonable degree of detail is important here. While I agree that the examples aren't really necessary, I think at least some kind of guideline on the types of articles that could require such sources should be included, if only to make it easier to stop claims that this applies to fringe science, etc.  Yes, the "in rare cases" sentence adds little to the previous one, except emphasising that the cases are rare (implying a presumption against using such sources in any given article) and that it really does apply to "questionable" sources.  I think that both emphases are important. JulesH 11:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a combined version of the suggestions above on the main page, primarily to get more discussion of this. I think this is a workable solution to the issues we've had over this, we just need to find a good phrasing. JulesH 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy vs. Guideline
Another aspect that makes the need for some soft language like that in the section above necessary - in the past, our sourcing rules have been guidelines, offering some explicit flexibility in terms of ignoring them utterly. Policies are by their nature more stringent and less ignorable. The move of sourcing to policy makes it even more important to make explicit the fact that sourcing is not a rigid thing. Phil Sandifer 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V was policy, and had hard rules against self-published sources. These rules seem to be slightly "softer" to me. JulesH 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They're softer than WP:V, but remember - this replaces three pages. V, NOR, and RS. RS was a guideline, which made its problems much easier to ignore. Phil Sandifer 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments like "to make explicit the fact that sourcing is not a rigid thing" make wonder what we're actually debating here. Sourcing is a rigid thing. It is rigid in terms of long term practice, what policy says now, what Jimbo has always said, etc. It's the nature of the sources that we're debating, I thought. Marskell 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to say (in case he's starting to feel like a lone voice) that I agree with most of the points made by Marskell on this page. I favour "published" as the criterion, with levels and quality of publication being an issue for each individual talk page rather than for policy because each subject is different. For example, the published sources for astrology might not be academic or professional but the best of them may have to suffice for that subject, according to editorial consensus; they wouldn't do for Nostradamus, though, because academic sources exist for that subject. I'm fed up with repeating myself on this, but I suppose, at the risk of boring everyone to death, I'll have to continue sticking the same flag in the shifting sands here. qp10qp 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that sourcing is a rigid thing. However this proposal is also describing reliability in a very rigid fashion.  This is why there is such a problem.  There are articles which are clearly acceptable on WP which can be rigidly sourced, but they cannot be rigidly sourced within the lines of reliability laid out by this proposal.  The current proposal does not allow that quality of sources is an issue for individual talk pages.  I don't know that I would support that language either, it is too easy to get a talk page consensus that a source is acceptable.  What we want to do is ensure people are using truly reliable sources.  The reliable sources that exist outside the lines of the current proposal need to be undisputed; not merely achieve talk page consensus.
 * To take my suggestion on using authoritative above. If you find a newspaper claiming Foo is an premier astrologist, I am certain you may also find a source to say Foo is full of shit.  In such a case you cannot claim Foo is authoritative.  However if you find a source saying Foobar is an expert on Jefferson Nickels and there are no alternate sources which dispute this, then Foobar is authoritative.  Now I understand if people do not agree with this solution, but this is the angle we are attempting to find.  How to guide people to believe the undisputed work of an expert on Jefferson Nickels is acceptable, while the work of an expert on astrology, where the entire field is disputed, is not; even though both works are self-published.  If we cannot find a way to say this explicitly, I do not mind relying on WP:IAR.  However in that case we have to at least let peoplpe know that such a policy exists.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want the policy to say that reliability of sources should be decided on the talk pages; but that's inevitably what will happen in cases where academic, published sources aren't available—policy can't legislate for thousands of entirely different articles, that's all: it will become ridiculous and soggy if it tries. If it was up to me, I'd ban blogs and websites; but, being realistic, I'd merely have the policy state that published sources are the bottom line. Then let people fight (though I wouldn't put this in the policy) at the level of the article over whether blogs and websites should be made exceptions in individual cases (as happened at Bowling for Columbine, where, though nasty for the warring editors, the conflict was healthy for Wikipedia, proving that no glib solution or loophole is decreed). qp10qp 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think all self-published sources are reliable, but some are very reliable. Especially in informal subjects where there is no academic outlet for the information.  Writing a poicy which refuses to acknowledge this is a problem.  I don't wish the policy to legislate exactly which sources are acceptable or not, so much as give direction to these inevitable talk page discussions.  There needs to be some guidance as to what to do in cases where academic, published sources aren't available or do not handle the subject in depth.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you aren't happy with the present text, which rather than refusing to deal with this grey area actually addresses your points. The text acknowledges that some self-published sources may be relied upon—insofar as their authors can be relied upon in other published sources. So we can with caution rely on Neil Gaiman's blog because it's largely about himself and because he's been legitimately published elsewhere; but we can't rely on Vernon Coleman's spew of self-published books telling us how to conquer pain, arthritis, and breast cancer, live the transvestite life, rear cats, understand politics, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, because he hasn't been reliably published on those subjects anywhere else.
 * Guidance about what to do when published sources aren't available on a subject should not, in my opinion, be included here because that's the last sort of article we need to encourage (which anyway pour into wikipedia prolifically enough already, to say the least); such articles are rightly discouraged in the present text, starting with the nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed.
 * It's impossible anyway to give guidance on finding reliable sources to articles for which no reliable sources are likely to exist. I'm not against such articles, if, like Spoo, their editors are ingenious enough to achieve worthiness in spite of the policies; but why should policy sell its clarity down the line on behalf of unreliably sourced articles? As the saying goes, bring a rotten log into your hut, expect to be infested with termites. qp10qp 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember that here policies have reputations too. If everyone does things against a policy, new people will look around, see that the policy is far above the clouds, unrelated to actual state of affairs, and so will ignore it, completely. It happens to rules which refuse to take reality in account both in the net, in the real life and here. So it is better to address things with a flexible policy which at least organizes that and trims the excessive things, rather than write laws that won't work at all. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I have issues pushing through a policy with the intent of having it be ignored. Phil Sandifer 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)