:Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_citogenesis_incidents#There_is_something_important_missing_in_this_article_(and_the_talk_page) this discussion]. Wikipedia talk:List of citogenesis incidents only shows a list, not guidelines. WP:Circular only talks about preventative measures to avoid damage, not how to clean up a damage resulting from citogenesis (investigate, clearly explain the citogenesis situation to the reader like the list of incidents is doing). 172.56.234.162 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yup, I argued at Talk:Rudolf Steiner that an article from a major newspaper is citogenesis, but nobody believed me, since there was no WP:RS to that extent. Morals: citogenesis is hard to prove, and WP:OR is not the way to do it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::* Adding another policy or guideline won't prevent citogenesis incidents. Citogenesis incidents happen when a (normally reliable) external source trusts the contents of a Wikipedia article, especially when the Wikipedia article contains an error. We can't stop external sources from trusting us.

::* Once you've identified an incident, the clean-up process is pretty straightforward (remove errors; add correct information; leave a note on the talk page). We don't need a fancy protocol. I'm not even sure that we actually need a list, except as an exercise in humility.

::WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I agree with the IP that when we're confident citogenesis has occurred, we should clearly say in the article where the citogenesis occurred that the claim is false and was originally sourced from Wikipedia. Just because we can't prevent citogenesis doesn't mean we can't do anything to reduce it. Loki (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::We can't add content to the article if there's no reliable source that WP:Directly supports that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::In cases where citogenesis has occurred, would it not be a good idea to develop a kind of banner (or some other visual aid) to help warn future editors from using the source in the article? This way it wouldn't be in the main text of the article but would remain there (with a link to the discussion).

:::::FropFrop (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If a source is known or likely to have been derived from Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be cited in the WP article. Where would you put such a warning? Many, if not most, editors are unlikely to look at the talk page before editing an article. You could place the warning in a hidden notice on the article page, but that could lead to a lot of clutter in some articles, and my impression is that some editors don't like hidden notes. I would certainly prefer that they be used sparingly. Donald Albury 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::When a Wikipedia article is mentioned ("According to Wikipedia, the Sun rises in the East"), you can put Template:Press on the talk page. If a Wikipedia article is substantially duplicated, you can use Template:Backwards copy.

:::::::But when an editor thinks, "Huh, this claim was added to the Wikipedia article in 2010, and I can't find any source corroborating that until 2011, so maybe that one claim in those sources was taken from the Wikipedia article, but maybe it wasn't", then there's not much you can do. A template that says "One editor has a mostly unfounded suspicion about the verifiability of one sentence in this article" is not very useful. If you feel like you're fairly good at researching this kind of problem, then a detailed explanation on the talk page might be helpful, but a boilerplate template probably isn't.

:::::::To give an example: In the first article I ever created (which was about a highway), I found a "fun fact" in a blog. That blog is long dead, and was not archived. If you searched for that fact now, it's entirely possible that the earliest source you could find for that fun fact would be the Wikipedia article. But it wouldn't be "the earliest source"; it would only be "the earliest source you could find".

:::::::I cited the blog post at the time (that's the only reason that I can tell you now where it came from), but if I hadn't – and citing everything was definitely abnormal back then – you might suspect that I'd just made it all up, and that any subsequent source was a case of citogenesis. However, your suspicions would be wrong, and if you dumped a template on the page, you'd be incorrectly declaring the article and all subsequent reliable sources(!) to be wrong, on the basis of nothing more than your own (in this case, inadequate) original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Some of you may remember that I made a proposal with the same title in December 2024. The discussion was productive but the proposal was shelved as a dispute that triggered my proposal was ongoing (link to the original proposal is here). As the dispute's thread has been archived for some time, I thought that I'd restart the discussion with the hope of improving policy.

The proposed change

I propose that the current wording: {{tq|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}} be changed to:

{{quote|When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example:

• If the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to.
• The content falls under ABOUTSELF.
• The content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable and independent publications.
• When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. Editors should provide sources' quotations and sources citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its verifiability.
• When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.

If a self-published source meets one or more of the above examples, that does not automatically warrant its use as a reliable source; careful discussion of its reliability should still be made.}}

{{Collapse|2=The full policy if this proposal took place|

{{quote|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, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.

When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example:

• If the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to.
• The content falls under ABOUTSELF.
• The content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable and independent publications.
• When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. Editors should provide sources' quotations and sources citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its verifiability.
• When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.

If a self-published source meets one or more of the above examples, that does not automatically warrant its use as a reliable source; careful discussion of its reliability should still be made.

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. 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.}} }}

Why make this change?

Currently we allow a wide range of sources without decent review standards. I'd be surprised if we've not all come across books containing claims that make us wonder if an editor ever held the book, seen podcasts given as sources, etc. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be highly suspicious of self-published sources, that I do not question, but there are other ways of determining a book's reliability than just checking if it was published by a third party.

As the policy currently stands, it does not matter how reliable a self-published book is. This is an issue as not only is this standard far above what we expect from other forms of media, it ignores the reality that book-editors often don't fact-check, and (most importantly) it limits us from using potential sources that can be demonstrated to be otherwise very reliable (even more reliable than other books published by a third-party, as I hope to demonstrate).

Why would this policy change lead to an improvement in Wikipedia?

I raise this is as I've been working on Daisy Bates (author) and I've found that two of the recent biographies,{{efn| Susanna de Vries's "Desert Queen: The many lives and loves of Daisy Bates" (2008) and Bob Reece's "Daisy Bates: Grand dame of the desert"}} often disagree with one another on very simple facts about Daisy Bates's life. My suspicion is that they both read autobiographical work written by Bates ("The passing of the Aborigines{{sic}}" (1936)), as well as a biography by Elizabeth Salter (titled "Daisy Bates: Queen of the Never Never" (1972)), and that they didn't do their due diligence in checking other primary sources. I'll give some examples in the collapsible table below:

{{Collapse|2=Fact checking claims of de Vries and Reece

| 1=Some examples below:

• Bob Reece claims on page 37 that Bates camped at Ma'amba reserve in 1901 and was invited to meet a duke and duchess in that same year because she organised a corroboree to welcome them on their arrival in Perth. When I was trying to understand the situation and the reason for the conflicting account I found a journal article and a government report which contradicts Reece; they describe that what was organised in 1901 was not a corroborree and that it was not organised by Bates.[https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-61348280/view?partId=nla.obj-61354470#page/n9/mode/1up]{{rp|9}}[https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/catalogue_resources/m0022954.pdf]{{rp|57}} According Elizabeth Salter, Lomas and de Vries, Bates only went to Ma'amba after being hired by the government in 1904, this is backed up by correspondence we have between Bates and government officials (which is quoted by Lomas in his book). You only get the date of 1901 if you take Bates at her word in her autobiographical work.
• It appears that neither de Vries nor Reece actually read many of Bates's first articles. For example:
• They both disagree on what one of Daisy's first papers (published in Western Australia's journal of agriculture), "From Port Hedland to Carnarvon by Buggy" (1901), was about. de Vries thinks that it "covered her observations of the Indigenous people she had encountered" but this is plainly false if you read the journal article (as I have, at the J S Battye Library). Reece says that it was more a travel account.
• Both de Vries and Reece state that Bates started her ethnographic work shortly after arriving in Perth, but there's no evidence of this. They both just trust Bates on this, but if you actually read her papers you see that they have nothing to do with anthropology. Again, Lomas was the only one (of the three) to actually read the original papers himself and point this out.}}

To summarise the reliability of de Vries and Reece, who are both published by a third party and have gone through some kind of review process:

• They both are often lacking in giving citations, this makes their reliability hard to judge.
• They both contain the errors that could have been avoided if they (or an editor) had read other primary sources.

This is not to say that they should not be used; I note all of this to contrast them with Lomas's book, which is self-published.

Coming to Brain D Lomas's "Queen of Deception" (2015):

{{Collapse|2=Indicators that Lomas is reliable

|1=Indicators of Lomas's reliability:

• Lomas's book is used as a source in Eleanor Hogan's "Into the Loneliness: The unholy alliance of Ernestine Hill and Daisy Bates". "Dr Eleanor Hogan is a 2023 National Library of Australia Fellow"[https://www.library.gov.au/whats-on/events/eleanor-witcombe-her-brilliant-career-dr-eleanor-hogan] and her book was published by NewSouth Publishing at the University of New South Wales Press Ltd. This book won the "The 2019 Hazel Rowley Literary Fellowship".[https://writersvictoria.org.au/writing-life/news/eleanor-hogan-wins-the-2019-hazel-rowley-literary-fellowship/]
• Lomas has done a lot of original research on the topic:
• He has combed through old newspapers and government records to corroborate Bates's whereabouts; Old newspapers contained the names of folks who arrived at a port, Bates also developed a level of fame where people would report on her whereabouts in letters to papers, he also went through government records for her travel expense receipts she had sent to the government for reimbursement, etc.
• Reading through a ton of archived material spread between Perth and Canberra. This includes the just mentioned receipts for travel expenses, but also personal and government correspondence (who for a while was her employer). I haven't seen indication that the other biographers went through so much archived material.
• He regularly lets the source material speak for itself by giving quotations from primary sources.
• He is quite consistent in giving citations, making it very easy to verify his claims. As a result it has been far easier to fact-check Lomas than it has been to fact check de Vries and Reece.

All of this indicates to me that Lomas is reliable.}}

Conclusion To summarise: Lomas is used as a source by an award winning non-fiction biographer, has done a ton of original research that involved reading through archived material, provides quotations from primary sources, and gives consistent and reliable citations. This results in Lomas being an arguably more reliable source on the topic than both de Vries and Reece. However, according to current policy, he cannot be used as a source alongside de Vries and Reece. I argue that current policy should be amended in the given or similar form. I am not arguing that self-published sources be allowed to be used without their reliability being demonstrated.

Happy to answer any questions, clarify any statements, provide quotations, etc. if people wish.

{{Collapse|2= Criticism of Lomas and response to potential questions|1=

A failing of Lomas fails is a lack of polish in terms of his grammar, typos and some of his citations' page numbers being off by a couple pages (which, while sloppy, is again better than the other biographers). This is where most an editor's attention would have gone to, and have been most useful.

{{tq|Why not use the other published secondary sources?}} They are being used, but in the interest of using as many reliable sources as possible, and giving a balanced article that avoids giving undue weight to misinformation, Lomas's book should not be barred from being used as a reliable source.

{{tq|Has Lomas ever had any work published elsewhere?}} As far as I'm aware, no. The author never states it explicitly but my judgment is that it was a retirement project. However, he does also speak French (and maybe dutch?) so he could have published somewhere that I haven't found.

{{tq|Why is it self-published?}} If I had to guess I'd say that it is because he is retired and didn't want to go through the headache that is publishing. If you have experience with this you know that it can be difficult. This is only conjecture though.}}

FropFrop (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC) FropFrop (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Notelist-talk}}

:I would oppose the wording starting {{tq|"When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable"}} as currently written. If something can be verified to a different reliable source, use that source instead. Also there can be disagreement other what is non-controversial. I would also disagree with the last point, that a reliable self published source can be used to prove the reliability of a different self published source. Self published source are problematic because there's no external checking of what is published, including the quality of the sources used.
This change takes what is a simple and short statement and makes it rather wordy and much more ambiguous. Editors already argue over the meaning of the current wording and I don't think this would make the situation clearer, in fact I think it would make it worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|If something can be verified to a different reliable source, use that source instead.}} I included this as after verifying a handful of claims of a self-published source, it becomes tedious then checking every other basic claim. It is also better to give the self-published source as a citation in our articles, than the primary sources (at least in my opinion).

::{{tq|I would also disagree with the last point, that a reliable self published source can be used to prove the reliability of a different self published source. Self published source are problematic because there's no external checking of what is published, including the quality of the sources used.}} Very true, which is why the last point is one of a handful of things which ought to be considered when judging the reliability of a source.

::FropFrop (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources that support the same content as a self-published source may be primary, but please note that "primary source" has a specific meaning in our policies and guidelines. I am leary of using any self-published sources, no matter what the reputed expertise of the author. I'm thinking of a case of an author who had published many articles in journals that we accept as reliable, who made a claim in the field in which he had published that was questioned by others in that field. This author then self-published a book to support his claims, which was not accepted by other scholars in that field. In my opinion, it is always best to search for non-self-published sources to support content in articles. Donald Albury 01:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|It is always best to search for non-self-published sources to support content in articles.}} Definitely, I agree. However, I've found that some flexibility is required. While I don't think my proposal is a great one, I'm hoping that a constructive discussion can take place that will result in policy being appropriately adjusted. Have I explained the motivation for my proposal well enough? If so, would you have any ideas as to how policy could be adjusted? If not, could you explain where my argument is lacking?

::::FropFrop (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are many point that should be used when judging the reliability of a source, but it's use by another self published isn't going to be one of them. WP:PRIMARY doesn't mean unreliable, and although secondary sources are preferred that doesn't mean secondary sources of any quality. Whether verification is tedious it is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This may lead to a logical disconnect. If we have deemed SPS #1 reliable due to the published expertise of its expert author, and that author then cites another SPS #2 (that fails {{Nowrap|current policy}}) in some of their work, why wouldn't we also deem SPS #2 reliable and give it a pass? To me, there should only be two logical outcomes:

::::#SPS #2 is deemed unreliable per policy, and therefore the reliability (or standing) of SPS #1's expert author is retroactively demoted due to their reliance on an unreliable source.

::::#We continue to consider SPS #1's expert author to be reliable, and therefore their analysis and acceptance of SPS #2 permits its use on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

::::The implied third outcome of continuing to accept SPS #1 but deny SPS #2 doesn't add up. What am I missing? GoneIn60 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we accept SPS #2 based on SPS #1, do we accept SPS #3 based on SPS #2, etc? The currently suggested wording says that we should, after that all sources are considered reliable.
The current situation is that if good high quality sources accept a questionable source (a SPS) as reliable, then it's accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. This change would make it that if a questionable source accepts another questionable source as reliable, then we should accept that second source as being reliable. We obviously shouldn't. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the number of degrees of separation from the original "expert author" we have already accepted should have limits. For example,

::::::*The NYT recognizes Expert 1 as an authoritative SME

::::::*Expert 1 publishes SPS 1, and they have analyzed/accepted/cited SPS 2

::::::*SPS 2 (or another SPS published by its Expert 2 author) analyzes/accepts/cites SPS 3

::::::SPS 1 is accepted fairly easily, and SPS 2's content would become eligible for acceptance. But the fact that Expert 2 is not an SME with direct backing in "reliable, independent publications" is an important distinction to maintain. We've only opened the door for SPS 2's content based on Expert 1's status. SPS 3 wouldn't be permitted on Expert 2's recommendation alone. We essentially stop at SPS 2 in this scenario, and the implied loophole closes. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But that's still accepting a questionable source based on a questionable source. The exception is meant for sources that high quality sources have vetted for us, not for sources that questionable sources say are ok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That's where the logical disconnect comes into play. WP:SPS states that a so-called "questionable source" has an avenue to achieving reliability. Assuming it has in this example (SPS 1), then your statement of concern should instead read: "{{tq|But that's still accepting a questionable source based on a reliable source.}}" And the question then becomes, should we accept the content of SPS 2 based on a reliable source's vetting of that source? Maybe, maybe not, but either way we should be asking the right question here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No sorry SPS only makes a questionable source usable, it doesn't make it a high quality source. The source quality hasn't changed, it has just been given a limited exception. So it can't then be used to provide support for another questionable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WP:SPS simply says that a questionable source "may be considered reliable" if it meets certain qualifications. So in our example, this would result in calling SPS 1 a reliable source. Perhaps that just means some degree of usable as you say, but the existing policy doesn't describe it in that fashion. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've only just noticed a potential misunderstanding.

::You said {{tq|I would also disagree with the last point, that a reliable self published source can be used to prove the reliability of a different self published source.}}

::But I proposed: {{tq|When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.}}

::As in, the self-published secondary source is taken to be reliable in a reliable source. I did not propose that a self-published source ought to be used to show that another self-published source is reliable.

::Does this change your view of my proposal, even if marginally?

::FropFrop (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry if I've misunderstood then how is it useful? If the publication mentioned in {{tq|"uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication"}} is only about non-self published source then you're just duplicating WP:USEBYOTHERS. If reliable (non-self published) sources treat the source as a reliable source, then Wikipedia should as well. Although a singular usage wouldn't be enough, and shouldn't be enough here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Context matters. How do we know that the author(s) of a reliable source is treating a self-published source as reliable for content that is not mentioned or referred to in the reliable source? I think it would be mistaken to assume that since author A has cited self-published source B for statement C, that we can also accept source B as reliable for statements D, E, or F. Donald Albury 16:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah nice, I wasn't aware of this. Thank you.

::::FropFrop (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I like the proposed wording but I do agree with some of the concerns. On Wikipedia we have often used "published on the subject" as our measure of proof of being a subject matter expert. However, I would suggest something more aligned with how a court might handle things. In court a CV with a lot of relevant publications may be the way to establish expertise but not all fields would use the same standards. I've used the example of race car design. The views or assessments of someone like Gordon Murray, Adrian Reynard or David Bruns likely represent far more expertise vs writers from Car and Driver, Top Gear or even many of the motorsports specific publications. In a court of law those designers could point the on track success of their designs as evidence of their expertise. The same might be true of a horse trainer who has trained multiple crown winning horses or various sports coaches with clear winning records. I'm sure there are other examples outside of sports but the point is that academic accomplishment shouldn't be the only valid way to establish expertise on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I strongly disagree with the entire proposed revision. It is far too vague and ambiguous. It will only invite wikilawyering while the current standard is a clear bright-line rule that is easy to understand and enforce.

::WP is ill-equipped to make that kind of assessment suggested by Springee above, where a person can qualify as an expert witness from experience alone but there isn't much published literature expressly endorsing them as an expert on the field. Weakening the existing requirements for WP:SPS would merely invite massive time-consuming wikilawyering over the expertise of various authors of self-published sources when it would be more productive to stay on the lookout for traditional reliable sources that support particular points. Indeed, if User:FropFrop cares that much about the fact that Lomas is apparently a more accurate historian than de Vries and Reece, it may make more sense to simply publish an academic article to establish that point, which would then help to qualify Lomas as an expert under the existing standard.

::As an experienced attorney, I can tell you that yes, expert witnesses do qualify based on experience alone all the time, because courts recognize that there are numerous people who can bring deep expertise on certain narrowly defined topics who are not famous enough to be able to point to news articles, journals, magazines, or textbooks calling them experts on such topics. But a court can do that because the judge takes extensive evidence on a witness's education, experience, and qualifications in order to carefully draw the line between, on the one hand, novices and frauds, versus on the other hand, someone who knows the subject matter very well, and there will be opposing counsel present who will use cross-examination to probe weaknesses in the backgrounds of marginal witnesses to try to get them excluded. Furthermore, the witness submits that evidence under oath, meaning they can go to jail for perjury if caught in a lie.

::WP simply doesn't have the resources for anything like that. Unlike a court, it has no way to compel a purported expert to attest under oath to the truth of their curriculum vitae or submit to cross-examination to test their veracity. The best we can do is rely on the published record. If a reliable source vouches for a person as an expert, that's enough. Quick, simple, and easy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I can understand it has it's limitations but I don't think we should be naive as to think "published in field" is the only way to establish expertise. Certainly we could be more limited in what we accept but if we are talking about things like race cars, the clearly successful designers would be good sources even the best sources for some types of information even if they don't have academic credentials. For example, Murray would clearly be a subject matter expert on the McLaren MP4/5 and Reynard for the BAR 004. Bruns designed the Swift DB-1 that turned Formula Ford on its head by basically obsoleting all previous cars. Yes, since, unlike in court we can't really cross examine the expert [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGQLQF1b6I] but in some cases the evidence of expertise should be obvious. Springee (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In my experience, the worst cases of wikilawyering occur when policy is extremely clear but ought not to be applied in a situation that had not been considered when the policy was written. The headache of arguing for an exception then occurs. Some ambiguity and explicit direction for discussion is needed, in my opinion.

:::FropFrop (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The problem, though, is what's "obvious". I don't know if this Murray fellow has a blog about car design. If he did, it would be acceptable as a WP:SPS under the existing language because as his WP article already points out, he won a 2024 lifetime achievement award from Topgear for his accomplishments in his field. People whose star status in their field is truly "obvious" and beyond any reasonable dispute can already be used under the existing SPS language.

::::As was already pointed out below, there is no principled way to weaken the existing language without opening the door to cranks and frauds. You are not accounting for the fact that too many people on the web are not acting in good faith. You need to read through the vast variety of blogs and self-published web sites on the web to get an idea of the amount of craziness out there. That is why SPS is so carefully worded. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, the "Self-published sources" section doesn't say a famous race car designer, Murray, can be treated as a reliable export because he's a famous race car designer. It say

:::::{{quote|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.}}

:::::So no matter how much he has been acclaimed, for purpose of using his self-published publication in Wikipedia, you would have to prove he published other work in reliable, independent publications. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::That is how I would read it. I certainly feel that should just be the preferred method but not the only method. In the case of all three of the designers their records and articles that discuss the topic make it clear they are experts in their field. However, it's not clear how much overlap there is between academic publishing and race car design details/designer intent. Springee (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Got it. Thanks for the clarification; I was clearly mistaken as to the current contents of WP:SPS. It appears that the text of WP:SPS has evolved drastically since I last reviewed WP:V in full. I will have to trace back when I have the time and see when that text changed and who was responsible. I was certain that WP:V used to allow self-published sources based on external endorsements rather than the purported expert's publication of their own work.

:::::::However, I am fine with the narrower current language that is overly biased in favor of academics (who have to publish or perish) even if it risks excluding self-published sources by stars in non-academic fields. If a particular proposition is really, really important, someone is going to publish it eventually in the conventional fashion in a reliable source that will pass muster under WP:RS, and I think it is more productive to look for those sources, than find ways to cite a WP:SPS that did not go through the conventional publication process. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I'm not sure I like the proposed wording but I do agree with some of the concerns.}} To be honest, I'm not a fan of the wording either. This is my best attempt at handling the issues that I see with current policy. Would you have any ideas on what could be modified?

::FropFrop (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think this proposal is likely to improve most situations on Wikipedia. I'm especially concerned about opening the flood-gates to SPS on political and contemporary history articles. There's a lot of cranks out there and having to field "no, this crank is really an expert" on a dozen articles seems a likely outcome. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair point. s my previous proposal was received positively, I'll go back and consider why this one is being received poorly.

::::FropFrop (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Road to hell is paved with ... this proposal. Look, we already have enough opinionated people adding highly questionable sources and arguing about them for ever and a day on WP:RSN. Any small opening will start a floodgate of brain doners who want to add junk sources right and left. It will be a nightmare to handle. Let things be as they are, for they are already too soft in my view. So please let it be, let it be as is. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Fair point. As my previous proposal was received positively, I'll go back and consider why this one is being received poorly.
• :FropFrop (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Maybe we should think about the role of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in accepting a subject-matter expert with only self-published sources.
• ::Some similar cases to think about:
• ::* Person (like Rob Enderle) who gets quoted as an expert in the newspaper all the time. If that person hasn't ever written a whole piece in traditional media, but his blog/social media/whatever has something especially relevant (and not about BLPs or otherwise controversial), can you use it?
• ::* Person (like MrBeast) who is prominent in 'new media'. Are your works really "self-published" when you have 250 employees involved in creating that content?
• ::* Person who is considered authoritative within a very small field, but basically unknown outside of it. These are usually very niche, like the inventor of a notable device or an artist in an uncommon field.
• ::The downside to these is: Do we really want that, as a general case? One might accept Lomas and not want (e.g.,) anyone who got quoted in a hobbyist magazine at least five times". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: There was a discussion awhile ago about the self published work of an ex-journalist on ... pipe organs in East Anglia or some very similar hyper specific subject. Not an accredited expert, no academic training in the subject, but what would either look like in such a context? There were however a couple of reviews from experts saying this was now the reference work for this hyper specific area. In my opinion it was reliable for it's context. WP:SPS doesn't say "never use self published sources", outside of BLPs, it says {{tq|are largely not acceptable}}. The burden is on whoever wants to use it to convince others it should be used. This changes appears to be because that didn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|This changes appears to be because that didn't happen.}} I may be misunderstanding, but eventually Lomas was accepted. It was however an incredibly difficult and tedious process. While I understand that it can't be a quick and painless process, I think something ought to be adjusted in case there are similar situations in the future.
• ::::FropFrop (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Comment I thought there already was policy to allow self-published sources by established experts in a given field. I've used it before. Sorry, I don't have a link to hand. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::There is WP:SPS, the discussion is on whether to expanded policy to allow more sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Specifically, the proposal is to expand the definition of "established expert" to include people who have never authored anything in traditional media but who have self-published a source that other/traditional established experts accept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq| Do we really want that, as a general case?}} I'd say no, we don't want it as a general case. I guess my goal is to make a clearer agreed upon process by which we can allow exceptions. Currently, arguing for WP:IAR is quite difficult as (at least in my opinion) it's 1) Often not taken seriously 2) Folks love to wikilawyer.
• :::FropFrop (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Yeah, we are more rigid about rule-following than we were back when this rule was first written down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::In general, I think policies need tightening, if anything. E.g. note that I have made a proposal to tighten the policy on dissertatios. Comments will be appreciated. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

NOTIFICATION:

As Trump and MAGA succeed in bullying RS into silence and history/documents/databases/government records start to disappear, the fringe right-wing media's influence will become more dominant and the voice of RS will fade. It will also be harder to source good content. I don't know the exact statistics, but it appears that right-wing media already dwarf mainstream media 10 to 1, and, in the United States, Trump will go after all opposing voices and try to eliminate them.

This topic is now open for discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RS vs post-factual sourcing

Do not continue it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there any exceptions to the requirement for adding references? I have reviewed a variety show article that seems poorly sourced — most of the information in the "Segments" and "History" sections does not have any references.

Before I remove any of this content due to the lack of sources, I would like to ask if it is acceptable to do so, or if I should wait for others to add proper citations. I’m also wondering if there are any exceptions to Wikipedia’s guidelines about providing sources.

Thank you for your time. I know this might sound a bit odd — I’m new here, by the way. Thanks again! Arc Rev (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:You can use the template {{tl|citation needed}} to highlight particular content that you believe needs referencing that you can't find yourself. There's also {{tl|More citations needed}} that can be added to the top of the article instead, if the issues is the whole or large parts of the article. Both of these will highlight the issue to other editors. You can also add a comment to the articles talk page. You should try to find a source and be confident it's wrong before removing content. There's some exceptions, but don't worry about those until you know your way around a bit more. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm still having trouble identifying the material that needs to be tagged with this template. This section of the article doesn't seem to have reliable sources, and I would like to tag it. However, I'm having difficulty understanding whether it's normal for this kind of material to be unsourced, or if it was simply made up and no one has addressed the lack of sources. Thank you for your help. Arc Rev (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If is quite common for content to have been added without citations to sources. The policy is that content must be verifiable, but being cited to reliable sources is only required if an editor challenges the content, i.e., tags it with one of the appropriate templates. Personally, I try to cite reliable sources for all content I add to WP, but many editors feel that is not necessary. So, if you have doubts about any content, or feel that it needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources, or that the sources provided are not reliable (in the Wikipedia sense), you should tag it appropriately. Donald Albury 18:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Arc Rev, I agree with both of the other editors, and I add: If you personally know that something in an article is accurate, then don't bother tagging that. Every now and again, we get someone who will tag information like how many fingers humans have on each hand. (That is not a made-up example.) Since adding a thousand tags won't produce a thousand citations, it's best to focus on the important parts. Most people think the list of important parts includes:

::::* Things about living people who are named in the article ("As of 2022, Alice Expert is the CEO").

::::* Direct quotations ("The long-dead president frequently said 'Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence'.")

::::* Statistics (even simple ones, like "The company reported X in profits last year" or "About half of people are female")

::::* Opinions ("The opera critic said...")

::::* Counter-intuitive or controversial material

::::Also, if you can add one source when you tag something else, that lets other people know that you're really trying to help improve the article, and not just pointing out problems. That might encourage someone to put more effort into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{reply|WhatamIdoing}} Yes, I am really trying my best to help by providing reliable sources, especially for BLP articles. It’s just that I feel bothered when I see variety show articles that hugely lack sources. That’s why I asked here if there are any exceptions to WP:V, so I won’t be wrong if I tag them.

:::::I’ve seen several articles related to that, and when I check the "Segment" or "Format" sections, most of the time there are few to no references. Of course, that information isn't common knowledge, but it seems to have become a common practice to leave those parts unsourced.

:::::I do want to help by adding sources, but for now — especially since the article I’m talking about is very hard to find sources for (like information about prizes, contestants, formats, gameplay) — I think it's better to tag them first. That would still be helping, right?

:::::Thank you for your cooperation! Arc Rev (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Keep in mind that when writing about a TV show, if the show is readily available through Blu-ray purchases or streaming services, the shows themselves can be sources. If the claims in the Wikipedia article make it reasonably apparent which episode or episodes to watch to verify the claim, that can be considered an inline citation.

::::::This approach would not apply to a show from the early days of television, when broadcasts were live and no recording of the show is available. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Editors may have interpreted it as a WP:PLOTCITE situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The same language is on this Verifiability page as WP:ABOUTSELF and also on the Rliable Sources page at WP:SELFSOURCE. It is:

:Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

:Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

:: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

:: It does not involve claims about third parties;

:: It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

:: There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

:: The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I think this language has two problems.

• The first one is simple - as I read this, nothing in the text and conditions addresses questionable sources. Rather, it all applies only to self-published sources. (For example, what does it mean for questionable sources to be "about themselves"?) For this reason, I propose that "or questionable sources" be deleted from the heading and the first line.
• The second one is a drafting problem. Its three uses of "themselves" - "on themselves," "about themselves," and "about themselves or their activities" - do not say what they mean. As currently written, "themselves" refers to the sources, not the people who wrote them. What this says is that my Facebook page can (sometimes) be a source about *my Facebook page*. The evidently intended meaning is instead that my Facebook page can sometimes be a source about *me*. So this needs changing. Possible fixes include changing "themselves" to "their authors" or doing something like "Persons' or institutions' self-published sources as sources on those persons or institutions themselves". I found this language confusing until I realized from context that it does not mean what it says.

Sullidav (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your first bullet point would exempt non-self-published questionable sources from these requirements. For example, a predatory journal is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source at best, and if the journal publishes a statement like "We are one of the premier academic journals in our area and definitely not a predatory journal, no matter what kind of libel Alice Expert and all those Committee on Publication Ethics people are spreading", then that would be "unduly self-serving", an "exceptional claim", and "about third parties".

:Your second bullet point, and really, pretty much everything you've written, is based on a definition of "source" that means something like "document". However, WP:SOURCE is broader than that in this policy. You – including, but not limited to, what you write on your Facebook page – can (sometimes) be a source about you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. But I think you miss both points.

::::On point 1 - This rule is about when you CAN cite "Self-published or questionable sources," as an exception to the general rule that they are not RS and so cannot be cited. If questionable sources were deleted from the exception, as I suggest, the general rule would still apply and would still bar people from citing questionable sources for the type of things you say. The way to rebut my proposal, and I am looking for one, would be to give an example of where it reasonably SHOULD be OK, as an exception to the general rule, to cite a questionable source and this exception would allow that, so the exception should apply to questionable as well as self-published sources. Taking your predatory journal example - should we allow that questionable source to be cited for the name of its editor and its circulation numbers? I'm not sure we should, but if most think so, that hypo could rebut my proposal. (Both of those facts are sort of "about third parties," the editor and readers, so arguably the exception would not fit them either - I am stretching to look for a hypo that fits your assertion. Maybe the predatory journal's founding date? Should it be OK to cite the predatory journal for that? Hmm.)

::::On point 2 - What type of source you use is not relevant. My point is about incorrectly drafted language, particularly for self-published sources. As written the antecedent for "themselves" is the sources. That is, not "you" but some thing that you published. A canonical example of the intended application of this rule, which has come up several times, is that if I publish my birthdate on my own social media page, that page can be cited as a RS for that fact in a WP page about me. As drafted, the rule says that source can be cited as an RS about itself, i.e., about that page. What the rule says is not what it means. Sullidav (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, a predatory journal can be cited for who the editor is. The editor is not a third party to the journal, as they have a financial relationship. This isn't the first time that the meaning of "third parties" has come up on this talk page, and that text should be clarified. The predatory journal probably shouldn't be cited for its circulation numbers, as there's a good chance that the journal has artificially increased them for self-serving reasons.

:::::In terms of the language, WhatamIdoing's point is that "source" doesn't refer only to the publication. If you publish your birth date on social media, both you and your social media post are wp:sources for that info.

:::::I also think the following language should be clearer:

:::::* In the first condition in ABOUTSELF, "The material" presumably refers to material added to the WP article rather than material in the source. That is, the source can include self-serving content or an exceptional claim, but that content shouldn't make its way into the WP article.

:::::* In the second and third conditions, "It" refers to the content added to the WP article.

:::::* In the fourth condition, "its" refers to the source.

:::::At least, that's what I think the intended meanings are. FWIW, there's parallel text in BLPSELFPUB. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:"This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

Sounds good, but the phrase "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed" is commonly interpreted by neo-wikignomes as "must be removed". Many a text was written long time ago, with authors long gone, and the number of real content creators seems to be dwindling, so useful information hits the bit bucket, because nobody is here to defend it. I admit I am guilty of deleting big chunks of unref text myself if it is not a trivial task to verify it. And believe me, in 99% of cases nobody comes after me.

Of course, there is a sentence "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added." But it is a very timid suggestion compared with the preceding imperative "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Therefore I would like to make two suggestions.

• mention the "cn" in the lede, to increase the visibility of the option.
• allow reinstatement of the challenged piece with the "cn" tag added.

I can provide arguments supporting these proposals, but I don't want to create tl;dr wall of text. --Altenmann >talk 06:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|allow reinstatement of the challenged piece with the "cn" tag added}} ← a terrible idea, and a POV-pushers' charter. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what this has to do with the ==Nutshell==, but since you chose that for your section heading, I'd say that if I were re-writing the nutshell, I'd change "must be attributable to" to "must be possible to find in", or even "must be possible to attribute to". Editors routinely struggle with statements such as "The capital of France is Paris", which, as written here, without any little blue clicky numbers, is verifiable and attributable but not cited.

::If you are concerned about {{xt|"Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed"}} specifically, then that could be re-written: {{xt|"Editors are permitted (but not required) to remove any material that needs an inline citation and does not have one"}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the WP:PAYWALL policy should be modified to acknowledge that easily accessible sources are preferred when available. Reliability comes from both the reliability of sources, and from contributors verifying that the content matches what the source says. But it's rare for contributors to pay 20$ or spend hours just to verify one source. And there are more freely available sources nowadays than there was 10 years ago. You can challenge the phrasing or propose alternatives, but I suggest replacing:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

with something like:

While reliable sources should not be rejected solely because they are difficult or costly to access, editors should prefer easily accessible sources when multiple sources of equivalent reliability are available for a given fact. Alenoach (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Often a pay wall source is the originator of a story that nonpaywall sources pick up on (eg frequently the NYTimes or wapost). We still want to reference that original source, rather that those that are just repeating the story. So this wording might veer editors from that. Masem (t) 16:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think PAYWALL is a bigger factor for scholarly sources than for news sources. "You might have to buy the book" or "You might have to buy the journal article" is a bigger deal than "You might have to subscribe to the Washington Post for $4 for one month (and then remember to cancel it later)".

::We should probably add a link to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library to the hatnotes for that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a good change. Perhaps in the case of a tie breaker between which of two otherwise equal sources but heck, cite them both. At the same time I would rather cite Horowitz and Hill for information on a 555 timer circuit vs an online Make Magazine article. Of course citing both is better as one is more authoritative but easy to access is helpful to readers. Springee (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a sidebar comment, but when a question arises, unofficially, I thing offering a more accessible source gives the argument more weight than a less accessible one. I think paywalls are the mildest version of this and so I'm not sure I'd focus on that. Also wording it as obvious advice on which to pick is just that, although it would impart some meaning between the lines. Claiming that something is sourced by an unavailable book which is only available off line and the only copy is in a monastery in Tibet unofficially is going to be a weaker argument than providing an on-line source. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think I agree with this. A respected reference work is more compelling than an open-access journal article in a mediocre journal. Wikipedia already has a substantial FUTON bias, but I think that's something we should work against. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. NPOV directs us to aim for the WP:BESTSOURCES and{{snd}}such is the world we live in{{snd}} those aren't always of the free 'n' easy variety. Bon courage (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The point I was trying to make is more modest, it's that all else being equal, a freely available source is better. Accessibility is one of the many things you have to weight (alongside notability, depth, independence, etc). Alenoach (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You probably shouldn't be weighing whether the source qualifies for a separate, standalone article on Wikipedia ("notability"), as many sources are notable for being unreliable, and most good sources are non-notable.

::::The practical problem with adding a sort of "all else being equal" clause is two-fold:

::::* "All else" is almost never equal.

::::* Editors will over-interpret this to mean "whenever possible, even when it means citing a worse source".

::::We already have a significant bias towards free sources. This significant bias sometimes interferes with article quality ("well, this is the best I can do, given my limited resources"). Like many highly active, long-time editors, I've bought a few books so I can improve Wikipedia articles. However, I don't do it often, and I know that in many cases, that means that the articles I'm expanding are being expanded on the basis of what I can get easily/for free, and that this introduces a bias. For example, I bought a book to re-write Candy some years back. There are lots of free sources. Unfortunately, they tend to be at the hobbyist or pop culture level, and I wanted something slightly more scholarly than that. "All else" isn't equal – but I could easily imagine an editor complaining that I used a book instead of a free-to-read website. (Now imagine that the complaining editor is a POV pusher. Of course the POVs he disagrees with, and that are primarily available in professional literature or offline sources, are exactly the sources/material that he's going to complain about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|WhatamIdoing}} {{Ping|Bon courage}} I never said otherwise. I was just talking about an additional consideration. The considerations that you described are more important. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)`

I'm not sure what "prefer" would mean in this case. If two sources of similar quality disagree, should we prefer the one that is more accessible? Obviously, no!

What problem are we solving with this change? Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that the usual motivation for the Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Require free, online sources is either a desire to improve Wikipedia by speeding resolution of disputes ("He's using this source, and I'm sure he's wrong, but I can't read it to prove that he's misrepresenting it") or to benefit Wikipedia by collecting sources that are free for readers, under the mistaken belief that readers actually look at the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion and think PAYWALL has exactly the right approach as-is. Reasons include:

• We should prefer better sources, and often the better sources are not the free, online ones.
• Free sources are often less stable ones, so over time the proposed policy could add to link rot.
• The proposed criterion is a mutable one, since sometimes sources go in and out of paywalls. Under it, what's a better source today may be a worse one tomorrow.
• The proposed change could be seen as a reason for people to change sources in existing articles (especially as more things get paywalled, which I suspect is the trend), which is unnecessary. Sullidav (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC).

The phrasing of WP:PAYWALL should remain unchanged. In addition to the reasons given by Sulliday and WhatamIdoing, the most knowledgable editors are apt to have the subscriptions or affiliations to see the paywall sources, and be familiar with where to find information in them. It would be a burden for them to find a non-paywall equivalent, which may drive away the most capable editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

My "sidebar comment" aside :-) I think it's fine as is. Paywall is too minor of an impediment to be much of a consideration when deciding which source to use or to even mildly discourage use. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as is - It is important to remember that when you can not access a source - you can ask someone else to do so on your behalf. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)