. Clear consensus that the RfC is the best target for this set of shortcuts. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
First, I don't think anybody objects to the idea that all of these should direct to the same target. So the question is: should these redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail? To me it's clearly the latter, because it contains a summary of and a link to the RfC. I don't think people expect to see an archived discussion when clicking on a shortcut (cf. WP:ASTONISH). A shortcut to an archived RfC is also disadvantageous because there's no way to know if the result of the RfC is still effective. I just don't see how a shortcut to an archived discussion can be beneficial, unless the name of the shortcut clearly indicates that. Nardog (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC The editors who have used this redirect (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22per+WP%3ADAILYMAIL%22 and try playing around with a few alternate ways of saying the same thing) have mostly pointed readers at the RfC, not to our identifying reliable sources/perennial sources page (they tend to use WP:RSP when referring to that page). This is a contentious topic, with The Daily Mail working hard to accuse Wikipedia of wrongdoing. Redirecting to a page that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" just gives TDM one more thing to misinterpret. Many editors have written things like "per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source." or "Daily Mail is not a RS as per WP:DAILYMAIL" -- clearly wishing the reader to go to the page where it was decided, not to an explanatory page. If the RfC is ever overturned, we can edit the redirects to point to the new RfC, and we can add a note to the old RfC (which is allowed, even on archived pages) pointing to the new RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC as per the above comment. The RfC is the place people will be looking for, as it gives proper information and consensus on the subject. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC. I would welcome a page that contains the clarifications that the closers made later, but not an essay containing irrelevant matters and changeable opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail (WP:RSP) - This target, which is part of an explanatory supplement to a guideline which has been vetted by the community, provides essential context about this blacklisted source. Specifically, 34 previous discussions and two RfCs are linked from WP:RSP, making it the most informative target imaginable. Linking to an isolated RfC does not help contributors who would otherwise benefit from a more thorough examination of this source. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-07-28&end=2018-12-25&pages=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources RSP has proven to be a very useful resource], regardless of what The Daily Mail thinks about it. - MrX 🖋 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
:* How about creating a dedicated page that just contains links to the "34 previous discussions and two RfCs" (and a link the the Daily mail section at WP:RSP) but doesn't contain the information about dozens of other sites or the editorializing? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
::*I suppose we could do that, but I'm curious about what you consider editorializing at WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
:::The actual policy (which has been extensively vetted by many editors) says:
::::"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources {{strong|should directly support}} the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
:::the explanatory page (which has far fewer eyes on it) says:
::::"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low quality sources such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subject themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal circle of competence, and even very high quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high quality professional journalism, while others may be merely opinion pieces, that represent mainly the personal views of the author, and depend on their personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with native advertising, also known as sponsored content, because while these are usually unreliable as sources, they are designed to appear otherwise."
:::That last bit about native advertising/sponsored content is true and is useful, but it isn't in the policy that the page is supposed to be "an explanatory supplement to". Adding policies in explanatory supplements that are not found in the policy pages they purportedly explain -- no matter how useful or how true -- is editorializing. One easy way to identify such additions to policy is that they link to Wikipedia pages such as native advertising instead of to a specific section of a specific policy. What we don't want is editors using language like "per WP:DAILYMAIL" when WP:DAILYMAIL links to an explanatory page that contains an added pseudopolicy (or possibly a real policy that the page doesn't bother linking to.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
::::OK, perhaps the native advertising advice and anything else which is not rooted in policy or guidelines should be removed until it can undergo a discussion at WP:RS. {{u|GreenMeansGo}} wrote most of it, so perhaps he has some thoughts on the matter.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::Probably the only substantive part of that I didn't write is the native advertising part; I just tweaked the wording a bit, and I don't have any strong opinion about whether that bit stays or goes. I'd like to think that most everything else is a fair summary of PGs, or otherwise covered by COMMONSENSE. I do however feel fairly strongly that we need some sort of broad explanation in RSPS, to inform readers how the list is made and its intended use, most importantly, that it's not a tool that's intended to be a substitute for, or employed in the absence of thought. GMGtalk 17:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Sponsored content (a.k.a. native advertising) is addressed at {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|Sponsored content}} (WP:SPONSORED). I added that section into the guideline in October of this year. Although my "non-staff contributors" addition was challenged and removed, WP:SPONSORED has not yet been challenged. You're welcome to challenge it if you think it doesn't belong in the guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I've changed the wording in {{sectionlink|WP:RSP|How to use this list}} and linked the term "sponsored content" to WP:SPONSORED. — Newslinger talk 02:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC - If we were starting from scratch, we would redirect everything to "Perennial sources". However, in this case WP:DAILYMAIL has already been used extensively to link to the RfC, and we shouldn't be changing the meaning of these existing links. "WP:DAILY MAIL" and "WP:Daily Mail" are only used a handful of times and can be switched without affecting the intended meaning. –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC, cannot add anything to what has already been said.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the RfC When I created, for example, the redirect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DAILY_MAIL&oldid=795102409 DAILY MAIL] to the RfC, I didn't realize that some other editors had changed the same to the perennial proposal. As said by other editors, this should be pointed to the RfC and so should other redirects; that is, until The Daily Mail becomes essential reading at schools, post which I shall chew my shoes on Insta live. Lourdes 02:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
