Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C not truth

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)

::Agree on citing both. It's not like we're going to run out of footnotes anytime soon. Hell, chuck some of the more authoritative sources into Wikipedia:Further reading even if you haven't used them yet. We can discuss if we should remove them if we run out of space. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Alpha3031, you might be interested in joining Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal: expand the scope of ELNO to include "Further reading", which is the most lively discussion about ==Further reading== that I've seen since we re-wrote Wikipedia:Further reading in 2010. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing oh my gosh, thank you for linking to that! As someone who curated a very good Further reading to an FA article that I can take pride in, I am very much against that proposal.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:48, 14 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)

Sidebar comment: When it comes to temporary newspaper subscriptions, it would be great if there was a fund available for this.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library has quite a few newspapers, but if you've checked the ISSN and it's not in there, the people at WP:RX can probably find it at a library {{em|somewhere}}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC on whether WP:V and WP:RS apply to Further reading

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Marked as "RfC withdrawn by nominator". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)