Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Will vs May

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)

WP:V (and more specifically WP:SPS) says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" (emphasis added). I think the first "expert" is redundant and should be removed (not as a change in policy, but as an improvement in grammar). Any additional opinions? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed that the other day, and I agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Yep, go for it. Zero^talk 01:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Thanks, all! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS sentence says:

"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Does this apply to material purely outside the mainspace? For example, does ONUS apply to a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment (about which I'm aware of no disputes) or to an essay like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or to a help page like Help:Table?

(NB that I'm asking specifically about ONUS, not about Wikipedia:Consensus, so logically valid answers include answers like "ONUS itself doesn't, but CONS does, so the distinction is technical rather than practical".)

Because I think ONUS is purely about the mainspace, I've been thinking about changing the wording to reflect that, e.g., "The responsibility for achieving consensus to include something in an article is on those seeking to include disputed content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, everywhere when you represent that 'this is consensus', the onus on you. If I write a good sentence for an article or consensus essay, the onus was on me to write a sentence that now represents the consensus of the topic/essay/group page (until it doesn't, and then I (or someone else) have to work to reestablish the consensus for it or let it go.). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, but that's ordinary dictionary-definition onus, not WP:ONUS, which is a part of verifiability. If I decided to change the color of Template:Vandalism information, that has no connection to Wikipedia:Verifiability or WP:ONUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think your reasoning is dancing on a pinhead, as they say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Aren't these just extensions of WP:CONCENSUS? If you wanted to modify policy or guidance, and were reverted, it would be expected that consensus building would have to take place. Edit warring you change wouldn't be acceptable, so BRD is good advice even outside of article space, and ultimately if their wasn't consensus for your changes they would not be implemented. If you were unwilling to try and convince others of the change, then the change wouldn't be implemented, so in effect ONUS applies. The exact wording of either may not fit, but the general expectation of editors behaviour follows from more basic policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, consensus applies.

::::But ONUS (=remove anything disputed) isn't how disputes are usually handled outside the mainspace. BRD is good advice (though rarely relevant; Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD isn't actually BRD). But imagine the scenario in which the desired edit is to remove something:

::::* Alice: Ugh, that restriction in this guideline seems like a bad idea. Remove!

::::* Bob: Hey, don't just go changing the guideline. We need that rule!

::::* Alice: Nice try, but this restriction in the guideline is now "disputed content", and ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you want this old rule in the guideline, then ONUS says you have to achieve consensus to include it.

::::There's no consensus for Alice's removal, and yet ONUS says Alice's edit should be kept, and Bob is responsible for building consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think ONUS definitely does not apply outside of mainspace, but I don't think it's worth tweaking the wording. Hopefully we can reserve all our ONUS-tweak-energy for addressing the perennial ONUS v. NOCON issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems obvious to me but other opinions would be welcomed. See WP:RSN#Is German Legal commentary a secondary source?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)