Should social media sites be used as reliable sources?

[Johnny Au]

Should social media sites be used as sources in various Wikipedia articles?

Should there be exceptions from official social media sources? For example, should Wikipedians accept official tweets from a company as opposed to those from fans as reliable sources?

Take a look at the references section of Toronto FC (T-H-L). It cites Twitter and Youtube.

What do you think?

[sparkzilla]

Of course tweets, Facebook posts, and Instagram images can be used to document a topic. Very often they are the primary source of information about a topic. The question should be: should they be used in an encyclopedia? Is Wikipedia a biography site, a news archive or an encyclopedia? Each of these things is different and demands different kinds of sources.

The whole reliable source issue on Wikipedia is a symptom of the wiki-system that allows anyone to define what a reliable source is, instead of an objective standard. The result is that powerful groups hold power over what is "reliable" or not. It's an excuse for wikilawyering, and I would say, a form of harassment. The primary beneficiaries are entrenched editors, admins, and the WMF which gains power through creating more conflict on the system, not less.

[Johnny Au]

A good number of citations on the Toronto FC article are from primary sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and thus primary sources are not allowed. Newslines though is supposed to be a news archive, in which primary sources are accepted.

The advantage of not allowing primary sources (and not allowing original research) is to be objective, as the original sources often have built-in biases, mainly due to a lack of peer-review, although in practice, Wikipedia is biased in many ways.

It also prevents hoaxes.

sparkzilla, what do you do if there were a hoax (that was originally not considered a hoax and not written on March 31 or April 1) tweeted by a journalist gone rogue that were presented as fact (and reported by reputable news organizations as fact) and later added to newslines.org?

[sparkzilla]

Once it has been identified as a hoax we would keep the post in and add a line to it saying it was a hoax. We don't make much judgement on the truth of any post and mark claims as claims. Our policy is to only allow factual summaries. We don't allow external commentary or analysis in posts. So let's say there's a football match - we'd only relate the factual information: the score, who scored the goals, major events etc. We don't let writers add commentary by people outside the game, such as commentators, or any analysis of the game. This keeps the news cleaner and is particularly important in political news, where the analysis often obscures the events.

The advantage of not allowing primary sources (and not allowing original research) is to be objective, as the original sources often have built-in biases, mainly due to a lack of peer-review, although in practice, Wikipedia is biased in many ways.

I understand why original research (ie making shit up) is bad, but I have never understood the reasoning behind not allowing primary sources. Perhaps I don't have a clear understanding of what is meant by a primary source. What kind of sources do you mean?

[arthur]

Is Wikipedia a biography site, a news archive or an encyclopedia? Each of these things is different and demands different kinds of sources.

The only steer the WMF gives on this is that it wants "educational content". What is "educational content"...? They don't say, but my first guess would be that it should have a significant correlation with that which is taught in educational establishments (universities, etc.) and thus WP's sources should generally be whatever the educational establishments use.

[eagle]

From a legal perspective, a corporation's center is its Board of Directors. The decisions they make is recorded in their minutes. Anything else adds "spin" or interpretation to those actions. So, a press release from the company announcing or explaining the decision is inherently less reliable than the minutes. As one steps further away from the primary origin, there is more and more uncertainty and potential for distortion. So, by the time that the company sets up an employee whose job it is to edit social media, that person is far down the food-chain. If the New York Times quotes the CEO of General Motors, that is more reliable than a tweet authored by a low-level social media employee of General Motors.

The reasoning is that there is always the possibility that someone above the social media employee can second guess the tweet, fire its author or refute it. There is a cautionary function involved in issuing a press release or giving a press conference from corporate talking points -- people think carefully at that level because they want to be authoritative. While for twitter or facebook, the goal is to be read and perhaps to be a bit provocative rather than authoritative.

[Poetlister]

Suppose eminent historian John Smith puts something on his blog: "It is often claimed that A did B in 1927. In fact, it has been conclusively proved that he did not." Surely that could be cited as "It is often claimed that A did B in 1927. However, according to John Smith (T-H-L)[ref], it has been conclusively proved that he did not."

[Kelly Martin]

This is a perennial question, and a question that reveals the fundamental incompetence of most Wikipedians in the area of knowledge management. Johnny, and so many others, seek in vain a bright-line rule that can be used to sort sources into categories of "reliable" and "unreliable". However, this is a fool's errand, driven by the desire of so many naive Wikipedians to try to reduce the world to simple, categorical rules. A source, regardless of its nature, is neither categorically "reliable" nor "unreliable" across all domains. Twitter is a reliable source (modulo deletions, security lapses, and the occasional technical failure) for "who tweeted what", and an individual Twitter account is reliable as a source for "so-and-so said X" to the extent that one can be confident of the identification of the owner of that account. Whether or not a Twitter stream is reliable for some other purpose (and, most critically, whether statements made on that stream are likely to be true) depends principally on the qualifications and character of the person owning the Twitter account, and fairly little on the fact that the statement was made via Twitter. Once you get over the threshold of proving that the Twitter account is owned and used by the entity it claims to be, its reliability for a particular purpose devolves into an evaluation of that person or entity.

Fundamentally, this illuminates the general naivete of Wikipedians in the field of knowledge management. But what can we expect from a bunch of people who believe that the invisible pink unicorn of a "neutral point of view" actually exists?

[Johnny Au]

In theory, Wikipedia is meant to be authoritative. After all, its primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is community-driven and like anything community-driven, biases can form.

With regards to the likes of Facebook and Twitter, they profit from drama, as their primary goal is to connect people with similar interests (and inevitably, there are many who have competing interests, thereby creating conflict between users (especially in the realms of politics, sports, religion, popular media, as well as the usual schoolyard bullying and gossiping between classmates)), as well as to get the latest news (which often is necessitated by conflict). Wikipedia also profits from drama (as evidenced by the very existence of this website), especially between admins and regular users, between admins themselves, and between regular users themselves.

It is hard to tell if a CEO does the tweeting or if the CEO hires a lackey to tweet in his/her place. Many major organizations hire social media lackeys (especially the PR department) to do all the social media stuff (as well as make YouTube videos), so that the higher-ups can focus on their jobs. Yes, some of those lackeys are paid to fluff up Wikipedia articles as well (although that is prohibited). There is no doubt the lackeys would introduce their own biases.

[Poetlister]

This is a perennial question, and a question that reveals the fundamental incompetence of most Wikipedians in the area of knowledge management. Johnny, and so many others, seek in vain a bright-line rule that can be used to sort sources into categories of "reliable" and "unreliable". However, this is a fool's errand, driven by the desire of so many naive Wikipedians to try to reduce the world to simple, categorical rules.

This is inherent in the crowdsourced, "anyone can edit" philosophy. Apart from one or two projects, there is not even an attempt to have expert reviews to ensure that article editors have a clue what they are talking about. Few admins can do that job. So the best that can be done is to demand "reliable sources" which means that you have to have simplistic rules about reliability to allow that rule to be implemented by ignorant editors and admins.

[Johnny Au]

See here as well: List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants (T-H-L)

Notice that half of the sources are from a social media site (which would allow those barely notable enough to have a blue link to be sourced).

[Kelly Martin]

See here as well: List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants (T-H-L)

Notice that half of the sources are from a social media site (which would allow those barely notable enough to have a blue link to be sourced).

Is there any reason to believe that the reports on the social media site in question are not reliable? That's the question you should be asking.

Truth is truth whether it comes engraved on stone tablets or written on napkins from the Denny's down the street.

[Johnny Au]

See here as well: List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants (T-H-L)

Notice that half of the sources are from a social media site (which would allow those barely notable enough to have a blue link to be sourced).

Is there any reason to believe that the reports on the social media site in question are not reliable? That's the question you should be asking.

Truth is truth whether it comes engraved on stone tablets or written on napkins from the Denny's down the street.

If the source is the subject himself/herself (and not through an interview), very likely is it added for promotional purposes.

Many notable people hire other people to do the social media stuff on their behalf, as the notable people themselves are busy. Even verified accounts can turn out to be run by the PR department of the subject.

[tarantino]

Even verified accounts can turn out to be run by the PR department of the subject.

Yeah, I doubt Obama has set aside time to rickroll people on twitter.

[Kelly Martin]

If the source is the subject himself/herself (and not through an interview), very likely is it added for promotional purposes.

Many notable people hire other people to do the social media stuff on their behalf, as the notable people themselves are busy. Even verified accounts can turn out to be run by the PR department of the subject.

Neither of these has anything to do with the reliability of the statements. The mere fact that a person makes a statement for promotional purposes, or that a person chooses to make it through a spokesperson instead of in person, does not make the statement necessarily any less (or more) reliable. (Most interviews are done for "promotional purposes" too. So what?)

Your problem appears to be that you think that it's inappropriate that Wikipedia has a list of notable people who have participated in the "ice bucket challenge". But because you don't think you can win by attacking the appropriateness of the list itself, you have instead decided to twist Wikipedia's squishy-noodle reliability rules into a pretzel that you can then use to justify whacking away enough of the list that you can then successfully argue for either merging it or deleting it entirely.

[lilburne]

All the nonsense about reliable sources is to make Wikipedia appear to be based on factual information: we only use reliable sources.

A little bit of pixie dust adheres to their blog posts and given enough pixie dusting it may appear that the wikipedia blog posts are themselves factual. As we know you can combine two or more factual statements to create a falsehood, and the other wikipedia rules of mangling the statements also allow for the introduction of falsity.

In specific cases the reliable sources rule cuts out the addition of total bollocks to the wikipedia blog posts: content from malicious gossip sites, or from cranks. In all other situations its just pixie dust.

[Ca$hBag]

If the person making the tweet is notable then it's reliable. Like a president of a country is announcing something or sharing something political, it can be an important source. But some random guy on a social networking site suggesting the missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 could have gone upwards into outer space (for real) should not be added as a citation.

[Drowninginlimbo]

They should be allowed in certain circumstances but not considered as reliable outside of them, mostly for conformation of an event from the person the event focuses on. That said, if the content is important enough to be included in an encyclopedic article, a news outlet will probably have written on the tweet or Facebook post itself. If Wikipedia did ever started accepting blog posts as reliable sources it would ruin the coverage of entire subject areas, as there are a lot of cranks on the website pushing absurd notions. You get it already with editors dedicated to finding ways around WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

[thekohser]

Yes, some of those lackeys are paid to fluff up Wikipedia articles as well (although that is prohibited).

Where is that prohibited?

[Johnny Au]

Yes, some of those lackeys are paid to fluff up Wikipedia articles as well (although that is prohibited).

Where is that prohibited?

WP:COI (T-H-L)

[Cla68]

This is a perennial question, and a question that reveals the fundamental incompetence of most Wikipedians in the area of knowledge management. Johnny, and so many others, seek in vain a bright-line rule that can be used to sort sources into categories of "reliable" and "unreliable". However, this is a fool's errand, driven by the desire of so many naive Wikipedians to try to reduce the world to simple, categorical rules. A source, regardless of its nature, is neither categorically "reliable" nor "unreliable" across all domains. Twitter is a reliable source (modulo deletions, security lapses, and the occasional technical failure) for "who tweeted what", and an individual Twitter account is reliable as a source for "so-and-so said X" to the extent that one can be confident of the identification of the owner of that account. Whether or not a Twitter stream is reliable for some other purpose (and, most critically, whether statements made on that stream are likely to be true) depends principally on the qualifications and character of the person owning the Twitter account, and fairly little on the fact that the statement was made via Twitter. Once you get over the threshold of proving that the Twitter account is owned and used by the entity it claims to be, its reliability for a particular purpose devolves into an evaluation of that person or entity.

Fundamentally, this illuminates the general naivete of Wikipedians in the field of knowledge management. But what can we expect from a bunch of people who believe that the invisible pink unicorn of a "neutral point of view" actually exists?

When Wikipedians (from what I understand, SlimVirgin was the primary with help from a few others) drafted the current rules of WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:SYN (synthesis) among others, that was probably the seed which grew into the bureacracy that WP is now. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on crowd-sourcing, then there shouldn't have been any rules made about what is a reliable source, what is notable, what is synthesis, etc. Instead, discussion/consensus on article talk pages should have been the guiding force behind what made it into articles and what was used as sources. BLPs would have been the only exception.

In that way, discussion amongst editors would decide if a particular Tweet, Facebook post, or blog entry would qualify as a source for that particular article. Instead, editors argue with each other as to whether a particular source, or the way it's used, meets the policy or guideline. Of course, it wouldn't have ended-up working because most articles wouldn't get enough participation to develop a true consensus on contentious issues. But, the way WP currently operates doesn't work in most instances either.

From what I've seen, most of the debates over what the policies and guidelines mean is by activists trying to use them to promote their POV in their topics of interest (the Manual of Style fanatics being the exception). The neutral editors, who just want to build good articles, eventually throw their hands up in disgust and go find better things to do. The more neutral editors would be willing and able to find middle-ground on using social media or blogs as sources. Activists, of course, don't want to unless it supports their side, so they reach for a policy or guideline to bludgeon the opposing editors over the head with. If you look at the articles on contentious subjects, you can see activist editors doing it again and again.

[sparkzilla]

When Wikipedians (from what I understand, SlimVirgin was the primary with help from a few others) drafted the current rules of WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:SYN (synthesis) among others, that was probably the seed which grew into the bureacracy that WP is now. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on crowd-sourcing, then there shouldn't have been any rules made about what is a reliable source, what is notable, what is synthesis, etc. Instead, discussion/consensus on article talk pages should have been the guiding principle behind what made it into articles and what was used as sources. BLPs would have been the only exception.

In that way, discussion amongst editors would decide if a particular Tweet, Facebook post, or blog entry would qualify as a source for that particular article. Instead, editors argue with each other as to whether a particular source, or the way it's used, meets the policy or guideline. Of course, it wouldn't have ended-up working because most articles wouldn't get enough participation to develop a true consensus on contentious issues. But, the way WP currently operates doesn't work in most instances either.

I think this is a very interesting comment. Once of the reasons I became "marked for death" by Slim Virgin was because I dared to challenge the ambiguous wording of the BLP policy which she authored. One of Wikipedia's main structural failings is that it allows powerful people or groups of people to have "virtual ownership" of pages, including policy pages. The current system leads to entrenched power and, like all Wikipedia pages, an unwillingness to change what is already there. It's easier to hit the revert button than to add new material. The result is that Wikipedia's rules are centralized, resulting in policies that are either difficult to change due to entrenched interests, or that break down very quickly when those interests stop looking after pages (a problem that will become more obvious as more editors leave). Your suggestion would have decentralized decision making, which leads to a less authoritarian and less brittle system.

There are many ways to solve this problem. Fixed admin terms, polices that stop page ownership, and your suggestion for discussion on talk pages. I solve it on my site by changing the criteria of "notability", to one of "newsworthiness".

[Poetlister]

Cla: If there is no guidance, however imperfect, about reliable sources, there will be endless discussions and edit wars. I suspect that the place would get far worse.

[thekohser]

Yes, some of those lackeys are paid to fluff up Wikipedia articles as well (although that is prohibited).

Where is that prohibited?

WP:COI (T-H-L)

Sorry, what I read there:

COI editing is strongly discouraged.

...Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing

The last time I checked, the definition of "prohibited" is not "strongly discouraged" or even "very strongly discouraged". Prohibited means that something has been forbidden or banned.

I can point you right now to any number of articles and editors that reveal lackeys paid to fluff up content, and neither the content nor the editors have been "prohibited" from engaging in this way.

[eagle]

The last time I checked, the definition of "prohibited" is not "strongly discouraged" or even "very strongly discouraged". Prohibited means that something has been forbidden or banned.

Those phrases are properly used in WP:COI because WP:COI is just a "Guideline" and not an "Official Policy". Mr. Wales' "bright line" rule is neither. But then, so long as folks hang out on his talk page to do his bidding, it can be enforced without being put in writing.