A Wikipedia without press sources

[HRIP7]

Some proposals from Coren on Wikimedia-l:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... ion/282703 (threaded archive, with time delay)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... html#start (July archive, updated in real time)

My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first place. If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves without sources.

I don't believe that's a coincidence. Even at their best, popular media has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed.

What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are good things.

Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack colour and detail.

Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media were acceptable sources, and make them verboten in mainspace. Mainspace articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".

We'd have our cake and eat it too.

There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information.

It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the most reliable and seriously sourced "base" of articles, at the cost of being possibly a bit dated or drier. The space "below the fold" is more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable.

I mean, the whole point is to be able to both have a reliable encyclopedia /and/ have a legitimate place for popular culture coverage and recent information. Readers would have access to both, with a better way of knowing which is which.

Not perfect, I know, but I'm pretty sure that would be a long-term win.

Thoughts?

[EricBarbour]

Joking, right? If this is what Coren believes Wikipedia should do, he should just turn in his admin bits right now and walk away.
Because if it isn't obvious to him by now that such major reform will never happen, he's a complete fool.

People like him supported the wrong people in gaining control of Wikipedia. He's part of the problem, not any kind of solution.

[HRIP7]

Joking, right? If this is what Coren believes Wikipedia should do, he should just turn in his admin bits right now and walk away.
Because if it isn't obvious to him by now that such major reform will never happen, he's a complete fool.

People like him supported the wrong people in gaining control of Wikipedia. He's part of the problem, not any kind of solution.

You probably have a point ... but note that current WMF board member Samuel Klein (SJ (T-C-L), no relation to Essjay (T-C-L)) opines:

This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the past: we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles about any topic, without arguments about notability.

Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as] wikipedia.

To be sure, this sort of thing wouldn't solve half the problems with Wikipedia.

But it could help mark millions of articles (like the just discussed Songo, Angola (T-H-L) and Unit 773 (T-H-L)) as potentially unreliable (which they are). And it could result in effort being focused on a smaller number of articles that actually matter in the context of an encyclopedia, and which could be protected using flagged revisions, for example, and prioritised for FA work.

Still, despite SJ's support, in the current Wikimedia climate I don't see that idea as having more than a minute chance of implementation either.

[EricBarbour]

But it could help mark millions of articles (like the just discussed Songo, Angola (T-H-L) and Unit 773 (T-H-L)) as potentially unreliable (which they are). And it could result in effort being focused on a smaller number of articles that actually matter in the context of an encyclopedia, and which could be protected using flagged revisions, for example, and prioritised for FA work.

Still, despite SJ's support, in the current Wikimedia climate I don't see that idea as having more than a minute chance of implementation either.

Yes, the prevailing culture of the place is set in stone. Wikipedians want to "control" a small article space for selfish (or paid) reasons.
Or they want to patrol vandalism because it's sorta like Space Invaders, dude, or they want to block people because their own lives are
weak and pointless. Or they are Aspergers sufferers who want to recategorize 4000 articles a day, because it makes them feel better.

NOT ONE of those people cares a damn about "article quality". Or "article reliability". Or even about "facts". Facts are only tools, previously used
to attract attention and edits, making Wikipedia look like a "grand educational project". First they admit it's a wargame and a drug, and not
an "educational project". Only then will they take the first halting steps toward actually making an educational project.

I still think you'd have to wiki-assassinate all the cult leaders, and start fresh, perhaps with two Wikipedias. An open one people can grind all they want,
and a checked version that can at least be called "somewhat reliable".

[Volunteer Marek]

Some proposals from Coren on Wikimedia-l:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... ion/282703 (threaded archive, with time delay)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... html#start (July archive, updated in real time)

My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first place. If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves without sources.

I don't believe that's a coincidence. Even at their best, popular media has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed.

What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are good things.

Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack colour and detail.

Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media were acceptable sources, and make them verboten in mainspace. Mainspace articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".

We'd have our cake and eat it too.

There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information.

It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the most reliable and seriously sourced "base" of articles, at the cost of being possibly a bit dated or drier. The space "below the fold" is more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable.

I mean, the whole point is to be able to both have a reliable encyclopedia /and/ have a legitimate place for popular culture coverage and recent information. Readers would have access to both, with a better way of knowing which is which.

Not perfect, I know, but I'm pretty sure that would be a long-term win.

Thoughts?

This would make sense, even perfect sense, for topics which get wide coverage in English. If you're writing articles outside of that sphere sometimes newspaper and the like are the best sources you will have access to (baring traveling to a foreign countries, obtaining a library card there, and spending some time in the stacks - all that assuming you speak the language). Now, even given all that, it probably might not be a bad thing to eliminate media as sources. Or at least consider them as "sources of last resort".

[The Devil's Advocate]

I find that to be a rather bizarre perspective. News sources are regularly cited by academic publications for verification. My attitude towards the mainstream press is hardly positive, but if we play that game then most Wikipedia articles would have serious sourcing problems, partly because press sources tend to be the most accessible to the average person. Not to mention many more subjects would be chronically out-of-date than at present. Seems to me like that suggestion is just a nice way to get around the problem of poor editorial judgment. It is a bit of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" situation.

[Hersch]

Some of the worst crap I have seen at Wikipedia is sourced to news articles that are 20-30 years old. If the material in those articles were actually noteworthy, one would think it would find its way into a book. Instead of fading into well-deserved obscurity, this stuff takes on zombie-life at Wikipedia.

[eppur si muove]

Some of the worst crap I have seen at Wikipedia is sourced to news articles that are 20-30 years old. If the material in those articles were actually noteworthy, one would think it would find its way into a book. Instead of fading into well-deserved obscurity, this stuff takes on zombie-life at Wikipedia.

This isn't another complaint about the Larouche articles, is it?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Some of the worst crap I have seen at Wikipedia is sourced to news articles that are 20-30 years old. If the material in those articles were actually noteworthy, one would think it would find its way into a book. Instead of fading into well-deserved obscurity, this stuff takes on zombie-life at Wikipedia.

Not everything gets a book written about it you know. Sometimes it is because the matter is not of sufficient interest to make a book about it a worthy investment or the material supports a position or attitude that is much reviled. Articles on fringe topics would be a lot less informative and balanced if they depended on coverage in books.

[Hersch]

Some of the worst crap I have seen at Wikipedia is sourced to news articles that are 20-30 years old. If the material in those articles were actually noteworthy, one would think it would find its way into a book. Instead of fading into well-deserved obscurity, this stuff takes on zombie-life at Wikipedia.

This isn't another complaint about the Larouche articles, is it?

Indirectly. I was thinking of Will Beback, who became something of a virtuoso at scraping up pejorative clippings from the past on any number of targets, including LaRouche, but also Prem Rawat and the many others on his enemies list.

[Ismail]

One of the problems with Wikipedia in my view is that articles are created minutes after the subject occurs. In this case newspapers and online websites are the only sources. The solution is to not allow articles on subjects newer than five months or something.

I think newspaper articles are, on the whole, alright as sources in historical articles, but they should be using sparingly, with published works, academic journals, etc. being checked against said articles and given higher priority in relation to them. The big problem though is that in real encyclopedias if someone cites newspapers then you can trust the person writing the article in the first place because he or she is generally a recognized authority on the subject. You can't be sure of that with Wikipedia, so for all you know it's some guy sloppily putting newspaper articles all over the place in lieu of deeper research. Newspapers should be used as an aid to other, established sources whenever possible and not put in the forefront of sources used.

[Tarc]

One of the problems with Wikipedia in my view is that articles are created minutes after the subject occurs. In this case newspapers and online websites are the only sources. The solution is to not allow articles on subjects newer than five months or something.

I've waged war against this for years, the Article Rescue Squad in particular is notorious for picking the news-of-the-hour and making articles out of them. There's been some success lately though, e.g. getting rid of Orville the roflcopter cat and Cigar Guy.

[lilburne]

The problem with old newspaper stories is the same with new newspaper stories, they are an immediate response to an event. 10 years later they won't have have changed any. A 10 year old newspaper story is as much 'recentism' as a 10 minute old story.

[DanMurphy]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

Pigs will take flight before this is done, however. The "community" wouldn't dream of allowing any of that.

[Zoloft]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

[dogbiscuit]

The problem with old newspaper stories is the same with new newspaper stories, they are an immediate response to an event. 10 years later they won't have have changed any. A 10 year old newspaper story is as much 'recentism' as a 10 minute old story.

I think that there is something worse happening on the BBC News web site. They now have a technique where they write a story, and then over the day they update it. Normally they tack a paragraph or two on near the top. The article at the end of the day is a different one from the start of the day.

The problem is that there is rarely a proper follow up to the event. For example, there was the major BSE crisis in the UK and there was massive press coverage of the events, but there was miniscule coverage of the results of the Inquiry which determined the cause. In fact the coverage was so sparse that you find odd sentences referring to the issue. There is a full parliamentary report on it, which I would have said was the definitive source for an examination and summary of all the evidence, but magically Wikipedia wants to discount that and supposedly prefers the scattered incomplete snippets in papers written by hacks with no understanding of the underlying science and methodologies. I can guarantee that the results of the newspaper coverage is that the crowds writing about this simply do not understand what the conclusions were and in their minds they rely on the main speculations of the press. When you then try and bring the Inquiry results into the mix, they are going to be rejected by the crowds because they don't remember anything about that - as far as they are concerned it wasn't what happened so the source must be suspect.

You only solve that sort of problem by relying on proper historical analysis. If that means that some things never get written about, then tough - it is knowledge we are trying to impart across the generations, not idle speculation.

[Vigilant]

It's an absolute mess.
Having coached, I can tell you that, without exception, every single time I sent information to a newspaper, they got something important wrong.
How likely is it that in moderately important cases they aren't doing the same to an article regarding an event in the subject's life?

[rhindle]

I always thought that Wikipedia could have utilized Wikinews better with recent events. They could have had a template in their articles linking to wikinews by saying "Check out wikinews for more recent information." Is there a comments section in wikinews like most newspaper websites have? They should do this. People would have to register to make comments but you would have a huge potential editors pool and isn't there a decline in that right now? The more "encyclopedic" stuff could be used for the main wiki article.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I think that there is something worse happening on the BBC News web site. They now have a technique where they write a story, and then over the day they update it. Normally they tack a paragraph or two on near the top. The article at the end of the day is a different one from the start of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_of_reply&diff=500864799&oldid=497807556

Notice how BBC's "Right of Reply" policy used to say, "Before transmission":

http://web.archive.org/web/20101009065940/http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/rightofreply.shtml (October 2010 version):

When we make allegations of wrong doing, iniquity or incompetence or lay out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before transmission.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-fairness-right-of-reply/ (current version):

When our output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Emphasis mine.

[DanMurphy]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

Don't be silly. His publicist/pr people can be used for that. The whole problem is since it's any idiot can edit, judgement can't be used. Therefore, take the press away.

[Kelly Martin]

Don't be silly. His publicist/pr people can be used for that.

Contacting his publicist for an answer to a question is prohibited original research.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

Pigs will take flight before this is done, however. The "community" wouldn't dream of allowing any of that.

Sometimes a subject is clearly notable yet recent and thus very much not the kind of thing that will get covered in peer-reviewed publications or book. I certainly understand where you are coming from as news reports frequently make mistakes, but sometimes a subject is obscure enough or recent that only those kinds of sources are able to be used and I can assure you without question that editors are more than capable of misusing academic sources. Actually, I would say that any source with some level of academic professionalism would be far more difficult for the average editor to understand and thus lead to lower article quality.

[DanMurphy]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

Pigs will take flight before this is done, however. The "community" wouldn't dream of allowing any of that.

Sometimes a subject is clearly notable yet recent and thus very much not the kind of thing that will get covered in peer-reviewed publications or book. I certainly understand where you are coming from as news reports frequently make mistakes, but sometimes a subject is obscure enough or recent that only those kinds of sources are able to be used and I can assure you without question that editors are more than capable of misusing academic sources. Actually, I would say that any source with some level of academic professionalism would be far more difficult for the average editor to understand and thus lead to lower article quality.

"Notable?" Whatever that means. But it's irrelevant. Wait. Or get rid of anyone-can-edit. Pick.

"I would say that any source with some level of academic professionalism would be far more difficult for the average editor to understand and thus lead to lower article quality." Yes, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are morons. If they're restricted to high quality sources that they can't understand, they will go away. If the little drongos can't write about the latest sensational murder/scandal/hot new single from Lady Gaga/etc... they will go away. That's a feature, not a bug. Lower article quality by demanding people use higher quality sources? That makes no sense at all.

[dogbiscuit]

That makes no sense at all.

I know when someone's analysis of Wikipedia is on the right lines when I see that comment.

[HRIP7]

     

It's an absolute mess.
Having coached, I can tell you that, without exception, every single time I sent information to a newspaper, they got something important wrong.
How likely is it that in moderately important cases they aren't doing the same to an article regarding an event in the subject's life?

Time to mention two of my favourite Wikipedia-related quotes:

What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted. —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist, Vol. 26

Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content, in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. —User:Scott MacDonald

[Hersch]

You can't be sure of that with Wikipedia, so for all you know it's some guy sloppily putting newspaper articles all over the place in lieu of deeper research.

Or, meticulously cherry-picking them to support a propagandistic POV.

[Retrospect]

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

That's a pile of bullshit.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberace-Americ ... 267&sr=1-4

Of course, some published biographies of people like him are equally steaming bullshit and shouldn't be used as sources. Obituaries in respectable papers are often better but this rule would bar those while allowing shitty biographies.

[The Devil's Advocate]

"Notable?" Whatever that means. But it's irrelevant. Wait. Or get rid of anyone-can-edit. Pick.

"I would say that any source with some level of academic professionalism would be far more difficult for the average editor to understand and thus lead to lower article quality." Yes, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are morons. If they're restricted to high quality sources that they can't understand, they will go away. If the little drongos can't write about the latest sensational murder/scandal/hot new single from Lady Gaga/etc... they will go away. That's a feature, not a bug. Lower article quality by demanding people use higher quality sources? That makes no sense at all.

I can guarantee that plenty of editors will still happily try to write material based off sources they don't understand, just as they already edit on subjects they don't understand. So, yes there will be lower quality articles. If there were an abundance of high-quality editors willing and able to make edits to articles using high-quality sources there wouldn't be a problem for us to discuss.

[Coren]

Joking, right? If this is what Coren believes Wikipedia should do, he should just turn in his admin bits right now and walk away.
Because if it isn't obvious to him by now that such major reform will never happen, he's a complete fool.

Hence, "if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia". I have no illusions on the feasibility of this idea, regardless of its possible merit; that I think something might be good to do doesn't imply that I think it would be easy (or even possible) to do it. That it cannot be implemented as conceived doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile exercise to think about it and perhaps take lessons from the thought experiment.

This would make sense, even perfect sense, for topics which get wide coverage in English. If you're writing articles outside of that sphere sometimes newspaper and the like are the best sources you will have access to (baring traveling to a foreign countries, obtaining a library card there, and spending some time in the stacks - all that assuming you speak the language). Now, even given all that, it probably might not be a bad thing to eliminate media as sources. Or at least consider them as "sources of last resort".

True, and it's a serious difficulty with the concept. That said, finding news media sources in many languages is no easier than book, really, and things wouldn't be that much worse off.

I think the key here would be to favor translation of native language articles; given that the Wikipedias all have the same verifiability requirements, it might be easier to systematize the translation of properly sourced articles from the X Wikipedia than try to write an article in English out of X sources.

[Kelly Martin]

given that the Wikipedias all have the same verifiability requirements, it might be easier to systematize the translation of properly sourced articles from the X Wikipedia than try to write an article in English out of X sources.

Except that the claim that all Wikipedias have the same verifiability requirements borders on the idiotic. Most minor-language Wikipedias are chock full of polemic screeds, making the English Wikipedia look like a paragon of neutrality and editorial restraint. The unrestrained nationalism of several of the eastern European language wikis is especially noticeable, and the Hebrew wiki's unabashed pro-Zionist, anti-Palestine politics are equally well-known. These political biases invariably affect decisions on whether or not a given source is "reliable" enough to "verify" something.

[Coren]

Except that the claim that all Wikipedias have the same verifiability requirements borders on the idiotic. Most minor-language Wikipedias are chock full of polemic screeds, making the English Wikipedia look like a paragon of neutrality and editorial restraint. The unrestrained nationalism of several of the eastern European language wikis is especially noticeable, and the Hebrew wiki's unabashed pro-Zionist, anti-Palestine politics are equally well-known. These political biases invariably affect decisions on whether or not a given source is "reliable" enough to "verify" something.

Admittedly, my familiarity with the other language projects limits itself to some of the other "big" ones, where that assertion certainly held. I'll grant that for the general case, this may only be true in principle while practice falls far short.

But then again, English Wikipedia may not be objectively better at non-western topics; I'm pretty sure the endemic Euro-centrism makes just as bad a hash of those topics than nationalistic polemic of the smaller Wikipedias — just a different hash.

[HRIP7]

Well, thinking about ways to make the idea feasible – one might agree that quality obituaries ought to be permissible in specific and limited circumstances in the "high-quality" encyclopedia, for example for death dates.

Beyond that, one could agree that articles and topics that rely on press sources are not eligible for anything more than GA, say. Press-based articles could generally bear a disclaimer (or, per the original proposal, be in a different namespace).

"Core topics" could be defined, and prioritised for improvement work, depending on whether they are the subject of academic study or not.

Clearly, some books may be worse than newspapers (think Erich von Däniken); so some appropriate guidelines would need to be laid down to define the books that are and aren't bona fide encyclopedic sources.

[EricBarbour]

Hence, "if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia". I have no illusions on the feasibility of this idea, regardless of its possible merit; that I think something might be good to do doesn't imply that I think it would be easy (or even possible) to do it. That it cannot be implemented as conceived doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile exercise to think about it and perhaps take lessons from the thought experiment.

You're a high-ranking arbitrator. (Or were.) You can go around on that mess and people (at least some of them) will genuflect toward you, because you've got some "power".
If you can't get real change to at least be considered, then admit it, there's no point in having "power". Because it is a mirage.

I honestly think that Baseball Bugs or Youreallycan have got more political clout on English Wikipedia than ANY Arbcommer. You like it that way?

[HRIP7]

You're a high-ranking arbitrator. ...

Not presently, in fact: link

[Zoloft]

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

That's a pile of bullshit.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberace-Americ ... 267&sr=1-4

Of course, some published biographies of people like him are equally steaming bullshit and shouldn't be used as sources. Obituaries in respectable papers are often better but this rule would bar those while allowing shitty biographies.

Although my comment was mostly a joke, the rule I was referring to was to only use

...peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers

... good luck finding a reference to Liberace's death in one of those.

Oh, and 'pile of bullshit'? Really? Kind of overreacting a wee bit?

[lilburne]

Oh, and 'pile of bullshit'? Really? Kind of overreacting a wee bit?

Dunno about Liberace, but a lot of biographies are little more that hagiographies or hatchet jobs. It doesn't matter how long ago the person died, some just attract one sort or biographer or another. Take Thomas or Oliver Cromwell you'll be hard pressed to find anything that is an unbiased account of either of them.

[Sweet Revenge]

Although my comment was mostly a joke, the rule I was referring to was to only use

...peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers

... good luck finding a reference to Liberace's death in one of those.

As it happens, the University of Chicago has a biography of Liberace out:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PI14jH ... oy&f=false
Which was even reviewed in the Journal of American History:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675244
I realize you were mostly joking; I'm using this response to test my own feelings about the subject of this thread. People being people, peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers suffer from inaccuracies, recentism, and the other flaws that newspapers do. In fact, the reviewer of the Liberace book says, in an overall quite positive review, that the biography suffers from

...casual editing (two different dates are given for the death of Liberace's mother), incomplete citations and reliance on gossip and self-interested testimonies...

And this is out of the University of Chicago, where students wear shirts saying "If I wanted an A I would have gone to Harvard." I do not deny the existence of the problem being discussed in this thread, but I think that a simple rule like newspapers bad peer-review good isn't enough. On the other hand, I think that such a rule would have good effects, as others have noted here, by slowing everything at the 'Pedia down to a more thoughtful pace. I guess this is an elaborate way to say that I really can't decide. Stupid people, people who want to fight, can beat on their enemies with university press books as easily as with rolled up copies of the NYT.

edit: Oh for god's sake. I did all that work in JSTOR finding this U of C book on Liberace and it turns out that it's one of the two major sources for the Liberace article on WP. Oh for double god's sake, this was already noted. Sorry.

[HRIP7]

Oh, and 'pile of bullshit'? Really? Kind of overreacting a wee bit?

Dunno about Liberace, but a lot of biographies are little more that hagiographies or hatchet jobs. It doesn't matter how long ago the person died, some just attract one sort or biographer or another. Take Thomas or Oliver Cromwell you'll be hard pressed to find anything that is an unbiased account of either of them.

True, and the same for many present-day controversial people – the sort that Wikipedians fight and go to arbitration over.

[HRIP7]

The German Wikipedia's approach may be a useful half-way house. The German version of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy says, use "scientific publications, peer-reviewed publications and systematic reviews that are relevant to the topic area in question" and adds that editors may avail themselves of well-researched journalistic sources only if there is a lack of scientific publications, for example in articles on current affairs.

The policy then adds, correctly, that a lack of academic sources may also indicate a lack of notability. Years ago when I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed novice in Wikipedia, and first noticed the difference between the English and German Wikipedias (at the time, the English Scientology article for example was sourced entirely to Scientology websites, critics' websites and newspapers, while the German one was meticulous in citing only academics) I tried to get en:WP to adopt a similar standard to the German Verifiability policy, without much success.

[eppur si muove]

It's an absolute mess.
Having coached, I can tell you that, without exception, every single time I sent information to a newspaper, they got something important wrong.
How likely is it that in moderately important cases they aren't doing the same to an article regarding an event in the subject's life?

I was the press secretary of my local table tennis league for a while and they managed to cock things up with that too. I would send in the results with perhaps a couple of paragraphs on who won and how it affected where they were in the table and, come Friday, something meaning something completely different would appear in print.

[eppur si muove]

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

That's a pile of bullshit.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberace-Americ ... 267&sr=1-4

Of course, some published biographies of people like him are equally steaming bullshit and shouldn't be used as sources. Obituaries in respectable papers are often better but this rule would bar those while allowing shitty biographies.

Agreed. Many newspaper obituaries are written ahead of time and are commissioned from widely acknowledged experts on the subject.

I also think that newspapers are often a good source of assessments on artistic performances. In broadsheets, the reviews tend to be written by subject experts and therefore should be acceptable.

However, there is the usual need to reflect the range of views. Take Doctor Ox's Experiment(opera) (T-H-L). There are plenty of pop culture articles which are written by people who put the "atic" back into "fan". There were sufficient favourable views that I could have taken just those and people would see an article that appeared to portray an entirely succesful work. Someone who had it in for Bryars would be able to use the hostile reviews to construct something that would tell you that the opera was a flop.

Now, if a book were to be published on the life and music of Gavin Bryars, the odds are that it would be written by someone who liked Bryars's output. If it were the only critical source used, because newspapers were excluded, would it necessarilly give a more accurate impression?

[EricBarbour]

Take Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) (T-H-L). There are plenty of pop culture articles which are written by people who put the "atic" back into "fan". There were sufficient favourable views that I could have taken just those and people would see an article that appeared to portray an entirely succesful work. Someone who had it in for Bryars would be able to use the hostile reviews to construct something that would tell you that the opera was a flop.

Now, if a book were to be published on the life and music of Gavin Bryars, the odds are that it would be written by someone who liked Bryars's output. If it were the only critical source used, because newspapers were excluded, would it necessarilly give a more accurate impression?

You would bring up an article you authored. Are you the "Gavin Bryars fanatic" you're trying to talk about?
In which case, why should a Wikipedia reader trust anything you've written? Was the opera a flop, or not?

[eppur si muove]

Take Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) (T-H-L). There are plenty of pop culture articles which are written by people who put the "atic" back into "fan". There were sufficient favourable views that I could have taken just those and people would see an article that appeared to portray an entirely succesful work. Someone who had it in for Bryars would be able to use the hostile reviews to construct something that would tell you that the opera was a flop.

Now, if a book were to be published on the life and music of Gavin Bryars, the odds are that it would be written by someone who liked Bryars's output. If it were the only critical source used, because newspapers were excluded, would it necessarilly give a more accurate impression?

You would bring up an article you authored. Are you the "Gavin Bryars fanatic" you're trying to talk about?
In which case, why should a Wikipedia reader trust anything you've written? Was the opera a flop, or not?

Of the various operas without articles whose first productions I had been to, this was the last one that I created an article for. This was because I fall into the camp of those who considered it boring as fuck.

As for whether the opera was a flop or not, that depends on which critics you believe. I refer to soemthing said by each one I could find by searching the newspaper archives.

[Zoloft]

Once I gave a newspaper interview about a somewhat technically-challenging engineering project. At the end, I asked the reporter a number of questions and he got them all wrong. I called his editor after he left. I emailed the technical details and a brief summary of our interview to both of them.

When the story appeared, half the details were incorrect.

When I was editor of an online magazine, I made a rule that a pre-publication draft be emailed to any interviewee.

Never had to publish a correction.

[Willbeheard]

Banning all press sources would be a wonderful step. This is not to say that news reports are never useful for scholarship. But wikipedia is not edited by scholars. It is edited by and large by people who aren't qualified to do journalism, let alone scholarship.

This would force people to grapple with peer-reviewed publications and books from academic publishers, which have much more scrutiny at the front end than your average newspaper article. It would prevent so-called encyclopedia articles about unfolding news events from being written. It would slow the machine down.

A happy side effect of that rule —Liberace (T-H-L) would still be alive.

In my experience, it is a great pity to quote a very bad example to prove a point. People can easily debunk your example, and then ignore your good point because they think they have refuted your good, sound point by debunking your example.

Just looking at my own bookshelf I saw two excellent sources by academic publishers that could be used to show that Liberace is long dead:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Companio ... 0192800043

http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Biograp ... 0521567807

And here's another one:

http://www.nndb.com/lists/090/000113748/

For all I know, it may well be that the University of Chicago is rubbish and books it publishes are not reliable sources. But I hope nobody here will say that about reference works from Oxford, still less from SV's alma mater, Cambridge.