User talk:Red-tailed hawk

This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Devin gambit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Red-tailed hawk, you seem to be the first person to post about GIJN and INN in reference to reliability on the perennial sources noticeboard.
Do you think that membership in either organization, given their journalistic standards for their members, is sufficient for a publication to be considered generally reliable? (I started discussions on INN and GIJN talk pages, but have never initiated a discussion at the perennial sources noticeboard) Superb Owl (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl: WP:NEWSORG reminds us that while News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, it is also the case that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. A lot of INN members are going to fall into the less-established outlets bucket, and we might want to use caution with some of them. There are also some entities that are a part of the GJIN that are not newsrooms (there are a few media schools and the like, but also some news-adjacent nonprofits like the National Freedom of Information Center that are more focused on providing resources to journalists or engaging in public interest litigation than doing the reporting themselves). As such, it might be a bit of an oversimplification to consider a news group as generally reliably on the sole basis of membership in either organization, particularly so for the Institute for Nonprofit News. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Red-tailed hawk for explaining WP:NEWSORG approach. I just learned Wikipedia uses some third-party resources to determine unreliability with WP:CiteWatch, but it sounds like you do not know of any third-parties that are used to establish general reliability by enforcing, for example, editorial standards to retain membership in a group like INN or GIJN? Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list that has the closest thing to a community consensus is WP:RSP, which is more or less just a compilation of discussions that occurred on RSN. Things like Citewatch or Headbomb's cite highligher script don't necessarily represent community consensus (and in the case of Citewatch, sometimes flag things as unreliable even after community RfC has concluded otherwise), but they are tools that can be well used when one knows the tools' limitations.

To answer more directly: our policies and guidelines don't brainlessly outsource source reliability evaluation to third-parties on Wikipedia. There is the concept of use by others, meaning that how other reliable sources use a particular source can be seen as evidence regarding that source's reliability, but we don't have any particular third-party do the work of conclusively saying which sources are good or bad. Some published lists (like Beall's list) are influential in identifying subpar, but policies and guidelines do not give them preference in and of themselves. As for determining sources that are always good-to-go, we likewise don't rely on third party lists or membership in industry self-regulatory groups (such as the U.K.'s IPSO, which enforces journalistic standards on newspapers with the ability to issue fines for journalistic malpractice) as being definitive in and of itself (i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL).

Rather than having based on industry group membership, Wikipedians examine the sources in light of the reliable sources guideline (including the special guidance for biomedical information). When there's disagreement as to a particular source's reliability, talk page discussions regarding source reliability in context take place, and there are also more broad discussions on RSN when those don't resolve. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]