Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361

Source: IWMBuzz.com – partial disclosure of funding here.

Past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#Reliability Of IWMBuzz
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1086#Reliable sources for Article
• Talk:Silsila Badalte Rishton Ka#About reference (iwmbuzz.com)
  • This discussion led to the source being depreciated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources

A few examples for Articles/Content:

• Sonu Nigam lede: "recognized as one of the most versatile singers of all time"
• Atif Aslam lede: "he is often considered one of the best playback singers in the Indian and Pakistani music industries of all times"
• Maharshi_(2019_film) "it was featured on the various year-end best film charts."
• Urvashi Dholakia "The character was described by IWMBuzz as one of the most iconic characters on Indian television."
• Karn Sangini "After 30 episodes the show underwent a complete revamp in the story line.""
• Prashant Narayanan lede: "He was last seen in the Zee5 originals web series Abhay."
• Sanjeev Seth lede: "Currently, he is known for his role of Vishambharnath Maheshwari in Star Plus's Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and its spin-off Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke."

IWMBuzz.com is used in about 300 articles, sometimes for simple non-controversial verification (filmographies, ratings, awards given by the source itself) but other times for subjective PR-puffing statements for which they have a conflict of interest. I feel that a cautionary yellowlisting at perennial sources with links to the above discussions is warranted, to raise awareness of potential issues. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Source: Orlando Informer
2. Article: The article Woody (Toy Story) is the one im specifically talking about, but its used in articles like VelociCoaster, Universal Studios Florida, Mario Kart, and The Cat in the Hat
3. Content theme parks

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if the Orlando Informer is a one-person operation or not. There's no evidence of editorial control. They seem to make their money as an affiliate linking to ticket sales for Universal theme parks, which gives them a conflict of interest and thereby potential bias. So, no not really reliable. I would say other sources should be preferred. I could see them used as a source of last resort (no pun intended) for very basic facts. By that I mean, establishing that a ride exists in a particular park or perhaps which year a ride opened, but not much else. Basically on the level of an SPS or avoid if possible. --SVTCobra 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Source: Media Stinger
2. Article It looks like it is not used in any articles yet, but im looking to use it
3. Content Video game and movie news

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Source: [[25]] Article: Getatchew Mekurya biography musical artist passed away in 2016 Content: also see talkpage Talk:Getatchew_Mekurya#Contradicting_sources_about_what_he_played_first

The Wire comes with new information about Getatchew Mekurya in 2017, source is based on Terp label which he worked with, it looks reliable source. It claims Nobody in Ethiopia has really seen these pictures or knows about the whole history – just lack of media it contradicts on some points from earlier sources such as the NYT article [[26]] about his early life when he decided to take up the sax, what instruments he played. The Wire comes with new info that i have not seen in other sources such as being an actor in the 50's as a standout.

It's probably not contentious, if i just combine the new findings from Wire with earlier sources, it's just that some of the new findings is only mentioned by The Wire. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Update i would also add i couldn't find Amharic articles that mentions the new findings of The Wire (about alleged acting background, playing the flute, hearing the sax on the radio and then deciding it was the instrument of choice etc).Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wire is a very high quality source on music itself, but for details like this that are contradicted elsewhere I might wonder a bit. I would assume the writer repeated what the source told them, but didn't investigate too much further. I'd state it with attribution if using it - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wire is a highly reliable music publication. The claims in their article is not from their research, it comes from a label and a band that worked very close with the subject and I would assume it's more accurate than the NYT obituary given that it's from a source closer to the subject. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The wire is one of the highest quality music publications there is in general, but if two reliable sources contradict then best to use clear attribution and show what sources the reliable sources themselves use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Several RSs, including AP, CNN, the BBC and PBS have documented evidence of a Chinese government cover-up of the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. This evidence includes accidentally released and leaked documents from the Chinese government (threatening "harsh punishment" for any scientist sharing data), and secret recordings of WHO officials (like

Well as CNN does not say there was a cover up, no (read

wp:v).Slatersteven (talk

) 15:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I should point out that Gimiv is forum-shopping because they don't like that I've called bullshit on the conspiracy theory cottage that they totally innocently and not suspiciously at all jumped straight into. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much question about the reliability of CNN or AP. So I'm not sure if this is a question for RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• After glancing over those sources and the talk page discussion, I'm going to guess that the issue people have with the bit you're trying to add is
  WP:FRINGEN or other noticeboards that look at and evaluate what the sources actually say and how closely we're adhering to that in more depth.) --Aquillion (talk
  ) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of those sources state that there is a cover-up - Although Aquillion, I don't think the CNN source states the opposite; it quotes an individual stating the opposite, but it doesn't make the statement itself. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is an awkwardly-worded quote (so I would be opposed to using it in the article for that reason), but in context I read it as being largely dismissive, ie. saying that China may have downplayed the severity early on even when they knew better but that this was part of a larger chain of failures by everyone involved across multiple nations. It absolutely is not talking about anything to do with the pandemic's origins, which is the article's focus, and would therefore be inappropriate or misused in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that these sources report allegations of a cover-up, rather than that they themselves allege a cover-up. They are clearly reliable sources so this is an issue of how they are used rather than of reliability and so this might be better addressed at a different noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTSYNTH. LondonIP (talk

) 01:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is consistent with what I've observed since the beginning of the pandemic, —PaleoNeonate – 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I note we have an article

Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic which accurately states that "Trump repeatedly uttered falsehoods regarding the pandemic". Perhaps this could be a model for our coverage in general? Of course, a key difference is that in the US system the state is much more plural, and the president's words often contradict those of federal agencies, those of other branches of government or those of state governments, for example, which is not the case with China. BobFromBrockley (talk

) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on how large and notable the subtopic is. For example, we have

Watergate Scandal. The latter is effectively a cover up article and a subarticle of the Presidency article. By contrast, the article on Jimmy Carter contains a brief mention of "lust" and "adultery in my heart", but it is not a subarticle, presumably because it is simply too trifling. Adoring nanny (talk

) 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Marble, Matt (July 4, 2018). Her Dreaming Fingers (Katherine Ruth Heyman). Secret Sound (Podcast). 2. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic: I'll ask here since it's related to using this source for my article. What abbreviation (if any) should I use in Template:sfn for timestamps using the loc parameter? I've just been putting the timestamp without any preceding abbreviation. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Executive summary: the listing for Discogs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos.

So, Discogs is listed at "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate."

This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes.

HOWEVER

The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source.

For instance, here is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which doesn' have photos like this.

The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable.

So, the rating and blurb is not true. 'We need to update the listing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I would say.

Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess.

Yes? Herostratus (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So I agree there's an issue here. Discogs is (1) a wiki made of user-generated content; (2) near-infallible in my experience, and a vastly more useful and trustworthy discography source than almost any edited redigestion. I'm not sure how to resolve this - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t this kinda how Wikipedia is, though? I don’t see an exemption for us citing our own good (or even featured) articles, for example, even though they have gone under peer review. Likewise, I don’t see a way around the problem of the reliability of sites that are user-generated with limited editorial oversight. —

talk

) 19:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

well, precisely. OTOH, citing listings from photos on Discogs is basically citing the sleeves as sources, which we do - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing Ok, so the

WP:PRIMARY source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". JBchrch talk

20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds not-bad to me. "as a

WP:PRIMARY source" - David Gerard (talk

) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh. The division of sources into primary-secondary-tertiary was lifted partly from academic practice; we're a serious publication but not an academic one, and a pretty unique one, and it's not especially useful to us, and counterproductive to the extent that it's hammered into editors' heads that primary sources are bad. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If Discogs gets its content from its images of the album covers, labels, and liner notes, why cite Discogs as the source? The info may be cited directly from the albums using {{Cite AV media}}. Discogs is just being used as an image provider, and the image may linked directly with |url= (Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image[28]) and identified with |via=Discogs for those needing proof. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty much the argument I'm making. What do you think of adding these instructions in a footnote to the proposed text? JBchrch talk 19:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dang I didn't see the permalink thing. So yeah that would be OK. Whatever works best. For my part I'd rather link to the Discogs page, because for one thing who is going to know about the photos (I didn't), and for another the Discogs page is formatted to be pleasing to humans (in theory anyway), while the photos aren't as easy to read. And the human-readable text is backed up by the photos.

But As long as we fix it that's all I care, I'll go along with anything. If you all want to recommend citing the photos directly, fine, whatever we can get agreed to and written up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources under the Discogs entry. I'm tired of people being like "You can't ref stuff to Discogs". Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). Narky Blert (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Sergecross73, the citation is the album jacket itself. Discogs is a nice resource to find pictures of album jackets, but it should not be cited anymore than you would cite "Google Books" for a scan of a book, you cite the original work. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes (yes!), but that means we also need a sea change in perception of discographical information. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people tag or blank discography sections for being "unsourced" - because people do not think of albums as published works (which they are) or things that act as sources of their own existence and content (just like a bibliography section). It is absolutely silly for us to have a line in a discography that reads "Foo Album (Foo Records, 1800)", and then an in-line citation to "Liner notes, Foo Album, Foo Records, 1800." But novice users find it absolutely irresistible to cite Discogs when this information is (typically frivolously) challenged in that way.

Another note, sort of following on David Gerard's comment above: all of this puts us in the unenviable position of telling people to look at Discogs all the time for basic discographical information (just as they would look at Google Books or a library catalog for bibliographic information), while also telling them they can never use it as a reference. That's a bit of Wikipedia pretzel-logic, but I suppose it will be consensus. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue Discogs is a means to

self-published source in a way where caution is stressed on its reliability. – The Grid (talk

) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

R to JBchrch: Yes, it's basically the same point. I use Discogs and several other sites for their images and don't find them difficult to read. I believe it's preferable to cite the actual album notes as the source and remove any doubt about the accuracy of an unknown user gleaning the details themselves. As long as Discogs allows other info to be included along with the basic album note material without any idea of where it comes from, it cannot be considered a RS. There is also the problem of the large amount of advertising and unofficial video links that are potentially copyvio.

Maybe clarify your proposed amendment with something like "Discogs images of album covers, liner notes, etc., may be used for details about the release, but Discogs itself should not be cited as the source, since it includes other user-generated material". This may seem like nitpicking, but some editors feel that any use of UGC sites should be strongly discouraged.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, in the interest of a unified front, count me in too with instruction to cite only to the photos. It already warns about Discogs so the second sentence isn't necessary. We want to be both succinct and comprehensive, so I'll suggest that we just add something short like "...except for photographs" in the main body, then a Cnote link to a note at the bottom of the page where it lays out the details... how we are mostly talking about pics of covers and labels, how to use the the permalink button in Discogs, a recommendation of using the CiteAV template, a link to this discussion, and anything else needed. This is done often enough on rules pages.

Note that there's no requirement to cite track listings etc. We don't have to express an opinion on that one way or the other. If an editor is of the mind "I don't need a cite as the work itself is a cite", fine. IMO you're taking that chance that someone will come along and tag or delete the material as uncited but you can if you want. Discogs is there for if you want to cite. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Implementation (Discogs)

It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited WP:DISCOGS the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this: [29]. Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.) JBchrch talk 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Discogs in the "auto-reject" bucket of any of the spam-fighting bots? We should change that if so. Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It might even be possible to have most of the existing citations "repaired" (e.g., to use {{Cite AV media}} with a |via= to Discogs) by bot or AWB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Before making such changes, there's another issue to consider:

WP:LINKVIO. Does Discogs have the right to host these images? Nikkimaria (talk

) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs removes copyrighted images. JBchrch talk 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It may well. But there appear to be a significant number of images that are potentially still covered by copyright yet still posted there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, but I would argue that if a website takes a commitment of this kind and creates a dedicated channel to report copyright infringement, we may assume that it's not hosting copyrighted material, and that LINKVIO is respected. Otherwise, links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube—any UGC, really—would have to be nuked as well. JBchrch talk 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Er, no, we really can't assume that. See YouTube's entry at RSP - it would make sense to add something similar to its third sentence for Discogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course Discogs is hosting copyrighted images - tons and tons of them. But they are not doing so in violation of copyright, and the dedicated channel noted above is part of their obvious good-faith effort to respect copyright law. Chubbles (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe they are hosting tons and tons of copyrighted images but are not in violation of copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs is (principally) an informational site and its use of copyrighted images is permitted by fair use/fair dealing provisions. It's perfectly consistent with copyright law for information sources to host a great deal of copyrighted content and still comport with copyright. Chubbles (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it takes more than just being an informational site to get there, and direct linking as proposed is potentially problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does, but Discogs's use is consistent with it; users are informed of intellectual property requirements at the time of upload of images, the claim of fair use in the images is explained in that process, and as noted above they have a means of contact for rightsholders to address issues. What, specifically, is potentially problematic such that Wikipedia should be circumspect? Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

All of those things are AFAIK also true of YouTube - why should this site be treated differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the wording at RSP about YouTube should probably change, since, as you correctly state, YouTube (now) informs users of its rights requirements and aggressively enforces corporate copyright controls. But that's another RfC entirely. If the worry is that linking to Discogs might run afoul of contributory copyright infringement...that seems awfully remote - about as likely as it would be for linking to copyrighted websites hosted at the Wayback Machine. Chubbles (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with we really can't assume that is that this line of reasoning would lead us to prohibit links to Commons, because Commons hosts a lot of copyrighted content for sure. JBchrch talk 16:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is proposing a blanket prohibition, just caution along the lines of what we've got for YouTube, and a bit more consideration around how we approach citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is moving towards a Youtube-like disclaimer. Since you have reverted my edit [30]: is there anything else that's you oppose about this addition? JBchrch talk 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Given this issue, I have concerns about the proposed citation method, unless what was intended was more along the lines of what Jayron suggested? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• See, you don't link, or even need to mention Discogs at all. If you're looking at a picture of the liner notes or track listing on Discogs, you cite the original liner notes. We don't cite "Google Books" if we're looking at a Google Books scan of a book, we cite the book itself. Same deal here. --Jayron32 13:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. Anyone who has UGC or potential copyvio concerns doesn't need to add the permalink link to Discogs nor mention it in via= (books are cited all the time without links/mentions of google). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the copyright thing is a good point. Regardless of what uploaders sign off on, I can definitely see the point that using an entire album cover (front or back) as a bridge too far.

Album labels are quite different I think. They are almost always mere mechanical listings not really works of significant craft, they have no real commercial value, and the label (unlike the cover) is an insignificant part of the whole package so for Discogs to publish it under fair use is legit (I would think). I'm not even sure that labels specifically are copyrighted, altho I suppose they would fall under under the general rubric "everything here is copyrighted"

As to the need, I don't know, but should we be really be writing body-text passages like

"In 1963, Smith released the LP Songs From All Over (Paul Morris wrote the track "Heart of the Night" which was released as a single), but in 1965 was back as lead singer with the Monotones on the double-LP Little Bit of Loving. Smith wrote most of the songs, including "Where Do I Get Off" which ran over 14 minutes and took up all of side 4. Smith, along with Allison Smith, were the producers for that song; Lloyd Wingate produced the rest of the album."

With no references whatsoever (on grounds that the records themselves are the source), and standing on that if contested?

I just don't think that's going to fly with some people. Like it or not. You're going to get tagged, your material is going to get deleted. As a fact on the ground books and films are treated differently I guess. Can't help that but it is what it is no use denying it.

So, what I'm thinking is: 1) DO make a note that disc labels (only) from Discogs are fine. 2) Do NOT imply that they are required to use, they are there for anyone who WANTS to use them. (If necessary, clarify this.)

By using "only", we're indicating that disc labels but not record jackets etc are in play. I'm saying this because we want to get everybody on board here. I think (hope) that most of us would agree that the disc labels are trivial fair use, but the record-jacket thing is contested. Even if you personally think that record jackets at Discogs are ok to ref too, in the interests of compromising to get consensus, let's put them out of play shall we? Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the "no references" point. If you're citing the record-jacket, you should cite the record jacket. If you're citing the disc label, you should site the disc label. You should provide enough details in you references that other are able to work out what you're citing. For example, since the details may vary in between different releases, you should specify which release you're referring to. But there's never any need to a link to the source, sources do not have to be online, or even easy to access and the absence of a convience link doesn't make the source invalid.

Although Jayron32 has already pointed this out, there seems to be remaining confusion about what editors are actually citing here. If discogs is simply hosting photos or scans of disc labels or record-jackets, they're not being used as a source. They are simply a convience link for the actual soruce which is the disc label or record jacket. Of course editors need to have actually seen the source in some way to be able to cite it, and generally they should be able to help others e.g. with a copy if needed to aide verification.

Google Books was already given as an example but this confusion arises in a lot of cases. For example with YouTube unless it's content specifically released on YouTube then most of the time YouTube is irrelevant. If the content appears to have been YouTube without the copyright holders permission e.g. a documentary, then the YouTube link is out. But if the documentary is reliable then it's fine to cite it without the YouTube link.

A few months ago someone was asking about a newspaper scan or photo on some user generated site which seemed to lead to similar confusion. As IIRC I pointed out at the time, if the newspaper was a reliable source than if there was sufficient information on the newspaper, date etc the article could be cited. The fact that the user generated site was not a reliable source was mostly irrelevant. The only relevance was if this scan was the only copy anyone on Wikipedia had ever seen, given we had no real idea of the providence of this scan, then possibly it should stay out until someone can independently verify the scan was accurate. Either way possibly the convience link of the scan would need to stay out, but that didn't make the source invalid.

This is perhaps the only issue where discogs seems to matter when it comes to reliability issues. Do we trust the process discogs uses enough such that if the only place an editor has seen the alleged record jacket is via an image on discogs, this is acceptable? I have no idea, but whatever we decide, although this touches on the reliability of discogs to some extent, discogs still isn't the source we are citing, it's still the record jacket or whatever.

Note that while we do not allow link to sites violation copyright, we generally do not forbid editors from citing a source just because they likely violated copyright to obtain it. E.g. we won't be linking to content from Sci-Hub and I don't think we should even be encouraging editors to use it in any way but if someone has I don't think this makes their citations invalid since despite the murky nature of Sci-Hub, it seems unlikely that they're modifying content. We don't generally ask editors how they obtained access to a source anyway, there's actually a fair amount of trust built into the system and ultimately editors do need to use their judgment on whether they can be sure the copy they obtained could have been modified in some way or even is simply fake.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: If an explicit footnote in running prose is needed to an album jacket/liner notes/track listing/disc label or other paraphernalia alongside sound recordings, there's no reason not to do that. I can see where something like the track listing would be implicitly referenced to the track listing on the disc label, and wouldn't necessarily need a footnote, but in running prose if it needs one, just add one. For example, consider the GA-level article Kind of Blue. That article has citations to numerous versions of the album, and a lot of the running prose is cited to the 1997 CD edition. You can do it just like that. --Jayron32 17:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, right. I mean, I wrote a good article on the Dellwoods -- decent article, a few paragraphs, probably meets

WP:NBAND with two major-label albums -- but it was PRODed and then nominated for deletion partly on grounds that the Discogs refs (to the labels, albeit indirectly) in the running text were no good. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

says "Don't use Discogs, period", and its hard to fight against a written rule.

The objection to Discogs was that, even if it were reliable, it's just faithfully reproducing the album tracklisting themselves, which in no way satisfies

WP:GNG. It's neither independent (since the source is a work by the band itself) and it's not sufficiently in-depth (a listing of songs and albums is a trivial mention of the band). The article certainly wasn't deleted (well, redirected) because it cited discogs, but rather because it lacked any meaningful other sources. --Jayron32

04:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the copyright position on linking to photographs? EddieHugh (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

See the last para of

WP:LINKVIO. Nikkimaria (talk

) 02:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Although album covers and liner notes are usually copyrighted, the labels on the records (often showing songwriters and durations) usually aren't. The WP upload info for the "Good Rockin' Tonight" image used below states that it's in the public domain (no copyright marks, etc.). I suspect that many singles images used in WP articles are also PD, but were identified as copyrighted to play it safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Concrete suggestion (Discogs)

So here is my suggestion. In the main rule we currently have

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.

For the main rule here's my suggestion (bolded text is to show changes, not to be put in the actual text):

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable except for photographs. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. A 2021 discussion permitted the use of photographs^{[Note 1]}

.

Then, way at the bottom of the page, in smaller font, pointed to by the "[Note 1]", we can stretch out as much we want. So something maybe like:

I think that ncluding a photo would help, for instance as show here. Not sure if footnotes can include image files.

I tend prolix, so maybe my suggestions are too long, and improvements welcome, but we do want to be clear about what we're talking about. You know how some people can ruleslawer. Any changes, fine, count me in, let's keep moving. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Edited and cut it down some. 04:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. Upon first read, I thought that it was condoning the use of images hosted on Discogs as images, but what we're really condoning is the use of information contained in the images. Therefore, something like this would be better imo:

The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. However, images of album labels and liner notes hosted on Discogs are reliable sources of the information contained in them.^{[Note 1]} There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.

[Note 1] would be what you wrote above, I think it's good and doesn't need any changes. Mlb96 (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is too technical and that few readers will understand what exactly can be linked and/or referenced, unless we draft a dedicated guideline, which I would oppose anyway per
  WP:CREEP. I think we need to either 1. make a clear-cut decision as to whether linking to pictures hosted on Discogs is allowed per LINKVIO or 2. just add a Youtube-like disclaimer and brief footnote about {{Cite AV media}} and {{Cite AV media notes}}, but no more. JBchrch talk
  21:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing that any of the above proposals are an improvement; I think they will considerably increase confusion and rules-lawyering. Nothing presented has been better than the present RSP listing, rather than worse. The reference for the contents of the labels and sleeves is the labels and sleeves themselves; Discogs itself does no work at all here. The present RSP listing notes that external links are not forbidden. Nor do I see that there is actually a consensus for changing the listing - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I mean, a lot Wikipedia editors won't accept references to a work for music, as they do for books and films. They just won't, is all; I don't know why, but you can't make them. But there's proof in Discogs (and frequently nowhere else). But RSP says "Never use Discogs for anything, ever". So that's out. I mean I had a nice article on a band, band probably meets NBAND and all, nominated partly on grounds of containing several refs to Discogs. I explained the situation, but the response was basically "The rule is the we are not allowed to use Discogs, period, and you are not going to change my mind". And the article was indeed destroyed. So Discogs is out, it's toxic. No refs in running text is not going pass muster. So the only way around this is to not write articles about musicians, which I, having written several, will now do. I'm not up for working two days on an article just to lose it. How this is a win I can't see, but whatever. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you please link the AFD in question, so we can see the discussion you're talking about? - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dellwoods. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

OK - so your characterisation of the AFD consensus is bizarrely hyperbolic. The actual objections are that the sources are self-published blogs and user-submitted Discogs, and nothing else. Looking at the version through the AFD, this appears to be the case. The trouble is a lack of RSes, not the use of Discogs per se - your characterisation of this dispute is obviously inaccurate just looking at the actual AFD responses and the actual article text that was nominated - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can probably establish a consensus that Discogs entries do not establish notability, and are not reliable secondary sources, but the images are reliable primary sources for basic publishing information on discs and recordings, and so may be used to populate the content of discography sections. That summarizes how I would treat Discogs links in an AfD; the main rub here seems to be over whether we should link directly to Discogs or use Cite AV when there is a dispute over content. Chubbles (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd still like to see the original AFD at issue first; I'm reluctant to draw a claim of consensus on an issue of which we have no actual examples - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Close with no changes - the actual dispute at hand was grossly mischaracterised by the nominator; there is no substantive issue here that warrants a change to the RSP entry - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. The question at hand was a general point, I mentioned a particular AfD in passing deep in the text, you consider it important, but its not. The question at hand is a general one, whether photographs hosted on Discogs can be linked to, as a convenience to the editor and the reader. I'm seeing enough people saying "no" that it's not likely to become allowed, and fine, that's not excellent IMO but it doesn't come up that much to be very important I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can think of a way of phrasing the fact that you grossly misrepresented the single example you were, eventually, able to give at all that you'd like better, then by all means give a phrasing. But you did, in fact, grossly misrepresent it, this is the key point regarding the proposal at hand, and there is no evidence of a substantive issue here that warrants a change to the RSP entry - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, your going on and on about an issue that you alone seem to care about makes it increasingly harder for me to assume you're just having a bad day. You've made your point and registered your !vote, and I don't see any use in going on about this, let the closer decide how much it matters. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not a simple discuss on reliability of HeroicHollywood.com [31]. What do you think about this website? Reiro (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And I wonder whether Comicbook.com is appropriate source. Thank you.--Reiro (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear reliable. It looks very heavy on the churnalism and hype. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is about [32]. Hotpine claims that the source would be unreliable for the claim made. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The claim does seem very US-centric for what is a worldwide topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, what happens in the US has impact for the rest of the world, because DSM is the Bible of psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. One of my relatives is a psychiatrist, and they tell me that the DSM is very US-centric in its use, and that they tend to use the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases, which has wide use internationally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

According to [33], DSM-5 is the Dutch de facto standard. It does say there is a difference between "diagnosis" and "classification".

[34] says that UK and France don't use the DSM-5.

And, frankly, even in the US, ICD is the law of the land, but DSM-5 is the de facto standard. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In the UK the ICD is the official and most widely used standard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia article for internet culture, the term is rather vague without well-defined boundaries which would make the statement "generally reliable for internet culture" to be somewhat problematic. The Daily Dot does sort their stories by category including by "Internet Culture", but the tag is also found in many articles that may not specifically be about internet culture (example 1 2) or where it merely touches upon it briefly and isn't the main focus. Secondly, while I agree that their straight news reporting on internet trends is usually good, a lot of their articles are highly opinionated without disclosure. Many of their features engage in heavy analysis and commentary (ex. attributing motives*, dubbing others "Karens" and things "cringeworthy" without quotes, etc.) without properly labelling such articles. They do have articles that are labelled as such, but many of them lack such delineation. They have also been mentioned in a previous discussion as well as the Wikipedia article to have a political slant in reporting. (*For clarity, I don't disagree with the accusations of being transphobic, but the article is also heavy on analysis/commentary as well as content that would pose BLP issues while not explicitly labelled as Opinion or Analysis)

While I don't think this means that it should not be considered "generally reliable", I still think that extra care should be taken when citing articles from The Daily Dot. They are great when breaking news about topics that are trending strictly in cyberspace, but I would generally take care to always default to attribution unless multiple sources are available - especially since they can be highly opinionated during reporting coupled with the fact they are often one of the only sources deemed reliable to cover certain niche internet topics.Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the DD concerns here. I think many editors take "reliable for internet culture" to mean reliable for anything on the internet. So if DD says the ideas that a public figure shares on Twitter are "-phobic" then this must be due/reliable etc. If DD tells us there is a new trend on Twitter where users post pictures of planking. Sure, it's OK for that. However, the concerns regarding mixing opinion and fact, lots of subjective claims treated as fact etc is a big concern and the source should never be used for things like contentious claims about BLP subjects. It would be a terrible source for things like BLPs of Gamergate participants. Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in any previous discussions really substantiated (or even seriously argued) that there are serious problems with it outside of internet culture; that is just the bulk of what it writes and therefore most of its output. But it has strong

WP:BLP-quality source, and would strenuously object to any removal of it on that grounds. If you want to change it status you need more than just asserting that you dislike its tone or conclusions. --Aquillion (talk

) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with a source's conclusions or tone isn't a reason to question its reliability; neither, as far as I am aware, did any of the previous discussions say it is not reliable outside of internet culture (that was just the main area that has been considered, since that is the bulk of what it writes.) Do you have any secondary sources questioning its reliability? It has significant academic
  WP:RS is supposed to do; describing someone's motives is entirely appropriate. (eg. the New York Times regularly discusses the motives of politicians and characterizes their actions - [47][48][49].) Do you have any sources raising the concerns you have here, or is this just your personal opinion? Without that, I would honestly suggest removing the "for internet culture" bit from its descriptor to settle this and noting that it is generally reliable, though some editors have objected to its tone or believe it to be biased. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that the Data and Society stuff is not peer reviewed right? One of your accademic papers is about Pokemon Go. Other sources are using it as a news source for comments about on line trolling. I don't see an issue there. However, the original concern regarding the heavy mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact is an issue. It's nice that a key word search can turn up examples but are they good examples that really say this is a good source or just examples where someone was trying to find any source to support a claim they are trying to make. (I understand this as the first time one of my papers was cited it was cited for something that was tangential to my actual research. It was an example of a bad citation.) Springee (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but as far as I can recall, you haven't presented anything to back up your concerns about the Daily Dot, ever. You've objected to it repeatedly but you've never substantiated that as anything but your personal gut feelings. I get that your gut tells you that this source has an unusual amount of mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact (something I completely disagree with and don't think any of the presented examples really support, hence why I pointed to similar language from obvious

WP:RS is ultimately about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about whether you like their tone or agree with the language they use. --Aquillion (talk

) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, I was not trying to argue in favour of ousting The Daily Dot from its status as "generally reliable" for internet culture - which is why I said I broadly agree. It was more of a comment. I've already addressed the internet culture issue, I'll focus on the opinion/analysis part. The Daily Dot indeed does do a lot of straightforward news reporting, and while most reliable sources do engage in explicit analysis and commentary, my experience is that DD articles often contain them explicitly in ones that are not labelled as such. For example, in the "attributing motives" example I listed, it was definitively claimed outright that JK Rowling makes it "absolutely sure everyone knows she doesn’t consider trans women to be women" in a news article not labelled as analysis or opinion. My issue with the article is not so much the tone or that they would come to that conclusion, but that the article engaged in such opinion/analysis and stated them like proven facts in a news article when they were based off tweets that didn't explicitly say what was stated. As you are likely aware of (given this is a

does not mean it is not generally reliable

and I know that mere disagreement (which is something that I don't with the said article in question as I think Rowling's statements are indeed transphobic and harmful, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand) is not an argument against them. However, there's a difference between merely discussing or questioning someone's motives like the NYT articles appear to do (one of which was explicitly labelled an analysis, and from what I've read in the other I would also support using in-line citation) and stating assumptions or interpretations (especially one that would be contentious) outright in a news article as if it were an proven fact. And while having articles that dub others "Karen" and the like doesn't necessarily diminish their factual credibility, such characterization is in essence based on bias/opinion and should not be confused as straight news.

Additionally, The Daily Beast (ex. 1 2 3 4 5) and Mashable also enjoy frequent citation as fact in academic use (ex. 1 2 34 etc.), despite being listed as

WP:RSPSS as such, but you may disagree. Dankmemes2 (talk

) 09:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be more just knowing how to apply YESPOV to a source when it engages in the mixed factual/editorial approach for its articles (which is the bread and butter of how the Daily Dot writes). That is, we as editors can be smart enough to understand to recognize when they engage in editorial statements and attribute those (if needed), while leaving their statements of fact appropriately. Their reliability on Internet culture is still fine, as they aren't wrong when they talk factually in their articles. --Masem (t) 22:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is perhaps a better way to address the original concern. When the Daily Dot takes a limited set of facts and uses them to call someone a troll, or just reports on what is realistically gossipy news we really shouldn't give it any weight for inclusion in an article that claims to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this 'trust people to use it correctly' approach is that it leaves ourselves wide open for POV pushing, whether the editor doing so is aware that's what they're doing or not. A lot of editors are of the mindset that just about anything in a source marked green at RSP, even statements that are highly opinionated, can then be treated as factual, and as something we can state in Wikivoice (and even that not doing so is whitewashing). Editors can thus circumvent the restrictions on opinion articles noted at

WP:RSOPINION and launder opinions into facts. I suggest these outlets that mix opinion and fact need to be more clearly cautioned about on RSP. Crossroads ^-talk-

05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• [50](Korean)

This news story explained 2019 film Joker, showing why Arkham Asylum is renamed Arkham state hospital, homage elements of The dark knight. The source of these is Warner Bros. Korea, the distribution company of that film. They handed out some explainations of Joker, news story above reported it. I think it is because it's difficult to contact English news stories from Collider (website) in S.Korea, briefly introduced some information in Korean language. (But renaming Arkham Asylum only looked there). Is it reliable? --17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Markham, Clements Robert (April 1891). "Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed". The English Historical Review. 6 (22). Oxford University Press: 250–283.
  doi:10.1093/ehr/vi.xxii.250
  .

This particular source is used in the Princes in the Tower article.

The Clements Markham article is quite extensive and at FA level. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am keeping track of all kind of orbital launch vehicles in my userspace - User:Barecode/Launch vehicles and I just found a new rocket named Darwin-1 developed by Rocket Pi. Global Times says "Rocket Pi's founder, the firm also plans to launch its first liquid-fuel carrier rocket codenamed Darwin-1 in 2023" so I wanted to link that article but I'm not allowed. I noticed other articles about technology like one mentioning "Chinese smartphone makers saw a rapid expansion in the second quarter of this year, as Xiaomi ranked No.2 for the first time in the global smartphone market". Why are links to such articles not allowed on Wikipedia, not even in the user space? Is GT publishing false or fabricated information about mobile phones, computers, satellites or space launchers? -- Barecode (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hej, check out

WP:GLOBALTIMES. GT is a unreliable source, because it seems to publish false or fabricated information. User space use is certainly allowed though, but I suppose it doesn't make much sense because you won't really use it in mainspace anyways. What do you mean but I'm not allowed? Mvbaron (talk

) 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from adding it to your userpage, you would just trip an edit filter once. Though these pieces can't be used for content in article and alternative reliable sources would be required; also I'd think propaganda related to technology, particularly space technology, is well within the interests of the Chinese government. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron - I got this message: Error: Your action has triggered an edit filter An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. and since it was an Error and not a Warning I didn't try again. Now I tried again and I could save it. Yet the question remains: Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information only. Why GT is banned for any kind of information? I understand they are not reliable for politics (like Fox News) but does it publish false or fabricated information about technology or say for example weather or sports or reporting natural disasters?

Tayi Arajakate - I wouldn't be sure they fabricate facts about space technology in general and about rocket launchers in particular. Haven't noticed any false information until now in this regard. If they say they launched 53 rockets this year, the Western sources say the same for example. I'm just saying, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or to insist about this. -- Barecode (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the Global Times in specific is that beyond the issue of state control of media in China, it is also a low quality sensationalist tabloid and often makes misleading or exaggerated claims, to the point that in order to be certain of the accuracy of anything it publishes, one would have to rely on other secondary sources, at which point these secondary sources can be used and using Global Times becomes redundant. It just plainly fails the policy on

reliable sources

which requires that for a source to be considered reliable, it should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Now, I understand that media outside China may not always cover certain details, so if it is necessary there are other higher quality Chinese sources which can be used for uncontroversial topics where the Chinese government doesn't have a stake, for example the newspaper China Daily (RSP entry) and the Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry); note the guidance in their entries. That said, space technology is something that is political so it might require higher standards for news, Hong Kong based outlets such as the South China Morning Post (RSP entry) could be better alternatives as they are comparatively more shielded from manipulation by the state. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information only is not true. The consensus is that there should be additional consideration applied when sourcing from Fox News on those topics, particularly for contentious facts. This is different than, say,

talk

) 20:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)