Talk:Legal Insurrection Foundation
Latest comment: 5 months ago by North8000 in topic Feedback from New Page Review process
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
City Journal opinion edit
@XavierItzm: Hello. Why are you saying that an opinion article by a PhD student published in City Journal is a reliable source for this detail? Further, is the really the only source for this detail about using an acronym? If so, why is this significant enough to mention? Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, hi! In Wikipedia we don’t evaluate authors: we evaluate editorial processes. Has the medium shown it fails at quality control and has it been demonstrated it doesn’t have an established editorial process or proper vetting of stories? This is why Wikipedia keeps a blacklist of media, and not a blacklist of authors: it matters little if the author isn’t a college graduate or if he’s got a PhD. Now, City Journal is a serious, decades-old print publication; if you have arguments to the contrary, maybe the publication should be added to the little blacklist. But until then, you’ll have to be rather persuasive as to why it is not a WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, that's incorrect. We evaluate sources in total and authors are an important part of that process. Especially for opinion content, the credibility of an author as a topic expert does matter a great deal. As for your question: Yes, the outlet lacks quality control, or to quote WP:RS, it lacks a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. While the above discussion at RSN has not been closed yet, there is already pretty strong consensus that it is at least generally unreliable and several editors (myself included) are arguing that it be deprecated completely.
- Your understanding of blacklisting is also incorrect. Per WP:BLACKLIST,
blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers.
If, instead, you're talking about WP:RSP, that isa non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.
(emphasis added). Many, many, many unreliable sources are not listed there. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)- So, now we act on opinions, before waiting for proper closure? Look, you are most welcome to come back and delete the source once it gets blacklisted —and no, I am not referring to its URL getting blacklisted—. In the meantime, in the absence of consensus, I see no controlling authority otherwise. Cheerio,XavierItzm (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, hi! In Wikipedia we don’t evaluate authors: we evaluate editorial processes. Has the medium shown it fails at quality control and has it been demonstrated it doesn’t have an established editorial process or proper vetting of stories? This is why Wikipedia keeps a blacklist of media, and not a blacklist of authors: it matters little if the author isn’t a college graduate or if he’s got a PhD. Now, City Journal is a serious, decades-old print publication; if you have arguments to the contrary, maybe the publication should be added to the little blacklist. But until then, you’ll have to be rather persuasive as to why it is not a WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback from New Page Review process edit
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start
North8000 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)