User talk:JulesH/Self Published Sources/Proposed Text
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Bi
Do you know why it says "and other published sources of dubious reliability"? For the life of me, I can't figure out what that is saying. What other sources could they be talking about? JoeMystical 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the intent is if something is published by someone who does no fact-checking at all, then it would be treated as if it were self-published. Think about organisations like PR Newswire who will basically publish just about anything. JulesH 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, then what does it mean with the rest of the sentence? It says that "other unpublished sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves." PR Newswire stories can only be used in the article PR Newswire? Is that what it's saying? JoeMystical 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I think PR Newswire stories would be acceptable in articles about their authors, i.e. the companies that hired PR Newswire to publicise their product etc. JulesH 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, then what does it mean with the rest of the sentence? It says that "other unpublished sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves." PR Newswire stories can only be used in the article PR Newswire? Is that what it's saying? JoeMystical 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey I'm back. Sorry I've been away so long. So what do you think about the paragraph at the bottom? Do you want to go ahead and try to get that in there or do you think it needs more refinement? JoeMystical 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have you seen WP:ATT? It's a proposal to take the verifiability policy in a substantially different direction. You may be interested. JulesH 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned that there's no explicit criteria for including criticisms of self-published source. I think it'll be absurd that someone can write an article saying "so-and-so says that he has lots of bridges to sell" (which is true), but suddenly any criticism of this claim must come from an "expert". (I've also added a section to your proposed text, but maybe I should also go over to WP:ATT.) Bi 10:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would mean that Frank Wallace's self-published books would be legitimate source to criticize other self-published sources in their articles. I know you don't want to allow that. JoeMystical 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I won't mind that actually, because I'm actually interested in giving due weight to different opinions when all the opinions are unreliable, rather than presenting only one unreliable opinion. Bi 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)