Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 394: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot |
||
Line 835:
Someone told me [[The Sun (Malaysia)]] was unreliable but I think they may have been thinking of the other Sun, or something: I can't find much on this publication either way. Is this a reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] or a tabloid? '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
: To the extent that any publication out of Malaysia (a country that does not have free speech) can be considered reliable, I suppose the tabloid [[The Sun (Malaysia)|The Sun]] sort-of-kind-of-maybe is. It isn't state-owned (''e.g.'', [[The Star (Malaysia)|The Star]]) but [[Vincent Tan]] will never, ever rock boats in the Malaysian government, no matter what party is currently in power, so I would only use this source for decidedly uncontroversial/bland topics. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
==Does a PhD or similar expertise obviate the need to supply reliable sources?==
[[User:RogierBrussee]] [[Talk:Gauge covariant derivative#Reversion of the edits on Gauge covariant derivative and its relation to Gaige transformations|argues]] that because he claims to have the qualification of a PhD he has enough expertise not to be required to support his edits in that topic with reliable sources. Do editors think this approach is acceptable? [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 10:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
:No. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
::Someone with a PhD should know that citing sources is always required. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:::maybe, but not the place. 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:Dear me, No. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 12:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:No Wikipedia editor, regardless of their qualifications, can be considered a reliable source. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''∆[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|transmissions]]∆'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|co-ords]]°</small> 12:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:Nope. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:Perhaps suggest they take a look at [[WP:EXPERT]] <small>(or [[On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog]])</small> [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
* To be perfectly fair, I don't think that he was arguing that he need not cite sources. I read his comment to state that his edit was clarifying and non-controversial and that sources could be found and cited, but he hadn't gotten around to it, as real life intervened. I agree that reliable sources are always needed, though in highly technical areas, it is helpful to have editors who are expert and can actually understand those sources, and translate them into clear encyclopedic prose. [[User:Banks Irk|Banks Irk]] ([[User talk:Banks Irk|talk]]) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
*:This is the impression I got as well. He mentioned that he has a PhD, he certainly didn't claim that it exempted him from ever needing to cite sources. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
*::+1 The opening post of this thread substantially misrepresents the situation. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
*:::I concur with the above. Having read the discussion, the OP claims seem to be a clear mischaracterization of the conflict. Nowhere does the user in question state that their PhD exempts them from having to cite their sources. From what I can see, their claims amount to the [[WP:CALC]] exemption. Whether or not the WP:CALC exemption to explicit sourcing is valid here or not is outside of the scope of this discussion, but the OP's complaint that started this thread is not true.--[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:Obviously, a user claiming to have a PhD is not a reliable source. However, I agree with @[[User:Banks Irk|Banks Irk]] and @[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] that the user was not arguing that at all. [[User:Grahaml35|Grahaml35]] ([[User talk:Grahaml35|talk]]) 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::That appears to be true, still one cannot add material without a source and then hand wave the problem away. Personally I would first tag cn and if no cite forthcoming in a reasonable time, delete the uncited material. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::They may not be, but it looks like others maybe trying to argue that we should allow uncited content from self-declared experts. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:I had a recent experience with a so-called "expert". Of course them simply saying so is not enough for wikipedia - everyone is anonymous and impostors do exist too. The best way to resolve such issues is to provide sources making such a claim or derivation or show in source showing the final formulation. Other wise it is [[WP:OR]]. We are not in the business of advancing science, just reporting what the currently available sources say. What would help is letting them know about [[WP:EXPERT]].[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 07:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| |||