4 ms·

Yes. And it even means that tabloids are legitimate sources, but science papers published on a university website are not.

baddox 15y ago
Who says that science papers on a university website are not valid sources?
- Uchikoma 15y ago
  "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention."
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    Tabloids aren't considered a good source. As to "science papers published on a university website", that all depends. I remember a few months ago that one joyous postgrad student was hosting a pretty off-the-wall theory on his personal university space and trying to get it into Wikipedia as "published by the university". On the other hand properly peer reviewed papers get used all the time/
    - Uchikoma 15y ago
      I'm not enough into american culture to decide if a daily tabloid is a "newspaper[s]" or not. Taking the biggest German tabloid "BILD", although I do not endorse their way or content, I'd classify them as a (bad) newspaper nevertheless.
      - ErrantX 15y ago
        This is why the word Tabloid is problematic :) because in the UK it means "trashy newspaper", whereas in other places it means the format. Clearly tabloid, in whatever meaning, is a newspaper. But what you have quoted is a nutshell summary. I can see how one reading of it could be that newspapers are always a reliable source (and as tabloids are a form of newspaper). But I have feeling you've seriously stretched the reading to prove a point. Reliable sourcing is linked; and if you read that policy it will make it more clear. FWIW I never like labelling sources, as some editors tend to, in certain categories (newspaper, journal, etc.) because our policy explicitly sets out criteria to apply to sources on an individual basis. So in that respect, I agree with you that the nutshell is a problem.

baddox 15y ago

Who says that science papers on a university website are not valid sources?

Uchikoma 15y ago
"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention."
- ErrantX 15y ago
  Tabloids aren't considered a good source. As to "science papers published on a university website", that all depends. I remember a few months ago that one joyous postgrad student was hosting a pretty off-the-wall theory on his personal university space and trying to get it into Wikipedia as "published by the university". On the other hand properly peer reviewed papers get used all the time/
  - Uchikoma 15y ago
    I'm not enough into american culture to decide if a daily tabloid is a "newspaper[s]" or not. Taking the biggest German tabloid "BILD", although I do not endorse their way or content, I'd classify them as a (bad) newspaper nevertheless.
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      This is why the word Tabloid is problematic :) because in the UK it means "trashy newspaper", whereas in other places it means the format. Clearly tabloid, in whatever meaning, is a newspaper. But what you have quoted is a nutshell summary. I can see how one reading of it could be that newspapers are always a reliable source (and as tabloids are a form of newspaper). But I have feeling you've seriously stretched the reading to prove a point. Reliable sourcing is linked; and if you read that policy it will make it more clear. FWIW I never like labelling sources, as some editors tend to, in certain categories (newspaper, journal, etc.) because our policy explicitly sets out criteria to apply to sources on an individual basis. So in that respect, I agree with you that the nutshell is a problem.