Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives

Contents 1 WP:MOS subguideline, anyone? 2 Examiner.com 3 Template:Cite newsgroup 4 Quotations 5 A paragraph or a section on totalitarian era sources 6 Overuse of "third-party" in nutsell and intro paragraphs causing problems 7 CBS.com is a reliable source? 8 Circularity issue 9 Electronic Intifada 10 Rulings in an american courts 11 Consensus 12 The Michael Jackson situation 13 Foreign language sources 14 Judging reliability of editing in newspapers and other sources 15 Coverage by citation indexes

[edit] WP:MOS subguideline, anyone?

Imo, this guideline could be far more usefully handled and improved if it where a dedicated WP:MOS subguideline. The applicable policy (WP:V) appropriately handles the required minimum threshold, while this page could explain various scenarious in greater detail than a policy, including the ideal case, or how to proceed in the many suboptimal cases where high quality sources are not easily available etcpp. User:Dorftrottel 14:52, February 15, 2008

[edit] Examiner.com

I'm going to have to put out a motion that Examiner.com not be allowed as a viable source for linking to articles. There are a number of Wikipedia articles that cite Examiner.com, and there's a bit of problem with this because the Examiner.com model is based on paying writers for page views. Anyone can sign up to be a writer there, put down some information, and then get paid for getting mass amounts of page views. This, in my opinion, creates great conflict with the idea of NPOV. Rustydangerfield (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, examiner.com lacks most of the safeguards of a reputable news source and many of the writings are the equivalent to blogs. There is some great info in these but it is typically available in other places and typically should be cross checked.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support an XlinkBot, a gentler process that bot-reverts sources often added by inexperienced users but I wouldn't support a full blacklist of the source. I have seen some articles that were pretty good and I wouldnt want to discard it entirely. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite newsgroup

It's my understanding that we should, under no circumstances, cite a newsgroup. Then why do we have a newsgroup citation template that's used on at least 100 articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably because in some very tightly-controlled circumstances it may be appropriate per WP:SPS, as long as it has been demonstrated in a more bona fide reliable source that the post author is legit. I suppose it's not a lot different to citing, for example, a writer's personal blog for minor or uncontroversial information about the writer or his/her work. Use sparingly! Steve ^{T • C} 11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In particular, to cite a quotation it is preferable to do so directly. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Newsgroup posts can also be intrinsically reliable sources for certain statements about newsgroups. For instance, alt.religion.scientology notes the posting of a specific rmgroup message aimed at a.r.s - it's hard to conceive of a better cite for that than the rmgroup message itself. --GenericBob (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to quoting what is said in a source, there is nothing more reliable than the source itself. Whether the source should be quoted at all is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, notability is often an issue for Usenet-related content (cue discussions about coverage bias), but I'd argue that this particular example makes the cut. --GenericBob (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Usenet forums vary widely in terms of reliability. There are a few that are both moderated by, and mainly populated by, experts in their field. comp.dcom.telecom comes to mind as a professional mailing list. Another situation where a newsgroup citation may be appropriate is a bona fide FAQ posted by someone knowledgeable in their field and revised with input from peers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Hostile secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."

Should this perhaps be "Partisan secondary sources..."? It's not just the hostile ones that mangle and misattribute quotes - one common form of appeal to authority is to attribute a supportive quote to a well-respected figure. --GenericBob (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

that makes sense to me 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A paragraph or a section on totalitarian era sources

Since this is a topic that pops up with regular frequency here (ex. above), I think we should add a section or paragraph to deal with this (next to or as a part of the "Extremist and fringe sources" section, perhaps, or to the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples?). Here's my proposed paragraph:

Sources published under totalitarian or autocratic regimes can be reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias or likely to be affected by censorship or party-line propaganda (for example, Nazi sources will not be objective on the Jewish issues, and Soviet sources will have a pro-Marxist bias). Those problems are discussed in dedicated articles on national historiographies (see Category:Historiography by country). If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed on relevant article's page, and if it is agreed that the fact is controversial, it should sourced with non-communist era works, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable; it is recommended that those critical reviews are also mentioned in the article's on those authors or publications (see example one, example two).

Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems overkill to put it everywhere. Perhaps just saying we should have a "note on possibly biased sources" link in those articles would suffice? Collect (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that we are talking about party propaganda, isn't this already covered by the existing Extremist and fringe sources section? I am also concerned that this will lump legitimate scholarship that happened to be written under a totalitarian regime with the propaganda from that regime. Not everything that was written in Germany under the Nazis or in Russia under the Soviets is suspect. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is already noted in my proposal, which clearly states that only specific parts of that scholarship are unreliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of "third-party" in nutsell and intro paragraphs causing problems

Hi. Longtime contributor to RSN here with an complaint about overemphasis on "third party" sources in the guideline. Our guideline says articles should rely primarily on third-party sources, which is fine, but the nutshell and one of the other paragraphs leaves out the "primarily". Some editors only read the nutshell and then argue that press releases and other primary sources from an article subject can never be cited in a WP article. Recommending that "third-party" be removed from the nutshell and the first paragraph of Overview. We already discuss third-party in the bolded second paragraph of the lead and in the "primary sources" section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing the word "third-party", I would add the word "primarily". We do want our articles to cite third party sources, after all. The problem is that some people think the nutshell means only third party sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the third-party preference is less important than the requirement that sources be reliable and published. Every source except images must be published somewhere other than Wikipedia, always, no exceptions. Sources must always be reliable in some sense of the word, even if it is only to assure that a certain crazy assertion can really be attributed to a certain kook. Third-party sources are usually preferred to first- and second-party sources, but not always (for example, the ISO 8601 article is based mostly on the standard, which is a first-party source). To try to put all three in the same sentence and modify them all with the word "primarily" just does not work very well. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you say is true when you are citing an individual claim and statement, but when it comes to overall citing of an entire article third party sources are needed.... If for no other reason than to demonstrate notability. An article that is purely cited to first-party sources will not last long on Wikipedia. Also, an article that is purely cited to primary sources is highly likely to have NOR issues. (OK, I admit that it is possible to write an article with no OR using nothing but primary sources ... but doing so is very very difficult, and would probably not be a very good article)

The point we want to convey is this: while primary sources are reliable and allowed for certain types of statements, the majority of the citations in any article should be to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (ie Third Party sources). Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have been bold and changed it to "based primarily" instead of just "based". Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly edited that revision, associating "primarily" only with "third-party". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CBS.com is a reliable source?

Is CBS.com a reliable source? For example, an unaired miscellaneous task in The Amazing Race from a forum. I'm sure the part is from a CBS website. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First, please provide the URL. Second, forums are not considered RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original info from CBS website (taken from The Amazing Race 14 page): [1], second the sourced one from the article: [2] ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first URL u link to is a bunch of pictures... pictures are not a source. I dont think i would consider the second URL a realible source as we have no clue of their editorial standards... it calls itself reality tv news but it doesnt seem like a reliable news outlet to me... others can chime in though... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as CBS.com goes, the over all website contains individual sub-pages that are reliable and individual sub-pages that are not reliable. For example, the "recaps" sub-page is reliable as that is authored by an employee of CBS, the photo gallery sub-page (photos are not sources) and the "fans/forums" sub-page (authored by anyone) are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a photo is not a source. True, it is almost always necessary to have some explaination from a reliable source, together with the photo, but I fail to see why a photo can't be a source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose a photograph could be a primary source... allowable for a statement as to its own existance, and for a purley discriptive comment as to what the photo depicts.... but it would not be reliable for much more than that. Raw photographs are prone to all sorts of original research issues. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To use a photo as a source, it would be necessary that it be published by a reliable source, be published together with text that explains what it is a photo of (unless that is patently obvious, for example, if the name of the object is painted on it), and the claim would have to be very clear from the photo. For example, if NASA releases a photo of a meteorite with a scale included in the photo, one might claim the meteorite is about 3 cm long. On the other hand, if there were a photo of President X, it wouldn't be proper to claim, based on facial expression, "President X was frustrated." --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Circularity issue

A source currently being used at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a featured article - contains text that looks to have been copied verbatim from WP itself. The WP content is older, giving rise to the question of the source's reliability. An editor has suggested that the inclusion of the WP material (not credited in the paper) constitutes, in effect, a peer review of the WP content, and thereby makes the paper usable as a source, and has also suggested that the topic be brought here. See [3]. Novickas (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors are NOT reliable sources, please see WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources, but that is not the question. The question is whether an otherwise reliable source that uses a few passages from Wikipedia is still reliable. I would say that if the use of Wikipedia passages is the only issue, it is still reliable. However, in the case being discussed on the noticeboard, it is alleged that the supposedly reliable source didn't cite Wikipedia. Any source that fails to follow the citation norms for the relevant field is suspect. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem calling any source that copies wording from Wikipedia (especially one which does not have the intelectual honesty to cite wikipedia for that material) reliable. It definitely should raise red flags. While it might be possible to isolate which material came from Wikipedia and which came from elsewhere, I have no confidence that this non-wikipedia derived material is at all reliable. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would wonder about a source that tries to pass off Wikipedia as a reliable source, just as I would wonder about a source that tried to pass a supermarket tabloid as a reliable source. However, if a source acknowledged the reliability issues of Wikipedia, and explained why the passage from Wikipedia was sound in some specific instance, I would consider the source to be untarnished. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this question for the rs noticeboard? [4]

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

the standard for a RS is editorial judgement. If an editor of responsible press or a responsible academic author decides that WP offers a reliable treatment of something, his work counts a a RS. Some of the best academic authors I know use WP for definitions in computer science. In fact, seeing that is what led me to take WP seriously in the first place 3 years ago. DGG (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious about this, then you might want to change Wikipedia:Verifiability, which currently reads "In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing." Also - the source in question was written by students, doesn't say what level - under the supervision of tutors. See pages 10-11. [5]. Novickas (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But here we are talking about the case when an author plagiarised from Wikipedia without any attribution. In other words, there is reason to suppose that the author is not a responsible academic. I am not saying this is the case here, since it seems entirely possible that there was once an earlier draft of this book chapter on the web which was copied into Wikipedia. But the practical implications in both cases are very similar. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Intifada

Is the Electronic Intifada a reliable source? I don't see why it is not, but user:ShamWow has removed it from Haneen Zoubi's article as not reliable, citing here. Thoughts?--TM 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This inquiry belongs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rulings in an american courts

I cant find the policy on court documents. Surely the are considered more reliable than newspapers

--Cogvoid (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends. They're reliable as a record of what was said in court, but a good-quality newspaper article is often a better source for plain-English interpretation of what a judgement etc. actually means, which is often what we need for WP - this is a 'primary source' issue. --GenericBob (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

"The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

This guideline seems to contradict itself, depending on how you read it. I've always taken it to mean that you should not report a scientific or academic consensus unless someone else (in a reliable source) has explicitly said that one exists. Is this the intent? I think getting rid of the first sentence would fix it, but then that seems to leave a loophole where an otherwise reliable source makes a left field claim for a consensus that doesn't really exist. I'd like to get it clarified one way or another, so if anyone has any suggestions, lets have it. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no comment so far, I'm going to be bold and attempt to rework this section. I'm extremely open to discussing the changes I'm about to make if someone has a problem with them. Gigs (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advise otherwise. This will have some significant implications for some articles. The consensus does need to be shown if challenged. This can be done either by explicit comment or by implication--ie use of a standard textbook. Personally, I find that many statements in the published literature from a party on one side of a controversy about what the scientific consensus is are somewhat biased, typically being examples of denying the presence of an opposition. The sttement of even a sound atuhority on the subject must still be attributed, and if different statements of consensus can be found, they must be included also. DGG (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you and I aren't too far off. The old wording seemed to imply that a Wikipedia editor could look at various sources and then declare a scientific consensus. I want to get rid of that implication, since that's almost the definition of synthesis. Gigs (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Michael Jackson situation

Those interested in policing/updating/quality controlling WP:RS and related policies should take note of the issues occurring in the Michael Jackson article today (note particularly the talk page) in which undeniably reliable sources with editorial oversight -- the Associated Press, the BBC, CNN, etc. -- were being rejected outright as RS with regards to reporting Jackson's death. No less than CNET has even posted a story regarding this controversy here. I can understand the reluctance to go with information originating from the gossip site TMZ, but things got out of hand when the Associated Press was being rejected. I think the conduct regarding RS has set a bad precedent. I'm not pointing a finger at any user on this issue, but it is worth investigating for future updates to the policy. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. When the reliable sources were reporting that there are reports of Jackson's death, these were quite rightly interpreted as not confirming the death. When RS began to report the death as confimed by the LA Coroner, they were accepted. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For a while there, these news outlets were reporting that TMZ was reporting that MJ was dead. This, of course, is not the same thing as news outlets reporting that MJ was dead. I think we did fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(speedforceironman1809081389099 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Foreign language sources

Is it appropriate to cite sources in a language other than the one the Wikipedia entry is written in? The problem that arises is that foreign language sources necessarily are less comprehensible by possibly a majority of other contributors. However, in my view, sources written in those languages that are most widespread, like English, Spanish, French or German, should be accepted for citation. Sources written in such languages might easily be verified by other users. --Hcinmmod (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judging reliability of editing in newspapers and other sources

How are we judging the comparative quality of newspapers? They all have editors, but they are all obviously not equal.

Tabloids like the Natioinal Enqurier are obviously of inferior quality, but what method are we using to judge this? First, you need some method to determine if something is a Tabloid or simply reports on celebrities a lot (like People). Second, if it isn't a tabloid, you still need to employ some other methods to judge quality as a reliable source.

I think that people are frequently applying personal opinion, for better or for worse, as to what newspapers are more reliable than others, as it's not like there's some database of "editor reliability" and "editor expertise."

The only thing I can think of that's objective is circulation of the newspaper and how often the journalist/editor gets printed, which is an indirect measure of the consensus among journalists and their readers regarding the writing subject.

This is a universal method, because even with scientific journals, we judge how often a scientist gets published, is cited, and accepted within the scientific community.

If we are using circulation (in essence, popularity as a measure of consensus), why can't the same be applied to non-expert websites and blogs? It doesn't make sense to allow popularity of a source as viewed as being reliable for one type of source, but not others.

In other words, if Joe's website is frequently linked to by others as a good source to read (i.e. linking to him because they think the site is good, not bad), it would make sense to use Joe as a reliable source. You'd compare the proportion of recognition from all sources.

The quality as a reliable source would be weighted against other factors, such as whether there were multiple contributors, whether it's equivalent to an "op ed" piece or written in a more professional fashion, what sources they used for their information, etc...

Thus, I think that proportion of recognition as a reliable source (recognition within the relevant population e.g. the scientist population for journal articles) should one of the main indicators for all types of sources. It's not the only indicator, but it's an important one.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that circulation is a good way to determine a source's reliablity. Many people read a publication for entertainment value rather than for knowledge. Cosmopolitan and Maxim have circulations of 2,928,041 and 2,558,475 whereas higly respected academic journals such as Nature have a circulation of only about 65,000.

Ultimately, it boils down to whether a publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. One way to do this is to look at the number of awards it has won. The New York Times, for example, has won 101 Pulitzer Prizes. Another indication is to look at how many times other reliable sources cite it. For academic journals, they actually have a Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing newspapers to scientific journals, which I clarified are assessed via different populations. As I said, the relevant population for scientific articles is the population of scientists, so you'd do what you just said--use citations and positive views from within the community. Plus, it's not just subscribers within the community, but anyone who regularly reads their articles and a lot of scientists read Nature.

There isn't really a readily available source for how much a print article is cited, beyond perhaps using Google or Alexa to see how much it's linked (if it's available online). In those cases, I don't see how that's different than judging quality of a random webpage the same way.

How do you determine which awards are "acceptable"? There are a variety of them from different sources, many with political and ideological leanings. I don't think a select, "elite few" should determine, for the rest of the world, what's the best. It's largely subjective (i.e. their authority is largely arbitrary) and expertise doesn't really apply in judging here (unless they are an expert in the specific area the newspaper article covers e.g. a geologist critiquing a journalist's geology article), which is why reliability should be left to the whole population of people who read that type of publication.

Besides, Pulitzer Prizes are usually awarded to the journalists, not the newspapers, and journalists often write for multiple newspapers, so then you've got a counting issue. There's also the fact that very few journalists have won such a prestigious prize; you're talking some small fraction of journalists, which would require limiting yourself to a very small number of articles (they award one prize per category per year).

People almost never win them twice and there's no assurance that past prizes hold the same value as they did back when it was originally awarded. If a specific journalist is covering something in an area related to where they won some prestigious award or recognition, that adds value to their reliability, but it's rarely the case that you'll get an news/magazine article like that.

In this day and age, the number of journalists and print publications is rapidly growing and many are reliable, non-tabloid sources, but comparatively little will win a prestigious award and that percentage will only decrease with time, because the number of new journalists per year easily over shadows the few awards given per year. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a lot of points, and I don't have time to answer all of them but it still boils down to whether a publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. You determine this by seeing what other WP:RS say about it. Same thing with awards. Whether it's a Pulitzer or the Buckeye News Hawk Award, you look it up. Other indicators that we use to determine reliability are really secondary. For web sites, we often check to see if there's an About page, an editorial staff, named and professional writers, physical address, etc. but these are ultimately secondary to the core issue: a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. You'll note that Snopes.com fails many of these tests, but it is considered a reliable because it has earned an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage by citation indexes

I modified an earlier change to indicate that not all academic fields are covered adequately by such indexes. I am open to other wording, because I think the problem here is a little complicated. For one thing, the competition between Scopus and Web of Science has caused them both to increase coverage, which is good for indexing, but somewhat decreases the quality distinction. Then, Google Scholar is among other things a citation index, and we do not mean to include it here. Third, it's not covered/uncovered--the coverage in, say , biochemistry , is not as complete as in mathematics where there are more small journals. Fourth, the distinction can not deal with the problem of journals of high quality from the first. fifth, the less developed countries are poorly represented (China though has one of its own--does anyone know about Japan?). The general principle that a source is reliable if qualified people think it is, is certainly true, but inherently a little circular. . DGG (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't determine that based on what other reliable sources say about it, because then you're stuck in circular justification, because you then have to demonstrate that the sources you're using as evidence of how reliable a source is are reliable, themselves. We're left with awards, but like I said, that creates their own major problems, which you haven't yet addressed (the rarity of them, subjectivity, and lack of a way to determine what awards are reliable). What does a physical address have to do with the quality of a website? How are you determining if they are "professional writers? Snopes.com fails ALL of those. It has only two writers (not professional) and no prizes. Snopes is considered reliable by web users and we know that based on site usage statistics, which is the criteria I proposed before.

DGG, I think you misunderstood the purpose of a citation index. A good citation index will tell you how many times an article is cited and even how much an author's articles as a whole are cited, as well as other citation measures. The more they index, the better the data. It's about how much scientists cite other scientists, not how much they've been indexed in search engines. They're usually pretty complete. You could also check other media sources that cite certain journal articles. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for some confusion. I was not talking about web sites, anyway, or about snopes. I forgot to put in a heading, so it looked like my discussion followed on to that one. I've put it in now.

I think I know very well the purpose -- and limitations-- of a citation index, having seen and used them since the very beginning of SCI, and having taught their use at 3 universities. And having written a multi-part peer-reviewed comparative review on them-[6], [7], [8]. There's also 2 nice papers by a student of mine [9], [10].

Incidentally, i fully support the employment of site usage statistics to determine notability of a web site. It does not however determine reliability, or WP would be a RS. DGG (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)