Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

User Generated Content should be partially allowed, with an accompanying source.

User Generated Content can be unreliable, but it's not always unreliable or even wrong. It may be a good thing to allow fact-checked User Generated Content to be used as a source. In particular, it may be important culturally, because many cultural phenomenons are not covered by traditional sources or unbiased sources. thekingpachy (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No need. Whatever you used to fact-check should be used instead of the unreliable source. --Yamla (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Also sources don't have to be unbiased, see WP:RSBIAS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There's quite enough spam and AI generated rubbish on the web already without Wikipedia making it easier for them. This is just not needed. NadVolum (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pachycephalosaurus Wyomingus, what made you suggest this? Sometimes the details matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

nothing really, its just that that rule was made in a different time, and user generated content can be reliable for cultural themes. we should consider partially allowing user generated content thekingpachy (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you give us a few examples of user generated sources that you think should be allowed? Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

memes, cultural phenomenones, things that are subjective (like video game opinions, as video game journalists are often paid by companies to give a better review and may as such not be a good representative of the cultural opinion of the game) thekingpachy (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

No no no. Wikipedia is not Yelp. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

i mean specifically to gather opinions on subjects

i dont mean for factual statements thekingpachy (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason why we don't allow this is because it can be used to support virtually any position. You seem to be interested in gaming, so I'll give you an example related to that. I could claim that many gamers enjoy the graphics of Game X but dislike the storyline and cite this claim to a post on Reddit. However, another user could then make the opposite claim and cite it to a YouTube video. That's the problem: not everyone has the same opinions. To determine broader views like this, it's best to stick to polling conducted by reliable sources. — Anonymous 12:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah, and thats wy it should be partially allowed, to help back claims up or show multiple sides. simply user generated content alone is never enough, so some kind of reliable polling is always useful. despite this, game critics are not really a good representative of the popular opinion of a game, as the companies are often paid to give favourable reviews thekingpachy (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

No, this would not be helpful. If specific sites or game critics are being paid to give favourable reviews, they would no longer meet WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that they're saying the game critics are getting paid. However, Astroturfing and Native advertising exist, too, so some of those "ordinary users" are likely paid, too.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth has an explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

All else aside, the usual argument for things only citable to non-WP:RSes applies: If something that occurred in a user-generated source is worth including, there will be actual WP:RSes covering it anyway. I mean you say that you want fact-checked User Generated Content to be used as a source - but, assuming the "fact-checking" takes the form of a WP:RS covering the UGC, we do allow that? For instance, if something happens on Wikipedia, and is covered in the New York Times, we can then cite the NYT to cover it - that's the fact-checking. But obviously a user-generated source can't fact-check itself; we need a WP:RS with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If something that occurred in a user-generated source is worth including, there will be actual WP:RSes covering it anyway. What about when its a reliable source citing a user-generated source? What if, in your example, The New York Times reported, "according to the Wikipedia article 'foo'…", or "as Wikipedia's article on 'foo' notes…"? May we cite the NYT's reporting in this instance? Need we include an in-text reference to Wikipedia being the crux of the Times' reporting? Is it just verboten on its face? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is a source uses Wikipedia as a source then it's unusable, see WP:CIRCULAR ("Also, do not use ... publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources"). This is a seperate issue from user generated content. The NYT and over publications use user generated content as sources all the time, by their use of social media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, poor choice of example, given we have our own explicit policy thereon. I generally meant, what if the NYT published reporting using any UGC site's material/claims, such as an article saying "according to the TV Tropes page 'foo'…", or "as Atlas Obscura's page on 'foo' notes…"? May we indirectly or circuitously cite the UGC via the NYT's reporting? Need we include an in-text reference to the UGC being the basis of the Times' reporting? Is it just verboten on its face? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing you should use your judgement about, after considering all the facts and circumstances (including, importantly, other sources).

Is this an extraordinary claim? Is it appropriate to the subject matter (e.g., TV Tropes on tropes, not on cold fusion)? Is the user-generated site being cited in the news article to provide a contrast (e.g., "Game Company says X, but the Reddit forum says Y")? Is it the kind of content you would accept from an individual's social media account? Is this background information in the news article, or a key claim?

About the "key claim" question, a news article might provide in-text attribution merely by way of providing fuller information/credit where it's due, but they might also provide in-text attribution because they didn't think that checking the claim was worthwhile. Consider how differently, just based on common sense, you would react to these:

• "The political candidate has announced a campaign tour stop in Smallville. According to Atlas Obscura, the only reason to visit this small town is the World's Biggest Ball of Twine, so the decision to give a speech there has confused election observers..."
• "According to Atlas Obscura, a mysterious series of drone attacks on Smallville residents have been traced to a pair of twins who were given matching drones for their birthday...".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Also… when a reliable source (such as The NY Times) repeats user generated content (say a Reddit post), Wikipedia should cite the reliable source, not the unreliable UGC. In some circumstances, it might be appropriate to include a “courtesy link” to the UGC as part of the citation… but the citation itself should point to the RS. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim, no. It's just UGC regurgitated by a substantially-less-than-NYT caliber of source (The Daily Dot), and I wanged to see if there was any institutionalized or codified rule that explicitly allowed or prohibited UGC-washing via marginal-or-better sources. If there isn't, I'll manage it from here. Thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we cite reliable articles on changes within user aggregate websites?

As an example, someone added a section to the Wikipedia article on the album to To Pimp a Butterfly, mentioning how it became the highest rated album on the music user aggregate website Rate Your Music. [1] This was removed. Then, it was readded into the article [2] and it is currently still on the article. Now, the source does not actually source the website itself, but an article from NME about the website: https://www.nme.com/news/music/kendrick-lamars-to-pimp-a-butterfly-overtakes-radioheads-ok-computer-as-top-rated-album-on-rate-your-music-3391372. Are we allowed to cite things like this, or should this not be on the article? ALittleClass (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ALittleClass, and welcome to Wikipedia.

If nme.com is a reliable source (e.g., a music magazine), then that source can be used for that kind of information. If you need help figuring out whether it's a reliable source, then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to ask.

Even if it is a reliable source, people have to work together to decide whether it should be included. For example, you wouldn't want a lot of random trivia in an article, even if you had a reliable source saying something like 'The name is an anagram for "Fruity Applet Tomb"'. That wouldn't be encyclopedic content. So it's possible that even though it's a reliable source, people would decide, e.g., that it was too promotional and spammy to feel encyclopedic. If you need help figuring out whether to include it, then the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard could be a good place to ask for help.

Alternatively, no matter what the question is, you can always start a discussion at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Nutshell

Currently the {{Nutshell}} for this page is:

Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the referencing for beginners help page.

To me this is equivalent to saying "as long as I put a <ref>Random link from the internet</ref> after the statement I am good to go".

From memory the relationship between verifiability (policy) and reliable sources (guideline) has been tumultuous, but the policy prominently links here, so for now I suggest simply removing the nutshell until something more representative of this guideline can be developed. This will at least force reading of the first paragraph. Commander Keane (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If we had an actual definition of reliable source, then that would be a natural thing to put in the nutshell. But we don't. (We have a description of some qualities that are usually present in reliable sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Editors need to be able to justify why a source is credible for supporting a particular claim".

This emphasizes:

• That sources can only be said to be reliable for specific claims, and
• Reliability cannot be asserted but must be evidenced, including by attributes

Weaknesses:

• Somewhat awkward language
• Uses the word source. What a source is should ideally be identified in the nutshell as it has various definitions that confuse editors (e.g. some may read source as New York Times, others may read source as attributed claim about biomedical information in a New York Times article from 1981)
• It is a necessary but not sufficient condition that credibility be justified (e.g. quality of justification, counter-considerations, editor consensus). It may, however, be fine for a nutshell, and may be resolved by appending "well" to justify, although this may make it confusing and vague.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

"Each book, article, or other source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports. In case of a dispute, editors need to be able to explain why they relied on that source."

Credibility mostly never gets justified, because mostly everyone agrees. We only need justifications when there is a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the "each book, article or other source" part. I understand that credibility mostly never gets explicitly justified, and that it's important in a dispute, but disputes only arise because the justification is not obvious (or obviously sufficient). The justification is always necessary, even if not explicitly stated.

I think a bigger issue is I worded my suggestion to include credibility as a procedural matter: an editor inserting a source has to be able to justify why it's reliable for a statement, and also credibility as a descriptive matter: a sources continued inclusion is based on editorial consensus that such credibility is justified. If a sourced claim is in an article, untagged with template:better source needed, it is understood to be a reliable source for a claim. Your second sentence only covers the first. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the existence of a statement with a ref ("Elephants are mammals") means that the source is reliable for that claim. Statistically, it seems to be true most of the time, but we do see untagged instances such as "Elephants are mammals^{[lousy source]}". Frequently, all it means is that nobody has noticed that it's a lousy source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I may have overstepped. I think changing to your suggested nutshell would be an immediate improvement. My thinking was an application of WP:EDITCON: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" including the edits source being adequately reliable.

I do still think the nutshell for reliable source should cover sources that have been deemed reliable through explicit discussion and not just tell from the perspective of an initial editorial judgement. Maybe adding after "whether the source ultimately is considered reliable for a given statement is determined through consensus generated by such a dispute" would resolve this. Maybe it's not necessary or overly wordy. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

In re "sources that have been deemed reliable through explicit discussion", are you thinking about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discussions (which may be "GUNREL" in the general case but totally unreliable for some particular claim), or are you thinking about, e.g., a discussion on the talk page about the specific source+claim combination? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The latter. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The nutshell has been updated and I am now very comfortable linking new editors to this page. If there wasn't consensus to change it I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Consensus' generalist non-summary nutshell approach, but that isn't needed. Commander Keane (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source"

Does that include things like WP:UGC?

Editors ought to clarify what they mean when they speak of a source: a source ...for what? Reliable...in establishing what? Selbsportrait (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Selbsportrait, you might get a more relevant answer if you tell us what situation prompted your question. Since I don't feel like looking through your Special:Contributions right now, here are a few things that might (or might not) be helpful:

• The phrase "a wikilink is not a reliable source" means that it's not good enough to write N"The population of Canada is 40 million people", and think to yourself "well, if people want to check whether that number is completely made up, then they can go look for the refs in Population of Canada". Instead, you have to actually add the little blue clicky number: Y"The population of Canada is 40 million people" in the article where you wrote that sentence. (You can copy the ref from Population of Canada, but you can't make your article depend on the continued existence/non-vandalism of sources in Population of Canada.)
• When we talk about UGC sources, we're mostly talking about other websites, like social media posts, a Fandom (website), or an individual uploading something to Flickr or YouTube. https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Muppet_Wiki may be a thing of beauty and a joy for ever, but you should basically never put that link into little blue clicky numbers here at the English Wikipedia.
• Yes, there is confusion about whether a source is reliable (a general category) or reliable-for (what this guideline is more concerned about). The most gold-plated high-quality source you can imagine can only be reliable-for a relatively small number of statements, and even terrible sources can be reliable-for a specific claim (e.g., "he posted this on social media"). I have, in the past, suggested that the general category be called "reputable", but I doubt that it will ever catch on.

If none of that helps, then please tell us more about what you need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The situation is this:

The reason why I read WP:UGC is related to a situation where a Reddit AMA has been deleted because of that. If a guy himself (he identified himself properly) says he's the #14 employee at his company, I see no reason why not to trust him. At worse we could clarify that it's what he says.

To never cite first-person reports only weakens the wiki. So far I tried to do without it, as I don't like having to negotiate the obvious. But these rules kept being misapplied, and so realized I could help to clarify them.

So I started reading these pages. And now I read WP:UGC, in it there is "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source". Then I realized that the guidelines we have may be inconsistent.

I like your concept of reputability. It helps in showing that sometimes, citing sources like Fox News or the Daily Mail makes a lot of sense. It also helps clarify why we usually don't cite blog comments (we don't know who wrote them), but sometimes we could (it may happen that we do, and they can be trusted about stuff they have no reason to lie about). Selbsportrait (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A Reddit AMA could be used as a reference in two instances. The first is WP:ABOUTSELF, as long as the comments are about the individual themself about themself not about any third-party and isn't unduly self-serving. The second is when the individual is a recognised expert in their field who has been previously published by other independent sources, see WP:SPS. There are many caveats and edge cases, most of the time sourcing something to a better source is just easier.
Also as in the case of someone being the 14 employee of a company, if no secondary source has noted it then it may not be WP:DUE but that's a matter of NPOV rarher than reliability. If someone has removed the content you could try opening a discussion on the article's talk page, and see if other editor agrees with the inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The comments from the Brian Bjelde in this source:

BB2Mars (2016-08-02). "I am SpaceX employee #14, aerospace engineer, and VP of Human Resources. Ask me anything!" (Reddit Post). r/spacex. Retrieved 2025-04-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

are not user-generated content. This should be treated as self-published. It may also be helpful to read Wikipedia:Interviews. But at some level, if this guy posted the same thing on social media, we'd accept it, and there is no reason to reject it just because it's an interview on Reddit page that requires interviewees to prove their identities in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll address both in one go -

I get that it's easier to think about a specific case, but I'm more interested in correcting the claim that a wikilink is not a reliable source. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. It depends on the support we expect or need from it. The same source can be reliable for some things and unreliable for others. The whole idea of excluding a specific source (like Reddit) because of some blanket assertion that it's not reliable is utterly misguided.

I suppose that the editor who wrote "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source" wanted to convey the idea that a wikilink isn't authoritative. That would work: Wikipedia isn't authoritative, in the sense that it has no author, thus no authority behind it. That includes guidelines, essays, but also policies, like the one I'm challenging.

Appealing to a policy means little if we are unable to explain them. Citing a page doesn't replace an explanation. How can any well-reasoned consensus be reached when everyone simply argue by assertion?

As for the Reddit case, I simply cited a source that cites the AMA itself. On it we can see Bjelde's photo, which establishes that it's really him that is responding to comments. Which makes sense, considering that the AMA served as a recruiting effort.

But now we're stuck in the same "paradox" as with legal documents: we can cite pieces that cite court cases, but not the court cases themselves. The only way to solve that pickle is to cite both, to recognize that citations work together, and that are often used to support very mundane claims! Selbsportrait (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. This is a wikilink: Example. This is not a wikilink: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4vt74k/i_am_spacex_employee_14_aerospace_engineer_and_vp/ (it is a URL).

The Reddit AMA source cannot be excluded by any statement against wikilinks, because the Reddit AMA source is not a wikilink. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a wikilink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UGC

This wikilink is used as justification to reject citations on the wiki, for instance an AMA.

But if "a wikilink is not a reliable source", how can we use a wikilink as an editorial justification? Selbsportrait (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UGC is a wikilink.

The community's rule at Wikipedia:UGC should not have been used to reject the Reddit AMA page. The person who rejected it either shouldn't have rejected the content, or they should have given a different justification for rejecting it (such as WP:SPS, if they felt that it was unduly self-serving). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Then we can extend that reasoning:

No wikilink can ever be used as a justification for an editorial decision.

And that also applies to WP:SPS! Selbsportrait (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not the link that is the justification that justifies an editorial decision. It's the rule itself that justifies editorial decisions. See Map-territory distinction if the difference between "here's a link" and "The community has a rule that..." is unclear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Very good. How then can a link be source if it's only a map?

See Metonymy to know why your distinction doesn't work. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A link is a pointer. The text you're referencing says that a wikilink like this one does not substitute for a full citation to a source. But an edit can be justified by pointing (wikilinking) to a policy or guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The text I'm quoting is in the section "User-generated content". The first paragraph says that "Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources." The second provides examples of user-generated content websites. The third discusses review aggregators. The fourth discusses wikilinks.

Even if you're right, the text should be revised to state that citing wiki pages using the usual "ref" format is fine. But that's clearly not what the text says: any reasonable reader would infer from that section that user-generated content is generally unacceptable, and wiki pages never are. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Some kinds of webpages are not reliable sources. You should not cite an unreliable source (e.g., 'using the usual "ref" format') in a Wikipedia article.
  • Citing Wikipedia's own articles to support content in other articles is not okay (with some exceptions – that's why the rule says "generally" instead of "always").
  • Citing pages at non-Wikipedia wikis (NB: Reddit is not a wiki) to support content in Wikipedia articles is not okay (with some exceptions – that's why the rule says "generally" instead of "always").
  • Citing pages at websites that are not technically wikis but are still user-generated (such as most of Reddit) to support content in Wikipedia articles is not okay (with some exceptions – that's why the rule says "generally" instead of "always").
• Talking to editors on wiki is not the same as using a source.
  • Telling editors that the Wikipedia community has some rules, by giving them a link directly pointing to a relevant rule, is helpful.
  • Putting a link to policy, guideline, or other informative or rule-focused page or section, such as WP:UGC, in an edit summary or in a talk-page discussion is not using it as a source. WP:UGC is concerned about whether a given webpage is acceptable as a "source" (e.g., 'using the usual "ref" format') WP:UGC says nothing at all against a link that is not used as a "source".
  • Providing a link to one of Wikipedia's advice pages is much more helpful than telling an editor that a relevant rule exists, and that they're welcome to read several hundred policies and guidelines to figure out where the rule is (or whether it even exists).
  • If someone said that WP:UGC bans using https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4vt74k/i_am_spacex_employee_14_aerospace_engineer_and_vp/ as a a reliable source, if the Reddit AMA link is placed between ref tags in a Wikipedia article, then that editor was unfortunately wrong.
  • The way to deal with that editor's unfortunate mistake is not to complain about WP:UGC being "a wikilink". The way to deal with that editor's unfortunate mistake is to start a discussion on the article's talk page.

If you are still struggling with the distinction between "Someone put WP:UGC between <ref> tags in a Wikipedia article" and "Someone gave me a link to WP:UGC to explain why they reverted me", then please provide a diff of someone giving you a link WP:UGC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are still struggling with a short section with four simple paragraphs, then perhaps we should edit it. We should edit it even if you didn't either. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm also struggling with your point. This policy applies only to article content, so the UGC part also only applies to article content. Someone putting a wikilink in an edit summary isn't covered. Am I misunderstanding your concern? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If by "wikilink" we're not referring to content, then it has no business in a section that discusses and lists various types of dynamic content.

Besides, if we're to write policy pages with examples, we might as well take the time to explain why these policies are in place. One could say that we shouldn't cite webpages are so dynamic that it's hard to point to a specific "state". By itself, that's a pretty good reason not to cite them: verifiability rests on persistent information. There are other reasons, of course: like I said earlier, the lack of authorship makes it hard to appeal to an authority. We could also add that the casual overtones (irony, shitposting, exaggeration) can make it hard to attribute sincere beliefs on online personas. I'm sure we can think of many other reasons. Many have already been discussed on this page.

Talk pages are meant to discuss ways to make the pages better. The whole point of citing these policies should be that people can know the reasons *why* they're verboten. From understanding comes better editorial practices. Being told that most of the times dynamic pages can't be cited tells nothing: it amounts to pure conditioning, whereby editors don't cite Reddit because there's a page that says not to.

Can I edit the page the same way I can edit the wiki? Selbsportrait (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like Chesterton's Fence applies, so I would expect any such edits to get reverted.

The point of policies and guidelines is to let editors know what the usual rules are – what, not why. The reasons *why* are usually handled in Wikipedia:Essays, assuming anyone thinks it's worth explaining.

Could you please provide a diff that shows what triggered your interest in WP:UGC? I think you are confusing several things (e.g., UGC has nothing to do with "dynamic" webpages, as there's nothing inherent in user-generated content that requires it to be dynamic), and it might be clearer to me what's going on if you provide a link to the background. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no specific trigger, just astonishment at seeing people justifying their actions by citing pages void of justification. That's inconsistent with how the wiki is actually working.

As for reverts, I'll take my chances. For now, there's a single sentence that can't do the work of a whole paragraph all by itself. There's really no need to overprotect it: let's make it better instead. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So your problem is:

• People tell you "Here's the rule"
• But when you read the rule, it doesn't also explain why the rule ought to exist.
• So you think the rule is bad, or at least badly written.

Do you expect the actual laws in your jurisdiction to provide written justifications for why, e.g., murder is a crime or the tax deadline is on a certain day? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My actual problem is:

• People tell people "I did that because of this page"
• This page does not support that "because"
• You think you can alternate between feigning ignorance and reading my mind.

Do you think being this patronizing helps? Selbsportrait (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't find the explanation patronizing. On the contrary, it seems to be the case that you're confused about and/or misusing our terminology in a way that is making your point incomprehensible, you're being repeatedly told that's the case and being asked to provide examples, which you're apparently unwilling or unable to do, and let's be honest -- you're being just as patronizing and snarky in your own responses. Perhaps reframe your approach in the context of a specific problem or improvement you'd like to make, rather than forcing everyone else to figure out what you mean with this game of 20 questions? What specific text would you like changed, in the format of "Change X to Y"? I've been following this conversation for a couple of days now and it's still completely unclear to me what you're asking for here -- consider that if multiple people find your arguments this confusing, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with us? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I sure will reframe my approach. In fact I already said so: I will edit and stop talking. But before that, here is the first guideline I read in the list of content guidelines that we have.

No need for rhetorical question to say that it does not look like tax code to me. All the paragraphs in it are well-formed, and the conditions are justified well enough. Note in particular Images from non-scientific print or online media should be treated with caution, because editors at these publications likely lack scientific expertise, the kind of sentences I'm being told should not appear in guidelines. There's even a good synthetic example at the end that repeats the criteria sought in good sources: informative, minimal speculation, primarily depicting known features.

Be seeing you. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes providing an explanation will help editors correctly understand when/how to apply a rule. We have no rule prohibiting clarifying or explanatory content. We also have no rule requiring such explanations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I see two ways to interpret your bullet points above:

• People say "I did that because of this page"
• But when I get to 'This page', 'This page' says they shouldn't do that.
• Example: The rule says not to use user-generated webpages as cited sources in articles. However, the editor put a link to a Wikipedia article in ref tags and said that the rule recorded at WP:UGC supports citing Wikipedia articles as sources in articles.

or

• People say "I did that because of this page"
• But when I get to 'This page', 'This page' says only that there is a rule. 'This page' gives the rule but does not say why there is a rule. Surely people are not following rules just because the rules exist? People should only follow rules if there is a justification for the rule on the same page as the rule.
• Example: The rule says not to use user-generated webpages as cited sources in articles. An editor removed such a link, saying that the rule is against it. However, another editor said that rule is invalid and cannot be applied because the rule only says "Don't do it" when (according to this editor) it ought to say "Don't do it because _____".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The heading of this thread is '"In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source"'. I'm using both single quotes because I'm quoting the thread title, and the heading contains quote marks. What the first post fails to explain is that the quote comes from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content which can be accessed with the shortcut WP:UGC.

The "Reliable sources" guideline states in the lead

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Therefore, the statement in the "User-generated content" section must be understood to only apply to sources used within Wikipedia articles. Articles can be distinguished from other pages because the name of the pages does not start with a phrase before a colon. So pages beginning Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, or Talk: are not articles and the reliable sources guideline does not apply to them.

Confining our attention to Wikipedia articles, wikilink is a term of art used in Wikipedia discussions (such as talk pages) meaning a link to Wikipedia pages, including both articles and other pages. WP:UCG is a wikilink. The page it points to is not usually a reliable source, so generally should not be used in an article to support content article. But edit summaries are not part of an article, so an edit summary could refer to WP:UCG. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)