Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62

WorldNetDaily does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily currently enjoys credentialed representation to the White House as a news organization. Is the White House Press Office in the business of entertaining representatives of media organizations deemed by them or by the journalistic community to be an "unreliable source" in fact reporting? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Say what? I'm not sure what the requirements of the "White House Press Office" are, but permission to sit in one of the 49 seats at the press briefings is administered by the White House Correspondents' Association. "Reliability" is not one of their requirements — they only require that a correspondent pay dues; be employed by a publication or network that regularily covers the White House; and not be also employed by public relations, lobbying or securities firms (See Membership requirements). Your comment misleads in that it fails to note that Les Kinsolving, the White House Press Correspondent for Talk Radio, and more recently, also WND, has been a WH Correspondent since long before WND existed (See his Bio). Kinsolving pays his dues just like the correspondents from Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight.Com, Politico and over one hundred other outlets. Good credentials aren't really required even for the opportunity to be present during the briefings - in fact, one-time day passes are frequently issued, and total imposters using pseudonyms have been known to attend. It is interesting to note that the WHCA, when assigning the limited, prestigious seating to more established correspondents, refers to Kinsolving by his Talk Radio association, instead of his WND association (You may find this an interesting read, too), although WND is listed in the membership rolls. The short answer to your question is: No, being a member of the Press Corps is not in any way an indication of a publisher's reliability - though it certainly doesn't hurt one's image. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Say who? But first, welcome back to the discussion. Before commenting on several elements of your observations, I did, indeed, find your cited article to be an interesting read but, given your assertions above, the following from that same article seems, on its face, to be rather contradictory...

It's worth pointing out that the WHCA doesn't decide who can be in the briefing room. Losing a seat is not the same as losing access.

Do you have any thoughts or further clarification to offer on 538.com's observation? If the WHCA doesn't decide "who can be in the briefing room", then who does? According to the WHCA website, an "...applicant must have permanent White House press credentials". Are those not issued by the White House Press Office? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No contradiction at all. The White House Press Office decides who gets into the room (day passes & hard passes), and the WHCA further decides who gets a seat in that room (translation: gets called upon to ask a question of the Press Secretary). Anyone with a name and social security number can get into the room, and getting a permanent WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter). See this link and this Wikiarticle for more insight. You'll note Kinsolving is not part of this more stringent membership, nor is WND (See Membership Rosters), but I assume Kinsolving got his hard pass to the WH briefing room long before they began requiring the Capitol Hill press gallery verification. My ultimate point remains: signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization.

I never left the conversation, by the way. I've been bumping this thread with periodic comments in the hope that new editors will see it and add their input, and I've also bee quietly observing your discussions on the RSN talk page; your edits to the WND article; your sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article; etc. I took particular note of your suggestion that we should look to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources as a guide for resolving this WND discussion, but I see that it ultimately refers us back here to RS/N to obtain community consensus. Does this mean that a source (WND) cannot be definitively described as a reliable or unreliable source, but instead each instance of it's use needs to be evaluated by whatever handful of editors are watching here when the issue is raised? I know no source is infallible, but why do I not see citations to the Wall Street Journal brought here with the frequency of WND citations? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your making note of my "sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article" and I encourage anyone to take a look. However, it is neither a "sandbox" nor a "rewrite", but a "sub-page" (as is, I believe, recommended by Wikipedia talk page guidelines) and a highlighted reproduction (not necessarily up-to-date as is noted quite clearly in the header). --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I aggree with your "NPOV disaster" assessment, and while you may not consider it relevant to this discussion, I mentioned it because the WND citations in that article are the very reason I am in this discussion. I realize now that was not evident. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, if I might proceed to something relevant to a determination of WND RS (and limiting my comments to one observation at a time), as to...

WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter).

Unfortunately, you neglected to note Part II of the process as is clearly defined in the followup story on the WHCA/WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan meeting referred to in the E&P article you cited (highlights mine)...

Although no changes to the system were discussed at the meeting, some WHCA members had said prior to the meeting that a number of potential changes were being considered. Those included tighter restrictions on who can receive daily press passes, such as those Guckert had obtained, and a more active role by the WHCA in approving requests for credentials, which are now solely handed out by the White House Press Office.

Currently, two types of press passes are issued. The "hard pass," which allows reporters regular ongoing access to the White House, and "day passes," which must be issued each morning and are good only for one day. Hard passes are more difficult to obtain, requiring the reporter to first obtain a Capitol Hill credential, issued by a committee of congressional reporters known as the Standing Committee of Correspondents.

If obtaining permanent White House press credentials is a 2-part process (at least as of Feb 2005) in which the WHCA plays NO (at least apparent) part, then for what purpose did you inject what appears to be irrelevant comments related to WHCA's post-White House credentialing activity? What aspect of my initial observation is it supposed to question, qualify or rebut? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Neglected to note?" Quite the contrary, you just repeated to me exactly what I had written. I've "bolded" sections of my previous comment to clarify, for your benefit. As for my purpose in explaining all of the above, I thought I was clear on that as well: You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not. Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving, I am assuming - was there another?) are members of the Capitol Hill gallery, nor have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process. (Phone calls to both the Capitol Hill Standing Committee and the White House Correspondents Association confirmed this, and gave me the additional information that: "While Congressional Press Gallery credentials are helpful, they are not required for WHCA membership or a permanent Briefing Room pass." Go figure. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving,...have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process.

...which, as you have so admirably reported, has apparently moved into maiden aunt territory inre the issuance of WH "hard passes". Perhaps the Capitol Hill Standing Committee can throw a better annual bash than the WHCA.

Quite surprisingly, given the seeming media impetus reflected in the 2 articles above, WHCA/CHSC influence over the process has apparently regressed even further than in 2005, probably much to their chagrin, and WHPO control over the process now reigns supreme. My compliments on your effort in undertaking a rather above-and-beyond pursuit of horse's mouth sourcing and your forthrightness in reporting the "news". Now, as much as I'd enjoy more rhetorical jockeying until we beat this to a fare-thee-well (if we haven't already), I'll forego that pleasure and (again) attempt a return to something perhaps more productive and your now twice-stated yet barely addressed "ultimate point": "...signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization."

You stated...

You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not.

On an assumption that what we're about here is attempting to establish some valid, examinable, referable, consistent markers that might lend themselves to a legitimate consideration of WND RS, I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy, not as some de facto, case closed proof of "reliability". Yet you appear to dismiss it out-of-hand, as an invalid, irrelevant indicy after spending some considerable time trumpeting the crucible of journalistic integrity that was once a "Capitol Hill accreditation process"' and which assumedly is still applied with some considerable vigor, only by a different, perhaps more pragmatic examiner. While I'm tempted to suggest that an RFC on your rather amazing assertion (at least to me) might prove interesting (better make sure Huffpo and TPMites are occupied elsewhere tho), I'd sure be interested in some observations within THIS space on your "ultimate point". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a lot of words. I like these: "I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy ... of "reliability".

My response was to clarify that it is, pending any forthcoming sources from you indicating otherwise, Kinsolving that has "permanent accreditation", not World Net Daily. He has held that status since before WND existed, and he'll hold it long after his agreements with Talk Radio and WND expire (as long as he is employeed somewhere that covers White House news). Neither Kinsolving or WND have been through the Capitol Hill accreditation process, or any similar vetting through the WHPO or WHCA, that might provide "an indicy of reliability". Other opinions, sources and observations are welcome, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, let's remove Kinsolving/WND from the equation for the moment. In your opinion, is White House Press Office permanent accreditation a legitimate indicy for consideration when making a determination of WP:RS "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability" for ANY media entity? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite, and with the others below: World Net Daily doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards expected of most journalistic entities. It is non-RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To state that WND "doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards..." and "It is non-RS" with nothing additional offered to evidence the validity of those assertions relegates observations such as those to unsupported opinion. Assuming this noticeboard exercise to be something more substantive than vote-casting for your personal position, citing a specific instance(s) that might evidence the validity of an assertion of WND "fact-checking and accuracy unreliability" would be considerably more substantive and, perhaps, advance the assumed purpose of this discussion.

I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The publishing of "controversial articles" isn't, as far as I know, a benchmark for determining whether a source meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source - so your vetting of that section of the World Net Daily article in search of justification for WND's "unreliable" reputation may have been in vain. Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your forthrightness and, if I understand your position correctly, you are at least open to and are supportive of an examination and consideration of the/any factual basis upon which this "consensus" determination of WND "unreliability" under WP:RS guidelines is based. I believe (as I think you agree) that recurring episodes of RS/N vote-tallying offering little or no substantive support for the conflicting positions offers no opportunity for progress towards resolution of even a temporary nature. Perhaps, on that seeming point of agreement, I'll yield the floor for any further observations on that point by interested editors. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, we can find fault with everyone from the NY Times (see Jayson Blair) to NBC (like exploding pickup trucks). If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The question was not "Are sources 100% faultless?", but "Does WND meet the required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight to be considered a reliable source?" Your two examples illustrate exactly why I would rely on content from NYT or Dateline NBC, and not from WND. Follow the links you provided and observe how heads rolled; editors, producers, even presidents were fired for the transgressions; lengthy apologies were issued; investigations were launched and new processes and procedures were implemented to prevent similar problems - because they do have standards. Show me a similar display of concern for journalist integrity from WND. Aside from quietly issuing a "correction" or disclaiming responsibility for opinions and commentary, I don't believe WND has ever shown the expected responsibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In what instances, "exactly", did WND fail to demonstrate the "required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight" that you assert. Surely, if their record in that regard is so egregiously bereft of the "journalistic oversight" required by WP:RS, at least a few citable occurences should come to mind? What, exactly, are they? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda. Things that you could take for granted in a more reliable source, like stating a person's occupation, affiliation, educational status, are questionable here. In most cases, if it's noteworthy enough to put in an article a statement should have a better source than WND. It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes, but for the most part if it appears only in WND or if WND contradicts reliable sources, I would discount the likelihood that WND has presented a fair account. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• And yet we routinely use advocacy groups (Media Matters for example) or media outlets with a clear bias (Huffington Post) as sources. It is not an uncommon believe that much of the mainstream media has a bias/agenda of their own. As Blueboar said below, it's about context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times... and each time we have stated the same thing: As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question, which needs to be asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What "final answer"? This final answer has been given over and over again. WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself. Woogee (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Woogee, that is precisely the issue below. WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, by anyone's standards, that a reasonable and legitimate indicy of the reliability or reputability of any publication is the participation of noted journalists/commentators who choose to associate their name, professional reputation and standing within the journalism community with the publication in question. Just for the record, here's a few who contribute their work to WND...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press. It somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" within the established journalistic community. It is inconceiveable that the wholesale repudiation of WND as an RS under Wikipedia guidelines should or could even be considered. That is POV at its worst. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way...

They are columnists", if you prefer, by anyone's definition, and "columnists" are "journalists"...or do you now propose to edit Wikipedia in support of your assertion? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Oh, wait - I just checked, and while all of the above have Wikipedia articles, none of them are described as journalists, so no editing necessary. User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course not. It would be redundant to say they are a columnist and journalist. But if you look at the article about journalist's, you'll see " A columnist is a journalist who writes pieces that appear regularly in newspapers or magazines.". And in the article columnist you'll read "A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated". So I guess you DO have some editing to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume there's a point in there somewhere, but perhaps it's some nuanced attempt at hair-splitting that simply eludes me. You asserted that none of those "political commentators" (by anyone's definition, "columnists") "are not journalists". Wikipedia says you are mistaken...as probably do many other sources. Your error appears to be rather evident. Perhaps you might care to clarify? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"none of those political commentators are not journalists?" Does that mean they are? Never said it, and I'm not sure I even understand it. For my actual point, see below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. An actual typo and a failed attempt to quote (you did note the quotes?) your text. I regret and apologize for the confusion it has subjected you to. Fixed --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted! Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that you might be as forthcoming with an actual response. Your assertion that the aforementioned "political commentators"/"columinists" are not "journalists" is, by definition, demonstrably false...and you need journey no farther than Wikipedia for the evidence. As your premise is false, so goes your assertion that those notable "political commentators"/"columnists" don't represent an association of credentialed and credible "journalists" with WND. You then stand by your flawed definition (to paraphrase your "opinion" below) and suggest dismissal of those established associations as irrelevant to a consideration of WND RS.

Nor does your unsupported OPINION that they are unwillingly associated with WND, victimized by the nature of their syndicatation arrangements, pass the smell test. My OPINION is that most, if not ALL, of those "journalists", particularly those who are "household names" in the medium, could opt out of WND publication in a New York minute. They are associated because they opt to be there.

...'journalist', regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard.

That's a straw man. Nobody here suggested it was a "requirement".

All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements.

Your opinion. I believe it to be HIGHLY indicative of WND's stature in the journalism community and, consequently, HIGHLY relevant to any re-consideration of WND/Wikipedia RS. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An "actual response" to what? I stand by my comments; you've offered your opinions (I assume this is still JakeInJoisey?); and I've accepted your apology. Is there something new? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you are missing the point. Look at the specific example below. If Jerome Corsi (or Chuck Norris) says something in WND, the question here isn't whether or not you don't find what they said to be true (or if you just don't like it), but whether or not it was said in WND. And WND is most certainly a reliable source for whether or not they printed something. This complaining about WP:UNDUE etc is not an issue for RSN. Go fight that battle at BLPN or on the articles talk page. And while you are so flippant in your dismissal of Chuck Norris, I could think of a number of topics he could be a very good source for besides exercise equipment. Probably more topics than either you or I. BTW, you have a stilted definition of what a journalist is. Opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. Journalists are not solely "reporters". Using the correct definition (not your myopic one), Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist and author of 7 best selling books) is a journalist. So is Jerome Corsi (author of 2 best sellers), Dennis Prager (syndicated columnist and best selling author), Bill Press (former TV reporter, author) and even Chuck Norris (author of a book on current events/issues) are all journalists.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have a stilted/myopic definition of journalist? Opinion writers are journalists? Chuck Norris is a journalist? Corsi is a journalist because he published 2 political agitprop books during presidential elections, and they sold? Come again? You'll excuse me if I stick to my myopic interpretation of what journalism is, thanks. From the link you provided: "Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility," and "...they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good." Oh, I get it... I'm being punk'd. Good one, you got me! ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Laugh all you want.....on your way to edit the article about journalist, since that article says opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. I'm sure you'd want to correct it, wouldn't you? But hey, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Merriam Websters dictionary is though. They say a journalist is "a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience". Don't synidcated columnists and writers of best sellers not only aim for, but actually reach, a mass audience? And if they are writing for WND, they are writing for a news medium. Or wait, let's ask the US Government what a journalist is: "Some journalists also interpret the news or offer opinions to readers, viewers, or listeners. In this role, they are called commentators or columnists.". Maybe you'd like some other references. Or maybe you'll just accept that a "journalist" doesn't mean "reporter" and move along. And don't hand me the ethics definition and expect me to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that you would call folks at Dateline NBC "journalists", despite the number of times that program has been caught doing unethical things. Or Dan Rather and the forged paperwork? Stephen Glass was caught serially fabricating and still managed to get work as a journalist again. The ideals of a profession aren't always the reality of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neither of your cited sources contradict what I have said. Perhaps you should, as you suggest, move along - since "journalist", regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Using your standards, I, too, can find citations supporting the notion that The National Enquirer and The Onion are bastions of journalism because they cover current events, or that J. K. Rowling is a journalist because she penned a best-selling book. No, I'll stick to my interpretation of journalism, thanks. While you are correct that the ideals of a profession aren't always the reality; the actual issue at hand is the difference between sources that try to meet those ideals versus sources that flout those ideals. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• So stick with your definition. It matters little to me if you want to base your views on an overly narrow and outdated point of view. Just remember that 15 years ago, nobody would have considered anyone publishing on solely on the internet to be a journalist, yet we have case law protecting them as journalists now. I'll progress with the times. Say hello to 1950 for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I intend to stick with the definition; your launches down unrelated tangents notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• WND has a reputation, and it is very much not for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say no, not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things have "reputations". But the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago John Edwards was Clark Kent. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the question does not still remain, as it as been answered repeatedly to the point of ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "question" is...is there anything substantive, beyond mere opinion, within those "ad nauseum" repetitions of "answers" that might make a case for WND unreliability. Thus far, save for one instance 10 years ago, nothing else has been cited. Perhaps you might have a contribution in that regard? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Funny you should mention him. I remember that battle here when the Enquirer or Star (I forget which) broke the story about his affairs. They can't be trusted. They suck. They aren't reliable. They were right....and the first ones to cover the story. (No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need.)

• There is no contradiction between not being a reliable source and being "right" on a particular story – a stopped (12-hour analog) clock is right twice a day, but is hardly reliable overall. Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability, but one or two successes doesn't make a source any more reliable than the stopped clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't imply there was a contradiction. In fact I thought I was pretty clear when I said "No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need". I just pointed out a coincidence that happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this clear... the only reason to do a blanket across the board deletion of a source is when it is placed on the Wikipedia black list.... and we never put sources on the black list because of reliability/unreliability (the black list is for spam sites, links that pass on viruses, etc.). Every citation to a source... even the most unreliable source... needs to be examined and challenged seperately. This because the context of how it is used, and exactly what it is supporting is vital in determining whether it is reliable or not. The exact same source may be fully reliable in one article and completely unreliable in another... because the context is different. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source, since it is generally accepted that WND may be cited in cases of opinion specifically relating to WND, for example. Each instance of usage should be evaluated separately. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• And thats what I did but I think people are upset that consensus will lead to minimal use of this source in only niche cases... its like TMZ or the Weekly World News. Sometimes good, often not. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody is upset about that. The whole reason I got involved in this is the one we are talking about specifically, which should be left. They can reliably source what they've printed, so if you want to source what someone saind in their publication (as in the case of Mercer), they can be used. But you removed it a number of times. BTW, I never hear the mainstream media reference Weekly World News, I do often hear them reference TMZ. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• So there IS consensus then except from Jake, but we don't have a filibuster here, so he's out. Its only reliable to say Jon Osterman said such and such on my own article, but not for anything else. So if Chuck Norris calls me a communist on WND, we will never use WND as a source for that. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is almost as good (or as bad) as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source. Doing so is disruptive.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, there is consensus here that WND is fundamentally not suitable under WP:RS and you're spinning that. But who wants to completely remove it? For every one I nuked correctly yesterday I was leaving 1 or 2. But then you have situations like this nasty bit where it's publications are used as secondary sources in a BLP... it can't be used. It will come out as we find them per this consensus. Since I also read up on consensus, it doesn't ever have to be unanimous, so we're good. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• One that you removed is the one we are talking about and there is not a consensus that it should be removed. Even some who generally disapprove of WND conceed that they can be used as a source as so what they've printed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We could care less about what they publish, anyone can register a site and churn out blog posts. But for example these two removals: are fine even though they're events invoked by other sources. It doesn't make WND any more reliable.

• You do know that they print a magazine too, don't you? That's a little more involved than just having a blog, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot has been said here relative to WND and its stature, or lack of, as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia guidelines. Unfortunately, as I've read these opinions, no one here has thus far addressed any specifics of just why WND is still to be treated as though it still wears the "scarlet letter" of "unreliable journalism". It's about time to lance that boil and take a look at some "facts" about this purported "consensus" on WND unreliability.

Were this "given" to be substantive, surely the rationale for its application would be evident. But where to look for that "rationale". How about the "Controversial Stories" section in the Wikipedia WND article itself? Would that not be THE legitimate source to support an allegation of WND "unreliability"?

Let's take a look at those purported "Controversies"....at ALL of them...

9/11 attacks - Controversial "commentary" published by a contributing author subsequently described by WND Editor-in-chief, Joseph Farah, as "tasteless and ill-advised" suggesting it should not have been published without "...a little more thought and reflection." Is there a current Wikipedia RS media entity that hasn't experienced a journalistic faux pas of this nature? Can we at least stipulate that "commentaries" by guest-writers have little bearing on a purported news entity's reliability as a factual source?

Valerie Plame Leak - On November 5, 2005, WND factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) the comments of Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely referencing his recollections of conversations pertaining to Valerie Plame's CIA work and then, on November 8, factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) that Vallely, on further reflection, has amended his recollections.

Now, one might reasonably take Vallely to task for his changing recollections, but how, exactly, does this somehow translate into "unreliable" reportage by World Net Daily?

Middle East reporting - This one is a beauty. WND hires a bureau chief in Jerusalem who is criticized by "ConWebWatch, a website critical of conservative new media" as being allegedly pro-Israeli. Continuing in Wikipedia, "When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in northern Israel on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians" after the shooting, although he also mentioned that police called the shooting a "Jewish terror attack."

Leaving aside the notion that Zada actually WAS "murdered" (certainly by any western sense of jurisprudence) and that Klein also reported the description of the Natan-Zada attack as a "Jewish terror attack", this story is indicative of WND "unreliability"...how?

Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy - Looks like there's some needed editing in the WND article on this one...which states...

On December 3, 2006 a WND article said that: "Reports that KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko converted to Islam before his mysterious poisoning with radioactive polonium 210 is raising suspicions that he may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly substance to terrorist groups."[32] According to an article in The Times, apparently mentioning the WND article, the evidence for these suspicions was "gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour."

"...apparently mentioning the WND article"? Does this Wikipedia editor have difficulty reading? Here's what The Times commentary ACTUALLY mentioned...

"The evidence? Gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour. If it’s good enough for the Sunday Express..."

Now, did WND actually carry a story based on the Sunday Express reportage? Of course, and the source of that story was acknowledged. Despite the fact that the Wikipedia WND article misrepresents a "commentary" as a news "article" from The Times and whatever the motivation behind the investigation, WND's report that "Scotland Yard detectives are now trying to discover if Litvinenko had any secret links with Islamic extremist terror groups, the London Sunday Express is reporting" is factually accurate. How does this translate into WND "unreliability" as a source?

Anglo-Saxon identity - A commentary...I'll say no more

North American Union "conspiracy theories" - So WND takes an editorial position that sees merit in the views of one of its writers and author of a book on the subject, Jerome Corsi, that has been "disputed in the mainstream media". Apparently the "mainstream media" found the theory worthy of "dispute"...and that has bearing on WND's reliability as a reporter of fact...how?

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Perhaps someone can discover some WND factual error within this entry but I'm darned if I can. About the closest item to anything of relevance to WND RS might be the last item...

"On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist."

But is that what WND said, or did the Wikipedia editor take some shameful liberties with his paraphrase? Here's the [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 WND actual text] on the subject...from a story whose very title, "Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?" suggests something entirely different than the manufactured and bogus paraphrase noted above...

"California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication."

"Purports to be" hardly equates to "...claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained." What absolute bunk!

Now, let me skip to the last one quickly before addressing the "Libel "Lawsuit"...

Health care reform and Nazi concentration camps - Even if Corsi might arguably be guilty of over-the-top metaphorizing, is there an RS mainstream media entity immune from offerings of this type of rhetoric from its contributing reporters? Please.

Libel lawsuit - In the entire Wikipedia section on "Controversial Articles", this is the sole entry on WND that might legitimately have some bearing on WND RS. In 2008, in an out of court settlement, WND acknowledged that the publication of 2 stories, one on Sep 18th and another on Sep 20th, 2000, made assertions of fact damaging to plaintiff based upon "no verified information". Did they blow it on that one? Without question. Does a single case of lousy reporting, 10 years after the fact, still warrant the Wikipedia RS "reputation" that so many here want to continue to treat as a given? Is the record of CBS News over the last 10 years any better?

I should think not, and, for the sake of the reputation of this Wikipedia medium, "Good Faith" Wikipedia editors need to do a serious re-consideration of this "sacred cow" of WND "unreliability". It is POV motivated and sustained, and warrants abandonment here...pronto. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above. But I would like to add my voice to Jake's in pushing for a more substantitive, clear-cut description of WND's standing as a citable or uncitable source under various circumstances. This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn? Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? Are there media watchdog groups that have conducted evaluations of WND? Has Jimbo pronounced from on high his opinion of WND? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above.

Perhaps WND may have been legitimately perceived as "unreliable" at some point in its history, but one can't examine shadows of perceptions. Looking through prior recurrences of WND RS/N discussions (by no means exhaustive but including those you directed me to earlier on the Swift Boat Vet article talk page), I see no supporting evidence offered, save for the "libel lawsuit" a decade ago, that should preclude a re-consideration of the current validity of that "reputation".

A remark made earlier by User:Beyond My Ken is salient in that regard and, I'd submit, bears repeating here...(emphasis mine)

Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability...

In a decade of "fact reporting", a single, documented and substantiated error in fact-reporting 10 years ago should be "long haul" enough to warrant an RS re-consideration, would you not agree?

Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?

I appreciate your referencing this entry. I simply overlooked it...perhaps because of its rather odd location within the WorldNetDaily - Reach section. This probably warrants correction.

As to the cite itself...an examination of those currently incorporated cites/sources purporting to lend support to the legitimacy of an "unreliable and false" WND characterization suggests that the entry may be quite problematic.

Here's the current article text...with links and my comments following...

WND has been criticized as unreliable, "false" and "far-right."

One can, of course, stipulate that while RS for "far-right" WND characterizations may be plentiful (albeit, perhaps, arguable), WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS.

However, as to...

• ...unreliable,...?

It is not without reason that quotation marks were omitted by the editor in the WND article text. It is nowhere to be found in either of the sources cited by the Wiki editor. And as to those sources themselves?...

Source 1: "This time, the focus turns on the accusers", The Seattle Times, August 20, 2008, Opinion, John Young

This appears to be little more than a run-of-the-mill, anti-rightwing (and WND/John Corsi/Joseph Farah) screed. Perhaps you may see some relevance to a determination of WND RS in something I may have overlooked there, but I certainly can't. That being said, a short excerpt from a 2007 Texas Monthly offering on Mr. Young's political inclinations might be illuminating...

IN OLDEN DAYS, John Young would have been horsewhipped or shot in the back for the stuff he writes two or three times a week in the Waco Tribune-Herald....You don't razz right-wingers in what Young has labeled Bush-by-God country not if you value your kneecaps...Young is the rarest of a vanishing breed of Texans: the unapologetically liberal newspaperman. Since 1984 he has edited the Trib's left-of-center opinion page.

Source 2: "CBSNews.com article contains language nearly identical to WorldNetDaily article, including falsehood" Media Matters, October 15, 2007, Research, J.M.

And the purported "falsehood", also utilized by CBS News, and cited in the WND article evidencing WND "unreliability"?...

"Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock..."

...and goes on to explain...

In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate.

That "pro-Democrat" and "Democrat Party affiliated" are decidedly different declarations of "fact" has apparently escaped "Media Matters"...but, even assuming the criticism to be valid, could it be more petty? And what does this say relative to Media Matter's own standing as a reputable RS? (but that's another discussion already underway elsewhere)

• ..."false",

This is somewhat of a vague descriptive (WND is..."false"? What the heck does that mean?) and, being rather vague, I suppose one might assume that the word implies some sense of deficiency in their fact-checking reliability? You tell me. Perhaps the source can shed some light...

Source 3: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs "lied" when he said President Obama's birth certificate is posted on the Internet."The St. Petersburg Times, Undated, Politi-fact.com, WorldNetDaily's File: Recent statements involving WorldNetDaily, Unattributed Author

Ahhhh....the alleged WND assertion is "False" on the Politi-fact.com "Truth-o-meter". Perhaps there's some "there" there, but unfortunately there's no link (that I can find) to the purported "Human Events" ad containing the purported WND assertion which would provide both source and context for examination.

All in all, little "there" there that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS.

(on edit)

In your prior comment you stated...

This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn?

A thought occured to me that FactCheck.org observations related to WND might stimulate the process and present opportunities for advancing the discussion. A search of their website for "World Net Daily" returns 17 hits. One caveat though if I might. I've only checked the first return and, if it's representative of the remaining 16, FactCheck's observations are, by no means, gospel or definitive on matters related to indicies of WND RS. Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left. Nevertheless, their observations might be worth taking a look at as substantive cites of WND "unreliability" aren't exactly pouring in here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote you, "...WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS." But then you go on to disparage and impune various sources with characterizations such as "tilts decidedly left", "unapologetically liberal", "pro-Democrat media", ... you really can't have it both ways, Jake. World Net Daily "tilts" to the right to the point of nearly toppling over, but that isn't an affirmation of unreliability. Facts will always be facts, regardless of the sources in which they are found - but that isn't the question here, and we shouldn't frame this issue in such a strawman manner. We're trying to determine the basis for the consensus that World Net Daily does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source for statements of fact. We've both reviewed some of the many past discussions, and while I see the consensus as obviously against WND (and you question whether consensus exists), we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking. So I'll repeat my question from above: Where do we turn to resolve this? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, either I failed miserably to state my position or you are reading into this something I've neither asserted nor believe. But first, I need to address your reference to (and a rather unsporting bit of rhetoric I might also suggest) "unapologetically liberal" and "pro-Democrat media" in quotes as somehow evidencing a desire on my part to "disparage and impune" various sources. As you should well know, A. those were not my words and B. they were offered as illustrative of and in support of...1. My contention that Young's commentary presented no pertinent "facts" relevant to WND RS and was simply "unapologetically liberal" (Texas Monthly 2007) screed masked in commentary and 2. My contention that Media Matters' purported CBS/WND "'pro-democrat' falsehood" was petty at best and specious at worst. Let's play fair here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out? (Strawman alert: I never said those were your words, just that you chose to insert those characterizations. What "illuminating" did you intend by them if not to somehow impune the sources?) Sorry, but I fail to see how pointing out a source's leanings supports a contention that an article contains no facts; or that your opinion that a fact-checking organization "tilts" one way or another is relevant to their value in this discussion. Indeed, let's play fair - and honestly. By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out?

That's certainly my intent (but I should hardly be expected to be unresponsive in addressing several allegations you've made...to include your continuing misrepresentation of my "tilts decidedly left"). For the sake of brevity and conciseness, one step at a time.

The quotes were provided within the context of a response to YOUR query: Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?. Now, as I took the time to examine that purported sourcing (which your comment certainly invited) and deemed them to be either irrelevant screed or a specious allegation or an ultimately unexaminable source, one might think that a response to my observations (agreeing, disagreeing, something?) might be expected? Nope. Instead you present an exercise in word/phrase parsing and rhetorical gamesmanship, ignoring both the context in which the quotes were contained and the assessment I offered. If it's word/phrase gamesmanship to be, then let's go back to square one and re-roll.

In light of your query...

Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?

Do you now support any or all of the 3 cited sources as being relevant to an RS consideration of WND "reliability"? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You hopped over square one and went straight to my rhetorical questions (each of which I had already researched and found lacking in answers to my actual question). So, let's go back to the actual square one query: "So where do we turn?" Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(We can discuss your justifications for the insertion of statements like "Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left", some other time - the statements, like the justifications for making them, aren't in any way relevant to the issue at hand.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of moving on (and hopefully some progress), I'll forego further rebuttal to your allegations...but my "tilts decidedly left" comment is still germane. I had offered "FactCheck.org" as a possible consideration for your "So where do we turn?" query. Had you been just a bit less hyper-sensitive, I might have hopefully explained to your satisfaction that my "tilts decidedly left" observation was a caveat related to instances where FactCheck.org's observations dealt with OPINION as opposed to FACT (which they do quite often, at least in my experience). Unfortunately, any consideration of that suggestion apparently got lost in the rhetorical shuffle. However, I now believe even suggesting taking a look at FactCheck.org (or Snopes or whatever might provide some substantive indicy of WND reliability) might be premature, given your apparent ongoing indecision as to how to best progress. Let's do back up a step.

"So where do we turn?"

An answer appears to be rather obvious, and you needn't travel any farther than the guidance of WP:VERIFY for it. Shouldn't allegations of continuing WND "unreliability" in RS/N be supported by something more than a vote? I'd venture (rather ironically), were those same WP:VERIFY standards applied to this consideration of WND RS, you'd be seeing ^{[citation needed]} applied to most of the content in this discussion. So where do we turn? Sourcing I'd suggest...an exceedingly rare commodity in this discussion thus far. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since a consideration of the most appropriate means to examine, demonstrate, test and establish, as definitively as might be possible, a "consensus" on World Net Daily's "unreliability" status under WP:RS remains unresolved, perhaps an examination of a purportedly relevant, substantive example of WND RS "unreliability", already offered in this RS/N and mentioned in another, might be illuminating.

I won't offer a repetition critical of the purported WND "unreliability" demonstrated in the "Birth Certificates" issue (please see 1.4 The Last Time on WND or the current work in progress at the WorldNetDaily article itself, to which any contribution is solicited) but rather some evidence from that same article which appears to (quite ironically I'd submit) evidence WND "Reliability" instead.

Within the aforementioned article resides the following text...

However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg's lawsuit relies on discredited claims.

In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child (Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)

However, FactChecker.org (sic) says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.

The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship. However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated.

Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship.

A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan.

A rather remarkable bit of reportage, hardly "helpful" to Berg's "anti-Obama Citizenship" campaign, from a purportedly "unreliable" source...referenced (as I'm coming to understand) by both a Democratic U.S. Congressman and several left-of-center publications.

That is more accurately along the lines of a microblog post, which simply mentions that he had heard "criticism" from three (also) unreliable sources. If he were providing actual analysis within his areas of expertise, I would certainly consider investing more time to ascertain the reliability of his personal blog. Instead, this is more akin to someone tweeting that there's some criticism somewhere of something online. Simply not reliable for our purposes and definitely not up to par for encyclopedic content (and I would bet you that Mr. Geist would agree). Wikipedia is not a place for consumer complaints, and using a microblog entry (of an admittedly notable and interesting person) to try to get around our sourcing requirements is not appropriate. jæs (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement I make in the article is Wind drew criticism for port blocking. I cite this using Geist's site in which he criticises Wind. So I'm not saying anything unverifiable there. I then say which prevented users of their advertised "unlimited" data plans from using services on the Internet. Here, Dr Geist cites http://www.windmobile.ca/community/WIND-news/detail/data-ports-fix/ which was written by a Wind employee and in which he admits to what I wrote. Am I to understand that, for the purposes of proving that Wind is blocking ports, that the company's own employees cannot be trusted?! Please don't assume whose side Dr. Geist would take. If you must know, you may e-mail him at [redacted].BordenRhodes (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to be clearer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a collection of online microblog entries and forum posts. We are not a collection of consumer complaints. We love academic journals as reliable sources. Do you see the comparison I'm trying to help you make? In five years time, it's highly unlikely a temporary port blocking scenario will be relevant to Wind Mobile's history. If it is, at that point, reliable sources will have covered it and we will then be able to mention it here. In the meantime, it is not reliably sourced and does not appear to be encyclopedic. I've done my best to try to explain my interpretation of our policy. Whether my view of it is right or wrong, I'm going to step back and let others take a whack at it (if they're so inclined). jæs (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your angle now. You may very well be correct in that, in Wind's broader history, this may not be significant. Unfortunately, Wind doesn't seem be be getting enough high-profile media attention to verify consumer issues on a broader level. I think (hence, opinion, which I too shall leave to the community to evaluate), that in business profiles it is relevant to mention customer satisfaction, in much the same way that articles on politicians will mention approval ratings or significant complaints. Obviously, things change, which is why wikipedia is editable, so there's no reason not to include at least net neutrality issues now and remove them as circumstances change. BordenRhodes (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're beginning to see my "angle" now, but you're clearly not there yet. If it's not encyclopedic today, and it's not likely going to be encyclopedic five years from now, then it's not encyclopedic. When (or if) The Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, or other reliable sources dedicate some articles to consumer complaints about Wind, then we'll have something to talk about. See Walmart, for example: every time somebody has a negative experience, we don't go on about it. When there are serious environmental, labour, or consumer issues that receive widespread coverage, we cover it. Some folks posting on online forums who want their torrents unblocked or who are complaining about launch issues simply are not, and are unlikely to become, encyclopedic issues. jæs (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)