Essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Low This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Venezuela Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alberto News could be added here. --MaoGo (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albertonews.com, registered in Venezuela, gives major world news and local Venezuelan stories - covers topics like expected of any Western source: political news and things very far from political reporting (their top Venezuelan story right now is a boy without a hand managing to drink with a prosthetic for the first time). Good idea. Kingsif (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to comment that Alberto News once published a news story claiming that 93 countries of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of the "humanitarian intervention" in Venezuela back in 2018. This news was false. It appears that the story was taken down, but it was in the website for almost a year before being corrected. While this seems to be an exception and not the rule, I would suggest to take the links from this site with a grain of salt. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, good catch! Could add that comment verbatim! Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent counter-audit of the CEPR against the OAS report on Bolivian elections, I will support for the CEPR reports to be used only under secondary/tertiary reliable sources. If you check the wikipage of the CEPR, you can see that Mark Weisbrot runs it and the CEPR has written many reports that have been partisan of the chavista government (including members going to pro-government rallies and using data from venezuelanalys, and saying that there will not be hyperinflation). In 2019, the report on the economic crisis blamed all the problem in US sanctions, a highly debatable result. I would argue that it should be placed under either generally unreliable or blacklisted, unless you want to debate for it to be in "no consensus".--MaoGo (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To blacklist, an RfC should be opened. I will include it as generally unreliable for now - if you have links to the examples of citing Venezuelanalysis etc., this could be included. Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let me see what we have already. And sorry it is the other way around, venezuelanalysis uses CEPR. --MaoGo (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up this concern in the talk page of the 2019 Bolivian general election. Besides their ideological position, I cited their report on the impact of sanctions in the Venezuelan crisis as an example of how their methodology has been put into question, but I was reminded that the CEPR still has broad coverage by reliable sources, and I noted that "while by no means Media bias/Fact check servers as a rule of thumb, the site rates the CEPR's factual reporting high". I think a RfC could clarify the position towards it. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree for a Rfc, that could clear up what's their deal. Maybe we should open it up in a noticeboard and not here. --MaoGo (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an Rfc on reliable sources should be brought up over there. Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also take Lechuginos to discussion, per comments below. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I'm not sure if Lechuginos should be taken given that it doesn't seem to be used in articles. On the other hand, the CEPR is cited in many other pages. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo:@Kingsif: A RfC has been started. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, I wanted to leave this here: Lechuginos attacked a journalist that denounced the phishing scheme this year, and DFRLab hypothesized they might have had connection with the people that planned the scheme: [1][2] --Jamez42 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: either add more to the description of Lechuginos or move Maduradas down too. Both have similar descriptions.--MaoGo (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo: Lechuginos was cited by Cazadores de Noticias with reporting the misleading news that Guaidó had received 467 million dollars from USAID", along with Russia Today, HispanTV, Misión Verdad, Alba Ciudad and other unreliable or pro-government sources, when this amount was destined to Venezuela, but not received by Guaidó or the National Assembly. It should also be noted that Lechuginos was awarded with the "Twitters Colective Award" by the government in 2019. I'll try to change the description to reflect this. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention that Armando.info used to have a paywall, but since has removed it and let their articles be available for all readers. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DollarToday should be added to generally unreliable or no consensus? Most of the news there seem a bit tabloid-like.--MaoGo (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo: DolarToday's style is comparable to Maduradas: arguably a little better, but still mostly yellow press, so I'd vote for no consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, so I can't give a view. Bear in mind that 'no consensus' means there is no prevailing view. If both Jamez42 think it's generally unreliable, it should be listed as that. You can also suggest additional considerations. Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in some Wiki pages to declare the history of Dollar/Bolivar conversion rates, for the rest (news) it is quite yellow press.--MaoGo (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with MaoGo, its news articles are still generally reliable, it's just that it is opiniated and sometimes biased; arguably it has improved in the last years. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reliable? and more importantly is it still alive? Últimas Noticias --MaoGo (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can still be found on the internet. The Guardian says it is pro-Maduro. Depends on what it is reporting on, again. It has a large media section which is nationalistic, but doesn't seem to lie or mislead. Politics is more questionable, but I find every article I read needs its own judgment because of different authors and no apparent strong editorial control making bias or not uniform. It is owned by a British company, of which various opinions and controversies are apparent. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo:@Kingsif: Últimas Noticias used to be one of the leading newspapers in Venezuela, even doing a remarkable invesitgation on the death of Bassil Da Costa and the events that triggered the 2014 protests. After the protests the newspaper was bought relatively unknown businesspeople and moved to a pro-government editorial line; more or less what happened with Globovisión, but more radically. Its most memorable and recent example was when it regrettably published that during the 2017 protests Juan Pablo Pernalete was killed by a "captive bolt pistol" before the official investigation ended, and not a tear gas cannister as it was generally and afterwards accepted.

Considering all this, it should be considered unreliable, only that not as much as state owned outlets. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write some of this up - are we agreed it's generally unreliable then? I'd still argue for additional considerations, if just for using earlier articles. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say unreliable and additional considerations, reliable before its adquisition. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Últimas Noticias: Characterized by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid",^{[Phillips 1]} it is privately owned by British financier Robert Hanson and is run with a partisan editorial slant which, since 2014, has resulted in some objectively false stories. It may be reliable for non-news and non-politics, but also demonstrates Chavist nationalism and should be attributed in-line. Before Hanson's purchase, it was a leading non-partisan news source in Venezuela that covered protests and campaigned for press freedom; earlier articles will be seen as reliable sources.

A fact checking website was started some months ago to analize news about Venezuela. If there are doubts about recent events, a quick browse through their Twitter feed should provide better insight. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the WikiProject talk page Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we add the page of the Health Ministry somewhere here as unreliable, as a state source it should be avoided, but specially because its articles are not dated (sometimes unattributed) and are erased frequently, which is pretty bad for a national authority on health. --MaoGo (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, let me write up something. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC about the reliability of PanAm Post has been started. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should VenezuelaTuya be here somewhere? It is a sometimes a good reference. Specially for historical characters or national culture (food, places). But I do not know if there should be a warning of any kind? The site itself works also as a travel agency and most of the stuff has no dates nor authors (at least some articles have a bibliography).--ReyHahn (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also it has provided encyclopedic knowledge a while before the existence of Wikipedia.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VenezuelaTuya plagiarizes content from the Polar Foundation Dictionary; there actually was a purge of articles in the Spanish Wikipedia for a similar reason, an admin deleted tens if not a hundred of articles because they were copy pasted from VenezuelaTuya.

On the other hand, I absolutely recommend the Diccionario de la Fundación Polar. The entries that I've seen are fantastic for short articles, although more references would be needed if they want to be expanded further. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: thanks for clarifying! What a shame to know it is plagiarized, how should we classify it? --ReyHahn (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn: I'd recommend trying to look after the original entry of the Polar Foundation, specially since, from what I gather, it continues releasing new editions and updates (something that I forgot to mention). Otherwise, assuming that it is the same content, it should be generally reliable. Perhaps the "Additional considerations apply" is the most accurate category? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am now checking it out, the quality of the dictionary is amazing,Diccionario de la Fundación Polar should be included here also. I agree that Venezuelatuya should be indicated as considerations apply per all we have said here.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: another possibility would be to separate historical sources from news sources in this page.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. This likely qualifies as an academic source. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source listed here has opened a new RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sputnik.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a follow up here due to the update in status of the site: an investigation in late 2021 has concluded definitely that Lechuginos is an outlet that spreads disinformation, publishing false and fabricated content, contrary to only being biased or opiniated: [3][4][5] Twitter suspended its account on October 2021 because of the same reason:[6] --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a quick update regarding Con El Mazo Dando: I recently found an article that arguably best illustrates an example of outright false content: Reporting on the 1984 Tazón Massacre (Masacre de Tazón [es], which receives that name even though nobody was killed), besides the usual biased phrasing Mazo4f reports in its article that "34 students lost their lives" ("34 estudiantes perdieron la vida"), when that number is actually one of injured students that can be easily verified in the front page they use as an image for the article.

This is a type of historical revisionism that is characteristic of the Bolivarian Revolution and is an example of how the unreliability is not limited to current events in the country, but historical ones as well. I'm confident that this is not the only case and I can look up for more if necessary. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting and centralizing a thread on Verifikado since there have been discussions that have been scattered all over article and user talk pages.

User @Hipal: has questioned Verifikado's reliability, which is currently being used only in the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts, International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis and Venezuelan presidential crisis articles. They have argued that its reliability has not been proven, particularly with arguments based on policy. I've first I've addressed consensus issues and follow the principle of falsifiability, trying to negate the contrary (showing why the source is not unreliable, per WP:QUESTIONED, WP:RSSELF); I was hoping that said comments would be enough to address concerns and that further discussion would not be necessary, particularly with such a small source, but apparently a longer explanation can help with the situation.

Let's review the concept of reliability from WP:RS: one of the closest definitions appears to be in WP:NEWSORG, saying News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

The portal has collaborated with La Patilla ([7][8][9]), Efecto Cocuyo [10] and El Nacional [11], all of which have either a long trajectory of years in the country or have received journalism awards, when not both. Likewise, besides publishing fact-checks about Venezuela ([12]), Verifikado has also published about international disinformation, including Spain ([13]), France ([14]), the United States ([15][16][17]), as well as debunking 9/11 false stories: [18]), Russia ([19]) and Chile ([20]). It has sometimes relied on sources such as The Guardian and Snopes, outlets that have been repeatedly been included in WP:RS/P, and in the case of the latter it even has an article defending it against false claims ([21])

The fact-checker was active between 2018 and 2020, but being inactive is a whole different issue from reliability. Its articles can still be browsed through its Twitter page (@veri_fikado) and can be accessed through the Web Archive, meeting verifiability conditions. It might also be important to be mindful of WP:ENGLISH, to be aware of the bias to prefer English sources and how important non-English references are for topics such as these.

However, since the reference has been targeted in specific instances and not as a whole (partly due to its limited presence), I think it might also be more productive to assess the credibility of the statements. In the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts and the Venezuelan presidential crisis articles, Verifikado is used as a support source to include the following statement:

A risk management consultant cited by El Nacional dismissed the statement by government officials and assured that the design of the hydroelectric plant system does not allow "attacks" of that type. He said, "These systems can not be attacked remotely. They are closed control systems designed for generating turbines to work synchronously," and that would be "like hacking a refrigerator or a blender."

In Verifikado's article ([22]), it quotes directly El Nacional's article ([23]):

“Esos sistemas no pueden ser atacados remotamente. Son sistemas de control cerrados diseñados para que las turbinas generadoras funcionen de manera sincrónica. Es como hackear una nevera o una licuadora”, aseguró durante una entrevista exclusiva para El Nacional.

The quote is verbatim and El Nacional's reliability has not been questioned, so I don't know why the statement should be put into question either or why Verifikado would not be a reliable source to support the statemnent, to the point of removing it entirely from the article. For the International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis article, Verifikado is used along with La Patilla to support the following statement:

Fact checking website Verifikado determined that the assertion is false; it points out that even the report admits we will never know "what the counterfactual data would have been" (i.e. what would have happened without the sanctions), and shows that the report minimizes the responsibility of Maduro's government in the deaths.

This is essentially the same conclusion that Ricardo Hausmann's and Frank Muci's article reaches in Americas Quarterly:

Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual.

Since the statement is properly attributed and editorial voice is not being used, I don't know why the statement is questioned either, or why Verifikado's reliability as a whole has to be disputed as a result.

@Hipal: in your last response, you cited WP:RS. Considering all of this, I have to ask now: which parts of WP:RS do you believe Verifikado does not meet? If the response is not based on policy, the previous version of the articles have to be restored. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up all that information. Let's see what progress we can make, then maybe go to RSN with a much briefer initial statement.

How is it WP:REPUTABLE? Where's evidence for any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

I was unable to find any English-language sources that demonstrated the necessary reputation. I don't trust auto-translation.

Usually, when determining the reliability, there's some discussion of the main people involved and examination of what editorial oversight is in place.

Before giving up due to the lack of English-language sources, it appeared to me that the Fernando Núñez-Noda was running it, taking on most if not all roles.

The short life of the organization seems a red flag.

Núñez-Noda's current, and related, endeavor is 3kats.com. It's not used anywhere in English Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: I likewise thank you for your engagement in this thread.

To answer your question, perhaps I can start with the last part. Taking a look at his biography, Núñez-Noda is a journalist from the Andrés Bello Catholic University, one of the main colleges in Venezuela, where he was a professor of digital journalism for thirteen years. He written on similar topics for El Universal and Tal Cual, also important newspapers in the country, is currently a columnist for the Huffington Post in Spanish and has published two books, also about journalistic technology (without mentioning two fiction books, additionally). The reason why I cited WP:ENGLISH is precisely due to the fear to neglect merits; while his impact in the English speaking sphere might have been limited, his experience as a journalist is not. If you're having difficulties assessing the reliability of a source, you can feel free to ask a Spanish speaking editor for help.

Regarding editorial oversight, the website used to have a section related to its publishing process, including a rating system and score, and a LSAF algorithm. This was also commented by a Venezuela al Día article. While Verifikado was founded by Fernando, who was its editor, Javier Brassesco and Daniel Álvarez were also part of the editorial team. All of this suggested that there was at the very least some editorial oversight and that this is not a self-published source.

One of the ways I have tried to show the portal's collaboration with other outlets, including El Nacional, Efecto Cocuyo and La Patilla, whose articles in the English Wikipedia can be consulted, just like their entries at WP:VENRS. Mentions by other outlets include Venezuela al Día, La Patilla, Periódico Cubano and ADN Cuba, of which the last two are from Cuba and not only Venezuela. While browsing, I even found a quote of the portal in Google Books. I also found an English source that references Verifikado: CryptoNews. I don't believe that just because its activity was brief compared to other outlets it should be a sign of alarm, considering the amount of articles and the intensity of its publications (which can be checked in its Twitter feed, for instance). Verfikado was also one of the first fact-checkers established in Venezuela, has pointed out in the aforementioned Venezuela al Día article; it may not have awards that come with a long trajectory, but that does not mean that the source was not trustworthy when it was active, as shown by its relation with other sources.

I'm also open for a RSN discussion, but I concur that care should be takien when thinking about the RfC, given the source's limited presence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Going through the links you've provided, looking for something that indicates a reputation: As far as I can tell, [24] describes verifikado, [25] is from verifikado, [26] is a puff piece, [27] looks like it has some info verified by verifikado though it's unclear, [28] has a photo from verfikado (and nothing more?), I'm unable to access the google book (what does it say?), and CryptoNews is used once in English Wikipedia and looks like a rather open publishing platform (I suspect it is unreliable). I don't think any of those establishes that verifikado has the type of reputation we're looking for. --Hipal (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second article was content republished from Verifikado, the same goes for the fourth reference, and the third article is yellow press, but it is a fact-check nonetheless (the identity of the Croatian president). I also just noticed that the first article was also published by El Nacional:[29]. This is another link for the book, El Asesinato de Oscar Pérez, about the killing of Óscar Pérez The links show impact and collaboration from Verifikado, even for its period of activity. I'm including all their collaboration collections with La Patilla for reference: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

We shouldn't forget about the editor's experience and their editorial oversight process, either, or in other words, that the analysis, views, and opinions are from reliable authors, per WP:REPUTABLE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to hear from others. --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough! I'll ping @Kingsif: and @ReyHahn:, who have been main contributors to this essay. You can let me know if you want to notify more people of the WikiProject or from the community as a whole. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :) You may have noticed I haven't had much time for Wikipedia recently and have been mostly focused on content creation, but in my experience, I haven't had any reason to question Verifikado. From reading this discussion, it seems one of the main issues giving the questioner pause is that it was only in service for three years. Honestly, for an investigative unit in Venezuela during that time, managing to stay around three years is actually quite a feat, I'd say. I can't look into it further right now, but I'll probably keep an eye on the discussion. Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we summarize this and bring it to RSN? There's a lot going on at RSN, so we'll probably get more editors at least looking at it. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this. I think it should be alright, it'd help to offer more input into the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: Just wanted to let you know that I have read your concerns regarding Verifikado and how much of its support has relied on La Patilla. The discussion at Talk:La_Patilla#RfC:_Reliability_of_La_Patilla has made me think that the reliability of Verifikado should be reviewed by the community. You seem to be more familiar with the concerns, so I wanted to reach out. WMrapids (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For any of those interested, an RfC regarding La Patilla's reliability has been started. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned to see a series of changes that seem to follow a prevailing fallacy established by chavismo: that if media is critical to the government, it means that they are pro-opposition. There are plenty of examples El Nacional has historically criticized Acción Democrática and COPEI equally, RCTV would grow even more critical of President Luis Herrera Campins after he outlawed alcohol and tobacco commercials in the 80s, and President Jaime Lusinchi would go on to use paper distribution as pressure because newspapers were critical of him. That never meant these outlets were affiliated to a party, a group or another.

The Venezuelan media has always been critical of the government, regardless of its party, because that's what a free press does: question and scrutinize. Many of these outlets were likewise subject to reprisals by the respective administrations, although never as severe as the ones under Chávez and Maduro.

@WMrapids: One of the very links that you provided in a different discussion (Venezuela media guide), to prove a different point, describes the same outlets that you're now labeling as "pro-opposition" or "opposition leaning" as independent, including Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo. It's understandable that you might have complaints against La Patilla, whose biases have already been acknowledged in the list for quite some time now, but it seems that you're putting in the same bag outlets that are award winning, longstanding and investigative. I strongly advise you to restore the descriptions last stable version, especially when no examples of partiality have been provided, and to explain more specifically the concerns that you might have with other outlets. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, a neutral point off view is one of the five pillars of the encyclopedia. Prior to my edits, none of the news outlets that had opposition ties listed had their partisanship described. However, NoonIcarus and the others who created this page arbitrarily state "By consensus across the Wikipedia community, state sources of Venezuela are unreliable. Independent sources operating in the country and in neighboring nations, several using citizen journalism, are seen as more reliable for Venezuela-specific reports." This is a far cry from what BBC Monitoring describes "Objective, non-partisan media sources are hard to find inside the country".

If this article is truly designed to promote reliability, then it should provide the reader the context on sources in a similar manner to WP:RSP, not just say "state sources bad, non-state sources good". Such wording is partisan itself and just feeds into the polarization even more. For the case of this essay, the average Wikipedia reader is not going to be reading this article; it will typically be an editing user. If the reader were a semi-decent user, they would know that per WP:PARTISAN, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Maybe we can place the WP:PARTISAN link in the article for users who fear describing the partisanship of sources?

We don't have to hold the hands of users and be afraid to provide important context for them regarding the bias of sources. The designations of partisanship are vital for users as it provides proper context in case there are extraordinary claims by sources (such as the descriptions in WP:RSP). So, further personal calls directed at me to "restore" and delete information that reliable sources thought were contextually important will be recognized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would respectively and strongly advise those making such accusations to please see WP:NOTCENSORED: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. ... '[B]eing objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content".

In summary, in order to provide an actual resource for users to determine reliability, we have to provide context on the sources in an impartial manner so that users may know that some sources may be partial, whether they are "pro-government" or "pro-opposition". Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a single example on how sources like Efecto Cocuyo or El Pitazo are partisan sources. They have always used way more neutral titles than those by La Patilla, for instance, balanced content and, contrary to La Patilla as a news aggregator, they have a trajectory of fact checking and investigation, offering a lot more depth to their content. Sticking with a single definition or term of an article, even after you find contrasting definitions, is the textbook definition of cherry picking. It seems that you're extrapolating La Patilla's RfC and judging all of the listed sources in the same light, which is just plainly wrong.

By the way, regarding the article's introduction, you can read the summary and precedent of WP:TELESUR at WP:RS/P: Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Saying that the volunteers chose description "arbitrarily" is insulting. If you disagree that state sources are unreliable, you're free to offer arguments on the contrary, and in the meantime you can try to contrast the existing information on the topic: Lechuginos, Lechuginos update, Con El Mazo Dando.

Pinging @Kingsif:, the creator of the page, and @ReyHahn:, the main contributors to the page. In the case of the former, given it has been long since its creation, it might be useful to have their input. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the last time I read the list, I find some of the accusations by WMrapids not only plainly false, but troubling. Nowhere does the list claim "state sources bad, non-state sources good"; they also seem to fail to have read the extensive discussions outside this page and this project which establish that state sources in Venezuela are, indeed, not to be trusted at all (WP:TELESUR, as pointed out). The way they think BBC Monitoring saying (per their quote) that "objective sources are hard to find" is any (let alone very) different from our (per their quote) "independent sources are seen as more reliable" suggests that they either struggle with some phrasings in English ("more" of course a comparative) or understand but don't like that it isn't hardline critical. I don't know why they seem to think that the list shies away from describing the biases and history of sources when the notes have been extensive; perhaps they have a personal reason. As an aside, their "argument" that all sources must be partisan just by existing, when that goes directly against the history of, e.g. in this case Efecto Cocuyo, is just a theoretical opinion. I note that NoonIcarus was very pleasant and, to promote discussion, asked WMrapids why they believed certain sources were politically partisan; the latter did not respond except with (effectively) 'because they do'. I find the premise of WMrapids (seemingly that the list should not be so critical of government sources) to be itself non-neutral. However, when the list is maintained at a stable version, invite them to bring the evidence they must have to discussion. Whether it be at the WikiProject (not here, a subpage, ideally) or at RSP. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry if I appear harsh Kingsif, but if someone is going to "strongly advise", I will "strongly advise" in return, when appropriate. Valid concerns of Wikipedia users about a group of users arbitrarily defining WP:RS through WP:OR should not be described as "plainly false", "troubling" or a "personal reason", so as a fellow experienced user, please WP:Assume good faith. I could easily say that you three members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela have a "personal reason" for creating this list and you could even be directly affected by all of this. I could say that NoonIcarus was WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to "restore the descriptions last stable version". But I'm going to look past that.

  With that out of the way, the real issue with the list is this; it is purely WP:OR by a handful of users while WP:RSP is established by a review process and broad consensus. When this list was brought up in a separate talk page, I naturally took a look. What I found was "By consensus across the Wikipedia community, state sources of Venezuela are unreliable. Independent sources operating in the country ... are seen as more reliable for Venezuela-specific reports". Ok, but according to who? Maybe we could specify this in the introduction and reword it (include WP:TELESUR, etc?).

  Reviewing the list further, I saw "Bolivarian government supportive", "Run by partisan members to Chávez and Maduro", "pro-Maduro tabloid", "Pro-government opinionated", but hardly saw any mention of anything being mentioned as "opposition". So, I looked into the background of some sources and found the BBC Monitoring media analysis source and placed information into the list to provide context. Providing such details on WP:RSP is commonplace; for example, Al Jazeera's listing states "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. ... Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict" while for HuffPost, which is generally reliable, it is listed as "HuffPost (excluding politics)" This context is important, so it shouldn't be different with the Venezuelan list. I'm not sure why some users don't want opposition sources to be described as opposition sources, but they are what they are, according to a reliable source. And this list needs some more reliable sources.

  So please, let's look past the harshness and make the list better. That was my only intention. :) WMrapids (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, the last time I read the list, there were notes on every source. Additionally, as the list notes at the top, it is the consensus of users involved in the WikiProject Venezuela, it doesn't pretend to be anything more than that. If you can give examples of entries that are lacking context and why, and if you can explain why you think a WikiProject cannot give its own advice, let's discuss. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And like I said, NoonIcarus brought up the list in a discussion, so if it can be accessed and used in arguments throughout Wikipedia, then every user becomes involved, not just WikiProject Venezuela. WMrapids (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusing someone of canvassing for pinging two users, specially when they're the main contributors to the essay, is rich. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll offer the description offered by the other BBC link you provided:

• Efecto Cocuyo - online, independent news outlet
• El Pitazo - online, independent news outlet

• I'll also add that concluding that an outlet is from the opposition when the sources refer to the director as such is WP:SYNTH. The source must directly describe the outlet as pro-opposition, or at least there must be examples of said stance, or otherwise the assertion is original research.

  Both El Pitazo and Efecto Cocuyo have offered negative or critical coverage of the opposition in the past several times:

• El Pitazo: [42][43][44][45][46][47]
• Efecto Cocuyo: [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

--NoonIcarus (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. BBC is a separate entity and reliable source. I'll take their word for it.

Also, why can't it be both independent and pro-opposition? There's no issue with that at all. WMrapids (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Monitoring is a division of the BBC, is it not?

Independent and pro-opposition are contradictory to each other, as independent is related to editorial independent, as well as critical reporting, as it is the case with said sources. The term is further problematic as it can give the impression that these newspapers are affiliated with opposition political parties, which is simply not true. Here are other examples of outlets describing Efecto Cocuyo as independent: Human Rights Watch, Reuters, Americas Quarterly--NoonIcarus (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent can mean multiple things. It can be independently-funded, independently-ran, etc. It can support the opposition and still be independent on its own. So no, "pro-opposition" ≠ "not independent". WMrapids (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, BBC notes "Other similar opposition-leaning independent Venezuelan news websites that have sprung up in recent years include Caraota Digital (Digital Bean), offering "direct to the grain information" and El Pitazo (The Whistle Blast)". So yeah, they can be both, it doesn't have to be so black and white. WMrapids (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources would probably use the terms at the same time if it was an accurate description.

If what we are looking after is to reflect the panorama of sources and mention the pro-opposition ones, the list already details Caraota Digital, DolarToday, Maduradas and even La Patilla. There isn't a need for a false balance on "both sides" or that only polarization exists. While I have the time, I'll also offer another statement when Efecto Cocuyo was founded, and whose picture is still present nowadays: Recent purchase and sale of media has resulted in the drastic change of editorial line and the loss of the independent character when it comes to informing. With the birth of Efecto Cocuyo, they seek to "enlighten" the country([57]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, regarding one of the other last changes to the introduction: you mentioned that WP:GREL are recognized as the most reliable sources regarding Venezuelan topics. Is this meant to be interpreted as international outlets outside Venezuela, or excludes those that have not been subject to a RfC yet? Venezuelan investigations include access and in the ground reporting, and in many aspects, including malnutrition and homicides, they are definitely still the best sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last point for the moment, if I may: regarding the Caracas Chronicles article used to cast doubt in Bocaranda's professionalism: it is dated by 2009, way before Bocaranda gained popularity and the founding of the portal Runrun.es, and his radio talkshow "Los Runrunes de Nelson Bocaranda" is definitely different from the news outlet that Runrun.es is today. Again, when discussing reliability we should address the outlets, not journalists (and in this case, more importantly, with updated sources). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some context regarding Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo, showing that they review their work more thoroughly than other sites, unlike La Patilla. This should help provide balance. WMrapids (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the intent, the phrasing will still represent a false balance, because "pro-opposition" is not an accurate description. I'll recap the most important reasons:

• Several reliable sources simply describe outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo and Runrunes as independent
• Many examples have been offered showing critical coverage about the opposition, while no examples have been provided to show why they are pro-opposition
• Titles and phrasing used by these outlets are more impartial and professional than references with a lower ranking in the lists, such as Caraota Digital and Maduradas (the comparisons have not been made yet, but they can be done if needed and we can have an idea based on some of the articles already provided above).

All of this shows that it is not a majority point of view, as WP:WEIGHT states that it should for a mention with editorial voice. Considering the existing opposition, the best options are either to offer a response to these points that largely changes the situation, reach an agreement that meets this principle or to drop the stick. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Wikipedia policies and guidelines WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following options is suitable regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources?

• Option 1: Maintain status quo
• Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community
• Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project
• Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP
• Option 5: Other proposal or a combination of proposals

Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I was brought to "WP:VENRS" after NoonIcarus directed me to the page. WP:VENRS was created by the users Kingsif, NoonIcarus and ReyHahn, all active members of WikiProject Venezuela. Upon reading WP:VENRS, it was apparent that original research was being presented as fact by the three users, who included WP:Puff amongst certain sources that have been described as supporting the Venezuelan opposition and labeled some sources "generally reliable" while casually mentioning that they republished WP:BLACKLIST content. This behavior could possibly raise WP:ADVOCACY concerns as well.

As a result of reviewing WP:VENRS, an updated edit providing more context was placed and Talk:La_Patilla#RfC:_Reliability_of_La_Patilla was opened out of concern to WP:BALANCE and WP:RS. The edits were reversed by NoonIcarus, who stated "you're pushing for a version that clearly does not have consensus", despite much of the article not receiving an inclusive consensus of the Wikipedia community. NoonIcarus would also ping their fellow article creators to provide "their input" in the dispute.

After presenting this background, the main concern is this; WP:VENRS has not been created by an inclusive WP:Consensus, the page is merely a WP:ADVICEPAGE/WP:ESSAY and yet it is being imposed by WikiProject Venezuela members as WP:POLICY throughout the project. Something striking about WP:ADVICEPAGE is this statement: "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope ... An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." Despite this, NoonIcarus (1234567891011121314151617) has arbitrarily used WP:VENRS through dozens of bold edits throughout the Wikipedia community, citing it similarly to WP:POLICY. It may not be known what has been removed or placed by these edits citing WP:VENRS throughout Wikipedia without an extensive review by users.

Looking through all of this, there are a few options:

• Option 1: Maintain status quo. Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela can edit the essay as they choose and users can impose its views throughout the project.
• Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community. In WP:ADVICEPAGE, it is stated "Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines." This will give direct control of determining the reliability of Venezuela-related sources to the community.
• Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project. A notice can be placed on the page advising users that they may be sanctioned for citing WP:VENRS as policy. Emphasis on the future with sanctions since users are now being made aware of the issue, but citing WP:VENRS in edit summaries blatantly violates WP:ADVICEPAGE, WP:OR and WP:RS.
• Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP. This may also be a solution because as WP:RSP was established through years of consensus by hundreds of editors, while WP:VENRS was created by three users who assumed ownership over the article without widespread consensus.
• Option 5: Other proposal or a combination of proposals. As always, we should be open to all ideas to improve the project, especially in respect to WP:5P.

In summary, this is not something that I wanted to do, (there is enough drama related to Peru-related articles) but I had to do. Recognizing that the reliability of certain Wikipedia articles was possibly in jeopardy, these concerns have been raised. This RfC opening is also in no way to disrespect Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela and all of its members. Through reviewing material regarding Venezuela, I have seen that this is a highly contentious subject, so I must respect the troubles you members navigate to edit related articles. There is no doubt that finding reliable sources related to Venezuela is an imperative task for Wikipedia, though it must be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully we can all collaborate to make more improvements in the future and please don't take my concerns personally.

Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option X: non-neutral RFC: Any editor can write an essay. Any editor can link an essay. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell we're going to be sanctioning these people for writing an essay even if it is the most biased essay imaginable. Nor is there any chance of deleting the essay or even taking it over. Even including these options as if they are a thing that can happen makes this RFC very much non-neutral.

This doesn't mean that you have to listen to them when they cite it. You have the absolute right to say "that's just an essay". But there's basically no way we're going to actually do anything about this essay exactly because it is completely unenforceable and just some editors' opinion. Loki (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell we're going to be sanctioning these people for writing an essay"
  • You're missing the point, especially my well-intentioned wording of "Future sanctions" for the misuse of WP:VENRS. NoonIcarus possibly didn't review the the content of WP:ADVICEPAGE, so I am not calling for any current sanctions against them.
• "Even including these options as if they are a thing that can happen makes this RFC very much non-neutral."
  • There is no intention to limit information being presented from others, if that is what you are referring to as "non-neutral". But the usage of WP:VENRS either needs oversight from the wider Wikipedia community or there needs to be some sort of disincentive against users who try to use it as policy. In no way is this an effort to limit the opinion of others. Again, I recognize that "finding reliable sources related to Venezuela is an imperative task for Wikipedia", so while I can agree with the effort of trying to list reliable sources, I disagree with the misuse of the list.

WMrapids (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can link an essay and it doesn't obligate you to WP:SATISFY them at all. Also, deleting this essay will not stop the underlying content dispute because it won't change the writers' opinion about these sources. You want WP:DRN or maybe WP:RSN. Loki (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4: I see no reason for a Wikiproject to be enforcing its thoughts on reliable sources on the wider community. I don't like the look of the edit history (WP:OWN issues), there are issues with its reliablity, and it is being used as policy when it is not. If the Wikiproject wants their essay to be policy they can go to WP:RSN and get a wider community consensus there. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just read some of the diffs, and this has only strengthened my opinion. NoonIcarus, a creator of the essay, has gone around and used it as policy, referring users to it and removing citations based on it. @NoonIcarus: Could you explain your side of the story here? I think it will be constructive for future !voters. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JML1148:, kindly thank you for the notification. I have provided content in the response below and I can refer to WP talk:VENRS#Latest changes as well about more recent changes. Many of WMRapids changes remain in the page, as it has happened in other cases, including a much needed description change of La Patilla and the inclusion of Monitor de Víctimas to the list. However, WMRapids has repeatedly sought to label at least six different outlets as "pro-opposition" as a result of a move discussion where the essay (and the mentioned sources before that) was cited, despite extensive arguments in the talk page of why this is inaccurate. The introduction seems to subject I have reverted the RfC about La Patilla, but it is pretty much ongoing (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). Regarding my changes, my rationale has been mostly based on WP:GUNREL, namely sources with user-generated content or that don't correct errors among other reasons. In normal cases I would point out to WP:RS/P directly, but given in many cases there aren't discussions for the reasons I provided, I have cited WP:VENRS to offer more context that the one that could provided only with an edit summary. Part of the introduction points out to editorial issues, and I'd be glad to address any related concerns or issues, but this RfC seems to want to take action in the essay as a whole as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC:, per LokiTheLiar. This RfC suggests as options to either keep the essay as it is or for it to be limited, without an alternative to improve it. If the RfC opened a much needed discussion on the reliability of several sources, providing examples, it would have been much better. This noticeboard focuses in the discussion of particular sources, whose reliability has to be examined on a case to case basis. Several of the listed sources have very limited use in Wikipedia (such as Al Navío, El Cooperante or Cronica Uno) or have no use at all (including La Hojilla and Noticiero Digital), which would not be enough for an inclusion at WP:RSP. WP:VENRS allows the discussion of the sources to be more specific, and several WikiProjects have subpages to group sources based on reliability, including but not limited to WikiProject Africa, WikiProject AfroCine, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Korea. Any user unrelated to the WikiProject is free to offer feedback.

I hate to bring it up, but I also have to talk about WP:POINT and provide context to participants due to its strong connection to the RfC. This RfC takes place after WP:VENRS was cited in the Operation Gideon article move discussion on 4 June ([58]), a move which in turn was started less than two hours after the move discussion of the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article, one that I started, was closed on 24 May with an outcome opposed by WMRapids. The following day after WPVENRS was cited in the discussion, the editor sought to describe the sources outright as "pro-opposition", aligned with their response at the move discussion: Much of the "editorial voice" is from media opposed to Maduro (El Nacional, La Patilla, El Pitazo), so a potential for bias does exist. Interestingly enough, nearly all of the sources changed in WP:VENRS were the same cited in said discussion, and not only La Patilla (5 out of 6 Venezuelan, and out of 10 in total): El Nacional ([59][60]), El Pitazo ([61][62]), La Patilla ([63][64]), Tal Cual ([65][66]), Runrunes ([67][68]). Other main media outlets in the country, such as El Estímulo, El Universal, Prodavinci, VIVOplay and VPItv, have not been changed by WMRapids in the list. I don't think the editor means disruption, but the causes are self evident and the results would affect the arguments provided, as to the date that this RfC was opened said move request is pretty much still open, WP:VENRS can still be seen by other participants from there and can ultimately influence the outcome of the move discussion.

Let be clear about this: as any essay, it obviously does not mean it overrules the community's decisions in any way, WP:RS/P already has the highest weight in the page's description and input is really needed, so any participant here is welcome to participate at the page. Knowing which options do you have when writing article and having an idea of their reliability is needed in a country that already has a low freedom of the press index. Outlets that have been recently bought or changed their editorial line, such as El Universal, Globovisión and Últimas Noticias, have had their digital archives deleted, and many articles of the new online outlets have lost articles due to domain changes forced by blocks, losing forever information that is sometimes exclusive (WP:NOW WP:TIAD). To merely suggest sanctioning editors for its use would be very detrimental to Wikipedia's goal, which is to gather knowledge in a verifiable and neutral manner. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --WMrapids (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the ping. I agree that this is a strange RfC, and I still find that WMrapids' manner of discussion at the essay was itself non-neutral, but taking this as an opportunity for broader discussion, I would suggest WMrapids' Option 5 or something like it. I have generally trusted NoonIcarus' views on sources and so haven't concerned myself with his edits, but maybe I should have checked and guided him to be more gentle; otherwise, I've always advocated for a wider discussion of entries in the essay and this hasn't changed. Though, I can't say I have a lot of trust in users unfamiliar with the troubles and media environment in Venezuela to come to the best conclusions, is my only fear - e.g. because of economic crises even some official institution websites are hosted on free blogging services, which many uninformed users will probably immediately write off. So if an other proposal or combination of proposals can be made that see to more input, but informed input, I would like to see those proposals. (Also, to note, option 2 is a strange one - either it stays as a WikiProject advice essay, or it gets absorbed into RSP, surely?) Kingsif (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I've always advocated for a wider discussion of entries in the essay and this hasn't changed"
    • This is true. You have encouraged a broader response, so thank you Kingsif. But it is difficult when we have WP:OWN edits from users who revert WP:GOODFAITH edits related to reliability concerns.
  • "option 2 is a strange one - either it stays as a WikiProject advice essay, or it gets absorbed into RSP, surely?"
    • We could always use the process used to create Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to move this page to something like "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (Venezuela)" or maybe create a sub-section on WP:RSP. Overall, your intention of creating a resource to guide users towards reliable Venezuela-related sources seems well, but maintaining the current situation of WP:VENRS that has WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues is untenable.

  WMrapids (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps one of those other proposals could be, simply, to bring every source in the essay to discussion? It could be a first step to resolve concerns with NPOV before a more effort-heavy move or development. Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Or Option 4 should be altered slightly from deleting the page to a merge after discussion at WP:RSN. A draft RfC would have improved the quality of the options here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And since I'm probably the only person on this page who knows precisely what the process was for creating WP:MEDRS, since I helped start it, the answer to that is just ... NO ... not even close. The pages are not even remotely the same thing or trying to do the same thing, nor would that idea ever fly.

  WMrapids, while your intentions are good, you don't seem to have a good grasp on how to formulate an RFC, or how to use a page like this relative to how to use WP:RSN and WP:RSP. And you've started duplicate topics at the Reliable sources noticeboard. My suggestion for you at this point is to shut down this malformed RFC; the options given are not even all possibilities within Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines. And having now seen this, you would be well advised to slow down and understand better how Wikipedia works before launching any more proposals or RFCs in an area in to which you have recently ventured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 This essay seems to be primarily being used by a long-term POV pusher to justify their edits. There is no need for this when WP:RSP/WP:RSN exists. Number 57 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is normal and acceptable for WikiProjects to maintain reliable sources lists. There are numerous examples of other such lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, etc. These lists do not carry as much weight as WP:RSPSOURCES or WP:RSN, but they can be helpful to users. With that said, if there are suspected problems with a list, I think it is most productive to try to repair the list rather than delete it. Repair normally happens via talk page discussions at the list talk page or the WikiProject talk page, where editors discuss and achieve consensus. If there are concerns about bias, then I would suggest using WP:RSN to help involve unbiased editors in the discussion and to get something stronger than a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Novem Linguae: There's no issue with the Wikiproject having the list. I think WMRapids' main concern here is that the essay may have WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues, as well as being used as policy when it is not. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Novem Linguae: The comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources doesn't really stick; WP:VENRS relies on WP:OR, WP:PUFF and does not provide a balanced context on partisanship while the Korean page provides succinct descriptions with no regard to partisanship (though, the media atmosphere in Korea appears to be much less polarized than Venezuela).

  However, I do agree that we should repair the list instead of deleting it. This is a fairly detailed list on sources (despite the WP:OR and WP:PUFF issues) and it would be valuable for covering the controversial Venezuela-related content on the project, especially if we provided a more inclusive consensus platform for users. If we could create a community-based list with brief details and proper context about Venezuela-related sources, it could provide a lasting resource for future users who want to engage in Venezuelan articles. WMrapids (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some thoughts:
  • I disagree with several assessments in this page, such as considering state media as "generally unreliable" just because it is state media, or considering the sensationalist yellow outlet Maduradas as more reliable than all state media.
  • That being said, there are many WikiProjects with specialized source guides and that is fine (including WP:NPPSG!). These can be good as advice, but should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, I will not abide by assessments in WP:VENRS when I think they do not apply to the content I'm writing, and if WP:VENRS is cited as an authoritative page in a dispute, I will bring it to a more appropriate forum (e.g. WP:RSN).
  • "Ceding control to the community" is not something that needs an RFC. There is no single user who owns this page. WikiProjects are not private clubs, and cannot bar editors from participating in editing and consensus building on this page. If some users are attempting to do that, then that is a behavioral issue that should be taken care of.
  • Sanctioning users for citing an essay would be bizarre. I don't think this is an option, and definitely not one that can be enacted by an RFC in this talk page.
  • Deleting a page is not an outcome that can be enacted as a result of this RFC either. It would need to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
• These are my two cents. MarioGom (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On your first thought, once again, Venezuelan state media has been blacklisted by Wikipedia since before this essay was written. And since a WikiProject essay cannot suggest a source that hasn't gone through community discussion (i.e. Maduradas) be blacklisted, it will be considered more reliable. As a point of information before you or someone spins off on those tangents. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for 1 status quo, maybe 3 if things get out of control: It's tagged as an essay at the begin, they're allowed to write an essay and link to it as "see my argument here". So, independent from the discussion about the quality of this site, the status itself seems ok to keep. Now I see from the given links that this essay got by the user NoonIcarus used more like a rule when deleting pro-Maduro (loosely categorized by me) sources from this list, not like an an essay. That's part of a general strong tendency I see in these edits to just link rules and essays for edits that aren't clear, like I don't see in their dispute why this simple sentence should be coatrack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runrunes&diff=prev&oldid=1159106150 , while half the article has the side topic of censorship against the media. I think it's understandable WMRapids got frustrated about that. To change the status of this page wouldn't change that problem though, maybe it can be made even more clear it's an essay in the intro or just make the "not" a guideline bold. --Casra (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is a dispute on applicability bring it up at RSN. I'm not sure if that's any different from status quo, but whatever. Someone can write this down somewhere if they really want to, on this essay, another essay, maybe even in this very discussion, gasp basically, anywhere they want. If there are chronic and intractable issues and the relevant noticeboards start getting sick of it, that's when you start with the sanctions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alpha3031: Should I provide a notification to this discussion on WP:RSN or a separate RfC? I'm not very familiar with WP:RSN, so I want to make sure things are done properly. Also, making any edits to the essay was near impossible due to WP:OWN issues (see edit history). WMrapids (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Starting multiple RfCs on the same topic is generally not recommended, just create a new section and maybe use ((FYI)) if you want a visual signpost. I'm not sure it'll be needed though since RfCs normally run for quite a while specifically so that interested editors should eventually meander in and comment.(though of course if you do do it better to do it earlier than later). My "bring it up at RSN" was intended more towards if there was an issue with a specific use of a specific source at a specific place and the essay is cited (though you can do it even if the essay wasn't cited). Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could do ((subst:Please see|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources)) at RSN. But informing RSN may not be necessary because the ((RFC)) tag above brings in uninvolved editors via a bot that posts on random subscribed user's user talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here from RSN. I'm not going to give an opinion on the RFC, but just wanted to say that projects maintaining a list of reliable/unreliable sources for their topic area is quite normal. The only issue would be if they said something was reliable, or unreliable, and the wider community was in disagreement (e.g. after a discussion at WP:RSN). As projects can't overrule more centralised discussions, but as long as that's not the case it usually quite helpful that projects maintain such lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The options laid out on the RFC are not a neutral presentation; of course WikiProjects can maintain lists of reliable sources. Also per AD in the post just above this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that any of the specific proposals above quite capture my response, so I'll refrain from a bold !vote while hoping the closer will read this comment fully. Wikiprojects often create these sorts of lists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is one such list, for example, and the new page patrol tries to maintain a big compilation list at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide. All of these are essay-level in-and-of-themselves, and even WP:RSP is merely an explanatory supplement. The real power and utility in these is that they tend to reflect some sort of WikiProject/community discussion, rather than simply being one's own opinion. It might be wise to try to actually see if these contradict greater community consensus (I'm seeing different treatment of VoA here than at WP:RSP, for example). But if these seem to generally vibe with the community's general assessment of sources, and the issues are that the characterization of a limited number of specific sources is contested, then indiviudal discussions are likely the way forward.
  Other options, like sanctioning people citing an essay or deleting the page, seem out-of-line. We tend to not sanction editors for merely citing an essay in their arguments (what is the point of an essay if not to be referenced). Our deletion policy notes that, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, so deletion looks out of the question. Option 1 doesn't seem like an honest depiction of the status quo (surely, as an essay, this doesn't currently have binding power in the same way that WP:RS does), and Option 2 seems to also make the mistake of treating this as if it were WP:PAG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it can be seen above, an RfC regarding this essay has been started. Pinging all contributors to the page until now: @Kingsif, ReyHahn, Novem Linguae, John of Reading, Ira Leviton, Buidhe, Stephenamills, Wilfredor, and MarioGom: NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy this weekend so I will contribute in due time, but maybe a message in the Wikiproject page will also be welcomed.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have also left a notification at the Wikiproject's page, per your request. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus, please review WP:CANVASS as you are pinging previous users you have directly worked beside while constructing this controversial essay. WMrapids (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: Please take a look at the page's statistics before making these suggestions: I have notified every single contributor to the page, without any distinctions, including editors with which I have had editorial differences in the past, and I have likewise left an invitation in the WikiProject's talk page to participate ([69]. Please be mindful also of WP:KETTLE, have you yourself have been subject to WP:CANVASS allegations in a currently open move discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were editors who participated in a similar move proposal, not editors that I directly collaborated with in building a controversial article. WMrapids (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is increasingly frustrating and exhausting, but I have to respond because these are strong accusations and you have sticked a note in the RfC:

Out of the 9 notifications, Kingsif and ReyHahn are main contributors, but the remaining 7 have only made a single edit each, which is easily verifiable in the edit history.

Novem Linguae made two edits placing a category:[70][71] John of Reading fixed a typo: [72], Ira Leviton fixed a reference: [73], Buidhe fixed a note: [74], Stephenamills fixed another typo: [75], Wilfredor gave the description to El Universal: [76], and MarioGom modified Voice of America's description: [77].

Canvassing happens when the notifications are expected to influence the outcome in one's favor, but given how little these editors have contributed as a whole your assertion is clearly misleading. I would like to kindly ask you to strike your comment as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what are the precedents, but this ping looks fair game. For what it's worth, I think I've been in disagreement with NoonIcarus at most encounters I remember related to Venezuela. So I'm pretty sure I was not pinged to strengthen their position. MarioGom (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This isn't canvassing. NoonIcarus is just pinging most people that may be interested here. This has had relatively low participation, and bringing more people in is probably a good idea. As NoonIcarus has wrote, most of these people have made only minor edits. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]