Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Freie Welt is a RELIABLE SOURCE.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claim that Freie Weit is a reliable source - details | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
STATEMENT/CLAIMFreie Welt is a RELIABLE SOURCE, in the sense of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE. Description Freie Welt (freiewelt.net) is a newspaper ("Zeitung"). It happens to be a internet newspaper in a blog format ("Internetzeitung / Blogzeitung") but that does not make it a (self-published) "blog". (Nor is it a automated aggregated newsfeed, nor a vendor, nor an e-commerce site.) Several "reliable" newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs, and these are often acceptable sources. The difference is that the articles are not merely self-published posts, but receive editorial control and oversight. Its articles are reviewed by individual editors and a council of senior editors (see below). No advertisements, no paywall, no subscriptions Just like Wikipedia, Freie Welt has no advertisements and no "paywall" (subscription required to read the rest of the articles). Just like Wikipedia, it is only funded by voluntary donations ("Die Freie Welt.net ist eine Onlinezeitung, die sich allein aus Spenden finanziert."). This implies that Freie Welt has no financial incentive to publish factually inaccurate "click bait" or "sensationalist" articles for the purpose of generating revenue with online advertisements and new subscriptions, at the expense of quality or accuracy. This is of course by itself not sufficient to establish reliability, but it greatly increases the probability that a given source is reliable (in addition to the other arguments). Substantial editorial review Most importantly, Freie Welt, in order to properly engage in fact checking, is a publication with substantial editorial control and oversight. The Wikipedia page on identifying reliable sources states: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Freie Welt has an editor-in-chief, and, in addition, a council of senior editors ("Redaktionsbeirat") consisting of no less than five different editors (one of whom has an academic degree), as well as many individual editors ("Redaktion"). The editor-in-chief is:
The council of senior editors ("Redaktionsbeirat") of Freie Welt consists of:
People who are individual editors ("Redaktion") for Freie Welt include:
Wikipedia policy considers academic and scholarly sources to be the most reliable. While such a large number and large variety of scholars, researchers, academics, and scientists, of course does not make Freie Welt an academic/scholarly source, it does come close, thus undeniably making it a reliable source: First of all, articles on Freie Welt would not be able to pass a peer review of such a enormous number of scholarly, academic, and scientific editors, if they were not of high quality and factually accurate. Secondly, if Freie Welt were an unreliable and unreputable source, one that published "hit pieces", "hack journalism", or "yellow journalism", then so many different scholars, researchers, and scientists, would never agree to be associated with it as its reviewers and authors. Retractions ("Korrektur") WP:RS says "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Freie Welt enthusiastically encourages retraction of factually incorrect information: e.g.:
Official endorsements FreiWelt is explicitly endorsed ("getragen") by multiple reputable organisations, including the "Zivile Koalition", the "Bürgerkonvent", and the Institut für Strategische Studien Berlin (ISSB).
The fact that multiple non-profit, non-partisan, independent organisations — especially including a scientific institute —, are willing to explicitly endorse Freie Welt, even more establishes that this source is a reputable source (even though it was already sufficiently established by the previous arguments). Relevant quote I have translated the relevant section from their article about MGTOW below:
The above description is 100 percent true and factually accurate. In addition, the statements in Freie Welt's description are corroborated by other reliable sources. To anyone familiar with how the term MGTOW is used in the real world, there is nothing even remotely questionable, outlandish, far-fetched, or controversial about the above description. Even a cursory glance at writings about MGTOW can confirm this. For example, John Hembling (not WP:RS, but how the term is used in reality) writes (Sep. 2014):
POV-pushing A sentence in the article which cited this particular source was almost immediately deleted from the article, apparently on grounds that the source was just "a partisan blog". However, being a "blog" does not make a newspaper unreliable, even according to WP:RS. Many old media now also have blogs because of declining sales of paper newspapers. In the same vein, the fact that a particular source has certain guiding principles (in the case of Freie Welt this includes rather mainstream views, such as: the democratic rule of law, the separation of powers, a social market economy, and protection of civil rights) is also not an valid objection: having a certain political perspective does not make a source unreliable, according to WP:RS. While I initially assumed good faith (WP:AGF), this assumption has become increasingly hard to justify, especially in light of the recent massive negative POV-pushing quote-mining smear campaign against MGTOW that had taken place in the article, under the false pretence of objectivity. I can only conclude that this particular source was intentionally deleted, in order to paint a heavily biased picture of MGTOW as being a WP:FRINGE "cult" of bitter, paranoid men living alone in the wilderness (presumably with a Unabomber-like manifesto?) without electricity and without interaction with other humans, who (logically self-contradictory) take part with others in a online community; instead MGTOW is in reality a massive global phenomenon. I am not at all opposed to including criticisms, indeed I don't mind it if others add criticisms (in the "Criticisms" subsection), as long as the criticism section doesn't begin to dominate the article, as per WP:NPOV); but this article had been blatantly edited to contain nothing but criticism of MGTOW, and no description of what MGTOW actually is. Conclusion With the above arguments, I have demonstrated definitively that Freie Welt is a reliable source. Moreover, common sense, editorial good judgement, and a dedication to Truth, all demand that this source be included. All of the statements in this excellent, almost-scholarly, source need to be included in the article as statements of fact. (Of course, we can closely WP:PARAPHRASE the sentences.) Any further attempts to delete statements that cite this excellent source can and should be interpreted as vandalism (as per WP:VANDAL). —DystopiaTourist. 12:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
- I agree, and thank you for looking in to it. - Scarpy (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I should clarify, I agree that the Freie Welt source is appropriate for this article (as documented above). I don't entirely agree with the above POV-pushing section. While there has been some editors using ad-hominems to describe MGTOW, there has also been a fair amount of POV-pushing from the other side favorable to MGTOW. I would say, at the moment, the article is written from a WP:NPOV. - Scarpy (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but perhaps you could explain how a newly created SPA can make a declaration like this? The references to policy make it very very clear that you have edited wikipedia before. So can be have a little honest please - under what IDs? I've normed the formatting as well ----Snowded TALK 12:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would be nice if he or she would let us know, re-reading WP:SOCK it looks like it's desired but not necessary so long is there's not crossover between the other accounts. - Scarpy (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- You have to declare multiple accounts ----Snowded TALK 05:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly an unreliable source, as the forgoing blizzard of bullshit makes clear (once one has picked through it.)Dan Murphy (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan Murphy can you be more specific as to why you believe the Freie Welt piece is not an appropriate source for this article? - Scarpy (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument, if I may paraphrase, could be summed up as "Is not!". Allow me to retort: "Is too! Marteau (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is a discussion forum for reliable sources. If anyone wants to continue this assertion then they should take it there. In the mean time I have put a hat around the text to make it easier for editors to get to the comments ----Snowded TALK 05:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)