Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/SSSniperWolf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dexerto reliability[edit]

@Siroxo and @Davest3r08, is it correct that you disagree on the reliability of Dexerto? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jazz, I will answer this question later, I am currently busy. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshiman6464, feel free to weigh in as well. Is it correct that one Dexerto article is potentially usable while the others are not, like the table currently says? Is there something different about that article? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: It depends on the article. I moved one of the Dexerto articles to an unusable category because it takes information from another YouTube video without adding any original insight or commentary. At least with the other articles, different sources are used to present a story - like in the "ghosting" terminally ill fan article. The article references No Jumper, Keemstar, and SSSniperWolf herself with a conclusion - "Luckily, this situation had a positive (if incredibly bittersweet) ending — even if the road getting there was a little rocky." Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz, yes. With titles such as "Top 10 meme-inspired Halloween costume ideas for 2023", "Which celebrities appeared in the latest episode of Hell’s Kitchen?", and "Why did Gordon blow up at Jason Hedin in Hell’s Kitchen?" in their Entertainment section, this website just looks like the average clickbait content farm BS you'd see on something like WatchMojo or BuzzFeed. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News outlets and magazines like NBC, Forbes, and The New York Times would not care that much about what happened on today's episode of Hell's Kitchen. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Dexerto is between "Generally unreliable" and "Additional considerations" for me. Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dexerto is on WP:RSP now, noting specifically it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs —siroχo 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT[edit]

Could someone add https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opinion/cultural-appropriation-opera.html to the list? Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frostly, added but I can't properly evaluate this, hopefully someone else will. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

I requested a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 27. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Could someone with access to The Wikipedia Library check out this source? The SIGCOV here is unclear. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davest3r08, I have access to The Wikipedia Library but it doesn't include the NYT. (only historical NYT through newspapers.com and ProQuest) Searching Google confirms that the text I recovered is all as a search for "now routine among many Americans her age and even older." reveals the next line to be "A surly teen sweetly totaled my car not long ago (I'm fine!), and despite his being ..." which matches what I saw in the code.
I also found a proper copy of the whole article and the three lines I cited are all there is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw someone mark this as a passing mention, but I think there is sigcov. There's sufficient information to extract without original research for a descriptive/style section, eg:

Linguist John McWhorter of the New York Times describes the YouTuber's "effortless infusion" of Black English.

Whether it's Orange tickY or Red XN for SIGCOV is a matter of opinion, but it does contain SIGCOV. —siroχo 15:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siroxo, this is partially why I left the question mark for SIGCOV in the template for the NYT entry. I agree the source could be used in an article about her. I doubt it contributes (much) to her notability just like it doesn't really contribute to the notability of the unnamed surly teen who totaled his car.
I guess it contributes a teeny-tiny bit to her notability, but it would be so little one might consider it a rounding error. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether it's Orange tick or Red X for SIGCOV is a matter of opinion, but it does contain SIGCOV" explain this argument to me like I'm an idiot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, opinions consist of the personal belief of individuals. "belief" are the things people believe, like whether god(s) exist or whether Sean Connery or Daniel Craig is the better Bond. An individual is one person, like you and me.
Whether the tick shall be orange or red depends on the belief of the person you ask and their interpretation of Wikipedia policies. A source may contain SIGCOV, but so little that some individuals would have the belief the tick should be red due to the SIGCOV being very small. When you do ask someone for their opinion, please be kind to them and don't act in a hostile way as this tends to upset people. Upsetting people is generally considered to be a bad thing as it demotivates people and makes them dislike you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing coverage with SIGCOV, if its SIGCOV its SIGCOV no matter how small... There is no amount of SIGCOV too small to count as SIGCOV. That is not an opinion which can be held by a competent editor. Whether or not it is SIGCOV is a matter of opinion, but whether SIGCOV counts as SIGCOV is not. By definition non-significant coverage can not contain significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indirectly suggesting some editors are incompetent may upset them, it's advisable to refrain from doing that.
As WP:SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As demonstrated by Siroxo, it's possible to extract the content without original research. Whether this coverage is more than a "trivial mention" is a matter of opinion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Whether it is significant coverage or not is a matter of opinion. But SIGCOV is a binary... It either is or it isn't... There is no second judgement call about whether the SIGCOV is SIGCOV enough. There is no space in our policies and guidelines for "A source may contain SIGCOV, but so little that some individuals would have the belief the tick should be red due to the SIGCOV being very small." Those hypothetical individual are either incompetent or malicious, I choose to AGF in this hypothetical so going with incompetent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hanlon's Razor Banks Irk (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... I wish incompetence wasn't such a loaded term for some, I know I've done some damn incompetent things and am grateful to those who chose to educate me. Incompetence per say isn't a behavior problem, a pattern of failing to improve (that is to become competent) is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to call editors anything. The line That is not an opinion which can be held by a competent editor. could be scrapped from your comment without changing your argument.
The whole argument boils down to you misunderstanding how people categorize things and why they do that. You can categorize based on what's technically correct or based on practical needs. Neither is incompetent or malicious. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have room for that sort of discretion in the WP:N process... But it isn't around SIGCOV in that way, SIGCOV is a binary there either is significant coverage or there is not. Something with significant coverage can still be deleted or merged. The "practical needs" veto can be found here "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially If adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. A source or sources either are Significant Coverage or they aren't. Editors can disagree about whether SNG is met or not. But it is a binary choice. "Splitting the baby" with a mark that implies "it may or may not be SNG" would be appropriate only where there is a close, no consensus, discussion on that question. Banks Irk (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘
Banks Irk, a source can contain significant coverage and technically contribute to notability, but the contribution may be so tiny it's barely worth counting. In that situation, some editors could decide to set the red X instead of the orange tick in the {{Source assess}} row for the sake of a cleaner presentation if it won't affect the outcome of the notability question. I believe that's all Siroxo was alluding to. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that argument makes no sense to me, and directly contradicts SNG. If a source is "so tiny" that it only merits an Orange tag in this particular walled garden of En.Wikipedia, then it isn't SNG. This isn't even subject to debate; it is simply so wrong as to not even be wrong. Banks Irk (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're assessing a potential biography, and we're discussing SIGCOV, it seems the most relevant SNG is probably the WP:BASIC criteria of WP:BIO. That SNG states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with caveats about trivial coverage using directory mentions, quotations and job hiring statements as examples). Indeed as Alexis Jazz is saying, I'm suggesting that it's a matter of opinion how to mark the assessment of the source in the table that they and another editor have been putting together. —siroχo 02:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The standard suggests that 100 trivial references do not establish SNG, but perhaps, a dozen or half-dozen non-trivial, but something less than in-depth references that, though insufficient to establish SNG on a stand-alone basis, might, collectively, establish SNG. Again, one might differ on whether SNG is or is not met in that circumstance. But the consensus of a discussion on that question should conclude one way or the other. Yes or no. If there is no consensus, we don't split the baby. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all saying the same exact thing with very slightly different words. —siroχo 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source that possibly accepts guest posts[edit]

The Thaiger seems to accept guest posts. Does this mean that it is self-published and/or user-generated? — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that they have no editorial policies and/or editorial oversight. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Davest3r08, I found [1] but that oddly seems to have been posted as an article. Still, it does make some statements. [2] was written by Jimmy Donovan who is not listed on [3] but his page says "Jimmy, currently with The Thaiger, translates his global journalism experience to bring insights about Thailand to life." I'm unsure what this means.
The other article was written by Lilly Larkin who is listed on [4]. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz Ok, but is it reliable despite what you mentioned? — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Davest3r08, that's the million-dollar question, innit? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UGC?[edit]

yen.com.gh claims to be user-generated but I cannot find any proof of that for some reason.
SSSniperWolf source: [5] — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davest3r08, I think "It covers local and international news, politics, business, entertainment, technology, sport news and users’ generated news content." means they cover user-generated content, not that they accept it. E.g. [6]. Anyway, watch Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Yen.com.gh. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz, could you please stop posting about SSSniperWolf-related sources at the reliable sources noticeboard? People are already getting tired of it, and that's why I retrieved myself from starting such discussions there. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut[edit]

Would WP:SSSSOURCES be a plausible shortcut? — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davest3r08, this page is more or less obsolete as we have Alia Shelesh now. (if anyone feels an urge to get rid of it, please just move it back to User:Alexis Reggae/Sssniperwolf sources) The only reason to ever link this page in the future would IMHO be as an example of centralized source collection. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Centralized source assessment project.
So I doubt there's a need for a shortcut. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Source_assessment/SSSniperWolf&oldid=1188298233"