Wikinews talk:Cite sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago by SVTCobra in topic Date URL accessed

What about reputability of sources? I seem to recall WpA having a big thing with that, is it the same here? 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Source order detail


The page says currently "It doesn't matter what order your references appear in" - it seems like there is a strong preference to list sources in order from most recent to least recent (although I can't find that mentioned in the Style page). Should we maybe note that here or on the style page? JoshuaZ 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have often made edits to resort sources in this way. I guess the practices of those before me, resorting my sources, made me pass it on regardless of explicit policy. However, there should be a policy, and recent first makes sense, especially in 'breaking news' stories. But I have noted that the natural tendency is to list sources chronologically, top-down. --SVTCobra 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
How about "It does not matter what order your references appear in but chronological order with most recent first is a commonly used convention"? I'd almost favor just making it "Sources should be listed chronologically" since at least in theory policy reflects what the community consensus is about how to do things. JoshuaZ 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
It does matter according to the Archive Conventions. "Sources should be sorted newest -> oldest". Jcart1534 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
It figures that you would know the archiving conventions. Ok, we should have that somewhere more prominent. At minimum we need to deal with that that policy then contradicts this one. JoshuaZ 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I suspected that the 'recent-first' policy came from somewhere, and not just hand-me-down practices. In light of this, I suggest making it policy for every news item. If for no other reason, it makes it easier on the archivers. --SVTCobra 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are we saying the same thing, JoshuaZ? ----SVTCobra 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually I edit conflicted with you- I was going to clarify what I was saying to make clear that I was saying pretty much what you just said. Only detail is that I'd add it to the Style page to since people will likely look there for this sort of info. JoshuaZ 01:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it should be on WN:SG as well. --SVTCobra 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, if there are no objections I'll go add it here and at WN:SG. JoshuaZ 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
  Support I do not object. However, should this have been flagged first or brought up at Wikinews:Water cooler/policy? --SVTCobra 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've brought it up at the Water Cooler. JoshuaZ 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Multiple Sources


Shouldn't we include somewhere that we require multiple sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talkcontribs)

"Only articles recent enough"


It took me a minute to figure out what "only articles recent enough that they have themselves passed through the system of independent peer review" may be used as sources meant. It referred to the reintroduction of the review system didn't it? "Recent enough" had me thinking in terms of weeks. If it's been ten years, maybe an update is in order.

1) Do we still want to permit Wikinews articles to be used as sources at all? 2) If so, should we change this line to something less confusing, like "only sources from after [2009], which were published under our current peer review system." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkfrog24 (talkcontribs) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re (1), of course we use Wikinews articles as sources. This is basic technique, on Wikinews and in conventional journalism.

(I'll take a look at the precise phrasing, re (2), when I'm less tired yet have a moment not reviewing. Probably not a good idea to build a specific date into it rigidly, although, yes, it'd be around 2009; for the somewhat less individually sensitive matter of deleting pre-publish redirects we used 2009.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, okay, tried something. @Darkfrog24: Is this revised wording clearer to you? --Pi zero (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think that will tip off newer (as in since 2010) participants, yes. It was 2009, right? I didn't go back and check. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I hedged a bit, in the wording; one really ought after all to carefully examine an article to be sure it was reviewed properly if one is going to use it. But, yeah, that's pretty much it; the edit to Wikinews:Reviewing articles marking it as a policy was made on January 25, 2009, and the associated discussion indicates the practice was already in force. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Date URL accessed


There doesn't seem to be any documented guidance on how to note what date a given URL is accessed. For example when citing utility pages such as those on, which don't have a publication date (they aren't proper articles) and are updated as new information surfaces, we are to somehow note the date we accessed the site, i.e., (source accessed).

The guidance should recommend standard verbiage if we want standard verbiage. It might also be good to recommend that authors get an archived snapshot (from, for example) if possible when citing such sources.

Maybe a "date accessed" field could be added to template:source and the template could manage the verbiage. This could be useful even for citing proper articles, as they are often updated or even retracted.

I've received recommendation for two different versions of how to note the date accessed. That tells me two different people at least feel it should be standardized. Unfortunately the two recommendations were different from one another. ツ

I'm not trying to call anyone out or say I was mislead by anyone. In both cases the individuals were being helpful.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking about this issue this morning. SVTCobra uses (source accessed), while Chaetodipus (cf. here) uses (date of access), also used by George Ho and the reviewing Cromium here; this article by WSS and reviewed by, of course, Pi zero, posits a third, (accessed). I myself have used (source accessed), but that was solely on the first's recommendation. Heavy Water (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think, I would tend to use (date of access) or at least something explaining the date. I don't know what I used to do in past decades. I probably used various forms. Cheers, SVTCobra 07:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "Cite sources".