Talk:Internet checkpoint
Appearance
	
	
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source discussion
Moving from my talk page:
- I got pinged. I am very concerned with four of the five sources used in the Taia777 section.
- The academic paper one is good, but the others are very bad.
 - The internet archive one is the archival page of a specific YouTube video. I question its reliability.
 - The Chinese one is UCG. Huxiu is a Chinese forum. VGtime operates an account there that republishes articles for maximum exposure. This article seems to be not published on their website, rather a WeChat publication platform exclusive article. VGtime later become an AI farm and is essentially dead now.
 - The Japanese one is UCG, too. Note is a well-known Japanese blogging website similar to Blogspot.
 - I think I don't need to analyse the "Anya is typing" one, it is in English and is clearly another Blogspot.
 
 - Given that the internet checkpoint phenomenon is almost centred entirely around Taia777's video, the questionable sourcing quality of this section makes the entire article fall apart. MilkyDefer 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I sent you a message over on your talk page @MilkyDefer, lets talk there. 11WB (talk)  03:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Actually never mind. I don't think it is fair to exclude @Axem Titanium from the conversation. I will respond to your analysis in a moment. Bear with me. 11WB (talk)  03:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Your concerns regarding reliability are valid. If I may respond to each bullet point accordingly, we can resolve this issue fairly quickly. Pretty much all the sources have information that is backed up by the others, so I disagree with '
the questionable sourcing quality of this section makes the entire article fall apart
'.- The academic paper is obviously reliable, this one doesn't need to be analysed. It is in the peer reviewed journal Time & Society.
 - The original video is from YouTube. This comes under WP:SPS, however I believe some of the information it provides is acceptable. A proper publication from LAD'N [1] used in the commentary section actually references it directly.
 - I am unfamiliar with Huxiu and after searching on WP:RS/N, it doesn't appear to have ever been discussed. It also doesn't appear to be listed on the [Chinese Wikipedia reliable sources list]. This currently comes under unknown and would need to be discussed at RS/N.
 - Same as above for this one.
 - This one is Substack, which is a unique case. As seen at WP:NPPSG and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 457#Is there a blanket policy on Substack?, each site has to be judged on its own merits. I think this one is okay to use, as it is an interview with the author of a published work also used in the article.
 
 - You are absolutely justified to add the banner regarding this, however at this time, I don't think it causes the article to completely fail WP:GNG. It is covered in known reliable sources and the above lesser known sources. 11WB (talk)  04:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I do wish to also point out that the entire section on Taia777 isn't just limited to those 5 sources. It also uses the source from Dazed among others. 11WB (talk)  04:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the Note and Huxiu sources, unknown does not necessarily mean it should be used. Those two sources which only substantiate minor details have now been removed. @MilkyDefer 11WB (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
 
 
 - I do wish to also point out that the entire section on Taia777 isn't just limited to those 5 sources. It also uses the source from Dazed among others. 11WB (talk)  04:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
 
 - Your concerns regarding reliability are valid. If I may respond to each bullet point accordingly, we can resolve this issue fairly quickly. Pretty much all the sources have information that is backed up by the others, so I disagree with '
 
 - Actually never mind. I don't think it is fair to exclude @Axem Titanium from the conversation. I will respond to your analysis in a moment. Bear with me. 11WB (talk)  03:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
 
 - I sent you a message over on your talk page @MilkyDefer, lets talk there. 11WB (talk)  03:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
 
