User:FortunateSons/sandbox

Reliable sources can be prejudiced.

Some sources are considered to be prejudiced by some editors, despite a consensus regarding relative or absolute reliability. There is no consistent standard that mandates a source be declared as unreliable simply for holding or disseminating views that are considered hateful. In addition, trying to develop a consensus for the question of a specific source's prejudice (or a general standard for prejudice within reliable sources) is unlikely to be productive. When citing those sources within an article, editors ought to be mindful of both the content of the source and their impact on the reader and their colleagues (as well as the subject of the article).

Identfiying prejudiced sources

When can a source be considered prejudiced?

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of when a source is or isn't prejudiced. A source is usually prejudiced if a significant number of sources refer to it as such, or if a significant number of organizations tasked with the protection of members of the victimized groups consider it to be. However, as there is no universal standard of prejudice, it is almost always better to avoid an in-depth discussion of abstract prejudice, and instead specifically focus on the intersection of prejudice and unreliability. Generally speaking, prejudice becomes unreliability when it goes significantly beyond what is normal for the type of source, considering all significant external circumstances. Sources can be prejudiced against a multitude of components of a person's identity, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, faith, nationality, gender, sexuality, disability, political leaning, or socioeconomic class. In general, the most common definition or definition should be used; if the most widespread definition has attracted significant controversy, other definitions should be used to supplement and evaluate the source.

How can prejudice manifest itself?

Among others, otherwise reliable sources may:

1. Use language or phrasings that are considered hateful, or attacking identity markers considered to be proxies for this group.
2. Implicitly or explicitly support or justify what is perceived as violence against a group.
3. Deny their lived experiences, including experiences of discrimination and harm.
4. Support political or social movements that are perceived as harmful.
5. Publish directly hateful media that does not impact its reliability, but does contribute to other harm, such as through the spread of conspiracy theories in opinion pieces or 'fictional' media.
6. Deny that conduct is hateful, even if significant authorities consider it to be.
7. Rely on sources or experts that are broadly considered to be hateful.
8. Be affiliated with persons or groups with histories of extremism or even violent conduct.

Why don’t we just depreciate them all?

In a perfect world, no hateful source would be reliable, and any reliable source would do its best to avoid any sort of harmful prejudice. Unfortunately, neither of those is the case. In this context, it is essential to be mindful of bias, particularly in cases where the source has a strong political leaning or primarily serves a national, ethnic, or religious group. In such cases, considering all sources that hold a view shared by the overwhelming majority of a group to be unreliable would effectively mean that their perspective would not be represented at all.

How should editors cite potentially prejudiced sources?

Evaluate policy compliance

While a prejudiced source can be reliable, they often aren’t, particularly in the areas where their prejudices are particularly apparent. Editors in favor or opposed to using the source should check the list of perennial sources for an existing consensus, and search the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for past discussions. If they can’t find a discussion of the source or are looking for further clarification, they can ask at the noticeboard; if there are past discussions but no clear consensus, a Request for Comment may lead to a consensus about the use of the source.

In a case where the source is reliable and simply biased, which sources rightly or wrongly perceived as prejudiced usually are, attributing the view can be the best way to include the source's content. In addition, the use of a prejudiced source can be undue. In general, a source can be considered unreliable when its prejudice goes significantly beyond what is normal for the type of source. While bias does not equal unreliability, it is significantly more likely that sources prejudiced representing extremist political or social movements are unreliable.

Be mindful of your fellow editors

No matter if you are in favor or against citing an allegedly prejudiced source, you should take additional care when discussing and editing such citations. When in doubt, taking a short break is beneficial when the discussion gets heated. Generally speaking, you should believe that editors expressing offence are doing so in good faith.

If you are citing the source, you should be mindful that whether or not you believe the source is actually prejudiced, the views held can be distressing to other editors. Particularly if the criteria is a protected group (or comparable to one), not applying the necessary degree of sensitivity may lead to sanctions. In addition, even if your conduct is not sanctionable, acting in a less-than-appropriate manner when editing with such sources can harm the encyclopedia and its editors.

If you are opposed to citing a source, avoiding generalizing about the readers or views of the source is essential to allow for a productive discussion. Particularly in charged or contentious topics, labeling broadly held views (inside or outside the English-speaking world) as hateful or ascribing such views to your fellow editors without evidence can be disruptive. On the other hand, expressing such views on Wikipedia is disruptive as well, and should be brought to the relevant noticeboards.

Best practice for citing prejudiced sources

Special consideration for living people

When editing about biographies of living persons, one should be particularly mindful when using sources that are considered prejudiced, despite those fulfilling the policy requirements for use. Within mainstream sources or those with a comparable reputation, a case-by-case evaluation is generally appropriate. An article that is prejudiced about parts of the identity of a living person may not be used under any circumstances: A source with a general issue of relevant prejudices may be used, as long as the specific cited piece is not affected. Generally, significant prejudice is indicative but not conclusive as evidence for a specific issue. Citing a source that a reasonable living person would find to be highly offensive should be avoided within their article.

Preference for equal sources

When sourcing representing the same relevant viewpoints for an event is available, editors should preferably use sources with no or lesser prejudice. However, if reliable but prejudiced sources make up a significant part of the held and published viewpoints, it might be necessary to use prejudiced sources. Editors may - but do not have to - use their discretion to fully represent the viewpoint by using less prejudiced sources and relegating the more prejudiced sources as part of the establishing due weight, but not within the article. Within contentious areas, this practice will be almost impossible, particularly in cases of ethnic, religious, or national conflicts, where many editors consider a significant percentage of the sourcing opposed to (and often also many of those in favor of) their viewpoint to be prejudiced.