Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources

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

Segye Ilbo

[edit]

Would you consider Segye Ilbo to be reliable despite the publication being owned by News World Communications, who was founded by the Unification Church founder? —beetricks ~ talk · email 14:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Access Asia

[edit]

Hello! Is the website (allaccessasia.com.au) is a reliable source? Thank you in advance! Byy2 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otakukart

[edit]

Hi! Is Otakukart considered a reliable source? Thank you, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dispatch can be counted as reliable source?

[edit]

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding to the reliabbility of the news media, Dispatch, in Korea. (https://www.dispatch.co.kr/) I usually use dispatch for following korean culture and latest news, and would like to know if it can be included as a reliable source? They usually reporting news by photo taking and writing news by their own reporters, not only quoting rumors on the internet.

Sorry that I'm new to this community and would like to try participating in wikipedia for proving accurate information. Any further details I can provide for counting Dispatch as reliable source? Thanks for the help! Ianmaksh (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it should be not.
Read a precedent case for The Sun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun TheWandering (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also 200,000 people signed petition to get it banned after spreading rumors about G-Dragon and others. Using Dispatch for Wikipedia is a total no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWandering (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Dispatch to be similar to the American site TMZ. I never use it as a source for anything and usually discourage others from doing so. There are tons of other far more reliable, non-tabloid like sites and outlets that can be used to source sports, culture, music etc.-related news. In my experience on WP, most editors generally don't consider it a reliable source nor do they use it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that Allkpop is considered unreliable because the similar problems with rumors/facts. This is its description for All-Kpop in the unreliable section: "A celebrity gossip site based which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts." TheWandering (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlobunnie: What do you think about using Dispatch as sources in Lee Seunggi vs Hook cases? According to this report Dispatch was the winner of the 386th 'Reporter of the Month Award' in the economic report category hosted by the Journalists Association of Korea for 'Kang Jong-hyun's Bithumb... (Fake) Chairman's reality tracker'. So I read the article and the award is prestigious. While report about Lee Seunggi’s case don’t get an award, They were written by the same reporter. Preferwiki (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Seung Gi's case is also reported by the reliable media like Korea Herald, not exclusively Dispatch. Plus, Lee actually spoke about it publicly. So you can't really use that case to support Dispatch.
https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221202000585
https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221216000540&mod=skb
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/entertainment/singer-actor-lee-seung-gi-to-end-contract-with-hook-entertainment-after-18-years TheWandering (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dispatch apparently only joined the Association last year. And for the record, the executive producer of TMZ also "won nine Emmy awards, and has received numerous other journalism awards".
"Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources TheWandering (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I hear other inputs about Dispatch? It's been here for a while.
Considering the precedent against The Sun, AllKpop, and TMZ, I should say no for Dispatch.
I also would like to remind other editors about inconsistencies. Some editors might be tempted to use Dispatch if it published a beneficial news for their idols (although uncorroborated or still rumors), yet they would reject Dispatch if it published negative news about their idols.
I'd tag other active editors: @Explicit @Nkon21 @ChoHyeri TheWandering (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dispatch does not appear at all on the list. Shouldn't this be fixed? Also, should we open another discussion about it since this one is one year old?
I have no personal opinion about the reliability of Dispatch because I don't actually know them well, but I do know, after editing a few K-pop pages, that many crucial people went to Dispatch to release exclusive interviews. So if it will be considered unreliable a disclaimer should be needed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Q

[edit]

Is anyone familiar with Sports Q and can attest to its reliability or lack thereof? I'm looking for a replacement source for the Kult Scene ref in the lead of Love X Stereo and this Sport Q article is the only one I've found that mentions both their debut year and the name of their debut EP. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi

[edit]

While Soompi in its early years was unreliable and disorganized, I think the website should be considered a reliable source, as in the last several years they have refined their system by translating from reliable Korean news sources and even citing them at the bottom of each article for reference. Most of the reliable sources I have used for articles nowadays I've gathered from Soompi's website. However, I know that wikipedia does not like to use first party sources often and it doesn't always help when one of the few sites reporting on certain events is Soompi and they're citing a first party source (ex: Kara has announced they're coming back as a group, the source is an announcement from Kara's official social media pages.)

Its not like allkpop either where they allow users to write the articles themselves, nor do they really give much attention to rumors or gossip, and at least from the articles I've seen in the last few years, they haven't really leaned into editorials when it comes to important news. It very much runs like a professional source nowadays and I think it should be upgraded to one as such. They haven't really done much in recent years to bring their notability into question. - K-popguardian (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K-popguardian I think for this to happen, we will have to determine a date from which we consider the articles written on after as reliable. I can't find any indication of a clear date. Also, we might need a RfC given that this website was discussed a number of times here, and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard, even though there is no formal close to have it listed at WP:RSP. – robertsky (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I noticed Soompi was on your "unreliable sources" list. I read the talks discussing it and it seems like you guys are categorizing it with sites like Allkpop and Koreaboo who, in the former's case, is suspicious to say the least, and in the latter's case is basically just a whole big case of WP:FART in one website. Soompi translates from Korean news websites, and while it may have a little cruft, the same Korean sites it translates from have cruft too. I'm wondering why it's considered an unreliable source when it just translates from (AFAIK reliable) Korean sources. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Soompi's writers are not subject experts. Their articles are still posted/written by fans or obscure writers with no known credentials listed anywhere. An unreliable source's post or article being reported on by reliable sources doesn't make the unreliable source suddenly reliable. As an example, BB has reported on news from Koreaboo before, but Koreaboo is still an unreliable source and no one would argue otherwise. And if they started translating news from reliable Korean-language sources, they'd still be considered an unreliable source, just one that offers translated news also. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I mentioned adding this back in May 2022. Took the liberty of linking it at the top of the page today. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

I leave additional suggestions here for reliable and unreliable sources for Korean websites.

Reliable

Unreliable

You do realize the list is not meant to be a directory of every reliable and unreliable source right? RYM is considered generally unreliable for ALL music on WP (it has been addressed in several discussions found in the WT:WPMU archives), so unless someone is going around insisting on adding it to K-related pages, I don't see a pressing need to have it listed. Forums are considered generally unreliable by the Korea Project (see the cmmts next to Naver Cafe and One Hallyu in the list) and therefore without us having to name every single one, DC Inside is understood to be a no-go as a source. IZM is good no question, but I have to disagree with Genie Music Magazine. That's like citing Weverse Magazine articles. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got what you mean, and of course I'm not asking to everything being listed, it's just a suggestion. However, IZM, Rhythmer, and Visla magazine are accepted as official webzines in Korea. I think there won't be any confusion when it comes to identifying reliable sources for them to be on the list. I think at least some webzines are worth being listed, as Korean indie writings usually overlap music-related sources with Korean-related sources. I will write that because you agreed with IZM. But I think some webzines like Visla, Rhythmer, etc. is also reliable, and if other users think that's right too, I'll revise it too. 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on those other ones because I've never used them, with the exception of IZM. And to be clear, I didn't say or imply that anything is wrong with citing webzines. I just won't comment on the reliability of sources I'm unfamiliar with. Hopefully other editors who know of them will chime in. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. And I will wait for other people's opinions. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esquire Korea

[edit]

Hello! Is Esquire Korea[14] considered a reliable source? Please help me, thank you! Zhglobal (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhmyNews

[edit]

@Toobigtokale Hey, I saw you added OhmyNews to the reliable sources list? OhmyNews is a website that uses user-generated content and is naturally rife with undisclosed conflicts of interest, hoaxes, and other issues (on a Bill Gates assassination hoax and regarding loose fact checking on stories that aren't "hard news"). The 20% of articles written by staff journalists are probably fine, but I don't think we can call non-staff articles reliable. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't heard of those hoaxes and admittedly hadn't read into the situation in detail. Yeah it doesn't belong there. Fortunately I haven't used OhmyNews much in my own writing, but I'll review each of the uses to make sure they're fine. toobigtokale (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Korea

[edit]

The Korean edition of Encyclopædia Britannica no longer exists that currently redirects to Britannica Education site (https://elearn.eb.com/). Is there an Wayback Machine to find on these links per WP:Link rot? 179.49.5.119 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMDb

[edit]

The Korean Movie Database gets referenced a lot; is it a reliable source? Does anyone know about the website? I know the American IMDb isn't, per WP:IMDB. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why IMDb is considered not reliable is because the content there are in part or in whole user generated. Every site is considered separately when assessing for reliability. There is no indication on the KMDb website that the content there is user generated with a cursory glance. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise do share with the rest here or at WP:RSN. – robertsky (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right; I just wasn't sure how its content is written. I was hoping someone was, and would be able to quickly classify the page on this RS list 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting page

[edit]

I'm moving everything to a table, in a similar style to WP:RSPSS, still WIP at time of writing. I avoided making controversial or significant changes; the list should be mostly the same. I added textual descriptions of each source, but tried to keep each one brief to avoid controversy. Please poke me if you disagree, I'm happy to stop and discuss.

Note: in the process of doing so, I removed a couple of sources from the RS list. Some of them are defunct, some I'm skeptical of their reliability so WP:BOLDly took action. Here they are:

Removed these because I'm unsure of their reliability or they're defunct:

  • Newsen
  • Kuki News
  • My Daily
  • Maxim Korea
  • Osen
  • Sinhan Minbo
  • Star N
  • Star News
  • Travel Bike News

A source I added ages back but it's not strongly related enough:

  • Wilson Center Digital Archive

A couple sources I'm unsure of I left on the list, but I marked them as "Needs discussion'. My methodology here for filtering sources wasn't really rigorous, but honestly the list's compilation wasn't in the first place. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newsen and Osen have long been considered reliable by the community (at least in the time I've been part of it) so they should be restored. Honestly, I wouldn't have removed them without first finding out what the consensus on them is, as such an action could have potentially made others (particularly less experienced editors) think there was suddenly a problem concerning the usage of both of these sources (they're used prolifically across the Project after all). Outside of those two, idk which of the other sources you've listed are now defunct, but becoming defunct doesn't particularly mean a strike against a source's reliability either. To the best of my knowledge, both the Sinhan Minbo and My Daily were/are fine, as are Star N and Star News (for entertainment-related news among other things). Kuki News was a source that started being used on WP in more recent years iirc, but I can't really cmmt on its reliability as I'm not familiar with it in detail. Travel Bike is the same, though the latter and the former meet most of the proponents for reliability per WP policy. Maxim Korea might have inherited reliability, to an extent, from its parent Maxim, like Rolling Stone/Rolling Stone Korea/Rolling Stone India, but I've never used it myself so I can only say that at a glance it appears reliable for entertainment-related content. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I do appreciate what you tried to do (though I don't think the simpler list was so terrible to the point it needed a complete overhaul). Will you overhaul the Unreliable section at some point also? There's been numerous discussions abt certain sources on that list over the years so it'd be good to have them linked and easily accessible in a centralized place. Not everyone knows to check the talk page archives (or even bothers to do that tbh). The only reason I'm not offering to help you do it is because my anxiety affects my editing (I edited this comment five times before feeling comfortable enough with the wording to post it) so I only get minimally involved with things anymore. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is the ip that made these changes. Agree with your concerns, and I'll start acting on them. seefooddiet (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading into this more now, but I'm a little skeptical with the argument about status quo for keeping the sources in. I've gone through the archives for this talk page, and imo there's hardly discussion of even the most reliable sources.
When a source makes it onto our reliable sources list, we're essentially making an endorsement of its reliability. Even if a source has been widely used until now, that's not necessarily a guarantee that the source is reliable. Granted, maybe if nobody raised a red flag until now that's a good sign, but that's not necessarily how Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is constructed. For that list, there's a burden of proof to prove reliability for membership in the list. I think in an ideal world, we'd hold the same kind of standard when constructing this list.
Granted, we're a smaller WikiProject so maybe it doesn't make sense to apply that same level of scrutiny. But I'm on the fence. No burden to reply if this is anxiety-enducing btw, I'm mostly sharing general thoughts. Functionally, I'm going to do what you asked, but I have my reservations. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find discussions because there are some sources that most editors belonging to this project almost universally consider reliable, so they were added to the list without requiring discussion/extensive discussion. Project-specific discussions over acceptable/unacceptable project-specific sources don't always happen the same way discussions do on the general RSPSOURCES talk page, which is what I feel you were expecting to see here. So I'd say yes, to an extent you're holding this project's sources list to a higher degree of scrutiny than is warranted. Many discussions have also taken place on the talk pages of articles or on user talk pages, so you won't necessarily find them in the archives here either. Another thing I can see affecting your ability to get the detailed answers you're looking for is the lack of participation from other editors belonging to the project. Ik there are some who can provide far more detailed answers about Korean news sources than I possibly could, but I'm the only one who's responded to you so far.
Also, if Newsen and Osen have raised red flags for you, then you should share those specific concerns here, so that others can address them. If no one does, I can always tag a few editors I know and ask them to chime in and hopefully clear things up for you. Just keep in mind, it's also usually the burden of the one who disagrees with the current/apparent consensus to prove why they are right. The Music Project editors taught me that early on. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may start scrutinizing the list more myself and starting discussions. Even in your first reply to me, the defense provided for a good number of the sources mentioned I'm skeptical of. Newsen and Osen I lean more receptive towards. seefooddiet (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
though I don't think the simpler list was so terrible to the point it needed a complete overhaul. It wasn't that the list is "terrible", it's that the new format has more features that I think most would agree are useful, like the languages and discussion links. I decided to overhaul the list because I've had discussions where people looked at the list and I got a sense that people didn't really fully grasp the information on it and the (lack of) rigor that went into creating it. Pointing out where discussions did and did not happen is important.
The unreliable list needs to be done too, yes, but admittedly not feeling the motivation to do it at the moment. seefooddiet (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, where did you have these discussions and with whom? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't remember which exact discussions I had. It's been months for some of these discussions; this list reformatting was just on my to-do list for a long time.
The key thing is this: do you feel that the new list format is not helpful or worse than the original? If so, I'm genuinely happy to revert, I mean it. Per my OP, I acted boldly because I didn't expect pushback. Pushback means we go back to status quo. seefooddiet (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was more with the removal of sources that shouldn't have been removed (which you and I already discussed above) than it was the attempted overhaul. I don't believe a revert is necessary, because like I said, I understand what you're trying to do. But at the same time, it was done a bit half-baked (hence why I asked if you were going to complete the other half of the page as well). With stuff like this, it's either get it right the first time, or leave it as is until the most refined version of what you're hoping to achieve is determined through discussion/consensus then implement that. That's how it usually works on RSPSOURCES. You'd have been reverted almost instantly and directed to open a discussion on the talk page lol.
Ik you said you're not really in the mood to complete it, but I think you should either convert the unreliable section into a table to match the reliable section, or merge both into one big long list, like the RSPSOURCES list. A color key to demarcate sources that definitely should not be used would be very helpful also. Then, over time, link the various discussions about each source as you find them. But don't abandon it, because it currently looks weirdly incomplete almost. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conceded on the removal of sources, and added them back in.
The reformatting is indeed incremental; I was upfront about that. But I'm consistent about moving things in the right direction over time. Completing the table will come. I'll admit working incrementally is sometimes not the best (although there's minimal harm in this case; we intentionally deemphasize the unreliable sources), but it's just my editing style.
And I'm aware this isn't RSPSOURCES; I gave it less rigor specifically because there wasn't much rigor put into the process in the first place. I don't deserve to be laughed at for trying to do the right thing. seefooddiet (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging you here Seefooddiet as you're the one who used that IP address, right? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you seefooddiet (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maeil Business Newspaper

[edit]

Would the Maeil Business Newspaper be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reliable source. The newspaper is like those other Comprehensive Daily newspaper in South Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lullabying @98Tigerius one note, Maeil Business Newspaper has been using automatic machine translation using Naver Papago for its English, Japanese, and Chinese versions. I would only consider the Korean section reliable, related to Help:Translation#Avoid unedited machine translations. seefooddiet (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of that. Thanks. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 09:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the list with my above caveat seefooddiet (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources&oldid=1240323585"