Powerbase:A Guide to Sourcing
Sourcing is a fundamental part of SpinProfiles, which relates to where we find the information that informs our articles. Without a reference to sources in our articles, how can a reader verify what we are saying or check the context? The use of sources brings with it questions of credibility, reliability and what is reputable. This guide sets out the views of SpinProfiles on such matters to support writers in selecting their sources.
As the authors of a book titled Trust Us, We’re Experts, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have given quite a bit of thought to the question of what makes information credible. SpinProfiles intentionally avoids invoking "trusted authority figures." Instead, its credibility will depend on the degree to which articles are well-written and backed with supporting documentation, terms of art from "less social" sciences where these are applicable, and the degree to which credibility specialists themselves feel they can stake their credibility on trusting it.
Contents
What is reputable?
The evaluation of reputable sources is not always easy. We think that the accuracy of information in published sources is not governed by how 'reputable' the source is or is regarded as. This is in part because many of the sources regarded as reputable in the mainstream are, in fact, often a key part of the problem of spin and propaganda, which this database has been set up to expose. So we have a policy which foregrounds accuracy over reputation of sources. So our policy is different from that of Wikipedia, for example: their policy is worth quoting as we think it highlights part of the problem faced in this area.
This is what Wikipedia says about Reputable publications:
- Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
We agree with this, though it is obviously the case that such sources are not beyond critique. For non academic sources, Wikipedia notes:
- it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
We think that this is a very revealing passage, which helps clarify the difference between reputation, evaluation and accuracy. Any statement that President Bush hates children is an evaluative statement. It should, therefore, be based on evidence. The evaluation cannnot be short circuited by relying on a source, 'reputable' or not. It has to be based on evidence which might be gleaned - in principle - from either the New York Times or a radical newspaper or website. But a significant part of what this site is about is providing a critique of mainstream (and sometimes 'radical') sources. How can we criticise the mainstream media and still use them as sources?
Wikipedia goes on:
- Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable."
When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.
Credentialism
Credentialism is the undue reliance or emphasis upon credentials such as titles, awards, and college degrees as an indicator of a person or group's intellectual, financial or social worth; in particular, the worth of their opinions.
Although credentials can be abused, they are not valueless. Someone with professional or academic credentials from a credible source has at least spent some time studying or practicing in a particular area, even if their judgments aren't always correct. It is often appropriate to be suspicious of supposedly expert assertions for which credentialed proponents cannot be found. Conversely, though, one should not assume that an assertion is correct simply because someone with credentials claims that it is.
Remember that lots of important information has no dependence on credentials. Exclusive reliance on credentials can imply that statements of fact, and personal statements, neither of which require credentials, are unimportant.
Sometimes credentials can be used in a misleading manner. Sometimes a supposedly "expert" statement is made by someone identified as having credentials, without making it clear that the credentials are in a field unrelated to the statement. For example, while Laura Schlessinger has a counseling and social advocacy radio show titled "Dr. Laura", her only doctoral degree as of 2003 was a PhD in physiology. (Furthermore, she refers to her "post-doctoral studies" which were in an unrelated Masters level family counseling program, further leading listeners to assume she had a psychology doctorate.)
Other times credentials can come from suspicious or non-disinterested sources, or involve less oversight than a casual reader might believe. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard at various times in his life claimed various PhDs, in one case awarded by a diploma mill in California, and in other cases awarded by himself. Similarly, some Scientology front groups have advertised endorsements by other Scientology front groups, without the common Scientology connection being revealed.
Credentials can sometimes hint at possible bias on the speaker's part. If someone with a credential in either environmental issues or economics expresses opinions on an issue relevant to both, their remarks may reflect a bias favoring their own field. And those that have received awards or other favors from particular organizations may sometimes be biased concerning the agenda of those organizations. Like most other statements about credentials, though, this is far from a hard and fast rule.
The opposite of credentialism might be called justfolksism. (Perhaps someone will provide a term already in circulation.) A quote in a news story from a "citizen," "neighbor," or "employee" could be masking expertise and bias. For example, consider a citizen who comes to a demonstration and is quoted without disclosing the information that he or she is a an award-winning expert with a stake in one side of the issue or a paid operative of a political party or lobby.
Guidelines for the use of Sources
When writing an article on SpinProfiles try and give enough information on a person or group so that a person who knows nothing about them can come away informed. Try to write a profile clearly and logically, including background information, funding, current activities and information on key personnel, if it is an organization. Break the article down into sub-headings that are not sensationalist but try and summarise some of the issues in that section.
Please try and avoid over-long sentences and huge swathes of text that do not include paragraph breaks. Don’t of course forget to reference (See A Guide to Referencing). See also SpinProfiles:Editorial Policy and SpinProfiles:A Guide to the use of Tone
Don’t make statements you can’t back up with evidence
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, SpinProfiles should not have an article on it.
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. Perhaps you are able to add a source for it yourself, or if you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page.
Random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Any contentious or unflattering statement must be backed by evidence. Provide references to sources and ensure that you are using sources correctly, i.e. accurately representing what they say. Also if the person / organisation / company etc. has denied the accusation in material you are quoting from (or later in a letter of clarification or a correction note), this should be reflected in the article you write.
Quote accurately
Take care to quote people or printed material accurately, and to represent their views correctly. Misquotations can be used as an excuse to sue, or even (in the case of world leaders) an excuse to threaten war.
A notorious example of misquotation, helped along by the language barrier, arose from a statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became the president of Iran in 2005. He was widely quoted in the Western press and by Western political leaders as making a statement that was translated as, “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.”[1]
But Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, said, “Ahmadinejad did not say that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.”[2]
In other words, according to Cole, Ahmadinejad was talking about the end of the Zionist regime, which could occur of its own accord, rather than destroying the state of Israel.
Don’t quote out of context
Take care not to quote people or printed material out of context, thereby changing their/its meaning. Spinprofiles authors will be very familiar with this practice, as engaged in by the people and organizations that they work to expose. That’s all the more reason why Spinprofiles authors must not be caught doing the same.
An example of quoting out of context is US President George W. Bush’s attempt to justify his failure to take action on global warming by quoting a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report of 2001. Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer claimed the report, which mentioned “natural variability” [3] in climate, was “inconclusive” about whether humans or natural causes were responsible for global warming.[4]
But in fact, the NAS report did blame human activities for the major part of global warming, as is clear from the full context of the quote:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century…The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] … report."[5]
The IPCC report with which the NAS is agreeing concluded, in a statement completely at odds with Bush’s claim, “The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities.”[6]
Be specific about sources
Backing up your statements with evidence does not mean just inserting a weblink to an entire website, book, or article in the hope that your reader will trawl through it in a search for the relevant evidence. This is equivalent to reporting a murder to the police and telling them that the body is somewhere in London. Please extract the relevant quote or section and present it clearly. Give specific references to page numbers, etc.
Be Specific
It helps too if you can be as specific as possible about the source of your information in the body text itself, in concise form, as this lends authority and a reassuring objectivity to what you are saying as well as putting potentially controversial views into someone else’s mouth.
Example:
INCORRECT: Joe Bloggs has been called “the biggest idiot who ever sat in the House of Lords”[5].
(NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION ON SOURCE IN THE TEXT OR THE REF BELOW. SAY WHO CALLED HIM THAT)
DEFINITELY INCORRECT:
Joe Bloggs is “the biggest idiot who ever sat in the House of Lords”[5].
(SUBJECTIVE, IN THAT THE VIEW IS NOT ATTRIBUTED IN TEXT SO SOUNDS LIKE WRITER’S PREJUDICE; ALSO, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE TEXT OR IN REF BELOW)
WORST OF ALL:
Joe Bloggs is the biggest idiot who ever sat in the House of Lords.
(SUBJECTIVE AND WILL BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND)
Notes
5. www.joebloggsanidiot.com/houseoflords
(THERE’S A RISK THAT THE LINK WILL SOON BE DEAD AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SEEK OUT ARTICLE/SOURCE)
CORRECT:
According to Jane Smith, writing in the Guardian, Joe Bloggs is “the biggest idiot who ever sat in the House of Lords”[5].
ALSO CORRECT:
Jane Smith, in her biography of Bloggs, calls him “the biggest idiot who ever sat in the House of Lords”[5].
Notes
5. Jane Smith, "Idiot in the House", The Guardian, 4 July 2008, p. xx.
Beware dead weblinks
As articles become older it is possible that many of the weblinks in the references become lost (deadlinks). We can’t assume that readers will hunt down sources for our information. If the source isn’t easy for them to access, they will simply discount the information.
Portal editors will need to keep an eye on the state of weblinks in their portal’s articles. Often you can track down live links to sources by doing a search at the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
Sources in languages other than English
SpinProfiles is a British project and for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a SpinProfiles editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
- Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
- Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
Groups/Individuals posting articles on themselves
We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SpinProfiles articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated. We encourage people who edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or editing the site.
Inaccuracies & complaints
It is the intention of this site to provide factually correct information that is referenced to a high standard. Whilst we undertake our own fact checking and encourage all our users to do so, it is not possible to check all the original references used on this site.
If anyone believes that information on Spinprofiles is not factually correct or contains significant errors, we will try and correct them as soon as possible. Please email with as much detail and supporting material to management AT spinprofiles.org
Further reading
- Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Health
