Reliable Sources Are Just As Suspect

There's a debate flowing back and forth over at Wikipedia, about the validity of Zinewiki (the Wiki site dedicated to zines) having its own Wikipedia entry. This doesn't mean that Zinewiki the site will be deleted, just that the Wikipedia entry *about* Zinewiki is targeted for deletion. While that may seem kind of redundant from an outside perspective (it's also an argument that I'll leave to folks more experienced with Wikipedia), an interesting side debate is developing in the discussion.

You can read into the details, rules, and regulations about Wikipedia's policies regarding the validity of threads on your own time - I'll do my best to sum it up here. Basically, an article can be nominated for deletion by any admin if it is perceived that the article violates any number of policies. The Zinewiki entry, specifically, is nominated for deletion (for the second time after consensus on its status was not able to be reached during the first deletion nomination) because it is either "not-notable" or does not come from a "reliable source."

What's sparked my interest in this debate (I'll admit that I have my own interests due to my own contributions and relationship to the site. That however, is irrelevant to this particular commentary) is a comment posted in the discussion:

"Credible sources are a non-negotiable point. That this has only been covered by other 'zines and blogs suggests it is not notable to the wider world. Nobody is questioning people's right to free speech, but something self-published simply does not carry the same weight as one with with paid staff, editorial oversight, incorporation, etc... —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

In the current media climate, the idea of what constitutes a "reliable source" and why those sources carry "more weight" should be called into question. This is not an idea that is limited to Wikipedia discussions and other fringe debates - this is mainstream opinion. For decades we've relied on "reliable sources" to bring us news, views, facts, opinions, and most importantly, ideas. What exactly then, makes one source more reliable than the next? Is it just having a federal tax ID number, a bank account, and some editorial oversight? Is a reliable source one that has a bloated advertising budget, chained at the ankle to its sponsors? Is it some kid in his basement with a tape recorder and computer, copying and stapling interviews from street demonstrations to pass out at the next anti-war march? Are any of the former examples "reliable," or does the definition of a "reliable source" fall somewhere in between? More importantly, do we need to take a long hard look at what we mean when we ask the question "is the source reliable?"

"Free media, true free media, is defined by the people and their right to free speech, to publishing underground papers and 'zines and their right to disseminate these works. Certainly, under major media attacks on the credibility of Wikimedia and its sources, one might feel the need to do away with all things which cannot meet so-called "higher standards", but one must also ask if this isn't overkill...--Leafypie 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) "

It's no secret that the readership in print media has been in steady decline for many years. It's also no secret that the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (Regan), the Telecom Act of 1996 (Clinton), further major media mergers, and the continuing deregulation of ownership rules have had a profound effect on what kind of media we consume, and how we view media in this country. Anyone, from journalists to couch potatoes to bloggers have always had opinions and interests in what exactly makes a source "reliable." The idea that information we produce and receive should be accurate and free of bias isn't novel, and neither is the idea that the information we receive and produce should reflect our values and culture.

The idea that the MSM (mainstream media) produces accurate information that is free of bias and reflects our values and culture is beyond questionable. Today's media landscape consists of major media conglomerates that hold themselves accountable to their shareholders before the public. We've seen countless scandals where journalists plagarize and fabricate stories (Steven Glass, Jason Blair, etc). Our government embeds journalists with the military and fabricates stories (WMD's, the Iraq/911 connection, the infamous story about babies thrown from incubators in the first Gulf War...just to name a few). Corporations routinely release VNR's (Video News Releases), which are product ads carefully disguised and reported as actual news. We should be a tad more than concerned about what exactly makes a source "reliable."

If the site I work with, Fall of Autumn, incorporated tomorrow and began paying its three "employees," do we then, become a reliable source for information? If the three parties involved in the site's day to day operations became formal "editors," still producing the same content, would that make us any more "reliable?" How about Punk Planet - a magazine which does have editorial oversight, paid staff, and incorporation? I'm sure PP could be considered "unreliable" for a few reasons that mostly involve circulation numbers. Are The Nation and Mother Jones any more or less reliable than US News and World Report or Time? Could we consider CAN TV a less "reliable source" than Fox News, simply because of ratings and the paychecks of its producers?

A "reliable source" should not and can not be defined by its budget, producers, or executive staff. A "reliable source" should not and can not be defined by how close its reporters get to sit in the White House press room, or who's embedded with what platoon in Iraq. It's true, plenty of small press and internet sites produce nothing but complete bull plop. It's also true, that there's just as much shit being shoveled at the New York Times. They however, have a much nicer office.