Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconKorea NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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]

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]
  • Support that Soompi should be considered a reliable source, as I have seen several instances of reliable sources, for example NME1 and Forbes2, cite Soompi. Bostonite01310 talk 06:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Support - to me, there is no clear line of distinction and therefore would pollute the articles with additions of dubious articles.Evaders99 (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2023 (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]
  • Oppose per the reasons mentioned above. - Ïvana (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of link to WP:RSPSOURCES[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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources&oldid=1225930017"