Talk:Internet checkpoint

Source discussion

Moving from my talk page. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I got pinged. I am very concerned with four of the five sources used in the Taia777 section.

• The academic paper one is good, but the others are very bad.
• The internet archive one is the archival page of a specific YouTube video. I question its reliability.
• The Chinese one is UCG. Huxiu is a Chinese forum. VGtime operates an account there that republishes articles for maximum exposure. This article seems to be not published on their website, rather a WeChat publication platform exclusive article. VGtime later become an AI farm and is essentially dead now.
• The Japanese one is UCG, too. Note is a well-known Japanese blogging website similar to Blogspot.
• I think I don't need to analyse the "Anya is typing" one, it is in English and is clearly another Blogspot.

Given that the internet checkpoint phenomenon is almost centred entirely around Taia777's video, the questionable sourcing quality of this section makes the entire article fall apart. MilkyDefer 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I sent you a message over on your talk page @MilkyDefer, lets talk there. 11WB (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually never mind. I don't think it is fair to exclude @Axem Titanium from the conversation. I will respond to your analysis in a moment. Bear with me. 11WB (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding reliability are valid. If I may respond to each bullet point accordingly, we can resolve this issue fairly quickly. Pretty much all the sources have information that is backed up by the others, so I disagree with 'the questionable sourcing quality of this section makes the entire article fall apart'.

• The academic paper is obviously reliable, this one doesn't need to be analysed. It is in the peer reviewed journal Time & Society.
• The original video is from YouTube. This comes under WP:SPS, however I believe some of the information it provides is acceptable. A proper publication from LAD'N used in the commentary section actually references it directly.
• I am unfamiliar with Huxiu and after searching on WP:RS/N, it doesn't appear to have ever been discussed. It also doesn't appear to be listed on the Chinese Wikipedia reliable sources list. This currently comes under unknown and would need to be discussed at RS/N.
• Same as above for this one.
• This one is Substack, which is a unique case. As seen at WP:NPPSG and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 457#Is there a blanket policy on Substack?, each site has to be judged on its own merits. I think this one is okay to use, as it is an interview with the author of a published work also used in the article.

You are absolutely justified to add the banner regarding this, however at this time, I don't think it causes the article to completely fail WP:GNG. It is covered in known reliable sources and the above lesser known sources. 11WB (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I do wish to also point out that the entire section on Taia777 isn't just limited to those 5 sources. It also uses the source from Dazed among others. 11WB (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Note and Huxiu sources, unknown does not necessarily mean it should be used. Those two sources which only substantiate minor details have now been removed. @MilkyDefer 11WB (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the new array of sources is a lot better, and I think you have done a good job salvaging this article. MilkyDefer 04:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Good work and thanks for revisiting this MilkyDefer! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

On a second thought, @11WB have you ever tried {{Cite interview}} on that Substack source? MilkyDefer 16:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@11WB Well, never thought you have changed the username so quickly. MilkyDefer 16:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Had a couple reasons for the change, to have my actual username match my signature and also for privacy related reasons. I will have a look into applying that cite type, thanks! 11WB (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)