Editing Eurovision Wiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section)

===Forbes (RfC)===
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1774411273}}
{{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=8E3AE8D}}
Is Forbes (<s style="opacity:60%;">the main site itself, not ''just'' Forbes sites</s> meaning the whole site, not just the Forbes 'contributors' articles) a generally unreliable source, given recent criticisms outlined above? [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

====Responses (Forbes)====
* '''Yes''', it is generally unreliable, because it has extremely limited editorial oversight and a track record for pay-to-play publishing and publishing questionable authors and articles. I would allow exceptions only on a case-by-case basis, where the author is an acknowledged expert in the topic. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Based on the discussion above. A website that has minimal editorial oversight and that routinely just posts press releases is not generally a strong source of information. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' (staff writers reliable, contributors unreliable). No evidence has been presented that Forbes staff writing is generally unreliable, no matter how dogshit Forbes Contributors are and how fucking annoying the Forbes website makes it to distinguish between the two. If Forbes is going to be considered "generally unreliable" in its totality it needs a cutoff date for staff articles. I think Forbes staff articles should be considered "generally reliable" until at 2010 at the very earliest, when the contributor system was introduced. Perhaps a better cutoff would be when the Forbes staff articles were moved under the same "sites" domain as the contributors. This seems to have occurred by 2021. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*:I would consider that an acceptable compromise. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Newslinger's disclosure that "contributor" articles are retroactively upgraded into "staff" articles is giving me major pause. Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere, but I stress the importance of a cutoff. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*::The articles are still contributor pieces. They just use a different URL now. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 21:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Cortador|Cortador]] I'm not talking about staff pieces being placed on the same "sites" subdomain as the contributors, I'm talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_467#Forbes.com_authors_who_change_roles this discussion], where a Forbes contributor was hired as a Forbes staff writer, and then their articles when they were written as a contributor were retroactively labelled with the "Forbes staff" byline. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::That seems like an actual issue. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 12:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC'''. RfCs about sources should generally offer options for generally reliable/additional considerations/generally unreliable/deprecate. Additionally, the contributor bit has already been addressed, the article about Forbes being a "grifter's paradise" is also about contributors, and the last point of criticism just links to another Wikipedia page instead of linking to evidence about paid editing. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 21:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*:[[File:MOREmoji facepalm.svg|16px]] Just say what option you'd prefer. This isn't an elementary school quiz, you don't need me to define every possible answer for your. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 23:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*::You have my answer: this is a bad RfC. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 10:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::So you had nothing useful to add, but just ''had'' to [[WP:DISRUPT|say your bit anyways.]] Gotcha. There's no need to respond, I won't read it anyways. Check out that link, though. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::If you don't wish to be criticised for how you word your RfC, this isn't the right place for you. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 08:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' (which is contributor pieces are GUNREL and staff writers reliable). No evidence that the staff editorial articles are unreliable has been presented, despite claims to the contrary. This RfC is an overreaction to the negative reception of their obviously terrible "Contributor" articles.[[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' but with a note to verify staff vs. contributor status as close to the publication date as possible. No evidence has been provided that even current staff articles are not reliable. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 05:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Yellow zone''': "contributor" pieces that have always been labeled as such are generally unreliable (except for the rare cases where [[WP:EXPERTSPS]] applies); "staff" pieces from the past need to be checked that they weren't originally "contributor" pieces. If they have been pure advertorials, disguising press releases as articles without putting them under the [[WP:FORBESADVISOR|Forbes Advisor]] label, then we have a worse problem, and we should mark the entire site as generally unreliable and determine a cutoff year. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 00:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:This is actually a good approach. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''[[WP:MREL]] / "yellow zone"''' per [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Continuous Dysfunction]]'s reasoning. Also, I second [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] that this is a '''bad RfC'''; instead of asking "is this unreliable?" which is kind of a [[loaded question]], it may be more [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] to offer three or four options for its reliability. [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 04:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
*:I second that RfCs do not need to bureaucratically list meaningless options because respondents can state whatever opinion they wish; this is NotAVote, and meaningful ones like the yellow proposal here are frequently brought up when participants see things the proposer did not see, because we don't have to choose from the options. A bold "bad RfC" !vote is usually one to procedurally close it, and this issue is nowhere near to that. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 03:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
*::The point isn't that it prevents people from responding a certain way, but that it influences bias. [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 03:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo'''. I use Forbes Staff, from the main Forbes.com and Forbes Korea, for sourcing and have not run into issues. Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing. Keep contributor section the same way that's fine. {{ping|grapesurgeon}} can tune in here. [[User:CherryPie94|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">CherryPie94</span>]] &#x1F352;&#x1f967; ([[User talk:CherryPie94|talk]]) 04:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Forbes is generally unreliable. And in response to the above {{tq|Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing}} Good, we need to get rid of all that unreliable stuff, most of which is whitewashing of press releases. Wikipedia does not write fanfiction about companies. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*:I think this is a new argument that would need some backings up. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Which part? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 17:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::That staff pieces are also unreliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 23:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Fortune named [[Enron]] the most innovative company in America for six straight years. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::So? What does that have to do with Forbes? [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 03:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:UmbyUmbreon|UmbyUmbreon]] Can you please tone your signature down? Thanks, [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 07:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::{{smalldiv|1=I personally don't see a problem with it. It meets the guidelines and even is shorter than his full username. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)}}
*::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] [[User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Signatures.js]] [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::What's wrong with it? I don't see anything obvious that would mean it wouldn't get picked up by this script. [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 00:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::In a private tab, the script seems to work fine on his signature for me. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::The script was made because the signature is so terrible to look at. No one said it didn't work on this script. 
*::::::::::But its ridiculous to have such a giant ugly eyesore as a signature. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::i like it tho{{pb}}You code really fast! [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Maybe this could be discussed elsewhere as it's unrelated to the RFC. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::Besides Fortune not being Forbes, 1. that's a statement of opinion, not fact 2. NYT and others parroted claims of Iraq WMDs for years and we generally trust them because they published retractions. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 03:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] {{tq|we generally trust them}} No we don't. Maybe you do. I certainly don't trust the NYT.
*::::::https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/forbes-big-business.php
*::::::https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/
*::::::Something like ProPublica does actual investigative journalism. Even the FT doesn't just write down what companies tell it. Forbes is just pretty terrible, and I am surprised that people appear to be unaware of that fact. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 07:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::I am talking about the [[WP:GREL|GRel]] consensus we have with NYT.{{pb}}Your links are on Forbes Contributor articles, not Forbes Staff articles. The rryPie comment you quoted agrees with you to {{tq|Keep contributor section the same way that's fine}}, referring to the GUnRel status of {{RSP entry|Forbes.com contributors|Forbes.com contributors|gu}}. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/opinions-capital-flows-global-warming-alarmists-james-taylor.html https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/forbes-magazine-wrong-is-right/ Climate change denial? You trust the Heartland Institute? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::That's a Contributor article. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 16:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] How is that relevant? We don't give sources a free pass to publish rubbish as long as there is a minority of allegedly accurate content. 
*::::::::::And you are ignoring what I am saying: {{tq|Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that.}} [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 16:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::In that case, that is a good argument, but that does not address rryPie's argument and only repeats what she responded to. Her argument is that the identifiable minority is very useful.{{pb}}Forbes Staff does hold an adversarial position. Most famously, besides the ancient [[Stephen Glass]], they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax: https://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/toyota-autos-hoax-media-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] {{tq|they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax}} So that is a pro-company thing to do right? An adversarial relation to the stuff they write about would be anti-company. And they are literally citing another publication which debunked the story the day before, and mentions that there was an anonymous tipster emailing news sources that the story is bs so lets not pretend this was a great achievement.[https://www.jalopnik.com/did-bankrupt-runaway-prius-driver-fake-unintended-acce-5491101/]
*::::::::::::And of course that is not written by a staff member of Forbes so it is unclear how that would even help your case, whatever it is
*::::::::::::In the Stephen Glass case some guy who worked for Forbes said that a story by some other guy who worked elsewhere was false. This is completely irrelevant to whether Forbes has an adversarial relation to the companies it write about (it does not).. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::How about https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashishrivastava/2024/05/08/ai-generated-employee-handbooks-are-causing-mayhem-at-the-companies-that-use-them and https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2024/09/19/why-this-shadowy-penny-stock-flogger-may-kill-his-own-regulator ?{{pb}}(FWIW: I'm not sure what "Subscriber" means, but the article was written when Forbes only employed Staff to write and hadn't established the Contributor system yet.) [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 21:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Subscriber means that its not a staff member. It is the term they used before they established the Contributor system. They also used "opinion contributor". [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Besides what I mentioned (some of which linked) that makes me skeptical Forbes is that pro-business, having a pro-business [[WP:RSBIAS|RSBias]] would not stop it from being reliable as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::The "AI-Generated Employee Handbooks" thing is obviously pro-company as well. People want to get paid for writing such documents so obviously they don't want an AI to do it. They are correct that a Markov chain sucks at such things.
*::::::::::::::A publication that whitewashes press releases and writes fanfiction is certainly not RS, because there is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance.
*::::::::::::::{{Tq|as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable}} They are not. They are as reliable as the company is. And the other article is pro-FINRA propaganda because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation (very old lobbying trick). Again, pro-company. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::{{tqb|There is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance.}}{{tqb|They are not. They are as reliable as the company is.}}But the problem is  vibes aren't enough to back things up. The standard on Wikipedia has been to find specific instances of false statements (preferably ones that were either really common or took ridiculously long to retract) to show sources as unreliable.{{tqb|because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation}}The article reads clearly as against the company trying to deregulate to me. "Shadowy", "shady business practices", a detailed history of fraud... [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::FINRA is a self-regulatory organization. Self-regulating your own industry is of course far better (from the POV of the companies) than having the SEC do it.
*::::::::::::::::{{tq|But the problem is  vibes aren't enough to back things up.}} Maybe, but since you have tried and tried to come up with anything that shows that Forbes has an adversarial relation with the things it writes about (which is required to do good independent journalism) it is kinda obvious what is happening.
*::::::::::::::::It is pretty easy to write a whole bunch of stuff that while not direct lies are misleading and a form of propaganda. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Isn't the fact that you are unable to find an anti-company article evidence that Forbes knows on which side its bread is buttered? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I disagree with your arguments that they are pro-company. This is also part of the reason why enwiki evaluates sources based on specific examples of false statements. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Yet you failed to provide any evidence, despite trying more than once. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:{{outdent|15}} I meant that I disagree with your arguments that the articles I gave are pro-company; sorry for the unclear antecedent. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::I don't think that that is true. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::That is the problem and why objective examples of their factual errors are the standard per RSBias. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::Then go find some. Should be easy enough. But if what you are saying would be true then there would be no need for an RfC. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::Well, if you mean I should find objective examples of factual truths, it seems true that "Larry Summers Resigns From Harvard Over Epstein Ties", that Alpine Securities and Scottsdale Capital Advisors have challenged Finra's authority in court on constitutional grounds. It's too easy and means nothing for any source. This is why it's objective factual <em>errors</em> to be found.{{pb}}The RfC does not dispute the reliability of Forbes Staff at all, at least not before the recent events mentioned. It's essentially about whether the ever-diminishing proportion of Forbes Staff articles makes the "generally" part of GUnRel true and thus service editors. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]]
*::::::No, I meant you should try find some factual errors.
*::::::They are not difficult to find.
*::::::https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2021/10/06/the-richest-under-30-in-the-world-all-thanks-to-crypto/
*::::::written by {{tq|By Steven Ehrlich, Former Staff and Chase Peterson-Withorn, Forbes Staff.}}
*::::::which says things like {{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}}
*::::::{{tq|Save for Mark Zuckerberg, no one in history has ever gotten so rich so young.}} 
*::::::And even if the articles which are written by staff were factual (which they are clearly not), then you still can't use a source that publishes bullshit like [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/opinions-capital-flows-global-warming-alarmists-james-taylor.html this] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20200801092314/https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#1675232748e8 that]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::And you have the evidence that this claim is false? [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Of course. I don't know how deep you are in SBF-lore but the article says: 
*::::::::{{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}} and {{Tq|Virtually all his wealth is tied up in his ownership of about half of FTX and more than $11 billion worth of FTX’s publicly traded FTT tokens—which can be used to make payments or for trading discounts on the FTX exchange, akin to a gift card or store credit. He also holds a few billion dollars’ worth of other cryptocurrencies he’s backing. }}
*::::::::You can't value someones net worth based on tokens issued by themself (or rather, the company they control) and mostly traded by Alameda (which SBF owned ~90% of).
*::::::::That is like valuing my net worth based on my phone number, or worse, based on the amount of IOUs I've written to myself. You can read [[Sam Bankman-Fried]] and [[Bankruptcy of FTX]], both are decent articles.
*::::::::So when they said {{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}} that was factually incorrect. 
*::::::::And when FTX went boom basically all of it disappeared in a puff of smoke, because it had never existed in the first place.
*::::::::It's like a [[puffball]]. When they are old and dried out you can squeeze and they completely disintegrate.  [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 14:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::Why not? Net worth includes not just liquidity, but also assets. Assets include stocks and other "investments", so yes, it pretty much just means how much people persuade others they have. Stephen King could have more real money than Elon Musk. Nobody was wrong when they in 2000 said Kenneth Lay, Enron CEO, had $400 million in net worth, largely composed of Enron stock. Enron turning out as fraud does not make that claim's outlet unreliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 02:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::I think the difference between us is that you think a journalist should just write down what she/he is told, and as long as she/he does that accurately it is not a factual error. I believe a journalist should try to figure out the truth, and if unable should not just report claims by stakeholders as facts.
*::::::::::Since Forbes writes "SBF claims to be worth X" as "SBF is worth X" we can't use it as a reliable source. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::::That wasn't what I was saying. Net worth is defined by stocks whose worth is only based on public perception. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 11:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Maybe I do not understand what you are saying. Do you think they independently calculated his net worth? How? If not, do you agree that they probably can't just check people's  bank account and assets? If so, do you agree that they probably just wrote down what SBF said and reported it as a fact?
*::::::::::::Many people bought Enron stock, and Enron did not control the price of its own shares, the "market" did. SBF controlled both FTX and Alameda (which he co-founded) and this was no secret. Knowledge of the fraud is not required to flag that as a problem. So reporting this claim would still be a  factual error even if there was no fraud. And this would whitewash a false claim made by a conman into a claim supported by an allegedly reliable source. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 12:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' Forbes's contributors' articles are generally unreliable and should stay that way. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] [[User talk: EditorShane3456|(talk to me if you want!)]] 13:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*:@[[User:EditorShane3456|EditorShane3456]] Agreed, but I don't think that that is @[[User:MjolnirPants|MjolnirPants]]'s question. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 14:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
*::You're right, but it's become clear to me that asking editors to read the discussion above and below is a bridge too far, lol. I'm content to let everyone !vote however they like, based on whatever information they take in. 
*::It's not like this is the result of a major bombshell, it's just that there have been a number of smaller incidents over the last few years that make it seem like Forbes is not drawing as much of a distinction between staff and contributors as we are. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 15:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''Status quo''' &ndash; It's well established that contributor articles are generally unreliable, and there is no evidence presented to conclude that staff writer articles are unreliable. The RSP list already makes a distinction between the two with different sections, [[WP:FORBES]] and [[WP:FORBESCON]]. I do think it would be nice to include the same guidance of checking the byline from FORBESCON into FORBES, to make that guidance more obvious in the latter case (even if Forbes makes it stupid annoying to do so). [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 03:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
*:The problem is the difficulty of determining this difference. When a way to do something becomes too impractical, people won’t do it. It’s like how [[Sweepstake|sweepstakes]], for example, where some companies allow free entry into the sweepstakes only if you send a physical letter requesting entry to a specific address, to avoid being classified as an illegal lottery. [[User:Mitchsavl|Mitchsavl]] ([[User talk:Mitchsavl|talk]]) 04:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
* Is there a demonstrated pattern of factual errors in their staff reporting? [[User:Ivegut|Ivegut]] ([[User talk:Ivegut|talk]]) 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Well during the crypto boom they consistently posted very positive articles about stuff thats now long dead. I picked the biggest and easiest target, SBF, but anyone who is willing to spend some time can probably find quite a few more in a short amount of time. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
*  '''[[WP:MREL]]''' – staff writers okay-ish. The contributors are unreliable. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' I see no clear or solid evidence that articles contributed by Forbes staff are unreliable or fail to meet editorial standards. [[User:Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell|Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell]] ([[User talk:Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell|talk]]) 10:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Status quo''' the evidence provided (the Buzzfeed article) is about Forbes contributors who are already unreliable. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 15:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

==== Discussion (Forbes)====
The two searches for "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes+sites%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Forbes]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes+sites%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Forbes sites] link to 20+ discussions. It would be helpful to directly link a few discussions to back up: {{tq| I seem to recall a rather strong consensus that the reliability of a Forbes.com link rests entirely upon the credited author, and that the Forbes name adds nothing in terms of reliability}}, since that is not what [[WP:FORBES]] says. The [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ Nieman Lab] article also deals with the contributor articles which are already dealt with in [[WP:FORBESCON]] (and maybe [[WP:FORBESADVISOR]]). It would be helpful to see the other claims (e.g. almost no editorial staff and publishing press releases) either backed up by citations or examples, especially since the latter isn't necessarily an issue if properly marked (e.g. Bloomberg, another businessy publication, does the same [https://strivehealth.com/news/bloomberg-strive-health-raises-166-million-in-series-c-funding/]).-- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

:"I seem to recall" is an operative phrase there. It means that I'm not staking my reputation on a couple of half-remembered discussions, just volunteering what I can recall of them off the top of my head. If my characterization is wrong, well, I provided 20+ pieces of evidence by which to confirm such. If you need confirmation, I'm afraid I have other matters on my plate, so you'll need to check those yourself. Here's a tip to speed things up: Search through my contributions in wikispace for the word 'Forbes'. Also, don't forget my former alt account, {{u|MPants at work}}. 
:For some context about their recent troubles, see [https://www.foxnews.com/media/forbes-editorial-staffers-walk-off-job-same-day-release-companys-30-under-30-list] and [https://pressgazette.co.uk/north-america/forbes-cuts-up-to-dozens-of-contributing-writers/], in which they've lost a significant number of both editors and writers in the past year or so. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::There's nothing wrong with just volunteering a recollection, but you've used it as part of the basis for starting an RFC. If you didn't have time to verify it, then you probably should've waited until you had more time instead of now suggesting that other people research your arguments for you.
::Your first link is about a labour action, which happens all the time and literally does not mention a single editorial staffer being removed (though obviously conditions are not great). The second link is about dozens of Forbes Contributors, who produce the unreliable content on the site, being removed, which is a good thing. Forbes appears to still have [https://www.forbes.com/connect/who-we-are/ editorial staff], including an editorial counsel so that hasn't been completely cut. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 04:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I don't really care what you think of my reasoning.
:::The RfC ball is rolling, and I'm content to let the community decide where it lands. Please don't ping me, even if you ''really'' want to keep arguing. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Since this is not a battle, I think PatarK was just trying to understand your position. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 20:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::If that is true, then asking for clarification rather than whining about me not digging up years-old discussions just to refresh my memory on exactly what was said would have been a more useful tact. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{pb}}A year ago, one of the discussions on this noticeboard ({{rsnl|467|Forbes.com authors who change roles}}), which I participated in, noted that when an author on Forbes.com changes their role (e.g. by being promoted from a contributor to a staff writer), their bylines on all of their previous articles are retroactively changed to reflect their current role. To confirm the level of editorial oversight that a Forbes.com article was subject to, you would need to check the byline of an [[H:AAS|archived]] copy of the article (ideally archived on the date of publication). A couple of editors believed that the amount of effort required to adequately distinguish staff articles from contributor articles on Forbes.com is enough of an [[WP:MREL|"additional consideration"]] to justify a reclassification of ''Forbes'' on the [[WP:RSP|perennial sources list]].{{pb}}Looking back at the history of [[WP:RSP]], ''Forbes'' was the very first source on the list to be split into separate entries covering different aspects of the publication's content: the [[WP:RSP#Forbes.com contributors|entry for contributor-written articles]] ([[WP:FORBESCON]]) was added on [[Special:Diff/852542881|29 July 2018]], and the [[WP:RSP#Forbes|entry for staff-written articles]] ([[WP:FORBES]]) was added [[Special:Diff/852696643|one day later]]. A [[WP:RSP#Forbes Advisor|third entry for Forbes Advisor]] ([[WP:FORBESADVISOR]]), a sponsored content section that the publication later introduced, was added after {{rsnl|337|RFC Forbes Advisor|a 2021 RfC}}.{{pb}}Even though most Forbes.com content is contributor-authored [https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ with little to no editorial oversight], public awareness of the staff–contributor distinction on Forbes.com is very low; many readers see the ''Forbes'' logo on an article and [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ associate it with the century-old magazine]. Forbes.com contributor articles are also rampantly misused in Wikipedia articles, with many of those uses violating the [[WP:BLPSPS]] policy. If there were a technical way to distinguish Forbes.com's staff articles from their contributor articles, I would have supported [[WP:DEPS|deprecating]] the contributor articles years ago. Unfortunately, ''Forbes'' decided to make that difficult, so their articles continue to be a problem on Wikipedia to the extent that we are now questioning all ''Forbes'' content. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 20:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::I feel regardless of the outcome of the RFC, noting that this switching of roles is an issue if the date of the article is somewhat removed from the present is worth noting on the listing. As for trying to discourage Forbes contributor content, maybe an edit filter based on the URL that then warns users about the staff vs. contributor distinction before they can save the edit? -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 04:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::That edit filter warning would help. Ideally, we would track the names (and URL "usernames") all of the ''Forbes'' staff writers, as well as the date ranges of their tenures as staff writers, which would allow the edit filter to activate only for contributor articles. However, this would be a high-maintenance endeavor. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 06:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I'd support an edit filter of this type. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 00:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
{{re|MjolnirPants}} <del>While ''Forbes'' originally reserved URLs beginning with {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} exclusively for contributor-authored articles,</del> at some point many years ago, ''Forbes'' <del>also</del> moved all of its staff-authored articles under {{code|forbes.com/sites/}}, which prevented readers from discerning whether an article is staff-authored or contributor-authored by examining the URL without prior knowledge of the author's byline. Since then, all articles from ''Forbes'' (aside from the sponsored Forbes Advisor content) have been "Forbes sites" articles. In light of this, would you like to amend the RfC statement (specifically, the text {{xt|"the main site itself, not ''just'' Forbes sites"}}) to explicitly refer to ''Forbes''{{'s}} staff-authored and contributor-authored articles? —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 18:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
: Concur with Newslinger that the RfC opening question is confusing needs to be changed. It's really unclear what this RfC is trying to accomplish currently, given that Forbes contributors are already considered generally unreliable. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] and @[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]], I was actually vaguely aware of that, but not having used Forbes for a long time, I thought it went the other way (they pulled all of their contributor articles into the top-level folder). Yes, I'll adjust my wording. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 18:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:: After some further research, I found that ''Forbes'' launched its [[contributor network]] on [https://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/forbescom_gets_a_new_slant.php 5 August 2010], although some of the contributor articles available at launch were dated a couple of days earlier. During this period, ''Forbes'' started commingling articles written by staff and by contributors under the subdomain [https://web.archive.org/web/20100805005923/http://blogs.forbes.com/ blogs.forbes.com] and did not provide bylines to allow readers to distinguish staff from contributors on the article pages themselves. For example, compare [https://web.archive.org/web/20110630005123/http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtouryalai/2011/06/29/bank-of-americas-8-5-billion-record-settlement-helps-clear-countrywide-mess/ this staff article] ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/06/29/bank-of-americas-8-5-billion-record-settlement-helps-clear-countrywide-mess/ current link]) to [https://web.archive.org/web/20110630005123/http://blogs.forbes.com/olgakhazan/2011/06/29/love-my-computer-lifestyle-hate-how-its-killing-me/ this contributor article] ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/olgakhazan/2011/06/29/love-my-computer-lifestyle-hate-how-its-killing-me/ current version]), and note the use of the text {{xt|"Contributor Since"}} on both articles. All ''Forbes'' articles were migrated to {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} on [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2011/08/10/forbes-update-our-new-article-page-for-the-era-of-social-media-is-now-live/ 10 August 2011], which is when the {{xt|"Forbes Staff"}} and {{xt|"Contributor"}} bylines were introduced. As far as I can tell, there was no point in time during which Forbes.com contributor articles were under {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} while ''Forbes'' staff articles were not. I've corrected my previous comment to reflect this.{{bcc|MjolnirPants|Hemiauchenia}} —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 22:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for that info. I had been under much the same misapprehension. It's looking more and more like we might have overstated the differences between the contributors and staff articles in some of the previous discussions. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 23:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
We need to establish a cutoff date, before which Forbes was generally reliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 19:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

:July 2014? That's when Integrated Whale Media Investments acquired a 51 percent majority.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170124211943/https://www.recode.net/2014/7/18/11628980/forbes-sells-to-hong-kong-investment-group]
:Sometime before November 2013? According to[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2013/11/18/inside-forbes-innovative-models-social-products-growing-engaged-audiences/] "Never before have knowledgeable voices, reporters and topic experts alike, been able to connect and engage one-on-one with audiences equally empowered to share what they know... We've supplemented our full-time reporting staff with 1,200 qualified contributors...  Many participate in a novel incentive plan that makes them accountable for their success."
:The Nieman Foundation[https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/] has a history of Forbes, saying 
::"Forbes’ staff of journalists could produce great work, sure. But there were only so many of them, and they cost a lot of money. Why not open the doors to Forbes.com to a swarm of outside 'contributors' — barely vetted, unedited, expected to produce at quantity, and only occasionally paid? (Some contributors received a monthly flat fee — a few hundred bucks — if they wrote a minimum number of pieces per month, with money above that possible for exceeding traffic targets. Others received nothing but the glory.) As of 2019, almost 3,000 people were “contributors” — or as they told people at parties, 'I'm a columnist for Forbes.' Let’s think about incentives for a moment. Only a very small number of these contributors can make a living at it — so it’s a side gig for most. The two things that determine your pay are how many articles you write and how many clicks you can harvest — a model that encourages a lot of low-grade clickbait, hot takes, and deceptive headlines. And many of these contributors are writing about the subject of their main job — that’s where their expertise is, after all — which raises all sorts of conflict-of-interest questions. And their work was published completely unedited — unless a piece went viral, in which case a web producer might 'check it more carefully.' All of that meant that Forbes suddenly became the easiest way for a marketer to get their message onto a brand-name site. And since this strategy did build up a ton of new traffic for Forbes — publishing an extra 8,000 pieces a month will do that! — lots of other publications followed suit in various ways."
: --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::I think it should be a lot later. Forbes staff was still reliable and separable from contributors for quite a while, and their reporting was trusted. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 00:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
: Maybe something worth implementing is an edit filter, reminding editors citing Forbes to make sure that that what they're citing is a staff article and not a contributor article. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::Does Forbes always make the distinction clear? Did they make it clear from the start back when they added those 3,000 people who were allowed to add anything they wanted with nobody checking them? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::It appears so. The byline either says "Staff" or "Contributor". With the two (current-version) links Newslin sent above it's "By Halah Touryalai, Former Staff." and "By Olga Khazan, Contributor." [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 16:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{Agree}} [[User:CherryPie94|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">CherryPie94</span>]] &#x1F352;&#x1f967; ([[User talk:CherryPie94|talk]]) 04:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)