Editing Eurovision Wiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section)

==== 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)