Shortcut
WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles

Appropriate post?

[edit]

I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it. Diff

I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

[edit]

I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no comment I'm going to archive the section. That will get the board down to 500k, still to big but it's a start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preload formatting

[edit]

We generally want the same bits of information for each source, so I am wondering if we could Wikipedia:Preload some of this. It could say something like:

Do you think that would help editors, especially folks new to this noticeboard, organize the information that they need to provide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor's Business Daily

[edit]

Since Investor's Business Daily is used in citations it appears to be regarded as a reliable source but Investor’s Business Daily Short-Arms Correction, Investor's Business Daily editorial doesn't support claims ... and In Which Investor's Business Daily Completely Mangles My Data. cast doubt on its reliability. As a result I don't know how seriously to take Terrorist Ayers Confesses Sharing Obama's 'Dreams' published in 2013, especially in the light of Bill Ayers Punks Conservative Blogger and Bill Ayers: Sure, I Wrote Obama’s Book. Now How ‘Bout Those Royalties? originally published in 2009. Mcljlm (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone have anything to say on whether or not the Investor's Business Daily is reliable?

You should post this to the main page, as it's a question about the reliability of a source. This talk page is for discussions about the main page, and few editors check it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archive

[edit]

I've just manually archived the TOI RFC and the Lockley discussion, the bot should have archived these yesterday but failed to do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is going to come up again soon

[edit]

Since the last discussion The Telegraph has gotten significantly worse... [1][2] etc, I know its the last thing anyone wants to do but they're going downhill so fast in terms of reliability in this topic area that a new discussion will be due shorty if not already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These days it's a joke paper (plain reportage maybe excepted), everyone with a brain in the UK knows that. Wikipedia as usual is going to take its own sweet time to get it? Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror is far more of a joke paper, yet still permitted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an endemic problem on Wikipedia that a large swathe of editors don't realise that newspapers are terrible sources that should hardly ever be used. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That second link should not be taken as the Telegraph's stance, that seems to be reporting neutrality on the issue (where other people in the world are showing their bigorty towards the matter) The first one obviously is a problem as that reads like an op-ed without such a byline. — Masem (t) 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of pure reliability the two articles together reveal a major issue you've overlooked... One article says "Research shows biological males punch around “162 per cent” harder than females, experts add." but does not name those experts, at the end of the article they quote a "Emma Hilton" without connecting her to the previous statisic... The second article says "It was a telephone call to Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist whose work illuminates why sex matters in sport, that gave a first inkling as to the freight train hurtling down the tracks. Given her research had illustrated the average man could punch 162 per cent harder than a woman" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of reliable sources cite statistics and other aspects to unnamed experts (or often without any citation), it is not unique to the Telegraph. Vetting that information upon inclusion within WP is part of the normal editorial process, and in the case of that specific stat, which relates to the human body, that's at the edges of what MEDRS would say we'd need a far more reliable source. I know that we're worried about the Telegraph overall in their negative coverage of trans issues, and I'm not saying that the first one is more fuel to add to that fire, but the second one has the typical issues that any mainstream publication has that we have to be careful about. Masem (t) 20:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tons of reliable sources cite statistics and other aspects to unnamed experts" err, not. Indeed it's probably a tell of a rubbish source if it does that. Reliable sources tend to back up assertions with citations. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying its common practice to represent a single source as two seperate sources? Because the issue isn't that they're citing unnamed experts... Its that they're citing the same expert twice in the same article, once under their own name and once as an unnamed expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its from Hilton & Lundberg 2021. Void if removed (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've already established that. The Hilton in question is Emma Hilton. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion and I don't see where you established that was the source. Also Hilton & Lundberg's citation for the 162% is Morris et al. 2020. I think unnamed "experts say" is a pretty common summary of 6 authors across two papers in a popular media source. Not aware of this figure being in any way controversial either. Really not seeing what your point about reliability is here.
(added)
I think I understand - you're concerned they say "experts add", without naming them, and then later mention Emma Hilton, and put those two together to presume that she is the sole source? I think that whole section is badly written TBH - making a claim of the form "experts add" without going on to explicitly say which experts have added is quite poor. Not sure that's exactly "unreliable" though, unless its demonstrated that there are no other experts and that the claim itself is a contentious one? Void if removed (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioning that a specifically quoted individual is one of the experts quoted earlier is a reliability issue, you can't double up your sources like that. Thats beyond sloppy or badly written, its plainly misleading in a way that a paper of record never should be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that is also The Telegraph... "It was a telephone call to Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist whose work illuminates why sex matters in sport, that gave a first inkling as to the freight train hurtling down the tracks. Given her research had illustrated the average man could punch 162 per cent harder than a woman" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like The Telegraph one bit, but I don't see it as any less reliable than similar newspapers such as Guardian. Both have a fairly strong political bias, and sometimes go off completely, but I wouldn't argue against using either one. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance of the British press but what issue or issues does the Guardian abandon all pretense of reliability on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories