This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question: is it possible to co-ordinate a general drive for deletion of these sources and articles that solely depend on them for a veneer of reliability/legitimacy through a Wikiproject, or would that be considered canvassing or vote-stacking (even though it's mere policy-enforcement)? In the first fifteen minutes of looking at back-links, I found a rat's nest of self-published author and book articles that are all intertwined in their own little corner of Wikipedia, much like maths is. I had no idea the problem was this endemic. One thing can be said for highly-controversial pages (like Genesis creation narrative, which I believe most here participated in): the heat burns away the crappy sources and dubious information like the slag of silver, purified in a fire seven times. There mere fact that such pages have stood so long with no interest nor improvement - often for five years, being tagged in 2007 with no further work done - is proof-positive of their non-notable character. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and that issue should really be stated somewhere beyond a talk page. I think Kessinger Publishing is an example of a company that just prints old books. I removed them from the list, but someone can add them back if they are really a self-publisher.
As for the bot, as I said I will write a program (not a bot yet) to generate a list of the uses, and we need links to guidelines of what to do when they are pointed out. I do not think a bot should delete the references, but leave messages for people or on a board, just as the disambig bot does. It would be good, however, if a guideline for how to deal with them get started while I try to find time to work on the program after May 5th. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
So, should instances of dubius uses of vanity press etc be discussed here or at RSN? I speak of instances where there is no particular contention on the article page but just for clarification purposes etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you guys aware of List of group-1 ISBN publisher codes? I am not sure where that information came from and how reliable it is. In fact it may be a suitable topic for this WikiProject to try and address/evaluate the reliability of these "hard facts" at some point. These are not matters of opinion, etc. because they are just numbers.
The reason I asked was that I am starting to play with the program that will generate a report of the Wikipage names (in a given WikiProject) which include books by a given publisher. The publisher name may not always be present in the reference, so it may need to be looked up via a suitable ISBN. Of course, given the program can call WorldCat and screen scrape the publisher name in most cases. But takes more computing. Anyway anyone knows of online lists that map publisher names to the fragment of digits in the International Standard Book Number (and vice versa) that will be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the emerging vectors that is beginning to compromise quality and reliability in Wikipedia is the alarming growth in self publishing. The number of vanity presses that assist authors in producing a "reasonable looking book" has been growing. In fact, the oldest of them all, Vantage Press is getting left in the dust now, as a new and aggressive breed of internet based vanity press has emerged. Books by these types of publishers are appearing within references in Wikipedia with alarming regularity.
After a discussion on WP:RSN, we have now started Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies and List of self-publishing companies to inform Wikipedia editors of these publishers.These types of references need to be avoided before they are used in 10,000 more Wikipages. In many cases, the contents of these books are derived from Wikipedia itself, making a mockery of WP:CIRCULAR.
I suggest that we somehow promote the existence of these lists so that:
Help in promoting these lists and encouraging editors to avoid these books will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware of Wikipedia:Republishers? Nageh (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In Wikipedia_talk:Republishers#books_used_as_sources it was rightly pointed out that the republishers are now growing within wikipages like weeds.... History2007 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have now finished the first prototype of the Self-published source usage report. The program itself was straightforward given the API, but cross-referencing for the project report format took some time. It took several hours to execute the program to generate this report, and I will post a larger version some time this week.
My guess is that it will take several days of execution time every month to run the eventual program that I hope to complete by the end of the year. That version will use its own list of ISBNs that will be looked up on Worldcat.
Suggestions/ideas will be appreciated, and I will also seek input from a few Wikiprojects. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I must offer my apologies to all you guys here. I have now been liberated from Wikipedia and will not be spending a great deal of time on this project. Please do accept my apologies. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How is this project different from what RSN does? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Folks watching this page may be interested in this conversation, which led to a bot trial for an unreferenced article bot. It will likely do a single run soon, tagging non-stubs if they're lacking references or lacking footnotes. So expect each of those categories to increase in size by 100,000 or so. Don't panic. Lots to do! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some support here (concerning the publication of User:Headbomb/Crapwatch) if you think this is a good initiative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello! I'm Audrey. On behalf of my employer, Mayo Clinic, I offered citations to help correct several sourcing issues at Mayo Clinic to improve article reliability. Might editors here care to review? The full request is at Talk:Mayo_Clinic#Improving_citations.
Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment regarding whether IMDb should be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which tells XLinkBot to automatically revert citations of IMDb by unregistered users and accounts under 7 days old, subject to additional limitations. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: IMDb. — Newslinger talk 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Screen Rant. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Uncommon Ground Media's (uncommongroundmedia.com) coverage of Get the L Out on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § UncommonGroundMedia. — Newslinger talk 08:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Osianama (osianama.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Kalpana Mohan Page. — Newslinger talk 08:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of PTC Punjabi on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § PTCPunjabi. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Muhammad Bin Qasim page. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of The Next Web on the reliable source noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Next Web for ProProfs. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Kathmandu Tribune on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Kathmandu Tribune a Reliable Source. — Newslinger talk 20:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of MuslimMatters (muslimmatters.org) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MuslimMatters. — Newslinger talk 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of WalesOnline on the reliable sources noticeboard on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § WalesOnline.co.uk. — Newslinger talk 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the notability of the Aluminum internal combustion engine on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion involves the reliability of Russian news sources, including TASS. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of (mostly) Russian news sources for an engineering breakthrough in Russia. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of "The Urgent Need for Prevention of Genocide of the Assyrians and Yezidis of Iraq", a document presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Minnie Chan's reports in the South China Morning Post on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military. — Newslinger talk 09:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Identity Theory an RS?. — Newslinger talk 09:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.
There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Mayo Clinic. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Al Bawaba and The Globe Post on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Request. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the CJR Event on Covering Climate Change and its implications on Wikipedia articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Climate coverage, starting in September. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of TorrentFreak for a claim related to Web Sheriff and MusicBrainz on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of "The Kingdom in the Closet", by Nadya Labi from The Atlantic, is being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. This article was previously cited in the LGBT in the Middle East article. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Kingdom in the Closet by Nadya Labi. — Newslinger talk 00:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Refinery29 for the age of Natalia Dyer on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Refinery29. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Mammoth Gamers (mammothgamers.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Are articles from Mammoth Gamers considered a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Maxit (maxit.my) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Maxit for WeChat. — Newslinger talk 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability and independence of Value Investor Insight (valueinvestorinsight.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Value Investor Insight as a Reliable source. — Newslinger talk 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether the double Venus flag should be included in the LGBT symbols article on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Getty Images. — Newslinger talk 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of distance calculations in FreeMapTools (freemaptools.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § ~ free map tools ~. — Newslinger talk 02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu). If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu) for /e/ (operating system). — Newslinger talk 03:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the reliability of Liliputing (liliputing.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Liliputing. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the reliability of VG Chartz. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: VG Chartz. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the reliability of The Epoch Times. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: The Epoch Times. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
At Dear Colleague letter (United States) sources included a private phone conversation, a private email, and a meeting that seemingly wasn't publicly minuted. I removed all of these as plainly unverifiable original research. But then there are also a few references to primary sources in the form of "Dear Colleague" letters. A couple of these are posted publicly (I presume; I checked they were available but didn't actually download them). But one is an email sent to congressional workers and members of Congress in 2008. This presumably could only be verified by the strictly limited number of people who have continuously since then worked in Congress or been members of Congress, which will never increase, and will become completely inaccessible when they all leave office. Another is stored in the electronic system for such letters. This is likewise accessible only to a very limited number of people, namely current workers and members of Congress, though in this case at least some people in future will hypothetically be able to access it. It is not possible for a general member of the public to verify them, and I suspect it may be illegal for someone who can verify them to do so without, for example, a freedom of information request. With this in mind, are such sources acceptable? Hairy Dude (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here about a proposal to have semi-regular RfCs about sources from systemically-biased-against regions (and topics) in order to reduce systemic bias (particularly in relation to new page patrols). Editors watching this page are encouraged to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Was wagon train set in pre civil war or post civil war? Frisco carlos (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi All,
Please have a look at my proposal and contribute with your opinions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Connecting_Wikipedia_articles_to_reliable_sources_through_new_template
Thanks, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Wanted to bring this up here, since it may be of interest to those watching this page. The WikiConference North America User Group has partnered with the Credibility Coalition, MisinfoCon, and Hacks/Hackers to create the WikiCred grants program. This initiative offers microgrants ranging between $250 and $10,000 to individuals and teams to create and pilot projects on supporting credibility on the internet in relation to Wikimedia projects and the movement. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. The first deadline to receive funding is April 6th. If you have any questions, feel free to fill out the form on the site, or drop me an email or message on my talk page. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is why:
Dahlia, the flower named after Anders Dahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.237.105 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the first sentence of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. If you are interested, please participate at WT:DEPS § RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. — Newslinger talk 13:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on whether certain sources ("articles by any media group that [...] discredits its competitors") are considered to have a conflict of interest. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether the reliable sources guideline should state that headlines are unreliable. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Reliability of headlines. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to invite interested members of this project to WikiCred's demo hour on September 10th at 4 PM UTC / 12 PM EDT, where 6 grantees will demo their Wikimedia- and credibility-related projects. You can register here via Google Forms.
Some background: WikiCred is a grants programme managed by the Credibility Coalition, Hacks Hackers, and Wikimedians from WikiConference NA + Wikimedia DC. We support research, software projects and Wikimedia events that explore information reliability and credibility in the Wikimedia space and the overall online information ecosystem. So far, we have funded 13 projects (full list at wikicred.org/#projects). Projects range from strengthening credible vaccine content on Wikipedia to automating the additions of references to Wikidata. 6 grantees will join us to present their work for 5 mins each followed by a Q&A from the attendees.
Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! WikiCred's second demo hour is happening on Dec 1st at 12 PM EST / 5 PM UTC, where we will see presentations and updates from four of our grantees about their Wikimedia and credibility projects:
Learn more about the projects here and register to attend here.
For those who can't attend but are interested, I will share the videos and slides here afterwards. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on adding generally reliable sources from the perennial sources list to the CAPTCHA whitelist, which allows new and anonymous users to cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I still feel the same misunderstood. Soulstalk79 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Source conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) FYI, a new template has shown up. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Could anyone watching this page give thoughts about Module talk:Find sources#Google News vs. Newspapers and Module talk:Find sources#Google News: "Archives", not "recent"? ((u|Sdkb)) talk 00:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This project might be interested in the conversation taking place here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RfC:_Neutrality_of_a_secondary_research_paper_written_by_a_chiropractor,_but_published_in_a_medical_journal. MarshallKe (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello and Happy New Year 2022.
Citations of articles published by a cluster of fake online newspapers (generic URL: xxx-24.com) have been recently detected in the french version of Wikipedia. EnWiki cites these sources as well (see WP internal search engine query).
In the 7 January 2022's version of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant article, by example, the #111 source, described as a Twitter post, is actually an article from news.in-24.com, an automated translation of an article published by the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger (see the « Source » external link - a Google News redirection - at the end of the news.in-24.com article). --ContributorQ (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, we are about to finalise a research activity on a Wikipedia citation verification and recommendation system, which should be public in a few weeks. We would appreciate it very much if you can help us evaluate the quality of some recommendations from our system through the demo at https://verifier.sideeditor.com. More details are on the link.
Fabioknowledge (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC).
I've starte compiling an RSP for vaccine information. Now migrated to WP:Vaccine safety. Feedback welcome! – SJ + 18:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Motivation:
Aspects to improve on the current system
Recently updated Cite Unseen, a user script that adds icons to citations to denote the nature and reliability of sources, and I figured editors here may be interested. The recent updated added icons to citations that are editable or from advocacy organizations, as well as sources from WP:RSP ( marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted; generally reliable is also available, but opt-in). This is in addition to other icon categories, such as state-controlled, opinion pieces, press releases, blogs, and more.
Just note that Cite Unseen is here to provide an initial evaluation of citations and point out potential issues, but it's not the final say on whether or not a source is appropriate for inclusion (see usage for more guidance). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: would love to hear your thoughts on how we might get the tool turned on by default for readers.
Also re: the content-types tracked by CiteUnseen, this seems important, maybe there are two simultaneous typologies here (one about how reliable something is, another about its format, editability, structure). Is there a dedicated place to discuss + refine the types? I'd like to see this typology included across the board in RS/Perennial sources lists, most of which don't currently use a shared set of flags. Cheers, – SJ + 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: would love to hear your thoughts on how we might get the tool turned on by default for readers.
Also re: the content-types tracked by CiteUnseen, this seems important, maybe there are two simultaneous typologies here (one about how reliable something is, another about its format, editability, structure). Is there a dedicated place to discuss + refine the types? I'd like to see this typology included across the board in RS/Perennial sources lists, most of which don't currently use a shared set of flags. Cheers, – SJ + 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. The Baal Cycle article needs inline citations, if someone could help that would be great! Thinker78 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello!
I am writing to inform about a tool that is currently in development, and is possibly interesting for WikiProject Medicine members.
Hacks/Hackers, along with its project partners, announces the Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT). ARTT aims to provide motivated citizens with tools and resources to discuss vaccine efficacy online. ARTT provides these connectors with expert guidance in analyzing information online and in responding to others through trust-building ways.
In theory, ARTT users would engage with the tool when seeking guidance on how to respond to vaccine misinformation online. The tool would suggest resources that have been vetted for quality and reliability in hopes of encouraging productive dialogue.
During the first research phase for this project, Wikipedians have been asked to provide feedback on potential uses for the tool within Wikipedia. For example, could a tool that vets sources be used to improve articles? Furthermore, could articles themselves be elevated to the point at which they could be recommended by the tool as reliability sources?
Hacks/Hackers and Wikimedia DC invites you to contribute to this conversation using ARTT’s Meta page. Netha (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project might be interested in a discussion taking place at WT:V#BURDEN and the removal of tagged content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
wikipedia has a reliability problem.
Not everything that could be done is being done.
User:Nowakki/sandbox/Reliability
The tools and formal procedures in place (a horde of editors proofreading every page edit, if one is lucky and enough people care about a particular article) are insufficient.
if nobody really uses wikipedia as a reference, what is the point of being extra meticulous?
why can't a site that is drowning in reliable references start giving guarantees as to its own reliability.
Typing this while i am wasting precious minutes of my day magnifying poor quality pdfs. not sure why i am even bothering or how many wikipedians have done so before with the same document. i have no idea how meticulous they were when they entered data from it. Nowakki (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi all - WikiCred is back with a second round of grants, this time supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and Craig Newmark. The program offers small grants from $1,000 to $10,000 to individuals and teams to work on projects that support credibility on the internet, especially in a Wikimedia context. Examples of previously funded projects are the Vaccine Safety Project, CiteLearn, and the RefB Wikidata bot. If you're interested, check out the Call for Proposals. The submission deadline is November 28, 2022. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for WP:DEPRECATION. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Æo (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The 2022 FIFA World Cup article has contradictory information from reputable sources.
The stadium capacity for the opening game is 60,000 yet the official attendance figures attest an audience of 67,000. This means, within the same article, there is clearly well sourced, contradictory information. How is this normally reconciled? Jo Jc Jo (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If so any chance of an answer to my question above? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I mean without spending more than say a minute or 2 thinking about them? I am asking for a third opinion as I think it is OK whereas @Phil Bridger thinks it is not. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Since when did Twitter and Youtube become commonly used as citations? Both are still listed as 'generally unreliable' at WP:RSP. I just ran across the article Alex Hirsch. I discovered 21 tweets used as citations, and a whole handful of youtubes before I quit counting altogether and just gave up. Stripping that stuff would probably reduce the article's citations by half. If anyone is willing to tackle that article with a big pair of scissors, please go for it. Grorp (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
To make category pages easier to use, for the individual months within Category:Articles with unsourced statements I added these:
These additions are "cloned" from changes done for:
This update is being posted at:
Overall, I am hopeful these changes will help editors new to article citations and those regularly working to reduce the backlog. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Wondering what is/has happened with Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2023? For "Sports" topic there are 14,637 articles. Is this possible from a bot run? August 2023 has 9,715 articles and Sept is only the 9th day. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Should ((not in body)) be the same as ((not verified in body))?
Should the link go to Template:Not verified in body/doc as opposed to Wikipedia:Citation needed?
Please discuss at Template talk:Not verified in body, thx CapnZapp (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Is Artfacts.net considered a reliable source? They claim to "meticulously check" all info, and from the research I did they do seem to be rigorous and accurate. I'm wondering if this source can be used for citing major exhibitions on a wikipedia article on a BLP artist.
The article formerly had a laundry list of exhibitions with refs for each. It was moved to talk b/c it read like a resume and caused ref bomb. It seems that the most prominent exhibitions should be included in paragraph form. Wondering if I can use artfacts to cite 4-5 top shows with one source. What do you think? 174.194.142.148 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. There is an issue in the article Shi (personator) regarding its name and the use of the word personator throughout the page. Can someone check the sources that reportedly back the use of the word personator instead of "impersonator"?
According to its lead,
The shi (Chinese: 尸; pinyin: shī; Wade–Giles: sh'ih; lit. 'corpse') was a ceremonial "personator" who represented a dead relative during ancient Chinese ancestral sacrifices. In a shi ceremony, the ancestral spirit supposedly would enter the descendant "corpse" personator, who would eat and drink sacrificial offerings and convey messages from the spirit.
But, according to the article Personation,
Personation (rather than impersonation) is a primarily legal term, meaning "to assume the identity of another person with intent to deceive".[1]
According to the article Impersonator,
An impersonator is someone who imitates or copies the behavior or actions of another.[2]
Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate that the article Shi (personator) be named Shi (impersonator] and most of the instances of the word "personator" in the article, replaced with the word "impersonator". I was going to do it but then I stumbled on references, so I decided to try to check what does the sources say and how to solve this discrepancy, and that's why I am making the request here. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Is there somewhere I can find a list of reliable sources and depreciated sources? I have been looking for a while now and I seem to be just going around in circles. Irtapil (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024 drive is now active. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I question if Alyssa Mercante, the senior editor, and therefore Kotaku itself, should be considered a vialbe source when she says and does think that is very questionable and makes her a very biased person.
(BLP violation removed) [1]https://twitter.com/alyssa_merc/status/1765465735822725277
Also she she now tries to (BLP violation removed). [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAMPUogdMS4 [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hrQaMJ74MA Selo007 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Can some one help verify and remove old tag "more footnotes needed date=January 2013" from the article Nellie Sengupta.
Bookku (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please make a change? Regarding Mother of God Church in Covington, Ky.. The full name of the church is The Annunciation of the Ever Virgin Mary,Mother of God. (Not Assumption, as listed). Thank you. 72.49.116.75 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps some instructions on how to sign up might be in order? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
How exactly does the leaderboard in the June drive work? Is it only limited to 3 spots or does it change depending on how many people score at least one point? Mox Eden (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
In the June drive, for every article, are we supposed to fix all of the tags in an article, or do we just fix at least one per article? Mox Eden (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In the 6 hours since this month's backlog drive started, there have been 55 edits to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive page. That's great and shows there's a lot of interest in taking part, but I'd like to suggest a change in the way tallies are recorded for future drives. Seeing the number of people who had signed up, I guessed there'd be a lot of edits to that page so I decided to keep my tally at a subpage in userspace (User:Adam Black/WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive) and have transcluded it onto the main drive page, with the intention of substituting it at the end of the drive. The reason I've done it this way is to reduce the risk of an edit conflict. I'm adding entries to the page while I work and saving it each time I take a break. This reduces the risk that I'll lose my own entries and have to dig through my contributions, or accidentally overwrite someone else's entries.
My suggestion for the next drive is that tallies be hosted on subpages instead of the main page for the drive, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/MONTH YEAR Drive/USERNAME and transcluded onto the main list. This would also save editors a little time as the section "edit" links have been hidden, it saves scrolling all the way through the source to find your entries (not sure how it works on Visual Editor, I refuse to use that). Adam Black talk • contribs 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Just signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive, not sure how many I'll get through, but it definitely seems like a worthwhile endeavour. I did want to check though, what happens in the case we need to change a sentence due to inaccuracies found in the article? Does it count as adding a citation or removing the sentence for the purposes of scoring? CSJJ104 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason section editing doesn't work on the backlog page? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars...if you still need an extra user to pitch in I'd be happy to help with technical problems. I'm away 8-10 June (it's my birthday on the 11th so I'm taking a weekend trip to London, and what better way to celebrate than with a Wikipedia meetup!) but I'll be available the rest of the month. Adam Black talk • contribs 23:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I was wondering, is there a place where users can add requests for the backlog drive? Such as, "Hey, if you're looking for an article to source, how about these from my watchlist?" Of course, users can review them or skip them or pick anything else they want to pick from, but might it be nice to have such a list? BOZ (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Question, do related templates like Template:More citations needed on a section also count for the reliability drive? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I notice that there are two barnstars listed in awards for having 100 points. Will the one given depend on who is giving out the awards or is the points total for one of the listed barnstars off? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Re:WP:JUN24
This shouldn't be construed as a critique of the drive, the coordinator/organizer, or any participant. I think this is a great initiative. A small feedback I have, would be to appoint someone, or maybe a team of non-participating editors to verify the citations added by the top 3-5 participating editors. I am not really concerned about the self-reporting and counting for the points tally. No reason to assume they aren't fairly reporting their count. I'd like a third party to test check a small sample of the citations added by top cn tag clearers. By verify, I mean, whether the citation added supports the claim made. Also, maybe a reminder in the opening para of the event page, that quality of citations matter more over quantity. @Cremastra: — hako9 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Have you come across any citations being added of questionable quality?I haven't. And by test check I meant, maybe checking 5 random citations out 100 or so, and only for a few top participating editors. This kind of puts a deterrent on inserting shoddy citations. I agree with a peer review-like, internal control. And I'd like to know what everyone participating thinks. Reviewing other editors is also time-consuming. And others could think it's unnecessary prying. Maybe it's best to implement something on the next cn drive instead of this one. — hako9 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
So, if I resolve multiple ((cn)) tags with a single reference because someone tagged multiple related items in different locations (e.g. different dates, and in the infobox as well as in the body), should I count that as one tag resolved or three (see Special:Diff/1227146821)? I feel a little silly scoring that multiple times when several tags were resolved relatively easily... -2pou (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
For the full 4 points for adding a citation, does a ((citation needed)) tag have to be removed? Or is tagging any unsubstantiated sentence good enough for points? Like if a sentence should have a cn tag at the end but doesn't, does getting a source for it count for the points? Same for removal of unsubstantiated content. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Do I get any points for removing a tag that didn't need to be there in the first place, because the page's next reference contained the information? I have come across two of these today. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. If a statement in the lead has a citation needed tag, it has been challenged and it would probably be best to provide a citation. I would just move the existing citation to the lead, name it if it hasn't been named already, and place the relevant ref tag back where the original source was. I think it would be reasonable to claim 4 points in this case. Adam Black talk • contribs 21:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking at Category:All unreferenced BLPs and wondering, since there is only the header banner, does adding say 3 references to one give you 12 points, even though I've only removed/updated the banner without removing any tags? — Iadmc♫talk 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)