Red-tailed hawk

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

GIJN and INN members

Hi @Red-tailed hawk, you seem to be the first person to post about GIJN and INN in reference to reliability on the perennial sources noticeboard.
Do you think that membership in either organization, given their journalistic standards for their members, is sufficient for a publication to be considered generally reliable? (I started discussions on INN and GIJN talk pages, but have never initiated a discussion at the perennial sources noticeboard) Superb Owl (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: WP:NEWSORG reminds us that while News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, it is also the case that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. A lot of INN members are going to fall into the less-established outlets bucket, and we might want to use caution with some of them. There are also some entities that are a part of the GJIN that are not newsrooms (there are a few media schools and the like, but also some news-adjacent nonprofits like the National Freedom of Information Center that are more focused on providing resources to journalists or engaging in public interest litigation than doing the reporting themselves). As such, it might be a bit of an oversimplification to consider a news group as generally reliably on the sole basis of membership in either organization, particularly so for the Institute for Nonprofit News. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Red-tailed hawk for explaining WP:NEWSORG approach. I just learned Wikipedia uses some third-party resources to determine unreliability with WP:CiteWatch, but it sounds like you do not know of any third-parties that are used to establish general reliability by enforcing, for example, editorial standards to retain membership in a group like INN or GIJN? Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The list that has the closest thing to a community consensus is WP:RSP, which is more or less just a compilation of discussions that occurred on RSN. Things like Citewatch or Headbomb's cite highligher script don't necessarily represent community consensus (and in the case of Citewatch, sometimes flag things as unreliable even after community RfC has concluded otherwise), but they are tools that can be well used when one knows the tools' limitations.

To answer more directly: our policies and guidelines don't brainlessly outsource source reliability evaluation to third-parties on Wikipedia. There is the concept of use by others, meaning that how other reliable sources use a particular source can be seen as evidence regarding that source's reliability, but we don't have any particular third-party do the work of conclusively saying which sources are good or bad. Some published lists (like Beall's list) are influential in identifying subpar, but policies and guidelines do not give them preference in and of themselves. As for determining sources that are always good-to-go, we likewise don't rely on third party lists or membership in industry self-regulatory groups (such as the U.K.'s IPSO, which enforces journalistic standards on newspapers with the ability to issue fines for journalistic malpractice) as being definitive in and of itself (i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL).

Rather than having based on industry group membership, Wikipedians examine the sources in light of the reliable sources guideline (including the special guidance for biomedical information). When there's disagreement as to a particular source's reliability, talk page discussions regarding source reliability in context take place, and there are also more broad discussions on RSN when those don't resolve. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Abuser is back

The user behind this range you blocked has returned to this IP address. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Somehow this block seems to affect also other users [1]. --Florentyna (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

To assess collateral better, {{checkuser needed}}. I had put a two-week block on the range Special:Contributions/112.202.0.0/17 because I had not seen any productive editing over the past week or so, and specific IPs on the range had already been blocked before. For that reason, I'm not apt to lift it unless there's a good bit of collateral that I'm not able to see owing to multiple logged-in users being on the range. If it's a very small number of trusted users, they could simply request WP:IPBE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's a fair bit of collateral here, and it's quite a large range for a hardblock anyway. I'm going to adjust your block down to Special:Contributions/112.202.96.0/20 which covers the vandal's activity at least in the timeframe that I can see, and that will consolidate some other blocks on this range that seem to be targeting the same LTA. I'm limited by policy in what I can say about Stvbastian, but I'll grant them IPBE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not supposed to modify your block without your permission, but I have blocked the smaller range, so I think your block is no longer necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Given the results, I'll pull the hardblock on the wider range. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)