Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability/Archive 1

Archive 1

Further Proposals

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 ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly not be canvassing, given that there is no voting of any type. The problem is indeed endemic:, e.g. Wikiproject Elements (where someone fixed a source because of a message I left there). These are also used in projects such as Medicine, Philosophy, etc. I am planning to write a simple program that generates a list of the use of these on pages. Then the drive can ask people to check/fix them. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be careful to distinguish between content that is good, but merely poorly sourced versus content that is bad and poorly sourced. For example, let's say that these two sentences are both sourced to self-published books:

• The United States of America was founded in 1776.
• The United States of America was founded by reptillian huminoids.

The second sentence should obviously be deleted, but we should not be deleting "The United States of America was founded in 1776" simply because it's poorly sourced. Instead, we should do one of the following:

• Replace the SPS with a reliable source. This is the ideal solution, but it's also the most time consuming.
• Add a template.
• Remove the source and add a template.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not planning to write a program that changes Wikipedia pages, but one that searches them, and generates a list of ISBNs that trace to self-publishers. Then we can place the list somewhere and ask people to check them/fix them as they see fit. And as you said there must be guidelines for how they go about it. Once we have those two components we can start a drive for it as St John C. suggested. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered a problem with this. I have quite a few reliable self-published books - ones from CreateSpace - that are reprints of ancient works long out of print, from Irenaeus to John of Damascus to Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange ("Ex Fontibus Press", the publisher, uses CreateSpace): I have these because 1) some aren't on the internet, 2) I don't like reading books on the PC, and 3) The Fathers of the Church and Ancient Christian Writers versions often run up in to the hundred-dollar range for a single work (for example, Augustine's "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" is sixty bucks in 2 volumes from Fathers of the Church, but $15 and also includes Genesis against the Manicees and Unfinished Literal Commentary from Ex Fontibus through CreateSpace); some of Origen's commentaries, for example, on Romans, are upwards of $120 and very hard to find.

Other books, like many of Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, or the 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims Bible (or the Spanish Torres-Amat), simply are not available for purchase outside of CreateSpace or Lulu reprints, unless one is lucky enough to find one on eBay or used on Amazon for a ridiculous price (or has access to a library where they are still available, which is, nonetheless, inconvenient - the Dominican House of Studies' library doesn't allow many books to be borrowed, and, in any case, I don't write Wikipedia from the university library). Many other reliable sources are published in this way. How should this problem be handled - a reliable source that is unavailable or out of print, that is reprinted only through a self-publishing company? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid point and perhaps "ancient works" need to be exempted. Of course Wikisource has many of the works by the likes of Irenaeus, Jerome, etc. But still if a work is by a scholar and is republished because the copyright expired, that must be a separate issue, I think. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reprints of ancient works aren't "self-published" in the normal sense. Of course the original may have been self-published back in the day (in a very different cultural context), but really ancient works present a different set of issues than modern self-publishing. What is a bump in the road is that "unreliable" publishers can be used to reprint works that were originally published by a "reliable" one, and anyone reviewing the use of the source needs to look into that possibility. Which reaffirms what we already knew, that you can't just go through with a bot and strip out sources from these publishers -- you have to flag them so a person can evaluate the details. --RL0919 (talk) 19:48, 27 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)

Kessinger publishes old books at exorbitant prices - I'm talking $50 for a copy of GK Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, although most books from the Imperial era can be purchased for much more cheaply reprinted by Dover. I always get a kick and a bit of anger when I click Amazon's drop-down list of paperbacks, and see: "Dover: 9.99, CreateSpace: 12.99, X: 13.01, Y: 14.99, Z: 16.00, AA: 19.00, Kessinger: 37.63" (for some reason, 37.63 is very common for a price for them). However, Kessinger books are generally photocopies, whereas Ex Fontibus are always re-typeset. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That is one thing, the ripoffs are another. I was surprised by these ripoff reports. Some vanity presses charge the authors $16k to $20k to publish books, and some of those reports mention money taken from senior citizens authors, etc. History2007 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more reliable if people cite to the original books rather than reproductions, reproductions may have unintended changes in them, there is no sense in citing the reproductions. As a result of the photocopying, kessinger books are probably more likely to have unintended errors than a re-typeset version. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussing usage of vanity press

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)

RSN is a forum to get community input on specific disputes about reliability. This is a project to coordinate efforts to improve reliability generally. So I would think "instances" should continue to go to RSN. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Now we do need to start coordinating things. I was busy the past few days but will free up soon. I am hoping that DGG will have an evaluation of the sources for us soon, given his knowledge of the field, after that we can get a better idea as well. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

List of ISBN codes for publishers

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)

Reliability of self published books

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:

• People know they exists and hence avoid these publishers, given that they often show up on Google books, and just get used

• People can look for the uses of these sources in the thousands of (or even more?) articles in which they are used, and somehow remedy the situation

Help in promoting these lists and encouraging editors to avoid these books will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support this most strongly. My work on here is fixing bad pages and patrolling for POV, and all bad pages have two things in common: primary and self-published sources. The former is used to support OR and SYNTH, which is relatively easy to get taken out with a few good editors backing me up, the latter of which is used to give OR and SYNTH a veneer of legitimacy by writing it somewhere else first (or just printing a certain revision of a Wikipedia page), and is harder to expurgate. I came across an article the other day, Aerial Toll-houses, a heterodox doctrine taught by some (Seraphim Rose) in Eastern Orthodoxy, which may be the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia: what's the problem? WP:SPS. Also particularly bad are all of the theology articles that quote Scriptures directly to "prove a point" by private interpretation, which is inherently SYNTH. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I too wholeheartedly support this. I know of a couple editors who know the vanity publishers very well (DGG and Orange Mike), so recruiting their help in compiling such a list would probably be a good idea as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you could talk the other two editors you mentioned into taking a look at the list that would be great. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support wholeheartedly as well.--YHoshua (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted on the village pump and someone suggested that we should add a link from the policy pages to the lists. I think that would certainly be a permanent way of making people aware of the existence of these lists. I have posted here and here so people can become aware of these lists. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm surprised a list like this doesn't already exist! IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is even more surprising is if you reverse search the links to see which pages use them, and will see that they are all over Wikipedia like weeds. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support this most strongly too. Good references are one of the jewels of Wikipedia; bad ones compromise the whole endeavour. A note: sometimes a self-published source can make an important contribution to the overall picture as I hope the memoirs of Len Fox did when I added his book to the Bibliography section of Nasturtiums (E. Phillips Fox). Relevant memoirs can form part of the historiography but even in such cases, it is important to note that the book is self-published. Is such a note about the publisher being routinely added to other articles? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are two parts to that. One, SPS isn't intended to apply to autobiographies published through reliable presses (c.f. Zoya Phan's, which was published by Simon and Schuster). Outside of that, things like Len Fox's memoirs are very helpful for talking about the subject or something notable they did, but I too think it should be made more obvious they're self-published. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think of "ancient sources" Blade, as discussed below, say 4th century material. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Always a tough one. I think they need notes on who translated them, for sure, but I think with sources that old a note giving their age should suffice. Most people will pretty much know it wasn't vetted the same way modern books are, especially autobiographies and contemporary accounts. Of course we'll want to have modern scholars' opinions on those texts as well, but I don't think it presents the same problem as modern vanity presses. When it comes to ancient attempts at recounting history, like the Shiji or Fulcher of Chartres, as long as it's marked that their authors lived in the 2nd-1st century BC and the 11th-12th century AD respectively and supplemented with modern scholarship those should be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and in many cases, Wikisource has ancient texts as well. I have been impressed by Wikisource, it has turned out to be a really rich repository of ancient texts in many areas. I wonder how we can inform people of that. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I like you already. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikisource. There are two points I would like to make regarding ancient texts, Wikisource and this reliability project.

1. Wikisource has text pages with scans (e.g. s:On the Vital Principle), and text pages without scans (e.g. s:The Republic), and only the former should be considered reliable. There are many instances where a text on Wikisource is a dump from somewhere else on the internet, and then modifications are made by anons and nobody ever checked to see whether the change was appropriate. When scans are readility available online, the Wikisource community quickly verifies edits are good by checking the scans.
2. Wikipedia should not do 'wiki' translations in the Wikipedia page. Wikisource does translations - some say it shouldnt, but it is far more suited to the task. On Wikipedia pages, the vast majority of the edits are about the text. On Wikisource, the edits are primarily alterations to the translated text, which makes prior investigating translation decisions an easy task. For example, try to follow the translation changes of Brazilian National Anthem vs s:Hino Nacional do Brasil.
   Also, Wikipedia pages are GFLD/CC-BY-SA, with no thought given to copyright status of copied works, whereas Wikisource translations are on separate pages with copyright tags at the bottom, and they are often placed into the public domain. e.g. s:Balade to Rosemounde. For an small item like a poem, the Wikisource contributors feel that because the original is public domain, the translation should be widely re-usable, without legally enforced attribution. Good reusers will continue to give credit.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John for bringing up the Wikisource issues. I will later suggest a cooperation of some type with them. Sorry for the delay in responding... just too many things to do. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support this entirely. Factseducado (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Bots. Any reference that ads a self published book will be flagged. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Eventually yes. But as a start I will just do a quick program to generate a report, before we modify articles. As below, what I need however is a better list of the ISBN codes for the self-publishers. That is the stumbling block at the moment. There are various lists on the web, it is the question of finding and organizing them. They can also be inferred from books, but that can take time. But there are only a few publishers here, so it is not a huge task. History2007 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Republishers? Nageh (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I just became aware of it. I think it is a form of wiki-mirror and I would support that merge. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no! That list includes republishers of Wikipedia content, in book form, just as your list does contain. So it should be merged into Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies. Nageh (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the merge flag there. Anyway, voting is taking place there. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Republishers

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)

Report on the use of self-publishers

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)

I'm responding to the post left at WT:MILHIST (though some extra context on what you guys have been up to would have been good!). The military history articles you've found that have references to self-published sources seem to all be of quite low quality. The self-published sources should go, but it's hardly surprising that bad quality articles have bad references ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you just gave me the idea that this may also work the other way around. One method for detecting low quality articles and generating a list of them may be to check if they have low quality references, plus a number of other conditions. So these ideas are interesting. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. In a future version, we should also categorize the report by article rating/importance, to see how self-published items are used in high importance articles. But it was surprising to me that wikiproject biography generated so many results. But we will have to wait a few days to get the full version of report with more publishers. Authorhouse dominated here, and I will try to run the others this week. History2007 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the hits in the Lincoln article (BiblioBazaar) came from a reprint of Sherman's memoirs. There are bound to be better editions out there, and just getting rid of those sorts of things should reduce the number of hits in biography. Although honestly it doesn't surprise me that they'd generate so many hits. Self-publishing tends to attract memoir writers. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, and that's going to be an ongoing issue, since an author writing about their own life is one of the exceptions where self-published work is acceptable as a source. I wonder if there is some way the report could weed those out? For example, if the name of the author is the same as the name of the article? Just a thought for improvement -- the first pass is a great start. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite possible and not that hard, once an ISBN system is in place. The issue will again be execution time, but given that it will be a monthly report, I could set a computer to run it for a week if needed. These are good suggestions and as a list of these appears, I will work on a design to encompass as many of them as possible in a second version. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Sherman's memoirs for another reason, too: many of these publishers take items that are out of print (and possibly out of copyright) and republish them. You then have to make the distinction between that and an actual self-published memoir (not sure if a bot can do that or not...I don't know much about them). Older history stuff is especially vulnerable to that practice, but I'm sure it hits other areas, too. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be done, but not that easily. One needs to get the title, look it up on Worldcat to see if there were earlier editions, etc. and if so, skip it. These are actually good suggestions, but given my unfortunate time constraint of having only 24 hours in a day, and fixing various articles, these will be 2013 items probably. There was also a good suggestion on the talk page of the report, so the suggestion list is growing, and I will get to them as I can. I am trying to do the Wiki-republishers next, however, because they are an issue too. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Business project done. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. I saw this one now. That was fast. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:34, 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)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

WikiProject X is live!

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)

This project vs RSN

How is this project different from what RSN does? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This project aims to improve the reliability of articles by adding citations to reliable sources where they are needed and removing content sourced solely to questionable sources. Maintenance categories, including Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles lacking reliable references, are overseen by this project, just as Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability is attended to by WikiProject Notability.

In contrast, the reliable sources noticeboard solicits editor feedback on the reliability of sources, but doesn't coordinate actual changes to articles. I'm in the process of merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check into this page, which also handles the {{Verify source}} and {{Unreliable source?}} tags. ​— Newslinger talk 05:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

PSA: Unreferenced articles about to jump

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)

Discussion at the above-linked BRFA has led to a village pump discussion gauging consensus for the bot to run. Folks who watch this page may be interested in participating. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This would be extremely useful, and it looks like other editors agree. — Newslinger talk 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

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)

WP:CRAPWATCH

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)

​It's a well-written article on an ambitious project that helps editors track down questionable sources. Thanks for sharing. — Newslinger talk 01:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

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.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Improving citations and reliability at Mayo Clinic

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)

Hi Audrey at Mayo Clinic, please consider following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Once you add the {{request edit}} template to the top of your request, it will be placed into the queue for another editor to review. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll add {{request edit}} now! I was initially reaching out to WikiProjects where editors would be interested in Mayo Clinic or improving citations. Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on adding IMDb to the RevertReferencesList

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)

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

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)

Discussion of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Uncommon Ground Media on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Osianama on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of PTC Punjabi on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of The Next Web on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Kathmandu Tribune on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of MuslimMatters on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of WalesOnline on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on notability of Aluminum internal combustion engine on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of United Religions Initiative document on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on Minnie Chan of the South China Morning Post on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

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:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Al Bawaba and The Globe Post on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on media initiative regarding news coverage of climate change on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on reliability of TorrentFreak on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of "The Kingdom in the Closet" from The Atlantic on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Refinery29 on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Mammoth Gamers on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on Maxit (maxit.my) on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of Value Investor Insight on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion of double Venus flag in LGBT symbols on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Discussion on FreeMapTools on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Noticeboard discussion of Hacker Noon and InfoSec Handbook

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)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

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)

Copyright implications of links to CiteSeerX

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of Liliputing (liliputing.com)

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)

Request for comment on reliability of VG Chartz

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)

RfC on reliability of The Epoch Times

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)

Non-publicly-accessible sources

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)

Relevant discussion at Village Pump (proposals)

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)

Notice: NPP source guide discussion about Ghanaian sources is underway

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)

Wagon train

Was wagon train set in pre civil war or post civil war? Frisco carlos (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Frisco carlos, this page is for the discussion of WikiProject Reliability. Please consider asking your question at the humanities reference desk. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Connecting Wikipedia articles to reliable sources through new template

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)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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 "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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)

WikiCred grants for credibility-related projects

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)

Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr did not give name to dahlia as stated in same site.

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)

I think you're posting this in the wrong place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on wording in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

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)

RfC on whether certain sources are considered to have a conflict of interest

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)

RfC on reliability of headlines

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)

WikiCred Demo Hour on Sept 10

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)

@SuperHamster, will there be a recording? Also looks like the form link is down. czar 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Ah, I pasted the wrong link. Fixed! The individual project presentations will actually be prerecorded, I'll share the links here when they are available. The Q&A won't be recorded, but a transcript will be made available for those who register for the event. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Hey there, sorry for this late follow-up - if you're interested, videos and slides from the demo are available here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCred Demo Hour on Dec 1

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:

• Scribe (Structuring new cited sources on Wikipedia)
• Glassbox (WordPress plugin for opening the news)
• Sourceror (browser extension + API informing about quality content based on Wikipedia's perennial sources)
• Results from Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos

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)

RfC on adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist

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

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)

Moved to WT:Cleanup § Template:Source conflict

Two very small discussions that could use input

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)

Comprehensive review published in reputable journal, but authored by a chiropractor

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)

Fake info websites

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)

We need your help evaluating a Wikipedia citation verification and recommendation system

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).

This is cool, thanks Fabio! I tried it out a bit -- is there an on-wiki place to share ideas and feedback? – SJ + 15:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

More structured form for RSP

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:

There are a wide range of formats for RSP tables for different wikiprojects.

Diffs of these tables are hard to understand (tools want to know if the values for a given source changed)

It would be useful to have that tabular data in a templated structure, for other tools (like Cite Unseen) to use

It may be useful to be able to find different evaluations (like Side Editor claims, different topical RSP evals)

Aspects to improve on the current system

• Standardize the minimal metadata that should be tracked (organization/author (being evaluated), source url, date, evaluation, last discussion link, ...)
• Standardize whether to have all evaluations in one table or many (e.g.: one for reliable, one for questionable sources)
• Name any terminology + typologies used (RSP evaluation categories; Cite Unseen source type categories)
• Create an index of evaluators (in this case: The Vaccine Safety Network has a transient global spreadsheet online that's hard to fine w/ source evals; a few Wikiprojects have their own; in the US NewsQ compiled one for media sources generally; some userscripts like Cite Unseen or Headbomb's unreliable-sources script have their own list of updated source evaluations, based on feedback from editors)

Cite Unseen update

Examples of Cite Unseen in action on citations

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)

Cite Unseen updates?

@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)

@Sj @SuperHamster: Re turning on for readers, I'd like to see that someday, but we're a ways away. Impact on page loading time is one consideration. Error rate is another — looking at my FA as an example, it incorrectly marks this source as generally unreliable. There are potential functionality improvements — the circled blue question mark for "it depends" should link to the relevant RSP entry. There is the matter of educating readers about how to interpret the symbols — e.g. why do some newspaper references have the symbol and others don't? And there is preventing editors/readers from over-relying on it — "generally unreliable" has exceptions, and if there is a permanent 🚫 attached, that will very likely prompt less experienced editors to make incorrect removals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sj: @Sdkb: Thanks for the comments. Agreed on all that, Sdkb. Some other thoughts:

• I think the best next practical goal would be for Cite Unseen to become an opt-in gadget for editors.
• A hurdle right now is maintenance and updates. The vast majority of data and classifications have been done by myself. Editors can either recommend classifications and fixes on the talk page (sometimes happens) or submit a pull request on GitHub (never happens). For Cite Unseen to be kept up-to-date and not just reliant on one person, I think it needs a better, streamlined process for users to submit classifications. Maybe a button in the References section that opens up a form and/or lets users mark up citations right in the page and submit it to be reviewed.
• I think Cite Unseen is a stepping stone to something like WikiCite (is that still a thing?). Cite Unseen works for the most part by just string matching URLs; a better system would be something like a Wikibase of citations where individual citations can be marked up, both automatically and manually.
• I think "type of source" icons could be useful for readers, but I am far more wary of reliability/RSP indicators, at least without some major refinement. I've seen experienced Wikipedia editors misuse the labels (e.g. removing a citation solely because they see the icon, not taking into account false positives, context, etc.), let alone readers.

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, for updates, would it help to have RSP recorded in a more structured data form? I wonder whether it'd be worth proposing a Wikidata property for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Opt-in gadget for editors sounds great. (I actually meant turned on by default for logged-in editors, above! But opt-in is a good start.) I'm thinking about a potential solution for structured-data RSP. sdkb, SuperHamster What structure would you like to see beyond the RSP classification, link to entry, date of update? – SJ + 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cite Unseen updates?

@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)

@Sj @SuperHamster: Re turning on for readers, I'd like to see that someday, but we're a ways away. Impact on page loading time is one consideration. Error rate is another — looking at my FA as an example, it incorrectly marks this source as generally unreliable. There are potential functionality improvements — the circled blue question mark for "it depends" should link to the relevant RSP entry. There is the matter of educating readers about how to interpret the symbols — e.g. why do some newspaper references have the symbol and others don't? And there is preventing editors/readers from over-relying on it — "generally unreliable" has exceptions, and if there is a permanent 🚫 attached, that will very likely prompt less experienced editors to make incorrect removals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb and SuperHamster: To get something started quickly (which I would like), we could a) link to the RSP/PS entry, b) merge the warning and 🚫 icons, showing just the warning symbol with different tooltips for each case (I've also thought that 🚫 is somewhat ambiguous in the WP:PS table). I'm not so concerned that some paper refs don't have the symbol -- we could improve our completeness there however. I started a table at the bottom here using a slight expansion of the CiteUnseen types, see what you think. – SJ + 04:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for Baal page

Hi. The Baal Cycle article needs inline citations, if someone could help that would be great! Thinker78 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust

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)

Discussion about WP:BURDEN

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)

reliability proposal

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)

WikiCred grants available for credibility projects

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 has an RFC

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)

Q: contradictory content from reputable sources

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)

Hi @Jo Jc Jo, per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." czar 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

If so any chance of an answer to my question above? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it OK to PROD articles which have been unsourced for many years?

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)

Personally, I support it, but I have a slightly extreme view on unsourced content. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The current state of the article has little bearing on Wikipedia's conception of notability. Before PROD'ing an article, editors are expected to consider alternatives to deletion and perform due diligence on whether the topic is uncontroversially non-notable. Drive-by PROD'ing is bound to result in a warning and, more likely, someone following behind you de-PROD'ing your edits as disruptive. PROD almost always requires more than 120 seconds' effort. This said, wholly unsourced recent articles can be moved to draftspace for further improvement, sidestepping the notability question. czar 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter and Youtube

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)

When they're added as sources, they're often removed per WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPTWITTER. You should feel free to pare them where warranted. The article shouldn't rely on primary sources and if that info is noteworthy, a reliable, secondary source will cover it. czar 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)