Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics

User 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. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. 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}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. 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}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Help assessing notoriety

Hello, full disclosure I am an employee of Agility Robotics, as such I don't think I can be an unbiased/objective editor. I'm hoping the folks working on this project can help me with evaluating whether Agility has enough notability to warrant a page. I think so, but again I am biased and would benefit from others assessment. Below is some of the coverage produced by 3rd party journalists. Thank you for any insight or thoughts you are willing to provide.

[1]https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/21/agilitys-next-digit-robot-will-have-a-face-and-hands/

[2]https://www.geekwire.com/2022/agility-robotics-raises-150m-from-amazon-and-others-to-build-robots-used-in-the-workplace/

[3]https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/amazon-invests-in-robots-that-work-alongside-humans/

[4]https://www.therobotreport.com/fords-package-delivery-tests-combine-autonomous-vehicles-bipedal-robots/

[5]https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/inno/stories/profiles/2022/04/25/agility-robotics-factory.html

[6]https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/agility-robotics-building-two-legged-cassie-robot-and-delivery-robots.html

[7]https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/04/22/meet-the-startups-that-amazons-new-1-billion-industrial-innovation-fund-is-backing/?sh=6cd00ae025a4

If this community thinks the notoriety bar has been reached then I can work on a draft article, if that's even possible with my conflict of interest? Keganator (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Keganator. Welcome to Wikipedia. You're right to declare your conflict of interest, and are "strongly discouraged" from writing articles about employers and other close relationships. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox or means of promotion.

That being said, here's my estimation of the references you provided. I was only able to give each one a quick skim.

1. The TechCrunch article is a bit of puff piece. The consensus on Wikipedia is that TechCrunch can be a bit iffy.
2. Likewise for the GeekWire article. I wouldn't rate GeekWire as a particularly reliable source.
3. The ZDNet article seemed a bit better. ZDNet are generally considered to be a reliable source here.
4. The Robot Report article had more meat, although I'm not sure how much extrapolation they did from the video there. I normally rate Robot Report as "meh".
5. The Pittsburg Inno article seemed good. I saw no reason to doubt the quality of the journalism.
6. The Make It article seemed ok. I saw no reason to doubt the quality of the journalism.
7. The Forbes article didn't have much to offer. Forbes articles are generally considered to be reliable.

I would argue that, based on those references, your company is notable, and that a small article might be appropriate. There's not much in your references that a roboticist might get excited about.

Hope that doesn't sound too negative. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia with far worse references than those! -- Doktor Züm (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review and respond. Not negative at all, just objective review. I value your assessment (and the communities general regard) of those media sources. As a lay person I greatly appreciate the fact that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for promotion. Thanks! Keganator (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, you can ask about references on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Just don't mention Fox News.) -- Doktor Züm (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon

A merger proposal for military robot to lethal autonomous weapon has been started at Talk:Lethal autonomous weapon#Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon, input is appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Neural Radiance Fields

I saw there is a draft for Neural Radiance Fields. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information fuzzy networks

FYI:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information fuzzy networks

You're invited to give your opinions.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

New article at Force control

Hi, as a New Page Reviewer, I have stumbled across this article Force control. It was created as a translation of the German article at de:Kraftregelung. Can members of this project confirm if this is a content fork of an existing English Wikipedia article?

Please continue any further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#New article at Force control. Thank you, Fork99 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)