Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In focus
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Headbomb in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- Thank you for fighting the good fight. Efforts like this are why the credibility of Wikipedia is increasing. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I second this, and I'd like to thank everyone involved for stepping up to make Wikipedia a more reliable and trustworthy resource for our readers. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The "list" is rather all-inclusive - even managing to have The New York Times in its talons. Bot-generated lists are not something I recommend for use as the number of "false positives" is beyond belief. Argh. Collect (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Collect: To my knowledge, The New York Times is not on the SourceWatch anywhere (if I'm wrong, please point where). It is listed on Journals Cited by Wikipedia, but that's not the SourceWatch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is on the list in the very first column one arrives at through the only "search" box provided! - and even casual users would notice it, as most of the "bad sites" are also in that second column. This from the "search" function on the "Sourcewatch" redirected page. As are all the other NY newspapers, the MIT Technology Review (listed quite prominently as a hijacked journal) and more. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe are listed as "propaganda sources". Page N18 of the sources list. I fear the "search box" missed your editorial review I had suggested a while back? Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/N18 To begin with, cut out that "search" which misleadingly lists every journal known to man. The best part is the list of redlinked sources - but as there are an infinite number of possible redlinks to add, that does not help. I suspect that the separated "actual real Wikipedia problem sources" list will be much more manageable. Oh, and blacklisting every "wrong science source" may be nice to some, but deleterious to many articles. Meanwhile, is there a reason to keep publishers on the whist which Beall had deleted from that list? Collect (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Collect:
- 1) The New York Times: That's from WP:JCW/N18 which is part of Journals Cited by Wikipedia, a compilation of every
|journal=used across Wikipedia, not The SourceWatch, which is a specific subset of JCW (specifically the pages ending in /Questionable#). A thing that will help here is that if you do not see the big SourceWatch warning on the page, you are not dealing with The SourceWatch. - 2) Voice of America is categorized in Category:United States government propaganda organizations and Radio Free Europe in Category:Anti-communist propaganda.
- 3) The MIT Technology Review was indeed hijacked.
- 1) The New York Times: That's from WP:JCW/N18 which is part of Journals Cited by Wikipedia, a compilation of every
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you asserting that MIT Technology Review is not listed as "hijacked"? Item number 30 on the very first page of your list? Did you read Beall's comments which made clear that "Tec Review" was his problem and not "MIT Technology Review"? That would be reassuring as it would then be clear that evil forces are corrupting my downloads. Meanwhile, it means the "search" function is totally useless for this. I am glad you pointed out that many organizations are given deprecatory descriptions, by the way. It makes one feel reassured that WP:NPOV is adhered to in all projects. And the reason for "redlinked journals" in profusion is? Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what a hijacked journal is. I also don't know what you mean by the "redlinked journals" in profusion.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Beall's lists "Tech Review" as the hijacked journal, and MIT Technology Review as the genuine journal! One column (the left one in his list) is the fakes, the second column (the right one is clearly labeled "authentic journal") is the "authentic journal" It helps to read the column headers!!! Collect (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- MIT Technology Review is the hijacked journal (a legitimate academic journal for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party), TECH REV: Technology Review journal is the hijacker. The Beall website gets the terminology wrong. Also I've tweaked the search box to only search in the SourceWatch when on a /Questionable page.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As noted, Beall only lists the fake one as the "hijacked journal" and the "real one" is listed as "authentic." And Beall got his own terminology wrong? Nope. It quite appears the reverse. The person who writes the first list is the one who gets to choose his terminology. But "The Beall website got the terminology wrong" does not quite impress me. Sorry. Collect (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Beall did not invent the term hijacked journal. Again, see our article hijacked journal and the explanatory note Hijacked journals are legitimate academic journals with imposters pretending to be the legitimate publication. These citations are likely not problematic, but it is good to check that the real journal is being cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- You mean the article I corrected because it misrepresented the sources? The one where you removed an old talk page entry as "no one cares"? [1]? The one where you reverted my actual use of the sources? [2] which admits Butler (a main source" was "misused - but doubled down on the misuse? Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt -- but misusing sources and doubling down on that misuse is not my cup of tea. Add all the sites you wish as I seem to have a very bad taste in my mouth. Collect (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Beall did not invent the term hijacked journal. Again, see our article hijacked journal and the explanatory note Hijacked journals are legitimate academic journals with imposters pretending to be the legitimate publication. These citations are likely not problematic, but it is good to check that the real journal is being cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As noted, Beall only lists the fake one as the "hijacked journal" and the "real one" is listed as "authentic." And Beall got his own terminology wrong? Nope. It quite appears the reverse. The person who writes the first list is the one who gets to choose his terminology. But "The Beall website got the terminology wrong" does not quite impress me. Sorry. Collect (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- MIT Technology Review is the hijacked journal (a legitimate academic journal for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party), TECH REV: Technology Review journal is the hijacker. The Beall website gets the terminology wrong. Also I've tweaked the search box to only search in the SourceWatch when on a /Questionable page.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Beall's lists "Tech Review" as the hijacked journal, and MIT Technology Review as the genuine journal! One column (the left one in his list) is the fakes, the second column (the right one is clearly labeled "authentic journal") is the "authentic journal" It helps to read the column headers!!! Collect (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what a hijacked journal is. I also don't know what you mean by the "redlinked journals" in profusion.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you asserting that MIT Technology Review is not listed as "hijacked"? Item number 30 on the very first page of your list? Did you read Beall's comments which made clear that "Tec Review" was his problem and not "MIT Technology Review"? That would be reassuring as it would then be clear that evil forces are corrupting my downloads. Meanwhile, it means the "search" function is totally useless for this. I am glad you pointed out that many organizations are given deprecatory descriptions, by the way. It makes one feel reassured that WP:NPOV is adhered to in all projects. And the reason for "redlinked journals" in profusion is? Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Collect:
- It is on the list in the very first column one arrives at through the only "search" box provided! - and even casual users would notice it, as most of the "bad sites" are also in that second column. This from the "search" function on the "Sourcewatch" redirected page. As are all the other NY newspapers, the MIT Technology Review (listed quite prominently as a hijacked journal) and more. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe are listed as "propaganda sources". Page N18 of the sources list. I fear the "search box" missed your editorial review I had suggested a while back? Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/N18 To begin with, cut out that "search" which misleadingly lists every journal known to man. The best part is the list of redlinked sources - but as there are an infinite number of possible redlinks to add, that does not help. I suspect that the separated "actual real Wikipedia problem sources" list will be much more manageable. Oh, and blacklisting every "wrong science source" may be nice to some, but deleterious to many articles. Meanwhile, is there a reason to keep publishers on the whist which Beall had deleted from that list? Collect (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
And I am getting a teensy bit upset about your hatting and rehatting of my post at WP:RS/N#Hijacked_journal_problems as a violation of WP:CANVASS while your post at WT:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Talk:Hijacked_journal#bad_reverts which seems not to relate to the problems at hand - specifically making "interpretations of sources" directly contradicted by the sources. Collect (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's because, again, per WP:CANVASSING, if you want to bring people to a discussion, you give a neutral notice of the discussion happening. You don't poison the well by injecting your opinion/side all over the place. WP:RSN is to discuss whether or not sources are reliable. It is not the place to debate their interpretation, or decide on what terminology is clearest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, and I stated the issue clearly. It is not "CANVASSING" buy a mile or two. The article has exceedingly few viewers, and you "pinged" friends to go there, while I "pinged" no one at all. Period. I rather think that when a reliable source uses a word, we should not assign it a diametrically opposite meaning. Maybe I am in a minority, in Carrollian way. That should end the contretemps as I have done my best to state facts and not hat the helk of someone. Collect (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, yes. It was your message that was not neutral, and violated WP:CANVASS. But that's rather irrelevant to this Signpost piece, so can we please keep debate about what to do with the article on the article's talk page, rather than have a meta debate about how to have a debate on a half a dozen page? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- You hatted and rehatted my post which I believed and still believe set forth the issue. That you assert it was not "neutral" and not placed in a "neutral" place is not of import as it is still hatted and anyone can read it for themselves to see how non-neutral it was. Or possibly actually feel it was a reasonable post on the proper noticeboard, and less CANVASS that "pinging" three friends. Collect (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I did not ping three friends. I pinged the original author of the words, and the two people that posted on the talk page before. Neutrally. You on the other hand, poisoned the well at WP:RSN, presenting your side, rather than neutrally advertise the ongoing discussion. Now, take it to Talk:Hijacked journal, as has been requested of you over a dozen times now, where a discussion of the actual issue can happen, rather than these silly meta debates about how to have a debate about something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- You hatted and rehatted my post which I believed and still believe set forth the issue. That you assert it was not "neutral" and not placed in a "neutral" place is not of import as it is still hatted and anyone can read it for themselves to see how non-neutral it was. Or possibly actually feel it was a reasonable post on the proper noticeboard, and less CANVASS that "pinging" three friends. Collect (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, yes. It was your message that was not neutral, and violated WP:CANVASS. But that's rather irrelevant to this Signpost piece, so can we please keep debate about what to do with the article on the article's talk page, rather than have a meta debate about how to have a debate on a half a dozen page? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, and I stated the issue clearly. It is not "CANVASSING" buy a mile or two. The article has exceedingly few viewers, and you "pinged" friends to go there, while I "pinged" no one at all. Period. I rather think that when a reliable source uses a word, we should not assign it a diametrically opposite meaning. Maybe I am in a minority, in Carrollian way. That should end the contretemps as I have done my best to state facts and not hat the helk of someone. Collect (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bad news... the name is taken —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Can this system by gamed? edit
- Assume for a moment that for ideological reasons a fairly large number of Wikipedia editors dislike some reliable sources and like other, unreliable sources.
- Given the above assumption, is there any way that this list of questionable sources be gamed in such a way that it can be weaponized in the ongoing bare-knuckle, no-rules brawl between Team Blue and Team Red? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is that this is as 'gameable' as any of the original sources themselves. Debate about whether something on Beall's list is reliable has occurred countless of times. The answer with Beall is usually Beall was right, this is a garbage journal, but since Beall classified questionable journals alongside literally zero academic worth journals, these discussions often result in 'Yeah this is published by X, which isn't the greatest, but it's not zero worth'. Facts backed up by those journals would usually fail a WP:MEDRS check, but would be often be considered perfectly valid sources for basic claims that aren't at the cutting edge of research (e.g. Foobarin is a complex protein discovered by James of Foo in 1942) and aren't used to back up completely wild OR/POV claims. Likely all this list will be doing is accelerate the rate at which those discussions occur, since it makes finding these potential problematic citations easier.
- The list is a tool, and like any other tool it can be abused if you really want to. But you'd have to ignore the bigass disclaimer the top of the list, saying that the SourceWatch is only a starting point, that it's not perfect, that it doesn't know the full context in which a source is used, and tells you that you shouldn't go on a mass purge without discussing things at the RSN first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)