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)

Update to Category pages

To make category pages easier to use, for the individual months within Category:Articles with unsourced statements I added these:

• Random page button
• Topic filter
• Help message

These additions are "cloned" from changes done for:

• Category:Orphaned articles individual months
• Category:Articles lacking sources individual months

This update is being posted at:

• WikiProject Citation cleanup
• WikiProject Reliability

Overall, I am hopeful these changes will help editors new to article citations and those regularly working to reduce the backlog. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about 17,118 September 2023 articles

Wondering what is/has happened with Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2023? For "Sports" topic there are 14,637 articles. Is this possible from a bot run? August 2023 has 9,715 articles and Sept is only the 9th day. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Not verified in body

Should {{not in body}} be the same as {{not verified in body}}?

Should the link go to Template:Not verified in body/doc as opposed to Wikipedia:Citation needed?

Please discuss at Template talk:Not verified in body, thx CapnZapp (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Artfacts

Hi, Is Artfacts.net considered a reliable source? They claim to "meticulously check" all info, and from the research I did they do seem to be rigorous and accurate. I'm wondering if this source can be used for citing major exhibitions on a wikipedia article on a BLP artist.

The article formerly had a laundry list of exhibitions with refs for each. It was moved to talk b/c it read like a resume and caused ref bomb. It seems that the most prominent exhibitions should be included in paragraph form. Wondering if I can use artfacts to cite 4-5 top shows with one source. What do you think? 174.194.142.148 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend asking on WP:RS/N. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 21:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Personation vs impersonation: request

Hello. There is an issue in the article Shi (personator) regarding its name and the use of the word personator throughout the page. Can someone check the sources that reportedly back the use of the word personator instead of "impersonator"?

According to its lead,

The shi (Chinese: 尸; pinyin: shī; Wade–Giles: sh'ih; lit. 'corpse') was a ceremonial "personator" who represented a dead relative during ancient Chinese ancestral sacrifices. In a shi ceremony, the ancestral spirit supposedly would enter the descendant "corpse" personator, who would eat and drink sacrificial offerings and convey messages from the spirit.

But, according to the article Personation,

Personation (rather than impersonation) is a primarily legal term, meaning "to assume the identity of another person with intent to deceive".

According to the article Impersonator,

An impersonator is someone who imitates or copies the behavior or actions of another.

Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate that the article Shi (personator) be named Shi (impersonator] and most of the instances of the word "personator" in the article, replaced with the word "impersonator". I was going to do it but then I stumbled on references, so I decided to try to check what does the sources say and how to solve this discrepancy, and that's why I am making the request here. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kazamzam:. You mentioned you have access to a library to check references. If you have the time it would be great if you could check the references in this request to see if "personation" is the word actually used in them or whether it is both personator and impersonator or other? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Is there a list?

Is there somewhere I can find a list of reliable sources and depreciated sources? I have been looking for a while now and I seem to be just going around in circles. Irtapil (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Irtapil, please see the perennial sources list (WP:RSP) for a list of sources that have been previously discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. The list of deprecated sources can be found at WP:DEPS. (Please note the spelling of deprecated, which is different from depreciated.) — Newslinger talk 03:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Backlog drive notice

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024 drive is now active. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Alyssa Mercante

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I question if Alyssa Mercante, the senior editor, and therefore Kotaku itself, should be considered a vialbe source when she says and does think that is very questionable and makes her a very biased person.

(BLP violation removed) [1]https://twitter.com/alyssa_merc/status/1765465735822725277

Also she she now tries to (BLP violation removed). [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAMPUogdMS4 [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hrQaMJ74MA Selo007 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Her tweets, and especially her tattoo (particularly when cropped and out of context), seem entirely irrelevant to the reliability of an entire outlet. I suspect a better place to discuss a specific source would be WP:RSN (or WT:VG/S for video games specifically), but if you take it there, I would recommend that you stop posting images of her tattoo as if that has any relevance to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources at all. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Her tweets and tattos clearly makes her align to a specific agenda.

How can you write an unbiased article about men if your think "all men are evil"

How can you write and unbiased article about racism if you think "you cant be racist against white people"

Its not even taken into consideration on the "reliable sources" page

There are alot of violations in the SBI article, but since all complains fall on death ears and just gets deleted its just becomes a hitpiece wikipage with an agenda.

There has been several complains and yoou moderaters point people to where to post complains, it just gets deleted there instead. Selo007 (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased sources are okay, as long as they are used correctly—and talk page consensus suggests this one is. It's probably useful to point out that Kotaku is a media publication about video games, not "men" or "racism". It's also useful to point out that Mercante has never said "all men are evil". If you're referring to her tattoo: it's a quote from a book, and the image you keep sharing is only one half of the quote/tattoo.

If your complaints are being deleted on other noticeboards (FWIW, they're not: this is only the second page you have edited), it's worth considering why—like if they might violate Wikipedia's policies on civility or information about living persons. If that doesn't satisfy you, there are several avenues for dispute resolution. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can some one help

Can some one help verify and remove old tag "more footnotes needed date=January 2013" from the article Nellie Sengupta.

Bookku (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Correction

Can someone please make a change? Regarding Mother of God Church in Covington, Ky.. The full name of the church is The Annunciation of the Ever Virgin Mary,Mother of God. (Not Assumption, as listed). Thank you. 72.49.116.75 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sign ups

Perhaps some instructions on how to sign up might be in order? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Same question. I've clicked the "signup" button, but I'm not sure exactly where to put my name on the resulting form. Joyous! Noise! 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Joyous!: Click the "sign up" button, as Joyous! said. Your username automatically gets added as the header of your own tally section. Just click Publish Changes, and update your own tally section as needed. Cremastra (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Joyous! Noise! 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Too simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Leaderboard

How exactly does the leaderboard in the June drive work? Is it only limited to 3 spots or does it change depending on how many people score at least one point? Mox Eden (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Mox Eden, It is just for the top three spots. Cremastra (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Amount of tags for June drive

In the June drive, for every article, are we supposed to fix all of the tags in an article, or do we just fix at least one per article? Mox Eden (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mox Eden you get points for each {{citation needed}} you fix. You can fix as many as you like/can per article. Broc (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for future backlog drives

In the 6 hours since this month's backlog drive started, there have been 55 edits to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive page. That's great and shows there's a lot of interest in taking part, but I'd like to suggest a change in the way tallies are recorded for future drives. Seeing the number of people who had signed up, I guessed there'd be a lot of edits to that page so I decided to keep my tally at a subpage in userspace (User:Adam Black/WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive) and have transcluded it onto the main drive page, with the intention of substituting it at the end of the drive. The reason I've done it this way is to reduce the risk of an edit conflict. I'm adding entries to the page while I work and saving it each time I take a break. This reduces the risk that I'll lose my own entries and have to dig through my contributions, or accidentally overwrite someone else's entries.

My suggestion for the next drive is that tallies be hosted on subpages instead of the main page for the drive, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/MONTH YEAR Drive/USERNAME and transcluded onto the main list. This would also save editors a little time as the section "edit" links have been hidden, it saves scrolling all the way through the source to find your entries (not sure how it works on Visual Editor, I refuse to use that). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion for future drives would be to request users to tag edits in the edit summary appropriately, as was done with WP:FEB24. A bot can then scan the edits and update the leaderboard automatically at regular intervals. Broc (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be even better! Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

While it's too late to mandate that, I've been doing that on my own to keep track and it's certainly a help, so I'd certainly encourage people to do that. Wizardman 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Backlog drive question

Just signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive, not sure how many I'll get through, but it definitely seems like a worthwhile endeavour. I did want to check though, what happens in the case we need to change a sentence due to inaccuracies found in the article? Does it count as adding a citation or removing the sentence for the purposes of scoring? CSJJ104 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you change a sentence, that's a copy edit. The goal of this drive is adding references. For the purpose of scoring- no points. Cremastra (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you change a sentence and remove the citation needed tag, doesn't that count as a removal? Isn't that effectively the same as removing the unsourced statement and, separately, adding a correct statement? If that would confer one point, I'm not sure why this wouldn't. XabqEfdg (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. I think I misunderstood the question being asked here. If you remove the unsourced statement, that's one point. If you replace {{cn}} with a citation the verifies the content, that's three points. When you add a citation, you usually have to rephrase the sentence, and that's good. But if you're just rephrasing an unsourced claim, without either removing it entirely or adding a citation—well, that's a copy edit, and isn't the focus of this drive. Cremastra (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What if you find an article that has unreferenced tag, which is related to the article that has a citation needed tag. By applying the citation to the article with the cn tag, I understand I get 4 points, but what about applying a citation to an unreferenced article. In essence applying a citation to an article listed as unreferenced rather then citation needed? Demt1298 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure I understand this question, but I'll give it a shot.

This drive absolutely only applies to tags. Adding a citation to an unreferenced article is great, but is beyond the scope of this drive, and is not worth any points. That was WP:FEB24 – unfortunately, you're a few months late! :) Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I knew i worded the question poorly. I will fix both the article with citation needed and the article with unreferenced tag because the source is correct for both articles and just take credit for the removal of the citation needed. Demt1298 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUN24 section editing

Is there a reason section editing doesn't work on the backlog page? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a consequence of Template:Box-header used at the top of the page. If the "EDIT" parameter isn't set, section edit links are disabled. I've gone ahead and been bold and set it to show edit links. Feel free to revert me if this was left off intentionally. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black Ahhh... thank-you, I was wondering the same thing. Cremastra (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to holler if I can help with anything else. I notice in a discussion above you said ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars... if you still need an extra user to pitch in I'd be happy to help with technical problems. I'm away 8-10 June (it's my birthday on the 11th so I'm taking a weekend trip to London, and what better way to celebrate than with a Wikipedia meetup!) but I'll be available the rest of the month. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Backlog drive requests

Hi there! I was wondering, is there a place where users can add requests for the backlog drive? Such as, "Hey, if you're looking for an article to source, how about these from my watchlist?" Of course, users can review them or skip them or pick anything else they want to pick from, but might it be nice to have such a list? BOZ (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@BOZ Hmm, that's a good idea. I'll set up a "Requests" section, although if it grows too big I'll move it to a subpage. Cremastra (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice. :) I'll try to think of some later today. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've found quite a few so you may want to do a subpage. Still, it's a lot less than the 500k that are just in the category. :) Some people may prefer this, some may just prefer to pick random pages or some other option. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants an article with lots of citations needed tags, Dionne Warwick has over 100 of them. I did some. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Other templates

Question, do related templates like Template:More citations needed on a section also count for the reliability drive? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany: No. This drive is solely focused on {{citation needed}}, not {{no sources}} or {{verification}} or similar templates. Cremastra (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Cremastra. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If an article has both citation needed templates and other templates, only the citation needed templates will count? For example, at TV on the Radio. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This drive focuses exclusively on {{citation needed}} (and, I suppose, {{citation needed span}}, although that template is rarely used.) Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thought so. I wanted to be sure. Thanks! :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've run across templates that redirect to citation needed:{{cn}} {{fact}}. As long as these redirects give [citation needed] tags, do these templates count? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Cremastra (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the confirmation. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars for the backlog drive

I notice that there are two barnstars listed in awards for having 100 points. Will the one given depend on who is giving out the awards or is the points total for one of the listed barnstars off? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was either fixed or I misread. Hard to tell when there's so many page revisions. Anyways, the issue is resolved regardless. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record: The organizer increased several award thresholds after seeing the point totals posted on the first day, temporarily leaving two barnstars at the same point total. Then they fixed the inconsistency. Or, as Darth Vader would put it, "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that moving the goalposts, as it were, after the drive had already began isn't the best idea in the world (I'm guessing from your comments you don't approve). But I can see why Cremastra did it, and hopefully it's just a little extra motivation rather than demoralising for anyone. Before the drive started I was planning on aiming for The Barnstar of Diligence at (the original) 200 points over the whole of June. Two days in, I'm already at 96 points so I think I'm going to aim a little higher. The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia would look quite striking on my userpage ;) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a criticism

Re:WP:JUN24

This shouldn't be construed as a critique of the drive, the coordinator/organizer, or any participant. I think this is a great initiative. A small feedback I have, would be to appoint someone, or maybe a team of non-participating editors to verify the citations added by the top 3-5 participating editors. I am not really concerned about the self-reporting and counting for the points tally. No reason to assume they aren't fairly reporting their count. I'd like a third party to test check a small sample of the citations added by top cn tag clearers. By verify, I mean, whether the citation added supports the claim made. Also, maybe a reminder in the opening para of the event page, that quality of citations matter more over quantity. @Cremastra: — hako9 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you come across any citations being added of questionable quality? The goal definitely should be to provide quality references, not just score points. I'd suggest a sort of peer review system, where all participants are encouraged to check out someone else's work when updating their own tallies. Maybe look at the sources added for 1-2 articles at random. There's a few articles I've seen listed that have piqued my interest and I've had a quick read, the history is only one more click away. I also wouldn't mind someone checking my work. I've used two sources that ordinarily I wouldn't have considered if it was an article I'd written myself, not quite the quality I'd like, but I didn't want to remove the content (see Derry and Teddy Sinclair on my list). Pretty sure the rest of them are solid, though.

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere, though I can't find it now, that points were going to be verified. It would be mind-numbingly tedious to check every single article improved by this drive so I assume someone will be checking a selection of everyone's articles. (I've been including a diff link for every tag I've removed to make that process a little easier for whoever's doing it). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you come across any citations being added of questionable quality? I haven't. And by test check I meant, maybe checking 5 random citations out 100 or so, and only for a few top participating editors. This kind of puts a deterrent on inserting shoddy citations. I agree with a peer review-like, internal control. And I'd like to know what everyone participating thinks. Reviewing other editors is also time-consuming. And others could think it's unnecessary prying. Maybe it's best to implement something on the next cn drive instead of this one. — hako9 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I was certainly planning to spot-check some of the citations at the end. Cremastra (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple tags resolved with a single source

So, if I resolve multiple {{cn}} tags with a single reference because someone tagged multiple related items in different locations (e.g. different dates, and in the infobox as well as in the body), should I count that as one tag resolved or three (see Special:Diff/1227146821)? I feel a little silly scoring that multiple times when several tags were resolved relatively easily... -2pou (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's worth 3x (=12 points), since you got lucky and managed to fix three tags in one stroke. But I'm not going to force you to take the points if you don't want them. :) Cremastra (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra I think this can be made into an added note/explanation because even I came to check this and it can be an faq for new participants. >>> Extorc.talk 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I came to ask about the same thing. But mine are all near each other and placed at the same time, so even more so I don't think I should take a full 4 points for each one... Mgp28 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

On what counts

For the full 4 points for adding a citation, does a {{citation needed}} tag have to be removed? Or is tagging any unsubstantiated sentence good enough for points? Like if a sentence should have a cn tag at the end but doesn't, does getting a source for it count for the points? Same for removal of unsubstantiated content. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be good, in principle, for fixing any unsourced sentence to earn points, but I think that this should focusing only on actual {{citation needed}}s. Adam Black, since you graciously offered to help out: what do you think? Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to change the rules after the drive has begun, and it was quite clear that this was about removing citation needed tags. That being said, improving the reliability of Wikipedia should always be the ultimate goal and I think it would be nice to reward editors who have gone even further to improve articles.

I think an additional award could be feasible. Maybe the Special Barnstar. Contributors could list unreferenced content they've cited that didn't have cn tags at the bottom of their lists and a certain number, say 25 or more (equivalent to the number of points for the cleanup barnstar), would qualify for a separate award. It might make things overly complex, though. What do you think? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to keep the drive focused just on {{citation needed}} tags. Some kind of award for people who go beyond that would be fair, but given that I've already changed the award brackets, it feels kind of unfair to suddenly introduce a new and slightly complicated aspect to the drive. However, if a second cn drive is ever held, I think it would be nice to have that as an additional feature. Cremastra (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be best. WP:DNER and WP:NO THANKS also come to mind. It's nice to reward deserving editors, but it shouldn't be expected. Adding citations to content not tagged with {{cn}} isn't part of the clearly stated goals of this drive. I might, however, feel compelled to personally give out an appropriate barnstar if I see someone going above and beyond to improve articles. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my thinking was less along the lines of needing thanks and more about whether to log them here at all; if I'm doing it anyway, I may as well, right? Another thought I had was that it would cut down on the work needed for any subsequent drives, since all these unsubstantiated claims will be (or ought to be) tagged with {{cn}} in the future anyway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But what if you add the citation needed first? Should it count if you remove a {{cn}} that you added yourself during the drive? Not that I'm planning to, but that's a way of looking at it, and I add them where they're needed as I can't fix it all at once. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement that didn't need to be tagged in the first place

Do I get any points for removing a tag that didn't need to be there in the first place, because the page's next reference contained the information? I have come across two of these today. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have found a few of those, too. I haven't been counting them myself. GranCavallo (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I was about to ask this question. If, for example, an editor placed a citation needed tag in the lead that didn't really need to be added there since the information was cited elsewhere in the body of the article, would it count if the citation needed tag was removed? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the content is potentially a BLP violation, contentious or otherwise problematic, it should be cited even in the lead. See WP:CITELEAD for more information. Particularly, it states any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. If a statement in the lead has a citation needed tag, it has been challenged and it would probably be best to provide a citation. I would just move the existing citation to the lead, name it if it hasn't been named already, and place the relevant ref tag back where the original source was. I think it would be reasonable to claim 4 points in this case. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs and the drive

I'm looking at Category:All unreferenced BLPs and wondering, since there is only the header banner, does adding say 3 references to one give you 12 points, even though I've only removed/updated the banner without removing any tags? — Iadmc♫^talk  09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iadmc: This drive only awards points for {{citation needed}} – not {{more sources needed}}, {{unreferenced BLP}}, {{unsourced section}}, or similar templates. Cremastra (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah! thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  20:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Running total

Might be a bit late to do this now but would it be beneficial to add a running total of where the "all articles" category is at each day? I see it's at 521,410 as of me typing this (wow) and if we can knock it down to 510k or even 500k thought this it would be great to see. Wizardman 16:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the February drive! Mox Eden (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am keeping track of that in a spreadsheet, which I'll graph and upload to commons at the end of the drive. Cremastra (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Consider giving a few updates during the month too :) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here's an update: at the start of the drive, the number of "all articles" was 521,422. Today it's about 520,728, but that number actually went up slightly from 7 June. Cremastra (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

I added some sources identified as WP:deprecated. Should these count? They aren't really allowed except under certain circumstances — Iadmc♫^talk  09:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, nonsense citations (e.g. "Minogue's new song^{[Nasa space flight]}") should surely be uncounted as well — Iadmc♫^talk  09:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're using deprecated sources in an acceptable manner, they count. Otherwise it's disruptive. Cremastra (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  16:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Full table for a leaderboard

I suggest a better format to tally the drive. We can parse the tally into a table where we can sort the users by totals so that it is easier for a participant to evaluate their standing. As a participant myself, I claim this will be helpful. >>> Extorc.talk 15:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It could include a link to each user's section. I was thinking of suggesting alphabetising the tally section to make it easier to find your own entry, especially on devices where it's not as simple as hitting Ctrl + F, as the list of participants has grown quite a bit. This would be a better solution though.

I'll mock something up in my sandbox and post it here to see what people think. If Cremastra thinks it's a good idea, I'd be happy to keep it updated myself (save giving others extra work to do). I'd suggest one update around midnight UTC each day. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this might not be as simple as I first thought. The problem is sortable tables can't have a default sort, readers have to manually click the sort button to order the data. It would involve manually moving the entries around every time the data is updated to get it to display in the correct order at first glance. Instead of calling it a "leaderboard", maybe "Participants" would be better, with participants listed alphabetically and sortable by point totals. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made a participants list here:

User:Adam Black/sandbox

Let me know what you think. If it's acceptable, I was going to move it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive/Participants and transclude it onto the page in a section underneath Leaderboard.

This took a lot more time than I thought it would. Instead of updating daily, maybe twice a week would suffice? I thought about writing a script but given there's a lot of differences between how participants have formatted their tally sections, I decided it would be too much work trying to work around it. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Next time this runs, maybe provide a template for posting tally updates, so that everyone's lists will be easier to parse? Lubal (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't really figure out why the system works so differently from the February drive. It was really nice and had nice info during the drive! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I didn't expect so many people to sign up, so a table is a good plan. Cremastra (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add the participant list to the page. It is rather long, so if it causes any usability issues I'm fine with it being removed again. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black I think having a complete table is not viable, instead, we can have a top 10 or top 20 sortable leaderboard table replace the 3 plate leaderboard. >>> Extorc.talk 10:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Since a large number are still signing up, a full table is not useful for those with slow connections etc (assuming it remains sortable). top 20 would be OK but would need constand updating with the new leaders. Good luck with that! — Iadmc♫^talk  12:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done top 10, since that's useful, but still update-able without being a pain in the neck (or, more accurately, the backs of the shoulders). Cremastra (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the current situation is pretty good >>> Extorc.talk 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On what counts (pt. 2)

For the purposes of this drive, does finding a citation for a {{cn}} tag that you placed at an earlier date count? ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Haha! Place a load of cns and a day later cite them... Suspicious! — Iadmc♫^talk  20:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Haha, I might as well go tag bombing! I was doing some expansion work for a poorly-cited article so I put a for somebody else to find a reference but ended up finding a reference myself! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, within reasonable limits. I mean, you can't place tag, then come back an hour later and claim points for it. I'd say, to draw an arbitrary line in the sand, if you placed the tag before the drive, you're good. Cremastra (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I was doing semi-unrelated expansion work yesterday and then today was able to find a source. To play it safe, I won't count it. At the end of the day, the article's going to turn out better-referenced, so I'll count that as a win. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just don't take the approach of Bob the Angry Flower. :) Cremastra (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's likely that I've fixed and counted some (very) few tags that I attached months (or years) ago. But I have not counted those that I've added and fixed during the drive. So I have been doing exactly this! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Templates that generate a {{citation needed}} display, but don’t actually have the tag

Thoughts on whether templates that display {{citation needed}} when a parameter meant to hold a reference (like |source=) is blank should count or not? See Special:Diff/1229622445 as an example. I first thought it counts since if you were to use the content without being in template form, it would include an actual tag. On the other hand, these are not tags that were specifically placed by a human, but automatically included by default. -2pou (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this a few times. I suspect only the original counts — Iadmc♫^talk  10:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as there is a [citation needed] tag on the page, which there was in this case, I don't think it matters whether it was placed there manually or automatically. I would say, however, external links do not belong in the article body and this reference should have been provided as an in-line citation using <ref> tags, preferably in the form of a CS1 or CS2 citation (with an access date). This article is littered with improper citations. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black, I've often thought that it was odd to use this format for all the association football articles I have seen (2023–24 UEFA Champions League and 2023–24 UEFA Champions League knockout phase, for example). I don't know the origin of this style, but changing it will be a massive effort. I didn't realize this until now, but the styling seems to be widespread across sports articles, including American football (2023 San Francisco 49ers season#Regular season), NBA basketball (2023–24 Boston Celtics season), even cricket (2023 Chennai Super Kings season - seems to mix external links for "Scorecard" with cs1 links for "Source"), possibly more (+Major League Baseball-2023 Minnesota Twins season). A proper fix probably needs to be brought to the village pump with several other WP:SPORTS subgroup notifications. -2pou (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if it has to do with translclusions to higher-level WP:SUMMARYSTYLE pages. If using a cs1/2 citation, you can easily end up with multiple numbered references listing the same source in the references section (if you don't name the ref), or you can get a reference warning that "was defined multiple times with different content" on a higher-level page if anybody changes an access date on one subpage that is transcluded, but not another. I don't know if that's a reason that the basic external link format is commonly used, but I found it interesting when updating the original example... -2pou (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have zero interest in sports (aside from ice hockey but even then that's only because my best mate is a professional hockey player) so I don't have much experience with sports articles, but that's very odd. The external links and verification policies are quite clear that external links should not appear in the body of the article and in-line CS1/CS2 citations with a references section are preferred. It's odd that sports editors have taken it upon themselves to change policy for that subject area (not aimed at you, but towards wherever this consensus came from). When I have a bit more time I'll look into it more thoroughly and take it to the village pump. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think if the article has [citation needed], no matter what it's caused by, you get the points. Cremastra (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Partial citations

How should removing a {{citation needed}} tag be counted if it is placed after two sentences; one of which I was able to source and the other I had to delete? ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

5 points! — Iadmc♫^talk  08:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Iadmc. Cremastra (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting pages with citation needed tags

If I delete an article with outstanding citation needed tags, for instance when closing an AfD (as happened at least once today), does that count for the drive as removal of unsourced statements? I just noticed this by chance – and while it is technically a removal, I'm not sure if it counts, for being a byproduct of another process. ^Complex/_Rational 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't count, because as you said it's a byproduct of another process. But I'm not going to stop you from taking the points if you really want, since this is an extreme edge case. Cremastra (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think it shouldn't count as it's a byproduct of another process but also because @Cremastra, @Tails Wx and myself are not administrators. We will be distributing the barnstars but wouldn't be able to check the number of tags on a page before it was deleted. I completely trust that you wouldn't be claiming points you weren't entitled to, my only problem is that all other editors' participation can be easily verified through the page history but administrative actions can't be. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. Cremastra (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting over a tag

Does it count (as 4 or 1 or 5 or at all) when one rewrites the claim and then cites that new material. Eg this edit. — Iadmc♫^talk  06:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done this several times, btw — Iadmc♫^talk  06:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the particular edit, but since adding a will likely also mean changing a sentence etc. to better be in line with the source, it should count as fixing a tag, even if it you're deleting stuff for it to reflect the source added (as long as not deleting the whole statement). //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it counts (4 points) – you've fixed the tag, you've just brought the claims in line with what sources you could find. Cremastra (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both! — Iadmc♫^talk  19:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no power here, except the lack of power to stop myself replying with my take on this stuff... //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} removal drive?

(directed from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citation cleanup, carried over here.)

Hi! I'm pretty sure this is the place to ask, so I'm asking if we could do {{citation needed}} tag removal drives. There's a large amount–according to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, there's more than 500,000 articles containing either citation needed or {{failed verification}} tags. So, in order to reduce those by replacing the tags with reliable sources, should we start a drive to remove and replace the tags listed above? Thanks! Tails Wx 14:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: I like this idea a lot; I've drafted a mock-up of the drive page here. Hopefully that will help get this off the ground. I'd be happy to help coordinate the drive if it does happen. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow, @Tails Wx: Happy to help as well, if needed. imo, the bare url drive you mentioned on the other talk page also sounds good, since its simpler to clean up, and has no concerns about citogenesis. (though the cn tags are probably more important/time sensitive) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this looks great! It would be awesome to see the backlog number come down (instead of go up) after such a drive. huntertur (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123, @Edward-Woodrow, @Huntertur, @Tails Wx, any update on this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't believe there are plans for one any time soon. Edward did draft a mock up of the page, so planning could be started up again, if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the drive was going ahead, so I didn't touch the drive draft until there was more activity here. I think what we should do is set a hard date for the drive (June?) so that everyone's on the same page. —{The user formerly known as Edward-Woodrow} Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: June sounds fine. @CactiStaccingCrane, how do you feel about pushing the unreferenced article drive back to Aug/Sept? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, Huntertur, and CactiStaccingCrane: Here's what I have for scoring, but I fear it is a bit too complicated. What do you think?

Each tag replaced with a citation is awarded 4 points. Removing the unsourced statement is worth 1 point.
Clearing an article of tags is awarded two extra points if the article had five tags or more, and four extra points if it had ten or more.

Cremastra (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars, etc. I'll be moderately busy around the end of June, and will have less time than usual. Any volunteers? Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that scoring criteria is too complicated. Unless its done on an honor system, without a script/tool to assist, that level of granularity would make verifying scoring absolutely laborious. czar 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra, I'm also busy through June as well - early July could also be a bit busy for me. However, I think I could co-ordinate this drive! Any opinions on hosting the drive in July instead? That month could be less busier for us both.

Also, I agree with Czar's point above - it seems like it's a bit complicated without having scripts or tools. We could have the scoring similar to CactiSteeringCrane's unreferenced articles backlog drive back in February 2024...and additionally, I feel like the 4 points for replacing a tag with a citation could be bumped down to 3, since I think it's a bit too much. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: Unfortunately, it's a bit last-minute to change the date: I've already moved the drive page, advertised the drive at WP:WPRE, and filed an edit request for a watchlist notice. I'll make the scoring adjustment, though. And look into semi-automatic scoring; however, the GoCE drives seem to do fine without it. Cremastra (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that’s alright, @Cremastra. Thanks for implementing the change! However, since we’re doing it in June (that month’s when I’m on vacation), I think I’m not going to co-ordinate this drive, actually. I did like to clarify above that if the drive was pushed back to July, then I could’ve. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 15:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. No worries. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @Tails Wx:, since we seem to be alternating vacations (I'm away in July), would you consider handing out barnstars some time in July after the drive is finished? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m out for the first few days of July; but afterwards, I think I’m okay with doing so. Is that alright? :] ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️, ⚧️) 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks. I'll probably be able to lend a hand now and then. Cremastra (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Relatedly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#Cleanup drive is a live {{citation needed}} cleanup drive right now czar 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)