User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:57, 10 July 2020

This page features complex syntax that interacts with User:JL-Bot in tricky ways to produce the WP:CITEWATCH compilation. If you're not familiar with this page or User:JL-Bot, discuss improvements and suggestions on the talk page.

Disclaimer / Warning

Shortcut

WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP

This is the setup page of The Wikipedia CiteWatch, a bot-compiled listing of potentially cargo cult, conspiracist, denialist, fake, junk, not even wrong, obsolete, predatory, pseudoscientific, quack, or otherwise unreliable publications cited by Wikipedia through the |journal= parameter of citation templates (see this Signpost article for details). It is based on several lists of unreliable or questionable publications (such as those compiled by Jeffrey Beall, the University Grants Commission, Quackwatch, or Wikipedia editors). See Q9 in the FAQ for the update schedule.

This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. Due to the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, as well as imperfect matching algorithms, the list may feature publications and publishers which...

are flat-out promoting pseudo/junk scholarship or quackery
are flat-out predatory/vanity venues, with sham peer-review processes
were once-reliable, but have since been acquired by predatory publishers
were once-unreliable, but no longer engage in problematic practices
reflect the sources' good but imperfect judgment of what is unreliable
are problematic in some areas (e.g. pseudoscience), but reliable in others (e.g. news)
are problematic in some other way (e.g. circular references, or deprecated sources)
are problematic but used in an acceptable manner (e.g. primary sources about frauds)
are misclassified because of a spelling variation (red links especially)
are misclassified because of false positives, miscategorization, or flawed bot logic
are reliable, but share names with imposter publications and publishers
are about pseudoscholarship as a topic, rather than being pseudoscholarly themselves

While many, if not most, publications and publishers on this list have some questionable aspects to their publishing practices, these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances. The CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article (see Q8 in the FAQ). When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard – especially before a mass purge of a source. The Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector user script may also interest you.

Additions and removals from the listing – including false positives – can be discussed at WT:CITEWATCH. False positives can also be directly handled at WP:JCW/EXCLUDE.

Table of Contents
Disclaimer				Sources			Syntax			Unreliable fields			Mirrors and forks			Self-published			Unpublished			Hijacked			WP:RSP
Publishers	Misc	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z
Journals	Misc	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z
Note: Use #A1 (e.g. User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg#A1) to create links to a publisher section, use #A2 (e.g. User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg#A2) to create links to a journal section.

Note: Many entries on this list will be things that should not normally in found in a |journal= parameter. They are included for two main reasons:

Revision as of 17:57, 10 July 2020

Publishers

Misc1

A1

B1

C1

D1

E1

F1

G1

H1

I1

J1

K1

L1

M1

N1

O1

P1

Q1

R1

S1

T1

U1

V1

W1

X1

Y1

Z1

Journals

Misc2

A2

B2

C2

D2

E2

F2

G2

H2

I2

J2

K2

L2

M2

N2

O2

P2

Q2

R2

S2

T2

U2

V2

W2

X2

Y2

Z2