Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.117.162.190 (talk) at 00:36, 9 November 2023 (Discussion in the wrong spot.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

When to open source assessment RfC's

A year ago, I made this edit to the header, instructing editors to only open an RfC if the source has been subject to perennial discussion. It was reverted for procedural reasons, but I still believe it is a good idea; if sources have not been subject to perennial discussion then we likely don't need broad and overly-constraining rules about how to use it; it can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's becoming a plague. Please can we do something to stop it? Bon courage (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly implemented it. If reverted again we can go through a more formal process of proposing it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. These endless RFCs about sources that have never been previously discussed are absurd and a nuisance. This instruction is entirety consistent with the more general requirements for starting a RFC, and should apply with full force at RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also support this as an issue that needs to be addressed. Springee (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this strongly. Overall, I think we need to break the habit of labeling sources as generally "reliable" and "unreliable" and making specific decisions based on those general demarcations. We need to start doing the work of actually assessing local reliability on a case-by-case basis. @BilledMammal's modest proposal is a step in the right direction. Pecopteris (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to have got out of hand recently, so I definitely support anything to try and reduce it. I think the header could do with complete reformatting, it's become bloated other time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dexerto archived without RfC close

I don't know the standard procedure, but can this thread be un-archived so it can be closed properly? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was this taken care of? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Dexerto. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, thanks for checking in! Alyo (chat·edits) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting most of the header

There're several problem with the notice board header. It's bloated, contains overly detailed instructions (which are likely to just be skipped), has multiple points about RFC, and other redundant boxes and text.

  1. Are a box to purge the page or the Cent box really necessary?
  2. Pointers to other noticeboards are all well and good, but they are ignored by those they'd help and unnecessary for those that don't need them.
  3. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
  4. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.
  5. Both new and more established editors seem to have odd ideas about RSN. The text While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy could do with being a bit more prominent.
  6. The formatting is mangled on narrow screens.

I'm not technically adapt with the relevant markup, but I've mocked up something to show my points here. I wanted to merge the archive boxes at the end into the "Search the noticeboard archives" box, but it's beyond me.
Suggestions, criticisms, and edits to the mock up would be warmly welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BilledMammal, Bon courage, Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier as you where part of the discussion above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all in favor of cutting this down to simplify and increase the odds that editors actually read it. All of the points are good ones. I'm a big fan of point #3 of the XYZ formula that I often repeat, but it's probably going to be ignored just like the current version, which is basically the same thing. Banks Irk (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all flooded by messages and warning in modern life, to the point they are just ignored. My thoughts were that by minimising it editors might actually feel like it could be worth reading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%. Minimizing instructions increases the likelihood that they'll be read and followed, but by no means guarantees it. Banks Irk (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain this change will fix the problem but it seems at least to be a reasonable try. That said, I would suggest posting the proposed text/changes here first. Springee (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mocked up an idea of how it would look here. I thought posting the whole header into the talk page might be a bit much. The mock up isn't a complete but gives an idea of what I suggest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does reduce the length but I think I missed how that would address the concern about too many RfCs. Am I not following this correctly? If the intent is to cut things down then add some sort of statement about "before RfC do X" (not saying to phrase it that way) then I think this is moving in the right direction. I would suggest getting more eyes before making any changes because this is a high traffic notice board but many may not notice this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was to remove all mention of RFCs. Most of these seem to come from new(ish) editors, and I'm guessing the one bit of the header they read are the parts about RFCs. Editors who already know about RFCs don't need instruction on how to set one up. Any advice on how to garner more attention? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see your intent. I'm not sure that's better than a prescriptive instruction but given the length in question perhaps you are onto something. As for getting more traction, I would suggest adding a notice on RSN (non-talk), VP-(not sure which one), perhaps RS-talk? Springee (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's got to be worth a try, at least. We seem to have had loads of unnecessary and badly-formed RFCs recently. I don't see anything obvious that your mockup is missing which I think desperately needs inclusion Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three cheers for fewer RfCs. As a suggestion: Keep all the instructions but put them behind a hard-to-find link. For people who have trouble remembering how to do things. For sure, though, when it comes to something you want people to read, an uncluttered and simple layout will greatly improve the odds of it being read. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea! I'd keep just the instructions (#3 in your list) after trimming them a bit. Hopefully once the other stuff is removed they will be more prominent and more users will follow them.
The rule about an RfC needed to deprecate or "gunrel" a source needs to be *somewhere*, either here or in WP:RS. Alaexis¿question? 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some text for the instructions you think would work?
I'm wondering if how RFCs for sources should be handled, including deprecation, the standing of WP:RSP, etc might be better handled in an essay that could be linked from the header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need {{notaforum}}? I don't see many forum-esque posts here, and it is overly prominent compared to other elements. Ca talk to me! 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that the notaforum template could be dropped. Banks Irk (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the box, and replaced it with a bulletin point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support the trim but I oppose removing the text to the effect of Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. These RfCs should only be opened if a source has been subject to perennial discussion. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. It can be made more concise, though, and more descriptive. Andre🚐 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about
RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been subject to perennial discussion. RFCs must comply with WP:RFC, including WP:RFCBEFORE. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.
Banks Irk (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if an essay for RSN might be an idea. How and when RFCs should be used, what the generally reliable, marginally reliable, unreliable, deprecated mean and how and when they should be used, common issues (e.g.WP:SPS/WP:UGC/WP:BIASED/WP:MEDRS etc). This could then be linked in the header, rather than trying to put it all in the header directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of shorter vs longer when it comes to the header, though I do like the idea of something in there right up front that actively discourages RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the place to put the "Essay" is in the intro to WP:RSP, along the lines of "if you want something listed here, jump through the following hoops". Banks Irk (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk has a good idea about where to locate the instructions. Please include something like "Add a links to at least three prior discussions of this source. If there haven't been at least three prior discussions, we'll remove your RFC." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. Andre🚐 16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea of reducing this, but I think that we've kept more than we need (e.g., RSP is mentioned twice; we don't need to make a big deal about WP:V being a policy and RS being a guideline) and lost the one thing that I have always valued. I think we need to push the idea that WP:RSCONTEXT matters, and therefore you need to show up with:
  • the source,
  • the article, and
  • the sentence/claim under discussion.
Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is an excellent source, and one that I'd like to see in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, but it is completely unreliable for statements about celebrities, or films, or books, or sports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is how to state this simply without many caveats. Having a lot of bolded bullet points just ensures they are not read. RSCONTEXT is key but a simple one or two line explanation is required that can direct new users to supply the details required. I've tried adding such into the first box, replacing a sentence that half covered the same details.
Andrevan and Banks Irk I've done something similar for the RFCs, but folded the second sentence into the first (so the WP: links appear as normal text).
Link to the mock-up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It generally makes sense, but I would add something to the effect of "You can also start a general discussion about whether a source is reliable" since that is something that is permitted in the current iteration. Andre🚐 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes to the wording, and invite others to review. DFlhb (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the changes, much easier wording.
Andrevan I think editors will do this anyway. It's certainly allowed, and although context is key it's not always necessary to have all three point (you can't use forum posts about the validity of vaccines it doesn't matter what article, you can't use a blogpost not written by the subject in a BLP regardless of the claim). Also it's helpful to remember that many posts are editors asking for advice, so pointers on how to identify a reliable source might be the right answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like these edits. Banks Irk (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the header

Having fixed a formatting issue. I've boldly made the changes to the header discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next I'm going to look at at the edit notice. It has the same overly detailed instructions, and on mobile most of them don't even display. First pass at a mock-up is here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering if it's possible to change the box for the archives search to eliminate the long list of every archive page. It seems to be that it's pretty useless and takes up a lot of room especially on mobile. Banks Irk (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should auto-collaspe, is it not for you? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the current header on an Android phone running Chrome. The long list of archive pages doesn't collapse below the archives search box. Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added nomobile to the archive list, so I think this should now be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also any issue if I move this to the section above, as this is about the header rather than the edit notice.
(I did this) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to the edit notice

The current header can be seen here:
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Following the changes to the header I'd like to suggest changing the edit notice as well. It currently consists of the detailed instructions the header had, and instructions on RFCs. It suffers the same points as the header, specifically:

  1. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
  2. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.

Worse on mobile the details overflow the top of the screen, so only the RFC instructions are actually visible.

As a solution I'm suggesting to replace the current notice with the statements on CONTEXT the new RFCs from the new header, with a new addition covering common questions. The mock-up can be seen here:
User:ActivelyDisinterested/temp2
All comments welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it Banks Irk (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous instead of previously but overall that is nice and concise, I checked on mobile and the original really is as bad as you say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change. Springee (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. I just checked how it looked on my mobile phone and it still doesn't fit on screen. Maybe we can lose the previous RFC note too? Obviously unproper RFCs aren't that damaging, I think. For the avoidance of doubt, I support the change even if the RFC note stays. Alaexis¿question? 20:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One major consideration in shortening the header was to actively discourage and limit RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections by the weekend I'll post a edit request on the template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I would add the MBFC notice:
Do not start discussions just because Media Bias/Fact Check differs with WP:RSP, as MBFC is an unreliable source.
But otherwise great job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we hold of on this for the moment? Although there was a spate of such comments they seem to have died down, and space on the edit notice is limited as discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, ping as I doubt you're watching the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with the thought behind the suggestion, but I agree that instances of this have fallen off recently. I would not include this; the impetus for these revisions is shortening and simplifying the notices and instructions. Banks Irk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see if there is a resurgence of MBFC posts Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1184208622"