Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cartoon image near lead

Current leadimage
Alternative?
Another option
Yet another option

I removed the cartoon image near the lead. I think this image is sarcastic and distracting to the point of this article, and takes up a lot of space, especially when you read the page from a phone. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., so I have removed the image for now. I think it might be better positioned in the beginning of the "Legend", but personally I do not think it is beneficial to the article, even if it has been on this page for 5 years as mentioned by another editor. Iljhgtn ( talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's distracting for the point of this project-page, and since it's not an article, there aren't really any rules apart from consensus. Until I see an alternative I like better, I'm at keep it there. Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6#reliable_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it's a great example of the dangers of poor sources. American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret. ( talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't particularly care for the image either and would be fine with its removal. Some1 ( talk) 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not all serious, we're allowed a little bit of humour. Keep or replace with the xkcd. Anarchyte ( talk) 09:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This xkcd image is far better than the current image. I would support that as a replacement if outright removal of the current cartoon does not reach consensus. Iljhgtn ( talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The image is perfect as is and illustrates clearly that not all sources are equal. Margaret Hamilton next to a stack of code illustrates nothing, and the XKCD one illustrates that sources are needed, not that reliable sources are needed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
But she has surely assembled the good sources! ;) That said, you make sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with Headbomb that neither of the proposed alternatives are better. I don't have any particular attachment to the current image so if someone can come up with a better alternative I wouldn't mind changing it, but neither of these are. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I think no image is the best. Iljhgtn ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I like having an image, so long as it's material to the text. The use of an image, especially one as pertinent as this one, sets up the content in a helpful way.
The four-panel cartoon is is the only image identified that is material to the text it accompanies: it shows the use of sources, but also that not all sources are reliable. That's the page's entire point.
The Hamilton photo is a great photo, for Margaret Hamilton (software engineer); not so much for this page. It says nothing at all about sources or their quality (except perhaps a pun about source code, which would be too arcane for a large number of non-programming Wikipedia editors who are the target audience for this page). The XKCD cartoon is is about the need for sourcing, and would be fine for WP:Reliable sources or WP:Citation needed; but it makes no point about the reliability of sourcing, so does not carry the point here. So far, the four-panel cartoon is the only one identified that is apt for this page. TJRC ( talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support removal of the cartoon. Ridicule is not part of the scientific method. The kind of mockery that the cartoon engages in is not helpful in discouraging pseudoscience: [1]. James500 ( talk) 11:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    RSP isn't very much about fighting pseudoscience, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's very much about fighting it, though it's not its exclusive mission (that would be fighting bad information in general, of which pseudoscience is part of). But this page is also not about changing minds. I couldn't care less about the feelings of WP:LUNATICS offended that no one is taking seriously their claims that water has memory, or that CNN is controlled by reptilians.
    What it's about is explaining and documenting that not all sources are equal. And the cartoon explains that very succinctly. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The cartoon does exactly what @ James500says it does which is antithetical to the headline, "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy". The cartoon could not be more mocking if it tried. Thankfully, we are free to remove it in the absence of evident consensus for the image being retained. Iljhgtn ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy" That's one opinion, and it certainly isn't universal. Moreover the point of the cartoon is to illustrate that not all sources are equal, and that if you bring a non-reliable source, people will ignore it, and rightfully so. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The cartoon does not explain "that not all sources are equal". The cartoon does not say that any sources are reliable. The cartoon does not explain which sources are unreliable, or what they are unreliable for, or why they are unreliable. The cartoon does not say whether there is any difference between being unreliable and being less reliable, and does not admit that uncertainty sometimes exists. The cartoon does not explain that a source may be reliable for some things even though it is unreliable for others. The hypothetical source described in the cartoon bears no resemblence to most of the sources listed at RSP. There are no ancient books that claim that apples cause cancer. RSP should not include jokes about the World Elephant or (even if only by implication) the World Turtle. I do not think that showing that cartoon to someone who "brings" an unreliable source is going to help to convince them or anyone else it is unreliable. I think it is more likely to cause offence and prolong disputes. And individuals who cannot be reasoned with need to be blocked, not insulted with a cartoon. James500 ( talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ James500 makes some excellent points about how the cartoon is actually potentially offensive, in addition to being unnecessary and in no way actually clearly didactic. I had not considered the offensive nature of the cartoon, and it is with this added reason that I see the building consensus for removal is becoming even more compelling than I had initially expected. Iljhgtn ( talk) 04:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is a good illustration for WP:AGEMATTERS. For an article about perennialy unreliable sources, not so much. Would it be a COPYVIO to use the front page of this article from The Sun (UK, Murdoch stable, now there's a surprise): Freddie Starr ate my hamster. Fair use? It is the archetypal example regularly cited in UK commentary, though there are more egregious examples. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a bad idea, but would fail the strict demands of WP:NFCC/ WP:NFCI. Got anything good pre-1929? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I found a sort-of-alternative which I added, but IMO it doesn't really fit. This is more an example of "Even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong." I wonder if they published a redaction? JMF's example is a much better fit, arguably even fake news per "The man behind the hamster story was the British publicist, Max Clifford, at that time Starr's agent, who concocted the story as a practical joke." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not convinced it's really illustrating WP:AGEMATTERS. Yes, the books is described as ancient, but "apples cause cancer" isn't a previously-respectable but outdated theory.
    As for a non-free image: per WP:NFCC#9, non-free images are only permitted in articlespace. Suggesting non-free images here is an absolute non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Quote from book: "Put ye sliced apples on a beach, and behold, crabs shall appear!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do not see how WP:AGEMATTERS really applies here as well. Also, it looks like some people want the image removed, some don't really care, others want a new image, but there is no consensus to keep the existing image. Iljhgtn ( talk) 20:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I see strong support for keeping it from:
    • Objective3000 "American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret"
    • Headbomb
    • TJRC
    And weak support from:
    • Gråbergs Gråa Sång
    • Anarchyte
    • Caeciliusinhorto-public
    Solomon Ucko ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No consensus to change = no change. Basic wikipedianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support removal and inclusion of second alternative. It's supposed to be a witty cartoon, but really isn't that funny or relevant to the source list that intends to be a more formal summary of source reliability. The cartoon in question would be better suited for WP:RS or WP:FRINGE rather than this list of perennial sources, specifically the latter. The second alternative (Margaret Hamilton) is a lot more relevant, as it indirectly represents the concept of "stacking" source discussions from an enormous archive, which is very much reflective of this project page and purpose. Will have a search on commons and see if I can find any more alternatives. CNC ( talk) 12:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support removal. As the kids say, the current image is pretty cringe. I'm not sure having an allegedly funny image in the lede contributes anything. Apocheir ( talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment None of the alternative images seem compelling. Margaret Hamilton standing next to papers doesn't tell us anything. The Wikipedian protestor comic is actually kind of funny, but it's about a lack of sources at all rather than unreliable ones. The Dewey Defeat Truman press photo is pretty exclusionary to anyone not well versed in midcentury US presidential politics. Bremps ... 03:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would say that is why outright removal, without a replacement, is looking like the best option supported by the largest consensus at the present time. Iljhgtn ( talk) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support removal. None of the three images are clearly relevant to this particular page rather than, say, WP:RSN or many other source-related guidance pages. I support removal without replacement. Also, removal will reduce page size... a bit.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Researchgate

Should we mark it as no consensus? like we have to see if an article has been peer reviewed or not. I wouldn’t say its exactly unreliable or reliable. x q 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

RG is diffusion platform and inherits the reliability of wherever the paper comes from. Paper from an OMICS journal, the source is unreliable. Host a paper from a Wiley-Blackwell journal, the source is (probably) reliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with Headbomb but am additionally negative because Researchgate is notorious for spamming. See the following.
  • ResearchGate spam listing on Scientific Spam website;
  • According to this Nature article full text, section Tactical Breakdown: "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs."
  • In WP's own article, criticisms section: "...emailing unsolicited invitations to the coauthors of its users. These emails were written as if they were personally sent by the user, but were instead sent automatically unless the user opted out... "
Please consider this before concluding No Consensus, which shouldn't be acted on by editors as an implicit "Okay to use"... but often is.-- FeralOink ( talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That comes with it being a social network and is already considered. That's why we say check what the paper actually is. If it's published in Journal of Foo, it inherits the reliability of the Journal of Foo. If it's a random document, it's got the reliability of a random document. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Good point, thank you! One more thing please? ResearchGate has a major problem with unauthorized uploading. Elsevier and American Chem Society sued for copyright infringement resulting in 200,000 article takedowns by ResearchGate. A German court (Researchgate is a German company) ruled against ResearchGate. I don't know if it will be extended EU-wide. Is this relevant for our purposes, of sourcing Wikipedia articles? If an article a source gets removed, that's a dead url in our Wiki article, but is that the extent of it for us? If so, it doesn't seem like a problem.-- FeralOink ( talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Page size

This page is presently 407kB long. It is difficult to load this page with a browser, and even more difficult to edit it. Are there any sources that are not sufficiently perennial, or sufficiently important, that they need to be included? Alternatively, could this page be split? James500 ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, if we do split it, we could perhaps divide Sources into a few subsections, that might make editing easier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The Sources section on this page could look something like
Searchbox
  • link to sources 0-L
  • link to sources M-Z
A little similar to 2019_in_film#2019_films, articles like that used to have big-ass lists of films, mostly American ones. They still have big-ass lists of dead people... Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think we should partition by color. I think that would reinforce the incorrect idea that these "reliability categories" are absolutes, rather than depending on context. There is no black-and-white line between reliable and unreliable sources; rather, different sources are reliable for different kinds of claims. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There probably are some frivolous entries though maybe not enough to make a big difference. I was thinking of removing the entry for "bestgore", who would ever try and cite that really? Hardly perennial. VintageVernacular ( talk) 03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You'd be surprised as to what people will try to cite. Some entries, particularly the blacklisted ones, have useful context as to why they were blacklisted in the first place. But I agree that there are some entries that are stretching the definition of "perennial". Mfko ( talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A split is treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. This page has attracted an enormous amount of cruft over the years and desperately needs to be pruned, the inclusion criteria adjusted, and sources aggregated (as seen below with the medical preprints for example).
For example, several entries could simply be aggregated under a generic banner of "this is user-generated content, don't use this". (Stack Overflow, Quora, TV Tropes, Ethnicity of Celebs, Land Transport Guru, SourceWatch, WhoSampled). There are plenty more entries in the list but these stuck out the most.
There are also problems with the definition of "perennial" as there are several entries that haven't been discussed for 14+ years such as Spirit of Metal. Of course on the flip side, you have entries like "The New Yorker" that haven't been discussed as well but are obviously reliable. Where is the line drawn? Are there really that many people attempting to cite Spirit of Metal to warrant its inclusion on the list? Mfko ( talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with merging the user-generated sources together in most cases. Some entries that are blacklisted or deprecated might warrant still being listed on their own. There are also some edge cases, like sites that host both UGC and professionally written content (e.g. Atlas Obscura), or UGC sites when used by reliable news organizations (e.g. YouTube) that we might have to handle on a case-by-case basis. But generally, the run-of-the-mill generally unreliable UGC sites could all be condensed together. See also the § Merging some entries section below.
Your comment about the definition of perennial echos my earlier comment about the inclusion criteria for this page. Apocheir ( talk) 18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Generally disagree. This sounds like trying to put a plaster over the problem, if we are too look at the root problem which is size. At the moment the page is at 2.5KB, it should be around 2KB per CHOKING issues referenced above. Grouping together entries like user content isn't going to solve the problem here, not by a long shot. I'm not opposed to sources that haven't been discussed in many years being taken out, but not convinced even this would see the minimum required 20% decline in size either, probably more like 10% at best. Also it's complicated as some sources haven't been discussed in a long time, but otherwise are regularly used on WP, so not being discussed isn't necessarily a barometer of having no benefit for inclusion either. Sometimes you have to look at some of these entries and simply consider "could someone find this useful"; the answer is someone probably could, even if not regularly, regardless of if it's inclusion is necessary. Overall I'm generally opposed to unsustainable solutions such as "trimming" in these cases. It reminds me of when articles reach 20,000 words; instead of simply splitting as required, editors suggest trimming unnecessary content; as if it's going to reduce the article size by 50% to a readable size (which never happens). It'd be a shame to get to the point of trimming entries, which naturally proceeds into excluding further entries based on similar criteria, simply because we are unwilling to split the article in a conventional manner. CNC ( talk) 19:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split alphabetically – While we're at it, given the size of the page we might as well split into three (I propose 0–F, G–M, and N–Z, eyeballing roughly equal length), not two. We can have likely have a transcluded (full list) page too. Remsense 诉 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That works for me.-- FeralOink ( talk) 06:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: This page is very useful for pressing "ctrl-f" and splitting into multiple pages would double the work required every time the page was used. Slow editing is an acceptable price given that the article does not have to be edited that often. Support merging the use-generated sources. Mrfoogles ( talk) 07:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not just slow to edit; did you notice the transclusion proposal? Remsense 诉 18:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I wonder is there's an "information page" on en-WP that gets edited more often than this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ActivelyDisinterested, I commented on that here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_9#Starting_WP:RSN-discussions_with_the_purpose_to_include_stuff_on_WP:RSP Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Completely agree with Levivich, although I don't know how to stop it from happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I do too. I've seen more than one RSN RFC where people ask "Is there actually an issue?", and that sometimes help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Maybe the inclusion criteria should explicitly exclude discussions/RFCs that only seek RSP inclusion, but that might be better discussed in a separate thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose any split. This is a list. Using the list does not mean reading the whole text. The list is mostly, if not exclusively, being used to check if a specific source has been deprecated. It goes without saying that a single search is the efficient choice. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Is this still your position given the proposal below, which would allow users to seamlessly search the full list on one page as before? Remsense 诉 16:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It still is, because in the case of lists such as this, there is, by definition, no issue of page clutter. Almost all uses of this list concern a single source being checked. Suggestions to change something very successful are all well meaning but misguided: they're about lists generically. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
That's slightly confusing, I'm not sure why anyone would be proposing a complication like this on a lark or because we don't know article guidelines don't apply.
The concrete reason expressed by multiple editors is that they have considerable difficulty reading and editing this page due to its length and breadth being enough to slow down their system.
(I'm one of those, but I haven't explicitly said as much because I always have weird computer problems and don't like complaining about them.) Remsense 诉 21:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Same. RSPS sometimes takes like 20 seconds for me to publish an edit. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you really believe that creating "a nuanced profile of [every] source" would be anything less than a Herculean task? Why not simply opt for simplicity, consolidation, and practicality? - The Gnome ( talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not clear either on that proposal or what it would do either—surely the current format of entries is generally sufficient for what the list is designed to accomplish? i.e. figure out how mean to be to who you're reverting, and maybe grab an example quote as to why a source is good or bad. Remsense 诉 21:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
For sources that are GREL, GUNREL, or deprecated, a brief entry describing why ought to suffice. I think a nuanced profile of a source would only be needed if the source has additional considerations or there's no consensus about the source. If we go this route, however, I worry about editors warring over the contents of a subpage when they have a content disputes, rather than working it out on the article talk page.
Additionally, as someone who has closed a couple of RSN RfCs and added entries to the chart, I would not have closed those discussions if that had meant that I would have needed to write a nuanced profile of the source based on the consensuses that emerged from those discussions. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Transclusion possibility

Sorry if an annoyance, but does the proposal to split, while also transcluding the segments onto a (full list) page move the needle for any of the oppose !‍votes? As I see it, this would seem to enable equivalently easy or easier editing and searching for all users. Remsense 诉 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I was just going to say that - we already have plenty of pages that work that way. WP:RFPP comes to mind, as do the main pages of both WP:AFD and WP:RFD. For AFD and RFD all active discussions are transcluded to a main page that can be Ctrl-F searched, while clicking on an edit link takes you to edit the subpage of each individual discussion for AFD or to the daily page for RFD. WP:EDR also works that way, and is a page with multiple long tables. I think it would even be technically possible to transclude subpages onto a main page in one continuous sortable table, I think our highway exit list and election results tables work that way, but with as much info as is on this page it would be a nightmare to edit. Anyway, we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In fact I just tried to demo what it would look like in my userspace, see User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. It doesn't work because there's something with include tags on the original page that break how I think the transclusions should work, and relative links to templates that of course don't exist in my userspace. I'm sure I could figure it out but this isn't how I was planning to spend my Saturday - if someone else wants to run with it then please be my guest, otherwise I will probably look at it again next week. This did get the page from 426kB down to 28kB, though.
Another thought I had while doing this is that we could change the page so that there's a master template for entries, and then each entry transcludes that template. That would be a task for someone who knows more about templates than I do. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, never mind all that, I got it working by just bulk removing the "onlyinclude" tags that I don't know what they're supposed to do (nothing about it in the instructions). Works now at least superficially; take a look. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks fine, the tags are to do with #Duplication at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources. When it comes to transclusion, @ 174.92.25.207 would be the editor to ask around here it seems. CNC ( talk) 15:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support transclusion along with merging entries - but it sounds like that will be a separate project. Mfko ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I generally dislike transclusion, but it seems like a sensible solution in this situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 10:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support This was what I was thinking as well. @ Ivanvector Would only transcluding the table body work? Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Entries that might be trimmed

Some people above have proposed trimming the list. I think that we can start by cutting the following entries:

Each of those sources are well-known institutions and considered to be generally reliable, and the last discussions occurred over 10 years ago. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Since none of these have no (noted) discussion for more than a decade, making them arguably not "perennial", and they do seem uncontroversially generally reliable, I'm ok with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Times of Israel

i think this source is unreliable source. Any thoughts? Gsgdd ( talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You're looking for WP:RSN. This is the talk page about the list of perennial sources itself, not the noticeboard for discussing sources' reliability. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merging some entries

To reduce the number of entries in the list, I propose we merge some into broader categories.


Merge entries: Academia.edu + ResearchGate, add HAL Open Archives, Zenodo into "academic repository"

Before

Perennial sources
Source Status
( legend) 		Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Academia.edu No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2024

Sources from Academia.edu may or may not be reliable. Academia.edu allows anyone to upload articles, so it doesn't confer any reliability, but the articles have often been published elsewhere first in which case the reliability of an article depends on whether the original source is reliable. When possible, use the original source in preference to Academia.edu. 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links
ResearchGate
WP:RESEARCHGATE 📌
WP:RGATE 📌 		Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4

2022

ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

After

Perennial sources
Source Status
( legend) 		Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Academic repositories
WP:ACADREP 📌
WP:ACADEMIA.EDU 📌
WP:RGATE 📌
WP:HAL 📌
WP:ZENODO 📌 		No consensus +20

[a]

2024

General repositories like Academia.edu, HAL Open Archives, ResearchGate, and Zenodo, host several academic papers, conference proceedings, book chapters, preprints, technical reports, etc. No filters exist for quality, and will host several unreviewed preprints, retracted papers not marked as such, unreviewed manuscripts, and even papers from predatory journals. Determine the actual source of what is being cited first, a paper from Physical Review D will likely be reliable, whereas a paper from the so-called International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology will likely not be. 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

1  HTTPS links  HTTP links 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merging into an "Academic repository" source makes sense to me. (Also, RG, Academia, and Zenodo have similar characteristics, based on the the Nature survey in ResearchGate thread.) Consider including MDPI and Semantic Scholar in the merge? I'll check if they are even present in our RS/Perennial sources.-- FeralOink ( talk) 19:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
MDPI is a specific publisher, but Semantic Scholar goes in Academic Repositories, yes. But there's a zillion such repositories, so it's hard to track them all. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Broaden arxiv to preprints

Before

Perennial sources
Source Status
( legend) 		Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
arXiv
WP:ARXIV 📌 		Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4

A B

2015

arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv). 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

After

Perennial sources
Source Status
( legend) 		Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Preprints


WP:PREPRINTS 📌
WP:ARXIV 📌
WP:BIORXIV 📌
WP:MEDRXIV 📌

Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4

A B

2015

Preprint repositories, like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, and Preprints.org, contain papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that preprints are self-published sources, and are generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a preprint paper has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on the preprint repository). 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

1  HTTPS links  HTTP links 1  HTTPS links  HTTP links

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Done. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Telegraph RfC and "no consensus = no change"

  • 1. As a proposal, I think it's best not to include the The Telegraph RfC until matters are resolved. There has already been some good faith reverting from myself and @ ObserveOwl, and while the close remains "active" as of writing, it doesn't appear worthwhile for inclusion until matters have been resolved. In hindsight, my initial summary including a quote from the closure wasn't the best idea.
  • 2. I have opened a " Request for clarification" regarding the idea that an NC RfC close would mean no change in RSP, an argument that has been repeated numerous times in the general discussion. It's only open to those who promote these idea.

That's it. If you read that, I apologise for likely wasting your time. CNC ( talk) 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Since it is disputed with regard to LGBT issues should it be updated to yellow and additional considerations apply? PackMecEng ( talk) 16:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify, The Telegraph remain GREL excluding trans topics, but otherwise would be MREL for trans topics based on 2024 RfC. See this edit as example. [2]. Ideally the close review would be closed first prior to inclusion. CNC ( talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately no, you are either generally reliable or additional considerations apply. So until the close review overturns it we go by the rfc and if you look at the extended close its clear on the subject. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Looking at the page that is clearly not true, many of the green entries have some sort of additional consideration attatched. Just going from the top we find Al Jazeera which is green with additional considerations, Amnesty International which is green with additional considerations, the Anti-Defamation League which is green with additional considerations, Aon which is green with additional considerations, Ars Technica which is green with additional considerations... I can keep going but its pretty clear that your suggestion that its a hard line is absolutely false on its face. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
For opinion sections sure, that is always the case and noted. Not for when whole topics that would normally be reliable are not. We change those to yellow. For example look at WP:ADLAS. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Maybe I missed something but the Telegraph is not a case of "whole topics that would normally be reliable are not" and your handwaving that these only address opinion sections appears fallacious. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Also noting that in your example you list Anti-Defamation League which is currently yellow, as it should be. There is no additional consideration on Amnesty International. I think the difference you are seeing is Telegraph is specifically not generally reliable on those topics while the examples you gave that are still green say you should attribute them. Not the same thing. Also Ars Technica has no additional considerations so yeah its green. Even your Al Jazeera one does not list areas that it was not found reliable. I am not sure you are looking at the right list since all your examples are wrong... PackMecEng ( talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Please take a minute to look at the sitution before responding, we have three different entries for the ADL... But even the green one describes additional consderations. If we want to jump down to Aon we find "Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage." which is definitely an additonal consideration. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes we have three, the one with additional considerations is yellow. I'm sorry I think you are just flat wrong on this. Yellow is specifically for additional considerations as laid out in the legend. The fact that others have not been updated just means they should be updated, not that we should not follow the guide and legend. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah yes... The "everybody is wrong except me, they will figure it out eventually" argument, very strong. Its simply not as rigid as you make it out to be. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The original objection was to wait until the challenged close was finished. You are the one saying we shouldn't follow the legend or page above. So no idea what you are talking about. But seeing as you don't have an argument and I am sighting the guide page, maybe its you pulling it out their butt? But seriously if you have it documented anywhere, like I do, that it should be your preferred way I would love to see it. I found these random examples that are against the legend so I must be right is a bad argument. Just sayin... PackMecEng ( talk) 17:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
And where does it define the difference between an additional condiseration which merits being yellow and an additional consideration which doesn't? You're the one saying that the community is incapable of following the legend or page above, you just argued that most of the green sections on the page should not be so and should be updated to yellow. I'm not arguing for radical change, you are... Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually I pointed out you were mostly wrong in your examples or why they stayed green. Color and symbol are covered by Wikipedia:MREL. I have no idea what you are arguing for honestly. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
You didn't do that. I'm just describing reality, I'm not arguing. In theory I actually agree with you, but thats clearly not consensus... How much more obvious does it need to get than the PinkNews (green) entry "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Editors closing RFC and those updating the RSP don't always do so in a standard manner, which leads to a lack of uniformity in how entries are maintained. For instance the entry for South China Morning Post is green but that additional considerations apply in certain areas, this comes direct from the close of the RFC. As the RFC was closed as 'reliable but additional considerations apply' that's how the entry is maintained, and it stands as noone has challenged it (even though neither the entry or the RFC close exactly match one of the standard results). This hasn't been an issue as previous contentious RFCs have had clearer results, but ultimately it doesn't matter as editors should be reading what the additional considerations are not simply checking the colour of the entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 18:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Part of the nuance appears to be that generally reliable is shorthand for "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" so we have the nebulous issue of discerning the difference between being ruled unreliable in a given area of expertise (a change in color, not GREL) and an area being ruled as not within their expertise (no change in color, remains GREL) Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The point is this update to RSP should be topic specific, similar to WP:ADL and WP:HUFFPOST. The Telegraph RfC wasn't based on the general reliability of the outlet, but instead topic specific. If you want to update RSP based on current consensus then at least do it properly. Per my example of Telegraph for transgender topics as MREL, but ideally with better wording. [3] CNC ( talk) 19:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Worldatlas.com

Is world atlas reliable? Used in a lot of articles but it feels a little clickbaity to me. —  48 JCL 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 48JCL, WP:RSN is the right place for that question. RSP is just a list of of sources that have been repeatedly discussed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Thx —  48 JCL 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wen Wei Po

Should the outcome of this RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po, be reflected at WP:RSPSOURCES? - Amigao ( talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Can Rotten Tomatoes be used for birth info

Why can’t rotten tomatoes be used for birth info if the same birth info is used on IMBD Tnays20 ( talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No. Neither RT nor IMDB should be used for birth dates. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Tnays20 IMDb itself is not reliable. (Please see WP:IMDB.) Finding something there does not help Rotten Tomatoes' credibility at all. @ Firefangledfeathers is correct. Neither source should be used for any biographical details. Eddie Blick ( talk) 00:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
But I was told by the user:Laterthanyouthink (talk) that he remembers an earlier talk page discussion about RT bios where the editors concerned agreed that it was acceptable for DOB. And that he added some notes and other sources on the talk page of the article. Tnays20 ( talk) 01:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Here's the RfC from last summer regarding Rotten Tomatoes. [4] The consensus was that it's okay to use for movie reviews and ratings as it's core purpose. However it's not a reliable source when it comes to biography details as it's not a journalism site and it doesn't provide any information as to how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Kcj5062 ( talk) 02:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Recent IP edits

Are these 2 edits correct? [5] And should the page be protected? I'm not sure I'm happy with IPs editing it. This seems to be based on the short dicussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#TechTimes. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller: I don't think that's the link you meant to inlcude in your post. As to the edits I think the IP was trying to be helpful, if misguided. The original discussion (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Tech Times (techtimes.com), iTech Post (itechpost.com), Gamenguide (gamenguide.com)) shows the sources isn't reliable, but I don't think there's any need to add it to RSP. The IP reverted themselves, and started a new discussion on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ActivelyDisinterested Great. That's what we need to happen. I think the link is the one I wanted, the IP's discussion.
Still, should IPs and new editors be editing such an important page / Doug Weller talk 16:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The first link in your post (directly after Are these 2 edits correct?) leads to a shop listing for a 'ResMed ClimateLineAir™ 10'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 16:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Damn iPad. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

swentr.site (RT mirror)

The above site, brought to my attention by this paper, is an RT mirror so should be linked under RT's deprecated section. The report also lists a number of websites which seem to re-publish RT stories verbatim, so well worth a read and possibly including these in the list too. GnocchiFan ( talk) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

word missing in WP:THESUN

This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed before the Murdoch from 1964–1969. Before the Murdoch paper, acquisition, ...? -sche ( talk) 21:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

'the Murdoch' shouldn't be there, I'll correct it. When I added the sentence I rewrote it before publishing but apparently forgot to remove that fragment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 09:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

models.com

Is it worth adding? It's used quite a lot: [6]. Their about-page: [7]. Ping @ AndyTheGrump if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1238335699"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE