Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page:
WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place
here and
here.
This 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 articles
Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I've
tweaked the RSN header, mostly adding [Before starting an
RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed?].
This duplicates the sentence directly below RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. Having the same sentiment twice is not going to get editors to read it, extra clutter just means that editors are less likely to read the header at all.
This is especially true when the edit notice that appears when you start a new section has an even blunter sentence stating that you shouldn't open an RFC. So I don't see how stating it for a third time is going to have anymore impact.
Instead of duplicating the whole thing would highlighting the pre-existing sentence be a better option, see example
here (the formatting still needs work, it has issue on some screens). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«
@» °
∆t°01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't duplicate it at all. Above it says check that these discussions about the source haven't happened already, and that you're not just threading old grounds. There's 50+ discussions on Daily Mail. Over 45 for NYT and Twitter. 30+ for IMBD. Near 20 for CNN. We don't need more discussion on those sources unless something drastic happens to them.
Below is says don't start an RFC about a source unless it's widely used and there was multiple discussions about it. That's because you shouldn't jump to an RFC as a first resort. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok I think I've slightly misunderstood you intent, but I still think having to sentences for two very similar issues isn't necessary. Would modifying the current sentence on RFCs be a way forward? Adding a part on not starting a new RFC unless there is material reason for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«
@» °
∆t°15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that extra note is necessary. The header already tells editors to check the archives, and as a regular lurker, I don't see people opening discussions about over-discussed sources too much.
Catalk to me!12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it.
Diff
I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it.
Orange sticker (
talk)
13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«
@» °
∆t°14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section
I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«
@» °
∆t°14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We generally want the same bits of information for each source, so I am wondering if we could
Wikipedia:Preload some of this. It could say something like:
Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
Why you think this source is/isn't reliable for this statement: I think this is a reliable source because...