Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows). Please participate[edit]

Please join the discussion at Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo[edit]

I can't find any mention or discussion of Talking Points Memo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek, Deadspin, and the danger of this list[edit]

In reading the Ringer's coverage of the upheaval in Sports Journalism the idea of Zombie publications plays prominently. This seems inspired by this piece from Slate. The Slate piece just takes it for granted that Newsweek, currently listed as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" is no longer a good source. And with articles like this last week from the Columbia Journalism Review that assertion hardly seems offbase. I would suggest that the radical editorial overhaul at Sports Illustrated and now Deadspin in the last couple of weeks casts a long shadow over any coverage of theirs going forward. A source like SI was, for most of its editorial life, was as a reliable of a source (in its area of expertise) as a weekly magazine can be. The fact that it's not anymore presents problems for us here on Wikipedia. "Fortunately" since it's not listed we don't have any problems here on RSP. Nor is Deadspin listed. So nothing needs to change for either of these.

But Newsweek is listed here and worse an argument can be made, and I would certainly be willing to make it, that Newsweek has in fact not been a reliable source for at least two years and likely longer - or in other words it has not been a reliable source since before this page was created and labeled it a reliable source. The last substantive discussion also seems to largely agree with me. But it wasn't properly formed as an RfC so Newsweek continues its green status and is being added by some number of conscientious editors to articles thinking "yeah that's a good source." And because of the recent RfC it doesn't even feel appropriate for me to just go to RSN and bring up the CJR article (and The Atlantic article and the Wall Street Journal article and the Politico article if you want three of many RSP approved sources who've covered Newsweek's downfall). How in this age of media tumult where reliable source can go from hot to not in the blink of an eye - do we keep this list itself reliable and avoid putting a stamp of approval on sources that might no longer be reliable? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This has occurred to me also. The only solution I can think of is for someone to start a new discussion whenever a sources falls from grace. That said, I doubt Deadspin has ever been a particularly reliable source for our purposes..- MrX 🖋 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree Deadspin is not so likely to have found its way onto the list as generally reliable, but SI certainly would have if we didn't take it so for granted that it was never discussed at RSN and Newsweek did. This is why I tried to focus on them more than Deadspin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that if you have new articles written in RS like the ones mentioned above that's grounds for starting a new RSN RfC, provided that these sources were not discussed in a prior discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
That's probably true. And seems worth doing. But I don't want to lose sight of my larger points - how do we handle the fact that reliable sources can rapidly become unreliable and that some damage is done, because of this list in the time between the source becoming unreliable and Wikipedia formally recognizing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here isn't RSP, it's that sources can change in quality over time. Any reliable source is one Claas Relotius away from spewing falsehoods. Any source listed at RSP has faced far more public scrutiny than the typical editor is likely to conduct when using an article, and individual editors aren't necessarily going to be up to date on whether Newsweek is reliable either. At the end of the day, I think that the question of whether RSP is useful at all is just a version of "Is Wikipedia useful at all" in miniature. signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that the radical editorial overhaul at Sports Illustrated and now Deadspin in the last couple of weeks casts a long shadow over any coverage of theirs going forward. I want to make sure I understand the claim being made here. The proposal is that the editorial board expecting Deadspin writers to stick to sports coverage and avoid political content, is expected to make them less reliable as a source for sports coverage? 70.26.87.27 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The editorial staff resigning en mass makes them less reliable but their reliability, or not, isn't really the point here (that discussion would belong where someone added them as a source or at RSN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC is the best way to reassess sources like Newsweek (RSP entry), when there is new evidence that significantly contradicts the source's longstanding classification. None of the 7 previous Newsweek discussions were RfCs, so a new RfC would override all of the previous discussions. (Of course, editors participating in the new RfC would refer to the contents of the previous discussions and consider them alongside the new evidence.) The moratorium RfC was closed as no consensus, and Newsweek looks like a case where starting an RfC would be the most practical way to ask the community whether this source should be handled with more caution. — Newslinger talk 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
To raise a related question, what if a source slowly becomes less reliable without any change of management or mass firing/quitting that we can point to? What if it slowly starts being unreliable about some things while remaining reliable about others? How do we handle that situation? An RfC is a poor tool because a large number of the comments end up being about the areas where the source is still reliable. In my opinion, the SPLC is an example of this.[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that our most likely chance of catching a slow decline in quality would be if a publication like CJR picks up on and reports it. Once well-regarded sources pick up on a change in a source's quality, it doesn't really matter if it was a precipitous change or a gradual one.
This does leave the door open for problems if no one notices a decline in quality, although I'm uncertain that there's anything that could be done to address that situation. In theory we could have a regular review of highly cited sources on RSP (say, every 2 years), but I imagine that in order for that to actually be effective it would take an enormous amount of work, and I don't know that we have enough editors to be able to effectively conduct such an audit. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

SPS and Quackwatch[edit]

This may be of interest [3]. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the current wording of this page ("Quackwatch is a self-published source").
I compiled a list of all prior RSNB discussions and I personally don't see anything there strong enough to support such a statement.
Prior RSNB discussions
"Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?"
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
(Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS)
"WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS
(Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread)
(No mention of SPS)
(No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP)
(No mention of SPS)
(Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS)
"[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch"
In order to avoid fragmenting the discussion, I would ask that any comments about whether Quackwatch is or is not a SPS be posted at the link Slatersteven posted above, and that discussion here be limited to the question of whether this page should temporarily remove the claim "Quackwatch is a self-published source" because it is currently a disputed claim. It can be put back if the consensus turns out to be that it is a SPS, but in my opinion the consensus isn't there yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Please can we keep this discussion in one forum, not 5.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Guy Macon. I'll review everything and respond in the noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
When it concludes, we need to make sure that the discussion is properly closed by an uninvolved editor. Specifically, uninvolved with WP:FRINGE.- MrX 🖋 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In the interim, I've noted that the "self-published source" descriptor is disputed, with a link to this discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While we're looking at the entry, I think A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". should be removed, and am rather surprised it's there. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, that finding was included because it was mentioned in five of the linked discussions, excluding the currently active one:
  1. Quackwatch (2007)
  2. Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009)
  3. How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010)
  4. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 13 § Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015)
  5. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 16 § Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015)
A source's description in this list typically notes when the source is considered biased or opinionated. For Quackwatch, many of the editors in the discussions who argued that Quackwatch is partisan referred to the 2007 Arbitration Committee finding. If editors did not refer to the ArbCom finding, it would not be mentioned in Quackwatch's entry here. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Mentioned? That's it? Take a look again, especially in the context of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The 2009 motion modified (in Special:Diff/170373080/262218213) the section header of the 2007 finding from "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" to "Sources used by Fyslee", but did not change the "partisan sites" wording in the finding's text.

As an interim measure, I've changed the sentence in Quackwatch's entry from "A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a 'partisan site'." to "Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source (disputed), citing a 2007 Arbitration Committee finding." while the source is under discussion. Please feel free to make further adjustments to the entry if needed, but I don't think it would be correct to completely remove all mentions of bias/partisanship from the description based on the past discussions.

Considering the scope of the disagreement around Quackwatch's classifications, I think the best way forward would be to start an RfC that asks:

The active noticeboard discussion would be the best place to hold a workshop on the wording of this RfC.​ — Newslinger talk 01:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed)" meets all of my objections, consider it de-challenged, at least by me.

I beg anyone considering posting an RfC to post a pre-RFC and gathering comments on the RfC wording and the proposed location for posting it first. We have had far too many cases recently where someone posts an RfC and someone else immediately responds by claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the RfC is invalid, deceptively worded, posted in the wrong place, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes more sense to focus on the RfC than on the past discussions, since the RfC will eventually override all of the other discussions. I've shared my RfC format suggestion at WP:RSN § Workshop on Quackwatch RfC. Feel free to use it, tweak it, or propose something different. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ The current wording is "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert." That is flat out incorrect. It should be amended to "Articles written by Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch are self-published sources (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert."

Most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Pinging Newslinger. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The current discussion is also about the specific use of QW on BLPs, not about the general use of QW:

  • WP:SPS says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in original)

That issue should be mentioned because, otherwise, people will get the impression that QW cannot be used in other situations. Even the ArbCom decision and discussion makes it clear that QW can be used in all other situation, but on a case-by-case basis, exactly like we would do with any other RS.

Therefore this wording should be added to the above:

  • Articles by Barrett are SPS and should not be used about the person in a BLP article, but can be used about their false claims.

The last phrase can be discussed, but that should be the intent of the SPS prohibition, as implied by the way QW was handled in the ArbCom case. They handled it in the general sense (can be used in all articles on a case-by-case basis). The SPS issue was never brought up at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, I've changed "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert." to "Articles authored by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert; WP:BLPSPS applies for these articles." as an interim measure, although the final wording should be determined by RfC. Please feel free to make further adjustments.

Keep in mind that Quackwatch is classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". Most self-published sources are automatically considered generally unreliable, but the fact that Stephen Barrett is a subject-matter expert activates the relevant sentence in WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think it's clear that Quackwatch can be used for content unrelated to living persons, and any editor who invokes WP:SPS for Quackwatch's non-BLP content should be reminded of the exception for subject-matter experts. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The previous version of the wording was restored by MrX in Special:Diff/924800998. I agree with MrX's reasoning, but thought that BullRangifer's more restrictive wording was an acceptable compromise (in the interim) until an RfC on Quackwatch is completed. There are many cases when sources with more than one author are considered self-published (e.g. group blogs), and we need an RfC to clarify this for Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to wait until until the RfC determines how to classify this site before adding elaborate explanations that don't represent consensus. I am not comfortable with this wording. - MrX 🖋 01:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's focus on the RfC. If the current wording of the entry is controversial enough, we can blank the the entire description until the RfC is closed. I think the "(disputed)" labels are enough for now, but others might disagree. — Newslinger talk 01:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
MrX, your edit summary reads: "This is not accurate. It implies that the other articles published on the his website are not self-published, which may or may not be the case. This needs to be resplved properly through an RFC. I will explain further on the talk page if necessary."
That's a puzzling interpretation of secondary or tertiary sources. Barrett operates QW, therefore his articles published there are primary SPS. That does not apply to anyone elses' articles; they are secondary or tertiary sources, and definitely not SPS. It's not their website. Some have not been published elsewhere, and some have. The situation for those only published at QW is like an article in a newspaper, where there is an Editor-in-Chief, in this case Barrett. QW is therefore the secondary source we can use.
BTW, many of the tertiary sources are no longer available elsewhere, which is one reason why the website is so valued. Some are historical documents, others are scientific research, governmental reports, legal decisions, and consumer education material from official agencies. The older stuff is often not available anywhere else. While the URL for the ref may be QW, the actual source is the original, and should be attributed to the original source. We do this all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Marking it as "disputed" should be fine. If there is disagreement about whether previous discussions have been correctly summarized, we can evaluate that here. We should not conflate "source articles" with "source publications". As I have said before, if a third party article on quackwatch is deemed reliable, then it will have been published elsewhere. That is the source that should be cited, since we do not usually cite WP:TERTIARY sources.- MrX 🖋 01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened here but BullRangifer's comment seems out of place here. It was made almost an hour after mine, but somehow it appears above mine and is outdented. Did someone do some creative refactoring?- MrX 🖋 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as "partisan" is concerned, maybe we just need better guidelines for RSP on how we present it? As far as editing is concerned, aren't the areas where it's partisan, and when to attribute it, most important? --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

​The word partisan (WP:PARTISAN) is just a synonym for the phrase biased or opinionated (WP:BIASED – which points to the same section). The only effect of classifying a source as partisan is that editors are advised to use in-text attribution for that source, and this is covered in WP:PARTISAN. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The ArbCom decision should have been withdrawn because it's clearly outside their scope. The decision has been misused, and continues to be misused.
Would it be inappropriate to simply remove it from the RSP entry at this time? --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, I have no objection to removing the Arbcom reference. This is supposed to a summary of consensus building discussions, not findings of facts or remedies from specific Arbcom cases. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The arbcom reference appears to be in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration, which says:
"The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed, and will make rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so".
Decisions about the nature of sources should be made by the consensus of the community, not by the Arbitration Committee. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think about QW, ArbCom's opinion about a source is well outside their remit, and completely irrelevant to the normal editorial decision making process. We cannot force them to respect the limits of their mandate, but we can certainly quietly ignore them when they do not. We should not include the ruling in this list, because it gives the impression that it means something. GMGtalk 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
No objections to the removal, either. Thanks, Ronz, for removing it. — Newslinger talk 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the removal as well as the statement that it was outside ArbCom's scope. Hopefully that sort of statement hasn't been made by the Committee recently (and of course that I never made such a statement when I was an Arb :-). Doug Weller talk 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Not that I understand exactly how this works, but if almost no-one new is now saying its *partisan*, how about removing *Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source.(disputed)* completely. Because they were only regurgitating what the arb-com had previously said, not necessarily agreeing with it.

From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/partisan "partisan adjective UK strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully: The audience was very partisan, and refused to listen to her speech. partisan politics" 05:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCafe (talk • contribs)

If it helps, I'm inclined to say that it is partisan. That's sort-of the point of the source. - Bilby (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Most editors prefer not to ask a partisanship/bias question in the upcoming RfC. However, RfC surveys allow for open-ended explanations, and editors who wish to express an opinion on perceived partisanship/bias will probably do so anyway. After the RfC, it will be clear how Quackwatch should be classified and described here. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
​One more thing: I want to note that bias is not necessarily a bad thing. WP:BIASED/WP:PARTISAN states, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." This list treats reliability and bias independently. There are sources whose biases do not compromise their reliability: a good example is the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry), which is considered both generally reliable and biased. — Newslinger talk 07:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New subpage for the QW talk page[edit]

I have created a new subpage, which is then linked to from the talk page:

Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Oracle[edit]

Is the newspaper publication written by the University of Florida in Tampa considered reliable? http://www.usforacle.com 204.186.240.186 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful, but WP:RSN is the place to ask. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Irish Sun[edit]

Would it be alright to add The Irish Sun (without the link) under The Sun (UK) in the same box in the sources section of the project page? The Irish Sun is part of The Sun as can be seen on that page and The Irish Sun links to The Sun (United Kingdom)'s page. Its just that the way it is curently stated does not make it clear from looking at the table alone that this includes the Ireland addition, as the Repbulic of Ireland is a different country to the United Kingdom. Helper201 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm inclined to support adding it, since The Irish Sun shares some content with The Sun (RSP entry), including entertainment news (and Dear Deidre). The quality of the rest of the content appears to be similar. This applies to The Sun's other regional editions as well. Perhaps some other editors can chime in. — Newslinger talk 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Just to be clear, I also support adding it to the list. Helper201 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
​I think it would be better if this question were asked in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, instead of in an RfC here. This is because the noticeboard gets much more traffic (over 30 times more in the last month) than this talk page. Would this be acceptable to you? — Newslinger talk 07:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That is completely fine with me. Would you mind posting it there please as I have no experience posing there and you seem more familiar with this than me? However, I can give it a go if you are pushed for time. Helper201 (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
​Sure, the post is now at WP:RSN § Regional editions of The Sun. Since there is an unusually high number of active RfCs on the noticeboard, I've started this as a normal discussion instead of an RfC. If it gets controversial enough, we can promote the discussion to an RfC. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for bringing this up. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘ plus Added. Hi Helper201, the noticeboard discussion has been archived here. Since there was no opposition, I've added The Irish Sun and The Scottish Sun as aliases and additional domains of The Sun (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, thank you for your help, really appreciate it. Helper201 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Scottish Sun cleared, working on Irish Sun (mostly sports or pop culture, but also quite replaceable) - are they in the relevant bots and editing tags? - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
whoops, my search was wrong - 663 Scottish Sun to go, tralala ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
​Thanks for taking these removals head-on! I've requested auto-reverting from XLinkBot at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList § Regional editions of The Sun, and any admin can handle the request with the instructions at the top of User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra has added the domains to the auto-revert lists. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
it's a slightly more productive way to waste time than playing Angry Birds ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

New static Media Bias Chart 5.1[edit]

Announcement from adfontesmedia:

"Thanks for all your feedback on both the interactive and static versions of the Media Bias Chart! We are continuously striving to make this a better and better resource over time. We received quite a few requests to make the static version a little friendlier for downloading, zooming in, and printing. Specifically, we got quite a bit of feedback that though people appreciate the precision and data on the 5.0 interactive version of the chart, the overlapping logos on the static version made it harder to share and use in classrooms and presentations. Here's our solution!"

Enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Starting this thread because there was some interest at WikiCon NA to discuss this page further. Happy to report that most everyone seems very enthusiastic to find out about this, and there was a good deal of optimistic talk about how to potentially improve it. GMGtalk 17:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's good news. I look forward to hearing some of the ideas.- MrX 🖋 01:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear the positive response. Will the feedback be published somewhere? (See also the collaboration opportunity with the Cite Unseen project in the section below.) — Newslinger talk 02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration with Cite Unseen project[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion to integrate the data from this list into the Cite Unseen project. Here's the description from the project page:

Cite Unseen is a Wikipedia user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English Wikipedia article. The script adds iconic indicators to identified sources that indicate various attributes of the source, such as if the source is a news article, opinion piece, or government-controlled. This allows readers to quickly and easily identify the potential orientation and possible ideological biases of the sources used in an article they are reading.

Cite Unseen is actively developed by SuperHamster and Sky Harbor, who gave a presentation ("Cite Unseen: A Year Hence") at WikiConference North America in the past week. You can install the current beta version of the script at Cite Unseen[1] (source).

If you're interested in collaborating with the Cite Unseen project, please join the discussion at m:Talk:Cite Unseen. — Newslinger talk 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Copy the following code, click here, then paste:
    {{subst:iusc|1=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js}}

Suggested text for Gateway Pundit deprecation[edit]

The Gateway Pundit just got deprecated. How's this for its entry? Any URLs that need adding? 

|- class="s-d" id="The_Gateway_Pundit"
| data-sort-value="Gateway Pundit" | ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl||RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|256|Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Gateway Pundit'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site was unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.
| {{/Uses|thegatewaypundit.com|}}

Who else do we need to tell? XLinkBot? Editing tags? Is there a list? - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you add a diff to "the 2019 RfC"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
When I tested the link to {{rsnl||RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}} it went to the present discussion, and is trivially changeable when the discussion gets archived. (I cribbed that one from the entry for the Daily Caller, and twiddled it for Gateway Pundit.) If there's a proper place to put the diff, please do so!
I was more wanting to check the wording of the explanation was reasonable :-) When fans of terrible sources try to edit-war them in, they always refer back to the line on WP:RSP, so I wanted to get it right - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
ToThAc I'm not sure your present text correctly summarises the RFC. It seems to encourage use far more than the tone of the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I see. What I don't understand is the part about "[...] and given to hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact." Maybe I'm a bit confused here, but what is that even supposed to mean? ToThAc (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It's ... given to publishing hoax articles, and it's given to reporting conspiracy theories as fact - what part of the sentence is ambiguous? - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: The "and given to hoax articles" part. It appears to disrupt the sentence flow. ToThAc (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
well, whatever changes make it clearer then :-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=927457130"