|
This talk page is to discuss the Wikipedia CiteWatch, both the listing itself and its setup page (including what sources to base The CiteWatch on).
|
Frequently asked questions Q1: A questionable source is cited in an article inappropriately! What should I do?
A1: First, see
the disclaimer. If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation.
Q2: A questionable source is cited in an article appropriately! What should I do?
A2: If you want to flag an unreliable source as appropriately cited, so others do not remove it, you can put a comment in the |journal= parameter, such as |journal = Nonsense Journal<!--This source is cited in accordance to [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] --> or similar. The CiteWatch does not currently have a way of tracking which sources are appropriately cited, but this could change in the future.Q3: I don't understand why a source is listed! How can I find out why?
A3: First, see
the disclaimer. Additionally, each target column should have at least one link or explanatory note detailing why a source is listed. Follow these links, and you should have your explanation. Keep in mind,
false positives do happen! See
Q4 for more details on what to do if that's the case. Q4: A false positive is listed! What should I do?
A4: Report it here! Make sure to include the rank number and the false positive. For example
Real J. Foobar is reported as a match for Rank #470
Fake Journal of Foobar, but these are not the same journals! is a clear report, but
Real J. Foobar shouldn't be listed! or
Fake Journal of Foobar is wrong! Fix it! are not. If you are comfortable with templates, you can add {{JCW-exclude|TARGET|FALSEPOSITIVE}} to the relevant section of
WP:JCW/EXCLUDE yourself. For the above case, this would be {{JCW-exclude|Fake Journal of Foobar|Real J. Foobar}} in
WP:JCW/EXCLUDE#F. After a source has been added/removed from The CiteWatch, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot after the next daily run (see
Q9).Q5: I think you should add/remove a source from The CiteWatch! What should I do?
A5: For most sources, you should discuss this at
WP:RSN first. If consensus is that the source is questionable enough to at least be worth watching (or reliable enough to be removed from the CiteWatch), leave a notice here and it will be added/removed to
WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP. Note that the threshold for inclusion in the CiteWatch is somewhere between
WP:MREL (unclear reliability) and
WP:GUNREL (generally unreliable). After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot (typically on the next daily run). See also
Q6 for how to deal with unreliable publishers. Q6: A new problematic publisher has popped up / a current problematic publisher doesn't list some of its journals! What should I do?
A6: Report it here! For predatory publishers like
OMICS Publishing Group and their ilk, please provide
Q7: A journal with an article (e.g.
Journal of Foobar) has some red linked variations of its name (e.g.
Journal of foobar or
J. Foobar)! What should I do?
A7: In the case of a legitimate variation,
create a redirect and tag it with {{
R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}, {{
R from abbreviation}}, {{
R from former name}}, {{
R from acronym}}, or
similar. In the case of an illegitimate variation, like a typo or a capitalization mistake, simply fix the article. If the mistake is common or likely to occur again in the future, you can create a redirect and tag it with {{
R from typo}}, {{
R from miscapitalization}} or
similar. If dealing with a
false positive, see
Q4. There is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot after the next
WP:DUMP (see
Q9). Q8: How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not?
A8:
Q9: When is The Citewatch updated?
A9: The Citewatch is on a dual update cycle.
Q10: What is the difference between The Citewatch and
Headbomb's unreliable/predatory source detector script? Which is better?
A10: The Citewatch looks at
data dumps and reports what is found in the |journal= and, to a lesser extent, the |doi= parameters of {{
cite xxx}} templates.
Headbomb's script instead looks at the URLs found in live version of articles. While both are developed in parallel, they are independently maintained and operate based on different principles and not all sources picked by one will be picked by the other. In general, The Citewatch is a good tool to find articles with bad sources, while Headbomb's script is a good tool to detect which sources are bad. Both have their uses, but the script will catch more things since it is not limited to only the |journal= and |doi= parameters of citation templates, but rather all URLs and all source types, regardless of template usage.
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following articles mention the Citewatch
|
From the Medline article :"New journals are not included automatically or immediately. Several criteria for selection are applied. Selection is based on the recommendations of a panel, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, based on the scientific scope and quality of a journal. The Journals Database (one of the Entrez databases) contains information, such as its name abbreviation and publisher, about all journals included in Entrez, including PubMed. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are removed. Being indexed in MEDLINE gives a non-predatory identity to a journal." Atchoum ( talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether the regular referral of people to WP:RSN is an indicator that this is not a good page to keep, that it is distracting people from the central discussion resource? A pointer to the archive here could be made at RSN so people could access this alt archive, but maybe the page itself should redirect to RSN? Thoughts or am I just barking mad (not mutually exclusive)? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
hi all, was wondering if the above is a good source or not NotQualified ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
|
This talk page is to discuss the Wikipedia CiteWatch, both the listing itself and its setup page (including what sources to base The CiteWatch on).
|
Frequently asked questions Q1: A questionable source is cited in an article inappropriately! What should I do?
A1: First, see
the disclaimer. If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation.
Q2: A questionable source is cited in an article appropriately! What should I do?
A2: If you want to flag an unreliable source as appropriately cited, so others do not remove it, you can put a comment in the |journal= parameter, such as |journal = Nonsense Journal<!--This source is cited in accordance to [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] --> or similar. The CiteWatch does not currently have a way of tracking which sources are appropriately cited, but this could change in the future.Q3: I don't understand why a source is listed! How can I find out why?
A3: First, see
the disclaimer. Additionally, each target column should have at least one link or explanatory note detailing why a source is listed. Follow these links, and you should have your explanation. Keep in mind,
false positives do happen! See
Q4 for more details on what to do if that's the case. Q4: A false positive is listed! What should I do?
A4: Report it here! Make sure to include the rank number and the false positive. For example
Real J. Foobar is reported as a match for Rank #470
Fake Journal of Foobar, but these are not the same journals! is a clear report, but
Real J. Foobar shouldn't be listed! or
Fake Journal of Foobar is wrong! Fix it! are not. If you are comfortable with templates, you can add {{JCW-exclude|TARGET|FALSEPOSITIVE}} to the relevant section of
WP:JCW/EXCLUDE yourself. For the above case, this would be {{JCW-exclude|Fake Journal of Foobar|Real J. Foobar}} in
WP:JCW/EXCLUDE#F. After a source has been added/removed from The CiteWatch, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot after the next daily run (see
Q9).Q5: I think you should add/remove a source from The CiteWatch! What should I do?
A5: For most sources, you should discuss this at
WP:RSN first. If consensus is that the source is questionable enough to at least be worth watching (or reliable enough to be removed from the CiteWatch), leave a notice here and it will be added/removed to
WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP. Note that the threshold for inclusion in the CiteWatch is somewhere between
WP:MREL (unclear reliability) and
WP:GUNREL (generally unreliable). After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot (typically on the next daily run). See also
Q6 for how to deal with unreliable publishers. Q6: A new problematic publisher has popped up / a current problematic publisher doesn't list some of its journals! What should I do?
A6: Report it here! For predatory publishers like
OMICS Publishing Group and their ilk, please provide
Q7: A journal with an article (e.g.
Journal of Foobar) has some red linked variations of its name (e.g.
Journal of foobar or
J. Foobar)! What should I do?
A7: In the case of a legitimate variation,
create a redirect and tag it with {{
R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}, {{
R from abbreviation}}, {{
R from former name}}, {{
R from acronym}}, or
similar. In the case of an illegitimate variation, like a typo or a capitalization mistake, simply fix the article. If the mistake is common or likely to occur again in the future, you can create a redirect and tag it with {{
R from typo}}, {{
R from miscapitalization}} or
similar. If dealing with a
false positive, see
Q4. There is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by
JL-Bot after the next
WP:DUMP (see
Q9). Q8: How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not?
A8:
Q9: When is The Citewatch updated?
A9: The Citewatch is on a dual update cycle.
Q10: What is the difference between The Citewatch and
Headbomb's unreliable/predatory source detector script? Which is better?
A10: The Citewatch looks at
data dumps and reports what is found in the |journal= and, to a lesser extent, the |doi= parameters of {{
cite xxx}} templates.
Headbomb's script instead looks at the URLs found in live version of articles. While both are developed in parallel, they are independently maintained and operate based on different principles and not all sources picked by one will be picked by the other. In general, The Citewatch is a good tool to find articles with bad sources, while Headbomb's script is a good tool to detect which sources are bad. Both have their uses, but the script will catch more things since it is not limited to only the |journal= and |doi= parameters of citation templates, but rather all URLs and all source types, regardless of template usage.
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following articles mention the Citewatch
|
From the Medline article :"New journals are not included automatically or immediately. Several criteria for selection are applied. Selection is based on the recommendations of a panel, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, based on the scientific scope and quality of a journal. The Journals Database (one of the Entrez databases) contains information, such as its name abbreviation and publisher, about all journals included in Entrez, including PubMed. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are removed. Being indexed in MEDLINE gives a non-predatory identity to a journal." Atchoum ( talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether the regular referral of people to WP:RSN is an indicator that this is not a good page to keep, that it is distracting people from the central discussion resource? A pointer to the archive here could be made at RSN so people could access this alt archive, but maybe the page itself should redirect to RSN? Thoughts or am I just barking mad (not mutually exclusive)? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
hi all, was wondering if the above is a good source or not NotQualified ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)