This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
For by topic how will what you're thinking compare to WP:RSP? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I've now had occasion to reference this a couple times and am glad you're developing it Rosguill. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that they would be considered RS for notability purposes? I'm not seeing it from the RSN discussions. I find it hard to believe that if something is in Sparks/Cliffs it's not notable but it should also be relatively easy to establish that from other more reliable sourcing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Le Monde, La Liberation and Le Figaro are the French newspapers with the most journalistic integrity (evidence over opinion, citing sources, etc.).
I noticed you discredited Patheos as a source, but some of its 'bloggers' (some are respected journalists) are strict about citing their sources and peer-review... depends on the blog.
Anyhow, thanks for your efforts - got word of them through a newsletter sent to my talk-page. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Have we reached a point where there are enough sources that putting together a Google Custom search engine to go through them and advertising the availability of that tool is viable? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
While this is still a work in progress it feels far more complete at this point. Is that right Rosguill? I see it having two uses - first to check sources that exist in a page for reliability in establishing notability and second for finding sources not present which indicate notability. For this second purpose, I have gone ahead and created a Google Custom Search Engine based on the current status of this page - which gave me 217 sites. I am going to try it out and see how it compares to other methods I have when doing NPP; it will pull only English language sources when I search in English but if I use another script (e.g. Arabic) it'll pull results that way too. I figure Onel5969 and JTtheOG might also be good "beta" testers before we say anything to the wider NPP community. In really examining the places I pulled from judgement will still be necessary - the clearest example being Forbes where staff writers are RS but contributors are not. There were a few other sources, around pop culture in particular, who are of limited reliability (or maybe only reliable for staff reviews and not news/user reviews). So it'll be interesting to see how useful, if at all, this proves to be while doing reviewing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, looks like we got a no consensus, albeit one that included the statement there is a somewhat strong consensus for discouraging RfCs for any source whose reliability has not been previously discussed on RSN or elsewhere as per
WP:RFCBEFORE
. The inclusion of RFCBEFORE in that statement would imply that this is a caution against running to start an RfC when you just have a single case of wondering if a source is usable in a given article, so we can perhaps make the case that our proposal to do RfCs about sources for various topics and regions comprises a different scenario than the above. However, the fact that we have to make that argument at all may mean that it's best to take this to
the village pump proposals board. Although, we might want to workshop this a bit in the ideas board first. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion at the Village Pump went well. I think we should proceed with the first RfC set. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, @ Barkeep49: I see lots of sources with no consensus. Fine. However, these really aren't helpful for the common reviewer. Is it worth initiating further discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether they are reliable or not? If we don't, then sources could forever sit at 'no consensus' and provide confusion and pointless arguments in the future. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 22:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Great job by the way, it's coming together nicely. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies)
Here's my initial proposal for Spain:
- Caution
Contentious topics in Spain with known episodes of controversial coverage or conspiracy theories published in otherwise reliable sources: terrorism (specially 2004 Madrid train bombings and ETA), Catalonia independence movement (specially, 2017 Catalan independence referendum) and the Alcàsser Girls case. Additional caution applies to stories published between 1936 and 1975 (see Francoist Spain) and, to some degree, between 1975 and 1977/1982 (see Spanish transition to democracy).
- Generally reliable
- EFE, high reputation news agency, reports published in local press with an EFE byline may be presumed to have higher reliability.
- Europa Press, high reputation news agency, reports published in local press with an EuropaPress/EP byline may be presumed to have higher reliability.
- RTVE, state broadcaster
- El País (publisher: PRISA)
- El Mundo (publisher: Unidad Editorial)
- Público
- eldiario.es
- La Vanguardia (publisher: Godó)
- 20 minutos
- ABC (publisher: Vocento)
- El Periódico de Catalunya (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Catalonia)
- La Voz de Galicia (main region: Galicia)
- El Correo (publisher: Vocento, main region: Basque Country)
- La Nueva España (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Asturias)
- Heraldo de Aragón (main region: Aragon)
- Levante-EMV (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Valencian Community)
- Las Provincias (publisher: Vocento, main region: Valencian Community)
- Disputed reliability
- Okdiario, digital newspaper often involved in reliability controversies, including defamation lawsuits. Possibly comparable to Daily Mail in reliability.
- Not reliable
- Mediterráneo Digital (not to be confused with El Periódico Mediterráneo), media outlet often originating and spreading hoaxes.
- Caso Aislado, obscure media outlet often originating and spreading hoaxes.
- Contando Estrelas / Elentir, blog often originating and spreading hoaxes.
I have not included bias concerns, since I'm not sure they are relevant to determine notability. For example, El País is generally considered a high quality source, yet they have a history of aggressive editorial line against some governments in Latin America. El Mundo is generally reputable, but had some episodes in the past where it engaged in the spread of conspiracy theories about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. RTVE is generally reliable and with certain independence, yet early coverage of the Iraq War was highly controversial. ABC has a strong right-wing bias, while El Público has a strong left-wing bias. Despite all these considerations, I still think all of them are good for the purpose of notability.
The list of generally reliable sources could be expanded with many more regional newspapers. I included initially those with larger circulation. Some smaller media outlets are included in the not reliable since their usage is high in social media, specially linked to hoaxes, conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation. -- MarioGom ( talk) 09:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it make sense to have a book publishers section? I see Cambridge University Press listed, but no others. I'd suggest
==Publishers==
In many discussions, users clarified that no publisher's works can be considered always reliable for everything.
- Generally reliable
- Cambridge University Press [1]
- University of Chicago Press [2]
- Springer Science+Business Media, not to be confused with Axel Springer SE or Springer Publishing [3]
- Greenwood Publishing Group (and subsidiaries) [4]
- HarperCollins Canada [5]
- Unreliable
- Pentland Press -- vanity press [6]
- Cambridge Scholars Publishing -- vanity press [7]
- Lulu.com -- self-publishing; deprecated [8]
- Scribd -- self-publishing [9]
- Creative Crayon Publishers [10]
- No consensus
- University Presses-- in a discussion, some users felt that they should be considered de facto reliable, while others advocated for a case-by-case basis. [11]
- Jessica Kingsley Publishers-- history of publishing plagiarized content [12]
- New Leaf Publishing Group-- WP:FRINGE applies [13]
References
I haven't looked too extensively, and haven't read through discussions like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?. I think a section like this would be useful because it's very hard to tell between a reliable and unreliable publication unless you already know about it. Courtesy ping Rosguill and Barkeep49 Eddie891 Talk Work 20:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Was recently asked on IRC if The Globe and Mail is an RS. The mentions at RSN are sparse though it generally reflects well (e.g. this and this. However, the article itself makes the claim in the LEAD that it's a newspaper of record and has sources to back it up. Is that sufficient for inclusion here? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Recently I started writing a citation highlighter user script that uses NPPSG. The script is working and highlighting Wikilinks to articles (e.g. The New York Times) based on their reliability, but NPPSG doesn't have very many domains (e.g. https://nytimes.com/ ). The citations at the bottom of pages (what we want to highlight) tend to use domains.
Would it be OK for me to start adding external links to NPPSG? Maybe something like:
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
For example, this WikiProject Film resources page has a large list of reliable sources and a small list of unreliable sources. Can I import stuff like this into NPPSG without citing RSN discussions? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Chemistry and medicine infoboxes contain some external links built into them. Examples: Ivermectin, Penicillin, Hydrogen iodide, Hydrogen peroxide. The fact that those websites are consistently used in very popular infoboxes seems to me like a strong tacit consensus as to their reliability. However, data is not a secondary source. Thoughts on including those websites as reliable at NPPSG? I'm leaning yes, since reliability is separate from primary/secondary/tertiary, but happy to hear other thoughts. Examples of websites that would be added as reliable: https://commonchemistry.org, https://chemspider.com/, https://guidetopharmacology.org/, https://drugs.com/ – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on adding legal primary sources such as https://justia.com to the list? It's reliable -- law FA's link to it extensively. But the fact that it's primary makes it a gray area for adding to this list. Being primary, it would not count toward passing GNG. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of these in the Europe section (Germany, Poland, Latvia, Russia). When these get added, they always seem to get added as "no consensus", regardless of what the RSN vote was. I wonder if it might be better to delete them, or to put them in the category that the voter suggested. For example, Neues Deutschland is in the "no consensus" category, [1] but the only editor that commented on it at RSN compared it to Bild, which is unreliable. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
; Insufficient discussion
What are your thoughts on that, my friend? –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 03:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I found the above page and associated effort the other day. I think these two sets of pages should be synced and/or redirected.
NPPSG is a good resource and looks more developed, but it 'lives' in the NPP space when it could be useful outside of NPP. OTOH I am not sure all the sources in NPPSG are in news sources (and anyway wouldn't want to split page histories per se).
Any opinions? -- Izno ( talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Barkeep49. Looking at the NPPSG talk page history, I see you created a Google custom search engine. Spreadsheet. Just wanted to let you know that I added external links to every entry in NPPSG, and also the list has grown from 200 entries to 1000 entries since you first made your search engine. If you are ever interested in updating your search engine, let me know and I can write a script to scrape the URL's. (In case you are wondering, I added all these URL's so that my CiteHighlighter user script could scrape it.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill. Thoughts on me adding all the newspapers at the Wikipedia article Newspaper of record to this list as reliable? (Except for the North Korean one.) Also, thoughts on me adding all the List of academic preprint repositories as unreliable? I'd probably add these in their own sections, rather than merging them into other parts, seems easier and more organized. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I was showing another editor this resource and they noted we don't have any entries for Thailand. I don't have tons of time to check it out myself right now but thought I'd post it here in case someone else is able to find some discussed sources for that country. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly unreliable based on past RSN discussions ( link) 137a ( talk • edits) 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
137a ( talk • edits) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Should the Daily Mirror entry extend to the Irish Mirror as well? I found no mention of it in past RSN discussions but I think that it's a sister paper of the former. 137a ( talk • edits) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Many of the sources are being judged by whomever added them to have been deemed "reliable" or "unreliable" based on, in the most egregious cases, a single RSN thread with a single editor's opinion. Consider the "unreliable" judgement for Pakistan's DND based on this RSN thread, and its nonsensical reasoning (editors can't be writers now??? Shall we ask CJR Editor-in-Chief Kyle Pope about this absolute ethical boundary?). RSN has deep problems as it is, but at the very least an RfC tends to get at least a few outside editors involved, keeps comments open for a while, and results in a definitive answer. Moreover, writeups and summaries on the WP:RSP are regularly patrolled -- they're usually not bad. Judgements made by editors on this page have none of these safeguards, yet from the comments here it would seem that editors will still be using this page as a guideline to definitively accept or reject sources.
I recommend that for any source on RSN that lacks an RfC, the listing be simply the source name (and any alternates and affiliates) with links to past RSN discussions and dates, without comment. Those sources with RfCs should be classified by listing the most recent RfC result with link and date, while also linking previous RSN and RfCs with results and dates. Thus it would look similar to WP:RSP, except tat these sources are not perennial. SamuelRiv ( talk) 00:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
in the most egregious cases, a single RSN thread with a single editor's opinion. I'd be in favor of removing the "single editor's opinion" ones, but will defer to Rosguill on this as the maintainer of this list. I use program code to look for keywords such as "one editor" to remove these from my user scripts. I would not be in favor of removing other cases, such as an RSN discussion with 2, 3, or 4 editors. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
For by topic how will what you're thinking compare to WP:RSP? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I've now had occasion to reference this a couple times and am glad you're developing it Rosguill. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that they would be considered RS for notability purposes? I'm not seeing it from the RSN discussions. I find it hard to believe that if something is in Sparks/Cliffs it's not notable but it should also be relatively easy to establish that from other more reliable sourcing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Le Monde, La Liberation and Le Figaro are the French newspapers with the most journalistic integrity (evidence over opinion, citing sources, etc.).
I noticed you discredited Patheos as a source, but some of its 'bloggers' (some are respected journalists) are strict about citing their sources and peer-review... depends on the blog.
Anyhow, thanks for your efforts - got word of them through a newsletter sent to my talk-page. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Have we reached a point where there are enough sources that putting together a Google Custom search engine to go through them and advertising the availability of that tool is viable? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
While this is still a work in progress it feels far more complete at this point. Is that right Rosguill? I see it having two uses - first to check sources that exist in a page for reliability in establishing notability and second for finding sources not present which indicate notability. For this second purpose, I have gone ahead and created a Google Custom Search Engine based on the current status of this page - which gave me 217 sites. I am going to try it out and see how it compares to other methods I have when doing NPP; it will pull only English language sources when I search in English but if I use another script (e.g. Arabic) it'll pull results that way too. I figure Onel5969 and JTtheOG might also be good "beta" testers before we say anything to the wider NPP community. In really examining the places I pulled from judgement will still be necessary - the clearest example being Forbes where staff writers are RS but contributors are not. There were a few other sources, around pop culture in particular, who are of limited reliability (or maybe only reliable for staff reviews and not news/user reviews). So it'll be interesting to see how useful, if at all, this proves to be while doing reviewing. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, looks like we got a no consensus, albeit one that included the statement there is a somewhat strong consensus for discouraging RfCs for any source whose reliability has not been previously discussed on RSN or elsewhere as per
WP:RFCBEFORE
. The inclusion of RFCBEFORE in that statement would imply that this is a caution against running to start an RfC when you just have a single case of wondering if a source is usable in a given article, so we can perhaps make the case that our proposal to do RfCs about sources for various topics and regions comprises a different scenario than the above. However, the fact that we have to make that argument at all may mean that it's best to take this to
the village pump proposals board. Although, we might want to workshop this a bit in the ideas board first. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion at the Village Pump went well. I think we should proceed with the first RfC set. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, @ Barkeep49: I see lots of sources with no consensus. Fine. However, these really aren't helpful for the common reviewer. Is it worth initiating further discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether they are reliable or not? If we don't, then sources could forever sit at 'no consensus' and provide confusion and pointless arguments in the future. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 22:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Great job by the way, it's coming together nicely. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies)
Here's my initial proposal for Spain:
- Caution
Contentious topics in Spain with known episodes of controversial coverage or conspiracy theories published in otherwise reliable sources: terrorism (specially 2004 Madrid train bombings and ETA), Catalonia independence movement (specially, 2017 Catalan independence referendum) and the Alcàsser Girls case. Additional caution applies to stories published between 1936 and 1975 (see Francoist Spain) and, to some degree, between 1975 and 1977/1982 (see Spanish transition to democracy).
- Generally reliable
- EFE, high reputation news agency, reports published in local press with an EFE byline may be presumed to have higher reliability.
- Europa Press, high reputation news agency, reports published in local press with an EuropaPress/EP byline may be presumed to have higher reliability.
- RTVE, state broadcaster
- El País (publisher: PRISA)
- El Mundo (publisher: Unidad Editorial)
- Público
- eldiario.es
- La Vanguardia (publisher: Godó)
- 20 minutos
- ABC (publisher: Vocento)
- El Periódico de Catalunya (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Catalonia)
- La Voz de Galicia (main region: Galicia)
- El Correo (publisher: Vocento, main region: Basque Country)
- La Nueva España (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Asturias)
- Heraldo de Aragón (main region: Aragon)
- Levante-EMV (publisher: Prensa Ibérica, main region: Valencian Community)
- Las Provincias (publisher: Vocento, main region: Valencian Community)
- Disputed reliability
- Okdiario, digital newspaper often involved in reliability controversies, including defamation lawsuits. Possibly comparable to Daily Mail in reliability.
- Not reliable
- Mediterráneo Digital (not to be confused with El Periódico Mediterráneo), media outlet often originating and spreading hoaxes.
- Caso Aislado, obscure media outlet often originating and spreading hoaxes.
- Contando Estrelas / Elentir, blog often originating and spreading hoaxes.
I have not included bias concerns, since I'm not sure they are relevant to determine notability. For example, El País is generally considered a high quality source, yet they have a history of aggressive editorial line against some governments in Latin America. El Mundo is generally reputable, but had some episodes in the past where it engaged in the spread of conspiracy theories about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. RTVE is generally reliable and with certain independence, yet early coverage of the Iraq War was highly controversial. ABC has a strong right-wing bias, while El Público has a strong left-wing bias. Despite all these considerations, I still think all of them are good for the purpose of notability.
The list of generally reliable sources could be expanded with many more regional newspapers. I included initially those with larger circulation. Some smaller media outlets are included in the not reliable since their usage is high in social media, specially linked to hoaxes, conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation. -- MarioGom ( talk) 09:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it make sense to have a book publishers section? I see Cambridge University Press listed, but no others. I'd suggest
==Publishers==
In many discussions, users clarified that no publisher's works can be considered always reliable for everything.
- Generally reliable
- Cambridge University Press [1]
- University of Chicago Press [2]
- Springer Science+Business Media, not to be confused with Axel Springer SE or Springer Publishing [3]
- Greenwood Publishing Group (and subsidiaries) [4]
- HarperCollins Canada [5]
- Unreliable
- Pentland Press -- vanity press [6]
- Cambridge Scholars Publishing -- vanity press [7]
- Lulu.com -- self-publishing; deprecated [8]
- Scribd -- self-publishing [9]
- Creative Crayon Publishers [10]
- No consensus
- University Presses-- in a discussion, some users felt that they should be considered de facto reliable, while others advocated for a case-by-case basis. [11]
- Jessica Kingsley Publishers-- history of publishing plagiarized content [12]
- New Leaf Publishing Group-- WP:FRINGE applies [13]
References
I haven't looked too extensively, and haven't read through discussions like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?. I think a section like this would be useful because it's very hard to tell between a reliable and unreliable publication unless you already know about it. Courtesy ping Rosguill and Barkeep49 Eddie891 Talk Work 20:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Was recently asked on IRC if The Globe and Mail is an RS. The mentions at RSN are sparse though it generally reflects well (e.g. this and this. However, the article itself makes the claim in the LEAD that it's a newspaper of record and has sources to back it up. Is that sufficient for inclusion here? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Recently I started writing a citation highlighter user script that uses NPPSG. The script is working and highlighting Wikilinks to articles (e.g. The New York Times) based on their reliability, but NPPSG doesn't have very many domains (e.g. https://nytimes.com/ ). The citations at the bottom of pages (what we want to highlight) tend to use domains.
Would it be OK for me to start adding external links to NPPSG? Maybe something like:
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
For example, this WikiProject Film resources page has a large list of reliable sources and a small list of unreliable sources. Can I import stuff like this into NPPSG without citing RSN discussions? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Chemistry and medicine infoboxes contain some external links built into them. Examples: Ivermectin, Penicillin, Hydrogen iodide, Hydrogen peroxide. The fact that those websites are consistently used in very popular infoboxes seems to me like a strong tacit consensus as to their reliability. However, data is not a secondary source. Thoughts on including those websites as reliable at NPPSG? I'm leaning yes, since reliability is separate from primary/secondary/tertiary, but happy to hear other thoughts. Examples of websites that would be added as reliable: https://commonchemistry.org, https://chemspider.com/, https://guidetopharmacology.org/, https://drugs.com/ – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on adding legal primary sources such as https://justia.com to the list? It's reliable -- law FA's link to it extensively. But the fact that it's primary makes it a gray area for adding to this list. Being primary, it would not count toward passing GNG. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of these in the Europe section (Germany, Poland, Latvia, Russia). When these get added, they always seem to get added as "no consensus", regardless of what the RSN vote was. I wonder if it might be better to delete them, or to put them in the category that the voter suggested. For example, Neues Deutschland is in the "no consensus" category, [1] but the only editor that commented on it at RSN compared it to Bild, which is unreliable. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
; Insufficient discussion
What are your thoughts on that, my friend? –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 03:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I found the above page and associated effort the other day. I think these two sets of pages should be synced and/or redirected.
NPPSG is a good resource and looks more developed, but it 'lives' in the NPP space when it could be useful outside of NPP. OTOH I am not sure all the sources in NPPSG are in news sources (and anyway wouldn't want to split page histories per se).
Any opinions? -- Izno ( talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Barkeep49. Looking at the NPPSG talk page history, I see you created a Google custom search engine. Spreadsheet. Just wanted to let you know that I added external links to every entry in NPPSG, and also the list has grown from 200 entries to 1000 entries since you first made your search engine. If you are ever interested in updating your search engine, let me know and I can write a script to scrape the URL's. (In case you are wondering, I added all these URL's so that my CiteHighlighter user script could scrape it.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill. Thoughts on me adding all the newspapers at the Wikipedia article Newspaper of record to this list as reliable? (Except for the North Korean one.) Also, thoughts on me adding all the List of academic preprint repositories as unreliable? I'd probably add these in their own sections, rather than merging them into other parts, seems easier and more organized. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I was showing another editor this resource and they noted we don't have any entries for Thailand. I don't have tons of time to check it out myself right now but thought I'd post it here in case someone else is able to find some discussed sources for that country. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly unreliable based on past RSN discussions ( link) 137a ( talk • edits) 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
137a ( talk • edits) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Should the Daily Mirror entry extend to the Irish Mirror as well? I found no mention of it in past RSN discussions but I think that it's a sister paper of the former. 137a ( talk • edits) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Many of the sources are being judged by whomever added them to have been deemed "reliable" or "unreliable" based on, in the most egregious cases, a single RSN thread with a single editor's opinion. Consider the "unreliable" judgement for Pakistan's DND based on this RSN thread, and its nonsensical reasoning (editors can't be writers now??? Shall we ask CJR Editor-in-Chief Kyle Pope about this absolute ethical boundary?). RSN has deep problems as it is, but at the very least an RfC tends to get at least a few outside editors involved, keeps comments open for a while, and results in a definitive answer. Moreover, writeups and summaries on the WP:RSP are regularly patrolled -- they're usually not bad. Judgements made by editors on this page have none of these safeguards, yet from the comments here it would seem that editors will still be using this page as a guideline to definitively accept or reject sources.
I recommend that for any source on RSN that lacks an RfC, the listing be simply the source name (and any alternates and affiliates) with links to past RSN discussions and dates, without comment. Those sources with RfCs should be classified by listing the most recent RfC result with link and date, while also linking previous RSN and RfCs with results and dates. Thus it would look similar to WP:RSP, except tat these sources are not perennial. SamuelRiv ( talk) 00:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
in the most egregious cases, a single RSN thread with a single editor's opinion. I'd be in favor of removing the "single editor's opinion" ones, but will defer to Rosguill on this as the maintainer of this list. I use program code to look for keywords such as "one editor" to remove these from my user scripts. I would not be in favor of removing other cases, such as an RSN discussion with 2, 3, or 4 editors. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)