Discuss sources on the
reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard ( WP:RSN). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reliable sources page. |
|
Frequently asked questions
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Over the past year or so, I recall being involved in a couple of discussions in which one editor wanted to cite an obscure book that has been ignored by scholars in the field, arguing that anything published by a university press should have an automatic presumption of reliability, because it has been peer-reviewed. This isn't necessarily true.
This topic had been mulling in my mind for a long time, so a couple months ago I took it upon myself to dig up some information and write a short essay about this.
The essay is here: User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses). Feel free to edit, find more sources, more examples, etc.
Mainly I'm wondering if the topic of university presses should be mentioned somewhere in this WP:RS guideline, or perhaps the essay could be moved into Wikipedia namespace and linked in "See also" if the community deems it appropriate. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Many of the academic researcher pages have self-promotional citations from the university 'about our faculty' page for the person.
Consider "Liz Lightstone" or "Jennifer Martiny" Wikipedia topics, both academics where half of the citations are from their own employer's about our faculty pages, from a conference / lecture 'about our speakers' page, or from a grant proposal written by the same person - all of which are self-promotional.
The citations and the statements from them should be removed as not reliable sources for the same reason that Wikipedia does not include CV/Resume or book jacket about the author citations.
There are many academic researcher pages with self-promotional citations which need those self-promotional citations removed. Wikipedia should not be a CV/resume/about my research/who's who database directory for academic researchers. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:40C5:FE3:6045:96CD ( talk) 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Is MSN considered a reliable source of information? Never17 ( talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
In the " piadina" page Francesca Cres added some information about the history of this food, I removed her edits because Julietdeltalima previously deleted them (Julietdeltalima: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Piadina&diff=prev&oldid=1213904179). The link from which Francesca Cres had taken the informations is this: https://www.piadinaloriana.it/en/company-history/the-piadina-history/#; is it a reliable source or not? Since it explains the whole history of piadina, it would be a real pity to lose all this information. JacktheBrown ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I need editors with expertise/experience in IRS-related matters in a consensus discussion on the Joan of Arc talk page. Someone added a passage in the section on Joan's cross-dressing, and cited as a source the late Andrea Dworkin, whose Wikipedia article describes her as a " radical feminist" who was criticzed for her belief that "all sex is rape", which prompted one critic to label her "a preacher of hate." Dworkin was not a historian, nor trained in history, as her BA was in literature. [2] Could conscientious editors please read what I've presented at the discussion, and then offer their views? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Upgrade SCIRS to a guideline to upgrade Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) to a guideline. To keep discussion in on place, please leave any comments you have there rather than here. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
162.71.236.123 ( talk) 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) In the 2016 League Of Legends Championship, $380,250 USD was split between 3rd and 4th place instead of 3rd place getting all of it.
Dark matter is different than Anti-Matter.Big Debstoh777 ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I was adding an event to an article ( Special:Diff/1220193358) when I noticed that the article I was reading as a source, and planning to cite, was tagged as being written by AI on the news company's website. I've looked around a bit, skimmed Wikipedia: Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, WP:LLM, WP:AI, WP:RS and this Wikimedia post, but couldn't find anything directly addressing whether it's ok to cite articles written by AI. Closest I could find is here on WP:RS tentatively saying "ML generation in itself does not necessarily disqualify a source that is properly checked by the person using it" and here on WP:LLM, which clearly states "LLMs do not follow Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing.", but in a slightly different context, so I'm getting mixed signals. I also asked Copilot and GPT3.5, which both said AI-written citations neither explicitly banned nor permitted, with varying levels of vaguery.
For my specific example, I submitted it but put "( AI)" after the name, but I wanted to raise this more broadly because I'm not sure what to do. My proposal is what I did, use them but tag them as AI in the link, but I'm curious to hear other suggestions.
I've put this on the talk pages in Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SqueakSquawk4 ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Discuss sources on the
reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard ( WP:RSN). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reliable sources page. |
|
Frequently asked questions
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Over the past year or so, I recall being involved in a couple of discussions in which one editor wanted to cite an obscure book that has been ignored by scholars in the field, arguing that anything published by a university press should have an automatic presumption of reliability, because it has been peer-reviewed. This isn't necessarily true.
This topic had been mulling in my mind for a long time, so a couple months ago I took it upon myself to dig up some information and write a short essay about this.
The essay is here: User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses). Feel free to edit, find more sources, more examples, etc.
Mainly I'm wondering if the topic of university presses should be mentioned somewhere in this WP:RS guideline, or perhaps the essay could be moved into Wikipedia namespace and linked in "See also" if the community deems it appropriate. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Many of the academic researcher pages have self-promotional citations from the university 'about our faculty' page for the person.
Consider "Liz Lightstone" or "Jennifer Martiny" Wikipedia topics, both academics where half of the citations are from their own employer's about our faculty pages, from a conference / lecture 'about our speakers' page, or from a grant proposal written by the same person - all of which are self-promotional.
The citations and the statements from them should be removed as not reliable sources for the same reason that Wikipedia does not include CV/Resume or book jacket about the author citations.
There are many academic researcher pages with self-promotional citations which need those self-promotional citations removed. Wikipedia should not be a CV/resume/about my research/who's who database directory for academic researchers. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:40C5:FE3:6045:96CD ( talk) 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Is MSN considered a reliable source of information? Never17 ( talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
In the " piadina" page Francesca Cres added some information about the history of this food, I removed her edits because Julietdeltalima previously deleted them (Julietdeltalima: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Piadina&diff=prev&oldid=1213904179). The link from which Francesca Cres had taken the informations is this: https://www.piadinaloriana.it/en/company-history/the-piadina-history/#; is it a reliable source or not? Since it explains the whole history of piadina, it would be a real pity to lose all this information. JacktheBrown ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I need editors with expertise/experience in IRS-related matters in a consensus discussion on the Joan of Arc talk page. Someone added a passage in the section on Joan's cross-dressing, and cited as a source the late Andrea Dworkin, whose Wikipedia article describes her as a " radical feminist" who was criticzed for her belief that "all sex is rape", which prompted one critic to label her "a preacher of hate." Dworkin was not a historian, nor trained in history, as her BA was in literature. [2] Could conscientious editors please read what I've presented at the discussion, and then offer their views? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Upgrade SCIRS to a guideline to upgrade Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) to a guideline. To keep discussion in on place, please leave any comments you have there rather than here. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
162.71.236.123 ( talk) 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) In the 2016 League Of Legends Championship, $380,250 USD was split between 3rd and 4th place instead of 3rd place getting all of it.
Dark matter is different than Anti-Matter.Big Debstoh777 ( talk) 03:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I was adding an event to an article ( Special:Diff/1220193358) when I noticed that the article I was reading as a source, and planning to cite, was tagged as being written by AI on the news company's website. I've looked around a bit, skimmed Wikipedia: Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, WP:LLM, WP:AI, WP:RS and this Wikimedia post, but couldn't find anything directly addressing whether it's ok to cite articles written by AI. Closest I could find is here on WP:RS tentatively saying "ML generation in itself does not necessarily disqualify a source that is properly checked by the person using it" and here on WP:LLM, which clearly states "LLMs do not follow Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing.", but in a slightly different context, so I'm getting mixed signals. I also asked Copilot and GPT3.5, which both said AI-written citations neither explicitly banned nor permitted, with varying levels of vaguery.
For my specific example, I submitted it but put "( AI)" after the name, but I wanted to raise this more broadly because I'm not sure what to do. My proposal is what I did, use them but tag them as AI in the link, but I'm curious to hear other suggestions.
I've put this on the talk pages in Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SqueakSquawk4 ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)