Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 2 January 2013

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

IRC Office Hours

Hi all, I'll be holding office hours session on DR in about 30 minutes in #wikimedia-office. Your feedback and comments are welcome. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com

See TfD of tv.com templates. Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute notice

The noticeboard has a notice: This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

This seems to me a little confused, since RSN is one of various venues for resolving content disputes and everything that comes here is a content dispute. The other noticeboards seem to manage fine without this, so could we remove it? Formerip (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of the notice is get editors to focus on reliability issues and not on other content or editor conduct issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably right. But I can't see that it's very useful for that purpose. Formerip (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you can't see it, that simply means you can't see it. It doesn't make it not so. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the other boards should have such notices. I would say the "point" of such a notice is not to rehash arguments that may (and should have) already taken place on the article's talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we can find a clearer wording. The thing that drives me up the wall is when both sides in a dispute carry on the argument in this project page. We need to tell them firmly that they should simply pose a question about a source, ideally with all the detail we ask for, and then sit back and let uninvolved editors comment on the source question. Maybe we could spell that out more. "This board is just for posing questions about reliability of sources. Please do not carry on arguments here. Allow time for uninvolved editors to comment. Follow-up questions and further clarification are allowed." How's that? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a guilty conscience, but I apologize if this thread was driven by my recent posting. My understanding is that the reliability of a source depends on context, and sometimes contextual information needs to be given particularly if there are two opinions of how to use the source (i.e. a content dispute). What I found helpful earlier was when an involved editor essentially stated to a couple of us, "You got your second opinion, now go away." Location (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with discussion context. Indeed, it's necessary. The problem happens when editors cannot avoid the temptation to devolve into debating specific content, which is similar to, but distinct from, context. It's not that difficult to keep the two separated, when the motivation to come to this forum isn't driven by forum shopping. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Belch, RS disputes are primarily about content and we do not consider sources in the abstract, only in relation to specific statements.

The problem with the notice, in any case, is not what it is meant to discourage and whether that is a good or a bad thing, just that it doesn't make proper sense. Formerip (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Content disputes are content disputes, and there are other venues available to deal with them. The plain language of the notice should tell you that RS disputes are about the reliability of sources; not the content of articles. This really isn't complicated for most of us. You can choose to comprehend, or pretend not to understand - it's up to you. Everybody else gets it. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and tried to address FormerIP's concern while trying to account for Belchfire's (and other's) concerns. The wording may need some slight tweaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody follows the Header instructions. What should we do? Part 2

It's been a half year since we had this discussion. Yet, editors are still not formulating their questions correctly. In particular, Judith had to reformulate a question because the OP failed to do so. What can we do to get editors to ask better, clearer questions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert their submission and leave a note on their talk page?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several like that asking if X is a reliable source, as if relaibility were an all-or-nothing attribute of sources. Such questions could simply be removed from the board. In other cases, the request could be made specific like Itsmejudith did. Sources that are thought to be almost never reliable could be moved to "Large scale clean-up efforts". But I'm probably not saying anything new... Tom Harrison 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. On a point of detail, a source could be placed in the large-scale clean-up efforts without being "almost never reliable". When we checked through the references to Answers in Genesis, about a third of the time it was being used appropriately, e.g. to support the description of a creationist's views. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Often misused" might be better. Tom Harrison 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the ideas that came out of that discussion was to create an Template:RSNvague tag, but I'm not sure if anyone's using it anymore. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a slight change to the wording. But I doubt it will help much. But please let me know if anyone objects. We'll have to modify the edit notice to keep the wording in sync, and I think we need an admin to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What would fix the problem decisively would be structured input, like at AN3 or SPI. Complete with HTML comments that walk the user through step-by-step. Absent that, the place looks and acts just like an extra Talk page, and that's pretty much exactly how a lot of editors use it. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with templates like AN3 and SPI is that they're complicated and confusing to use, especially for newbies. Have you seen WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request? They created a form for the user to fill out. Maybe we can try something like that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"...complicated and confusing to use, especially for newbies." That's not a bug; that's a feature. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

True, good point. But sometimes it's kind of hard to figure out what the poster is really asking. It's true that Judith went ahead and did that for the OP, but it would be much easier for everyone for the OP to do that themselves. I'll quit jabbering for now and wait for more feedback. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that specificity is usually desired, I was of the view that in certain instances, a source's general reliability could nevertheless be determined. If Der Stürmer's reliability on Jewish characteristics was brought to RSN, would editors still temporize and demand article and content specifics? I thought that a general view of Ma'an which published antisemitic vitriol could be attained; maybe I was mistaken but this was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent the header instructions. Ankh.Morpork 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't you and your friends attacking WP:RS you see as too pro-Palestinian the subject of the general topic Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Recourse_when_partisans_.22converge.22_against_source.3F above?? (I only read the first couple examples of "evidence" you presented because they were translations from unreliable sources and Arabic links. Why should such "evidence" be presented at all, not to mention in the beginning which will make any sensible editor throw up their hands in disgust??)

"...because they were translations from unreliable sources and Arabic links" - I was unaware that one could not refer to Arabic links when requesting advice at RSN and that I had to make allowances for your linguistic shortcomings. I was similarly incognisant that good-faith translations provided at the Language reference desk by an Arabic speaker would be dismissed as "unreliable" and cause you to flail your arms arounds in disgust. Might I suggest that seeing as your disgust-reflex is so easily triggered, you ingest an AGF pill before continuing this conversation? Ankh.Morpork 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If one gives one example and editors think it's a crappy source generally, you'll hear about it. Sources get dismissed as NON-WP:RS every day. You are just wasting everyone's time with poorly prepared generalized attacks like this. CarolMooreDC 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ankh-Morpork. Of course regulars would not temporize. That is not something we do. There is no time limit anyway on WP. We ask for specifics because we need to know them in order to form an opinion. What we hate most is wall of text. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ma'an News - Who's involved and uninvolved?

I'm half-tempted to close this thread right now, but I want to make sure I'm reading consensus right. Who's involved and who's uninvolved in this dispute? Based on Operation Pillar of Defense: Revision history:

• AnkhMorpork, Brewcrewer, Nableezy, Tkuvho and WLRoss are all involved.
• Me, Carolmooredc, ItsMeJudith, and TomHarrison are uninvolved.

I didn't check other IP articles as there are too many to check. So, am I reading this correctly? Did I miss someone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc has edited in the past the WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc is one of the more notorious POV editors here and is not considered uninvolved by any stretch. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you redact that characterisation per WP:NPA, Brewcrewer. This debate has become heated enough as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, how many times does one have to remind people that one can be sanctioned for these kinds of personal attacks under WP:ARBPIA?? I'm such a saint I've only threatened it a couple dozen times so far.

Anyway, I actually used Ma'an recently in a case where an individual was trashed in four articles in wikipedia - at a time when media outlets and advocacy groups were trying to force them from their job - for something they said that a couple months later Ma'an reported from numerous sources was basically true. (So better late than never that BLP was cleaned up in all four.) It was the only source that bothered to get the facts. That doesn't mean I'd use or believe everything, especially if it was countered by truly NPOV and reliable sources.

But the issue here is keeping it to this specific case. Did I miss the unmistakeable evidence or absolute proof Ma'an made this story up?? CarolMooreDC 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)