Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:07, 13 January 2025

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability Misplaced Pages Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Misplaced Pages Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Misplaced Pages administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Palmer Haasch (24 July 2020). "After Misplaced Pages editors battled over citing Fox News as a source, administrators said it should be 'used with caution' for science and politics". Insider. Noam Cohen (10 August 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Decided to Stop Calling Fox a 'Reliable' Source". Wired. Heather Kelly (15 January 2021). "On its 20th birthday, Misplaced Pages might be the safest place online". The Washington Post. And when it comes to those sources, there is of course a Misplaced Pages that lists sources and rates them according to how reliable they are. Stephen Harrison (1 July 2021). "Misplaced Pages's War on the Daily Mail". Slate. Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022). "How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Misplaced Pages". Slate. Maggie Harrison Dupré (29 February 2024). "Misplaced Pages No Longer Considers CNET a "Generally Reliable" Source After AI Scandal". Futurism. Benj Edwards (29 February 2024). "AI-generated articles prompt Misplaced Pages to downgrade CNET's reliability rating". Ars Technica. Christopher Harper (2 March 2024). "AI-generated content and other unfavorable practices have put longtime staple CNET on Misplaced Pages's blacklisted sources". Tom's Hardware. Elia-Shalev, Asaf (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Misplaced Pages ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Misplaced Pages declares ADL 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism". i24NEWS. 19 June 2024. Aaron Bandler (21 June 2024). "Misplaced Pages Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Ben Brasch (26 June 2024). "Misplaced Pages defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". The Washington Post. Aaron Bandler (11 September 2024). "Misplaced Pages's Fundamental Sourcing Problem". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Amendments needed to the transclusion splitting plan

I was implementing Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#Tranclusion split partition scheme when I ran into a few issues:

1. Transcluding the final eighth of the sources overruns the mw:Manual:Template limits#Post-expand include size, and even just the first 7/8 plus what's already transcluded on RSP ovverruns the limit.
   • i.e. the list of sources is too large to be trasncluded onto RSP.
2. The page's edit notice needs to be adapted and displayed on the subpages.

Problem #1 may be solved by moving the list of sources onto a separate page and substituting the last two sections there. (As shown in User:Aaron Liu/sandbox, only substituting the last section is not enough.) Problem #2 may be solved by making the source list its own series of subpages by e.g. moving everything else under WP:Reliable sources/Perennial. Alternatively, Problem #1 may be solved by bumping $wgMaxArticleSize (the max post-expand include size), but that may be refused for security reasons. What do we think? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging:

• Remsense
• Ivanvector
• CommunityNotesContributor
• Mfko
• ActivelyDisinterested
• Gråbergs Gråa Sång
• Daniel Quinlan
• Apenguinlover

. We really should've seen this coming as the limit was also evident at User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Since it is useful to sort, what if you cut the table in half horizontally and linked to the other piece? That would be a large change though. Apenguinlover<talk>() 20:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

My experience news that this wouldn't help the post expand limit, but I'm not very knowledgeable in such technicalities and so thought I must be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it definitely would help but would render the table quite inaccessible/clumsy. I’ve recently been researching maybe substituting all iconless discussion links. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

idea:

112 Ukraine

data-sort-value=2|

 2019  2020  2020

1

A B

data-sort-value=2020|

2020

112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.

1  
2  

Special:ExpandTemplates on this row with the tables stuff removed:

]
:data-sort-value=2|]
:] ] ] ] ] ]
:]
:<br />] ]
:data-sort-value=2020|
:2020
:112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.
:]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<br>]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]

We could nominate some wikitext on WikitextForDeletion, or we could do what Aaron suggested Apenguinlover<talk>() 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

“Wikitext for deletion”? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The Wikitext for deletion part is a joke. I just mean that this can help expose what parts could be trimmed Apenguinlover<talk>() 16:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am getting "page unresponsive" issues too often. Granted my laptop is not getting any healtheier, but neither is this project page. I also rarely get this problem on other articles, other than those equally oversized. As a point of context here, without wanting to toot my own horn, I am currently one of the top 5 editors of this page and WP:ARTICLESIZE issues has become a predominant reason for my to avoid making updates. The sooner these issues are resolved the better. CNC (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Mostly done

 Mostly done: After a bunch of substituting the RSNL template I trimmed, transclusion split implemented, taking up only 1634531 bytes out of the 2097152-byte post-expand include size−limit.

As mentioned above, now we just have to figure out the group notices. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's my tentative plan:

1. We turn tm:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources into a group editnotice for all the subpages of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
   • This may or may not still display on the templates (see their tentative parentpage specified in the next step). I hope it doesn't, so we'll ask the template editor responding to the editnotice request about this and request that they move/open a move request on the next step after completing this step.
2. We move the non-number subpages (which are all templates) (except /Header) under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources templates.

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToThAc Lol, I should've tested that. As you can see at the start of this section, I actually did try that at first, but I skipped over it after it exceeded the transclusion character-count limit and broke all the citations (and the 8th part itself). Looks like it works now after I made a bunch of changes to and substituted the RSNLink template and replaced "Misplaced Pages:" with "WP:". Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the change I was curious about. Why is it PS7 doesn't use {{rsnl| template but the other subpages still do? Anyway the change is a vast improvement editing wise, it's a smooth as it gets now. Congrats to those involved. CNC (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

As I've said in my updates to RSPI, all bare RSN links (i.e. no RfC, not active) were substituted. PS7 uses RSNL in all the places the other subpages do. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood, thanks for explaining. CNC (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Imported YouTube videos

@Graywalls: Greetings! Regarding this revert...it sounds like I have failed to dispel the confusion. I'm trying to explain when WP:UGC does not apply to videos imported from YouTube, and it's when the user-generated content is not being used as a reliable source, but merely as a repackaging of a reliable source. For example, imagine someone made a 3D animation of how hurricane winds circulate and uploaded it to Misplaced Pages to illustrate the article hurricane. This is perfectly fine, and in fact encouraged and celebrated, as long as they cite a reliable source (for example, a series of diagrams published by NOAA) for the data used to create the animation. It is just as acceptable for the same video to be uploaded to YouTube under a suitable Creative Commons license, then re-uploaded onto Misplaced Pages, and added to the same article. What is not acceptable is to take videos from YouTube that cite no sources and treat them as accurate additions to articles without verification. It's also not acceptable for an editor to make an animation citing no sources and add that to an article by direct upload to Misplaced Pages, though we are a bit behind on our fact-checking. -- Beland (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this note is necessary. UGC also applies even if hosted on Commons, since they also need to cite sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, Beland, and Graywalls: It's a subtle point. Any bozo can upload a freely-licensed Youtube video based on reliable data from a reliable source. But that video would not qualify as being from a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes due to the bozo intermediary. Now let's say another bozo, say me, uploads that video to the Commons. Since the video is based on reliable data from a reliable source, then it qualifies for the Commons. Assuming it is something within Commons:Com:Project scope.

In addition to a clarified, and possibly shorter, note, these 2 links could be added to Misplaced Pages:RSPYOUTUBE:

Commons:Category:YouTube

Commons:Com:YouTube files

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

lol, I made my reply below before I saw this. What do you think of it? Do you know of any rules I could link? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The use cases have come up in at least one RFC, where a reading of a contemporaneous public domain and verifiable source text was held to be "unreliable" as per this policy, despite the fact that the reading was being used for illustrative purposes. The same case could be used for a music performance, or an extract of a play, or poetry, etc. as well as the examples @Beland makes. However, these are not "unreliable" as they are performances or renderings of verifiable source material, and not being used for citation purposes. Some clarification of the difference between YT as a citation vehicle, and YT as a source of illustrative content, would help avoid future similar situations. Jim Killock (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

How about something like All videos uploaded, regardless of source, are treated the same way as images and other media. in a new paragraph? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For mine, the necessary condition the user-generated content is not being used as a reliable source makes the usage off-topic for this page; which deals solely with the reliability of sources as references for article content. I do, however, see that the first sentence of the YouTube entry, Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. (emphasis added), is easily read as prohibiting a broader range of uses. Suggest that this be modified to refer only to use as a (reliable) source; e.g. ... should not be used as a reference or similar. The page would then be silent on the question of illustrative content. Rotary Engine 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. I've implemented this. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is available to everyone and it's widely used by those including official media outlets. So, unless they're official news coverage that happens to use YouTube and it's hosted on their OFFICIAL page, YouTube should be evaluated the same as blogs and home pages.

YouTube channels containing news clippings, or advertisement clippings from channels other than should not be found anywhere within Misplaced Pages on the ground of WP:COPYVIOEL. Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I linked to illustrative, non-referential use. Here is current summary section:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Misplaced Pages, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. For illustrative, non-referential use see Commons:Category:YouTube.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement over the previous text; thanks for the condensation! -- Beland (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

While not yet convinced on the need to mention illustrative use on this particular page, I am fairly certain that Commons:Category:YouTube is not the best target for that link. @Timeshifter, could you check and confirm that another page was not the intended target? A Commons policy or guideline page perhaps? Rotary Engine 06:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps link to Mos:Images#Audio visual content where there is a line on this, and with an expanded version under consideration, draft 0.3 here. The explanation IMO needs to be on one or the other MOS page; it may make a bit more sense here for reasons of brevity and clarity. Jim Killock (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've already changed the link to c:Commons:YouTube files. Someone else also added Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalised section on advertorials in certain markets

Rather than having NEWSORGINDIA and now NEWSORGNIGERIA wouldn't in make more sense to have one section about concerns regadding promotional editorials? The different markets could still explained in that section. These aren't the only two markets where this happens, and it's only likely to become more common. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

RLL and EFD for deprecated sources

Is there a reason we link to the revert-list discussions and edit-filter diffs that only serve to implement the consensus of the RfC, as if they were major discussions, and then slap a year-marker on it? It unnecessarily takes up a ton of space and seems to be a relic within the merge from Deprecates sources. I propose that we drop the text and have it show as part of the icons' hover text instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• WikiProject Reliability pages
• Project-Class Help pages
• High-importance Help articles
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press