Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 3 November 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:55, 3 November 2023 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages/Archive 6) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

A summary of this article appears in Misplaced Pages.

Misplaced Pages B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Reliability of Misplaced Pages: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-10-25

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Merge Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Systemic bias in coverage with Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Coverage.
Expand :
- Should there be something on Misplaced Pages assessment of itself - e.g. the assessment scheme, WikiProjects, featured articles, peer review etc?
- Find references where called for
- Add more recent examples
Other : Discuss changing the subject of the article to something a bit broader (e.g. quality of Misplaced Pages, quality and comprehensiveness of Misplaced Pages, evaluation of Misplaced Pages, assessment of Misplaced Pages, appraisal of Misplaced Pages, perspectives on Misplaced Pages, reception of Misplaced Pages etc) (reliability being a more narrow subject, see Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Article name). Discuss overlap with criticism of Misplaced Pages and clarify the scope of the two articles.

Priority 4

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Study: Misplaced Pages Pretty Accurate, But Hard to Read - - TechNewsDaily (LiveScience) 01 June 2010

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff)
Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff)
Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff)
Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff)
Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff)
Copied Reliability of Misplaced Pages#Liberal bias (oldid, history) → Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages (diff) on 05:08, 22 May 2018

This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable. If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.

This topic has been mentioned by a media organization:

Eoin O'Carroll (October 11, 2018). "Why does Misplaced Pages (mostly) work?". Christian Science Monitor.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

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

Christine Lagarde and Jimbo Wales

Would something about Talk:Christine Lagarde#BLP issue qualify for addition, maybe to the "false biographical information" section? The fact that Jimbo Wales is involved seems to make this incident notable. Renerpho (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of inclusion in Misplaced Pages an incident is considered notable if it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Is there such coverage? A discussion on a talk page on Misplaced Pages does not qualify. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages ... credability

Co found says that it has become a left leaning propaganda machine. Jacob805 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC

Relevance of third sentence

I've tagged the third sentence of the lead as it is unclear to me how the sources connect the sentence to the topic of the article:

This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom have chosen to remain anonymous.

What does "77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors" have to do with the reliability of Misplaced Pages? By the way, this statement is prominent in the lead but does not exist at all in the body. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oberhaus, Daniel (November 7, 2017). "Nearly All of Misplaced Pages Is Written By Just 1 Percent of Its Editors". Vice. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
Mandiberg, Michael (February 23, 2019). "Mapping Misplaced Pages". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on February 23, 2020. Retrieved February 23, 2019.

Categories: