Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captainllama (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 3 July 2024 (→Remove image?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:54, 3 July 2024 by Captainllama (talk | contribs) (→Remove image?: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Misplaced Pages Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in Misplaced Pages.

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
Messer-Kruse on "verifiability, not truth"
Bruckman's Should You Believe Misplaced Pages?
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1
other history of policies

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.

More information to possibly add in

I made a draft about this same topic (yet it cannot become an article since this one exists,) but I figured I would post it here if anyone wants to look at it and possibly add the information into this article, since my draft is a lost cause at this point. I just want to contribute into this article, since my own cannot be published. It has some pretty important points, in my opinion.

Draft:Misplaced Pages: a surprisingly reliable site by AriLovesTacos (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ari. I see the above draft has been moved to User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site. Feel free to be bold and update any article you think you can improve. That's how Misplaced Pages was written. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

113.160.204.217 (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what you would like us to change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove image?

Just my two cents, but the first image seems more decorative than anything. At any rate, might as well put the WP home page, a random diff has no specific link with our reliability. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, except to say the image in question isn't even decorative! The second image does have that quality in addition to being an appropriate illustration for the article. I say dump the Klee-Irwin.gif (or move it elsewhere in the article if it has some redeeming quality that escapes me) and let the South American coati/Brazilian aardvark lead. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: