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.

The instructions at the top of RSN say...

...but nobody follows them. What can we do to get people to follow them?

• Use colors to highlight the intructions?
• Create a template that editors can fill out, sort of like we do at WP:AN/EW? For example, this is what you get when you click on "Click here to add a new report"
• Create a notice which repeats the instructions when they create a new thread? For example, at List of common misconceptions, when you click on edit, there's a notice to make sure editors are following the list's inclusion criteria.
• All of the above? Some other idea?
• Drop the instructions since nobody is following them?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen that notice on the edit screen at List of common misconceptions. It's a good idea, I think -- but the notice needs to be as short as we can possibly make it. Andrew Dalby 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dispute resolution has a nice form too. It is helpful cause even those of us who have been here many times with specific issues, diffs, etc. can forget to share some important piece of information. CarolMooreDC 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While not all header instructions are essential in a particular request, they are so commonly essential to requests that it would help to be slightly more forceful with them. If nothing else, it will ensure faster assistance to people requesting outside opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, to create a template is a good idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea Paul! Hah, I was just coming over to this talk page to suggest this idea, after repeating the whole "Please list a specific source for a specific edit if you would like a specific answer, no source is completely reliable or unreliable without context" speech for the fifth time this week. I can take a shot at it later today, we'll try and keep it small? What's a good graphic for something too vague and nebulous to discuss cogently? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few samples that could be moved into the template area, they will accept |date= and |user= parameters too, so if those were used, the text would automatically change to:

On April 2, Despayre reviewed this question but decided that it did not have the required level of detail to provide a useful answer here. No source is completely reliable, or completely unreliable, without context. Please provide a specific edit, and the specific source for that edit, that you would like comments on. When you have done that, please remove this banner.

I"m partial to the 1st and 4th ones myself (I can always shrink the microscope pics a little, later, if required). Thoughts? (esp. text changes, and overall "goodness/badness" of the idea) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to simplify the instructions slightly. In order to determine reliability, we need 3-4 pieces of information:

• Source
• Article
• Content
• Links to any relevent discussions.

But the first item (source) is broken into two bullet points. I've combined these into one bullet point and tweaked the wording a bit:

Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the reason editors don't follow instructions in headers is simply that it has been a long time since they've read them, if ever. One tool for dealing with this is the use of edit notices, such as the one seen upon editing this talkpage that say "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or see the New Contributors' Help Page." We could similarly have an editnotice for the Noticeboard page itself, though there seem presently to be problems doing so. A key template has been deleted and salted. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order, LeadDog, while I'm sure you're right about that reasoning, I don't think your solution is ideal, as by the time they all get to the edit box, they are way more concerned with saying what they have to say, and not reading any edit notice above it. However, they will always come back to check on the current status of their question, and a little non-threatening template that asks for more info will definitely get seen.

Quest, do you think we could shorten that list of instructions even further, make the notice a little less "in your face", at the very least by keeping in shorter (narrower on the page length)? We need an edit, and a specific source, and I guess we need an article too . Plus suggest further details they may feel are helpful? Or something else? Any thoughts on exact text layouts? Lose the graphic? Keep the graphic? One of the ones I used? Some other one? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I value your attempt, I always need a citation. Just having the author, work title, containing object title, year and publisher makes things so bloody simple on first sight. Clicking on [34] and being taken to an external site eats up 3 minutes of trying to find bibliographic data. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely true. How would you rephrase the template then? (Also, a possibility, I could add a collapsed section with further details? ie, a [show] button?) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A citation containing at least the author's name, year, title of the work, publisher and a link to the source in question. For example, if the source is a web site Fred Blogs (2012) "My cat pictures" Animalpics or if the source is published, Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60." ? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was do you have a specific wording we could use for the template, not an example, I know what you mean, I'm just wondering if you have a take on the best way to say it, short, clear, and without the snippiness we all feel when we have to explain it for the nth time in a day (we could hide an example in the collapsed head too) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think of the editnotice and the template as mutually exclusive, both would help. The editnotice would reduce the number of problem entries, while the template would help respond to them. The template should not, though, try to teach editors how to complete a citation. Rather, it should ask them to provide as complete a citation as they can. There's probably some value in having it provide easy links to some tools that would help them doing that: local ones such as user:diberri's template filler, user:citation bot, and wp:REFTOOL; global search tools such as Google Scholar, Worldcat, Archive.org, and the Open Library could all be usefully linked from the template.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience these automated tools are only as good as the user's capacity to manually fill in a citation. Most of the time the "problem" citations are the ones where a manual citation is required: the user is questioning a source that isn't part of the scholarly publications apparatus to begin with. Especially true regarding "amateur website" queries. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leadsongdog, I like your idea of using both the template and the edit notice, I thought you were proposing an "instead of" idea, but "in conjunction with" is a good idea. Here's my next evolution for comments:

{{RSNvague}}

and with optional parameters: {{RSNvague|user=Despayre|date=April 3 2012}}

{{RSNvague|user=Despayre}}

{{RSNvague|date=April 3 2012}}

Comments? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to edit on that template (Template:RSNvague) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I think there's definitely some text touch-ups needed at the very least. I'm out for the night, I'll check back and see what kind of communal brilliance we've created in the morning ciao. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far more recognizable than I expected! I see you caught that pesky little "a" in the #IF statements, thanks for that too. I made a small tweak to the population bullet, other than that, I don't see too much else to do to it, lol, when can we take it out for a test drive? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked some more to avoid Good/Bad value judgement and to directly ask for links and cites.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tested the template. WPBannerMeta (the template this is based on) is not meant for use outside Talk: page hierarchies. Also, the template is pretty big and hostile in practice, compared to the one line sentence I actually needed. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep everything very simple for relatively new users, so as to encourage people to come and seek advice. At the moment there are five things to include in a post, which is too many. The fifth item, diffs on the talk page are unnecessary so long as the OP tells us which article or articles the post relates to. Indeed, it is often undesirable for an RSN regular to have to read through reams of talk page bickering. We need three things, really: the source (we should spell out, book, article or web pages), the relevant article(s), and the statement(s) to be supported. I don't have a view yet as to whether it would be helpful to ask posters to fill in a form nor to whether a standard "more info please" template would be good. RSN is one of the services on the pedia that works pretty well, cutting out swathes of pointless circular argument, so I'd tend towards the ain't broke, don't fix it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - ease of use and low threshold for initiating a request are paramount here. If needed we can always ask for more specific (and maybe use a template for that). But if you have to figure a form or template to as k any question at all, that's definitely off putting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Despayre: I was going by the principle of least change, and tried not to change too much. However, here's a bigger rewrite, incorporating Judith's suggestion of not asking for links to talk page discussions.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I would tweak as follows: Source. The book, article or webpage it is proposed to use as a source. (Include the web link if there is one.) Article. The Wikipedia article or articles in which it might be used. For example.... Content. The statement or statements in the article that the source would support. For example... A source might be reliable to support one statement but not reliable to support another.

A bit like that anyway. It could take a few iterations to get the wording spot-on.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I noticed that the border surrounding the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts are yellow, which makes them stand out more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating some of Judith's suggestions and fixing a copy and paste mistake I made:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Source."'s For example, with "For example, Jo Bloggs (2012) [http://www.website.com/webpage.html Furry Cats] Jo's Cat Website" or equivalent. Many RSN users simply do not know the elements of a citation to include, and there's no point in supplying half an instruction, relevant to online sources only, when what I need to avoid turning a 2 minute job into a 15 minute job is the author, title, publisher etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer edit notice I think we'll get better results with an WP:Edit notice or pre-loaded text than with the other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Fifelfoo: I'm not 100% sure that I understand you, but does this address your concern?

Here's the same wording, but with the first instruction broken into 2 bullet points:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, either one of those works for me. Both are expressed more clearly than I could possibly write it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the wording changes are good, are those going to be in the bullet points, or in the main section? Also, I am partial to the "quick/right way, slow/wrong way" examples, as they are pretty much exactly what we see time after time on the RSN page, and as Fifelfoo says, a lot of the people think when they supply something like "www.people.com", that *is* the source, and is what we are asking for (I think there's at least 3 examples of that on the page right at this moment even!). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have no objection to anyone changing the text (try not to muck up the #IF statements though ) when you do that, the examples on this page will automatically update with the next refresh and we can see the finished result immediately. Since the template isn't in use anywhere there's no harm in messing with it right now. It's at template:RSNvague. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Despayre: I'm not sure I understand your question. They're going to be on the RSN page directly below where it says "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page." Yes, that's a good point about the source being the actual article, not just www.people.com (for example). If you notice, I changed the wording to use the phrase "web page" instead of "web site" and the example from "http://www.webpage.com" to "http://www.website.com/webpage.html". I'm not sure it will do any good, but it's worth a try. I'll take a closer look at your template (great idea, BTW), but wanted to focus on rewriting the instructions first. Once we get the wording down (maybe we have already?), I'll take a closer look at the template. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, gotcha, I was skimming the text here, and thought you were talking about the template text, not the RSN page instructions text. I thought the template would be good, because even when the RSN page is shorter, ppl still don't follow the instructions, and when it gets like it is now, the instructions aren't really seen being waaaaay up at the top, so a quick insertion of the template will catch the posting editor's eye pretty quickly I think, and tada! problem solved? Well.. maybe. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Despayre: Right, I'm talking about the RSN page instructions, not the tempate. However, the two should be consistent with each other. The third sentence of the template has two inconsitencies with the RSN page instructions:

• The order of the three items is different (source, article, content versus content, source, article).
• The RSN page instructions ask for a blockquote and the template asks for a diff.

In order to make things as easy as possible for users, we should try to be reconcile these differences. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section was getting too long to scroll through...picking up here...

@Despayre: Right, I'm talking about the RSN page instructions, not the tempate. However, the two should be consistent with each other. The third sentence of the template has two inconsitencies with the RSN page instructions: The order of the three items is different (source, article, content versus content, source, article). The RSN page instructions ask for a blockquote and the template asks for a diff. In order to make things as easy as possible for users, we should try to be reconcile these differences. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya, they should be consistent, I can re-order the template items. Regarding the diff/block quote, I think the diff would be preferred, but sometimes there isn't a diff, it's just editors asking about a proposed edit, so then a block quote might work (but what about "is such and such a site reliable as a source for weather data in article X?", that fits neither a block quote, nor a diff). Could we change the instructions to ask for one of the two options?

Now that I look at those RSN page instructions, my first thought is that the intelligent order for the 3 items would require that both things are changed, the order that makes sense to me is, article (big picture), content (little picture), source (which now has context, big and little pictures). Thoughts on that? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Despayre: Sure, we can change the instructions to ask for a diff or a block quote. Here's an updated version:

As for the order of the three items, for me, the current order makes sense to me, but I'm not sure I can articulate why. Let's see if anyone else has preference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the new header will look like incorporating the changes to the wording and yellow coloring from the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/sandbox. I think this is a big improvement. What does everyone else think? If no one objects, I'd like to go ahead with this change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we add a preformatted template something like submitting a new case in wp:SPI at least they will know what they have to submit and they will also know that if they leave the section incomplete then the report may not lead to its conclusion-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quest, I like your notice, but please mention inclusion of page numbers for books too. DB, I like the form, but I think there are too many variations on the questions to pigeon hole quite that much. As much as it's annoying when it's done wrong, a lot of the questions are done right, so I don't think we need to entirely scrap the system we have now (although it would certainly provide some continuity to the page). I'm just not sure we need to make that big of a change. Unrelatedly, I love the giant stop sign on the SPI page when you don't change the topic from sockmaster. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added page number in my sandbox as suggested by Despayre: Proposed new RSN header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated my template to fall in line with your layout as well. And changed some of the example wording, using "Basic way" and "Better way", and mentioning that better is better (uhm, cuz it is?) . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and implemented the changes to the instructions as discussed. I'll take a look at the template tomorrow. Time for bed soon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has just failed to follow the header (apologies!) could I suggest changing 'You will get a faster response ... etc', to 'You may not receive a response unless you provide the following: ...'. As a first-timer on this board it currently reads as if that stuff is optional rather than necessary. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for that input, and personally I mostly agree with that sentiment, but strictly speaking it's not "necessary". However, as editors just like you, we don't particularly feel the need to go out and hunt down sources for other articles either, so it's definitely preferred. Sometimes I have 5 minutes, without that info, it's a 15 minute problem,ergo, it doesn't get looked at. It's purely for the benefit of the editor showing up here with a question. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor tweaks to Template:RSNvague. See here for the changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template can't use Bannermeta if it is being posted on non-talk pages. Give it a try in your own userspace and see the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is a good idea.[1] If editors aren't following the minimum requirements of the header instructions, requiring even more isn't going to help. If anything, the longer the instructions and the more we ask for, the more likely they're going to be ignored. I'd rather keep it simple. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we also created the template, {{RSNvague}} for when they don't even give us the bare minimum. It makes sense to put at least some of the work onto the people that would like an opinion here, I don't mind spending the time answering the questions, but I do mind wasting my time going out and looking for the actual question before I can even get on with the answer. We can help more people with our views, if we don't have to take as much time on people that come here and don't read the instructions. That helps everyone, and also, the instructions (and the template), help newer editors by explaining what they should do, and that's also better for everyone. The alternative is to just ignore ridiculously phrased questions, and that seems like a net detriment to me. Aside from not getting answers to their questions, the page would get quite cluttered with questions no one is going to answer (or fewer ppl are going to answer, at least). That will then likely deteriorate into grumpy editors, bitchy comments, etc. just imo. Whenever I've had a reason to bring things to this board, I am the one motivated to make sure I get the best possible answers from here, because I want something for one of "my" articles, it makes sense that the onus should be on the person asking, and they should be the most motivated ones, it's their question. We're just disinterested 3rd parties, with opinions . (tnx for touching up that NORN question though ) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...are you agreeing with or disagreeing this this edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The continuing problem with the header is that editors do not understand two things:

• What constitutes an appropriate citation
• Whether they need to supply a citation. "Oh but it was an online book"

And then the rules lawyering begins by lazy editors who don't contribute. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing the pros and cons, on the whole, I agree with the edit, because, while we're here to be helpful, I'm not a fan of babysitting. If people can't read and follow clear instructions to begin with, how are we helping them by coddling that kind of behaviour? What is the long term effect of that? Compared to, what is the long term effect of having them attempt to do it the right way to begin with? That's probably a little harsher than my actual opinion, but I think the sentiment is similar at least. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather spend 15-20 minutes on an RS question (if needed), than 9 minutes figuring out what they are asking, and 11 minutes attempting to determine my answer. That 9 minutes is probably 2 minutes for the editor who is already familiar with the question, ergo, it kinda wastes my time, and multiply that by the amount of editors that answer that question (ok, am I just rambling now?). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo: But if editors are too lazy to follow the existing instructions, what good does adding even more do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. The requirements are now specified fully, rather than relying on the "assumed knowledge." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the longer and more complicated we make the instructions, the more likely they are to be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the prior instruction, for a book supply a full citation, I was prompting editors repeatedly on the constituent elements of a citation, and that an "online" book is still a book. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that addresses my point that the longer and more complicated the instructions, the more likely they are to be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have not noticed an increase in "bad questions" since we changed the header, between that and the template use, I think we're getting better questions. But did you have an alternative idea? The shorter instructions that were there before didn't seem to be the answer. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have an alternative idea. What if instead of making the instructions longer, we also put in the header text when they create a new section? For example, if I create a new section at AN/I, there are instructions at the top of the edit page that begin "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion....". Click here to see what I mean. So, when an editor creates a new section, they'll see the header instructions not once, but twice. Obviously, editors can still ignore them, but I think that has a better chance of improving the quality of questions.

BTW, I'm under no illusion that this is going to magically change things. When I made my original post on April 16th, I figured that it would take multiple approaches to get editors to follow the instructions. We tried a couple ideas, now let's try the next one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of us testing your idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the changes we've made already, me too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. Which version of the header instructions do we want to use, this or this? I still think that simpler is better. In fact, I'd like to change this...

...to this...

...and get straight to the point. Maybe we are losing people's attention on the first sentence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first second one. For brevity concerns. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and do this. I don't actually know how to put the header text in the Edit page - we might need an admin to do that - but I'll ask at the Help Desk and I'm sure someone will be able to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like how it looks. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of dealing with this, "I can see no such requirement. I can see no discussion in RSN which obeys your requirement. In fact the top of the page just says: If it's an online source, please link to it, which I did. IRWolfie- (talk)" kind of rules lawyering when I need a citation so that I don't have to waste hours of my life doing other users work for them. I'd like the header and edit message changed to require full citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think things are getting better and we need to allow time for a new culture to sink in. I know I need to be less willing to jump straight in without full info. But sometimes we might be able to say something useful without having read the whole source in full. For example, if someone is questioning whether a book is appropriate and we can see straight away it is from an academic publisher, we would be able to say "looks OK on the face of it, what is the issue?". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit of two minds on this question, and I fall down on the "academic rigour" side of things, blame the teacher in me. On the one hand, it's certainly not a problem for the person who comes in here with a malformed question, if they get the answer they need without having to type everything in that's requested (and it *is* a request, not a requirement). On the other hand, it makes it a lot more work for those of us here who are volunteering our time to go out and research the context of a question, and any other relevant info that's missing (which isn't always obvious), and in the long run, isn't it better for everyone if the person with the concern puts in a little bit of effort and gets a "correct" answer from those willing to donate their time to it? The board runs more smoothly, we can answer more questions in the same amount of time, and the board would be less prone to errors from not having all the facts, and makes it much easier on those here to look at the information required. Hypothetical example: "Is fallingrain.com a reliable source?" easily looked at and discovered the answer is no. Until you go a little further and find that the article is "weather.com" where someone has inserted the text "weather.com is the only internet site that claims to provide statistical weather data across the planet". fallingrain.com would be RS to prove that assertion wrong. That's pretty simplistic, but clearly an example of why context is important. And on a personal note, if the editor can't be bothered to write out a proper question, how does babysitting that question to get an answer help that editor become any better for WP? (There was literally an editor in here recently that actually said "I can't be bothered to write it all out", personally, I feel that's a smack in the face of this board, I don't work for him. I'm volunteering my time to be helpful and I think that attitude should be discouraged, and clear questions will eventually be the norm, not the exception. On the board right now I count 6 questions that started out needing the template before I thought they could be answered, out of 18. So 33% of the editors coming here asking for help can't read? I'm not sure that's a glowing recommendation for the use of WP generally, I'd like to try and do my tiny bit to raise that LCD (lowest common denominator, not liquid crystal display ) just a little if we can. Note that the last point is purely my own personal opinion, so feel free to weigh that bit accordingly. Does this sound a little bit like a rant here, or is it just me? . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Judith makes an excellent point about RSN's culture. Editors are not used to be asked to provide for this information. It may take some time RSN's culture to change. Something also to keep in mind is that newbies are just feeling their way around the place. I get the strong feeling that Rob Bowman's OP is a newbie (doesn't sign signature, thinks IMDB is a reliable source and asks editors to personally contact them for the information). Sometimes it's a good idea to answer the question differently depending on the experience level of the editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everyone. What I think I should take out of this is that I'll be less "BITE"y. But this is my concern about the simplified citation instruction (the "book" one). In that a small proportion of editors are belligerent rules lawyers. I'll give these instructions longer to sink in with editors bringing questions. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, in all honesty, we don't really need the full citation. A link to the Amazon page for the book would tell almost everything we need to know, besides page number and a quote from the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I would be opposed to that. I have no interest in suggesting users rely on an outside source, designed for profit, that may change it's format at any time, that we have no control over. That would also infer some kind of "reliability" or "legitimacy" on Amazon from WP. Regardless if that's right or wrong, I don't think we should be doing that here. What is wrong with people doing research here having to use the research skills I learned in grade 6? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of figured someone would object. :) It's just an idea I wanted to throw out. Personally, I would have no problem with it because I could easly get the book title, author and publisher. Oh well, do you have any other ideas? I'm running out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I don't need the publisher or publishing location unless I really need the publisher and publishing location. And the less "usual" the source, the more I need it. Pashtun biographies published in the 1970s need fuller bibliographic details than some idiot's Kindle book. But when an editor actually bothers to present a full citation: Some Idiot My Book Online (Kindle/Amazon): Some Idiot, 2012; suddenly the concept of self-publication may dawn on them :) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of all this is to encourage editors to give us the information we need to properly answer their questions about reliability. We want editors to know that in order to efficiently answer their questions we need to know some context... Specifically -

• a) What is the source in question?
• b) Where is the source to be used (ie which article is source to be cited in)
• c) How is it to be used (ie what specific statement in that article is the source supporting).

We want to phrase our request for this information as a request... and not as some sort of mandated "rule". Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are remarkably sloppy about "what" the source is, including identifying the source appropriately in text, and quite often about "what" the source is at all. I'm less upset at editors who simply lack the capacity to make a citation—their problem is ignorance which can be overcome—my problem is with editors who can cite who are too damn lazy to show basic courtesy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the following undiscussed changes.[2] The change in color, in particular, clearly goes against the established concensus that we spent months discussing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my invasion. I've been on a noticeboard header cleanup kick and didn't realize this one was actually being discussed. Most of them are rather neglected. I see the color scheme is at issue, so I mocked up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header/Sandbox using the current colors. The instructions are pretty much unchanged, aside from some slight copyedits; this is mostly a formatting thing and I'm not trying to change how things work here. The current header just has text sections that seem disconnected from each other and "floaty", and I think the standard noticeboard header format will tie things together nicely. I'm happy to tweak the proposal how ever might be suggested, though I do think an update is warranted that incorporates a bit of streamlining with the other boards. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:22, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I find the proposed changes to be deeply problematic. We have extreme editor compliance problems with a rigid format, that the proposed edit distracts from this essential regulation of contributions. It changes "When posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:" to "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard," which is content duplicated from the page name own heading 1 element. It crowds it with "If you mention specific editors, please notify them of the discussion. You may use {{rsn-notice}} to do so" when these notices are rarely required as editors are rarely under discussion here. Further more, it introduces page purging junk and shortcuts to the most essential information item in the header: what is required to post here. Also lost are the core instructions regarding hypotheticals, and "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject." The proposed edit is a long way from useful, both in formatting, and in lost content. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header/Sandbox to address these concerns. I kept the purge feature in, but repositioned it -- editors have found this useful on noticeboards, as frequently-updated pages sometimes show old versions to some editors and require a purge (I rarely get this myself but it's been a concern for others). I kept the introductory title in, but made the instructions more prominent -- although all pages of course have a level-1 header, noticeboards should still contain a somewhat prominent message stating what they are; something that isn't a "Wikipedia:" jargony address, as much as that might make things obvious to us. Let me know what you think of the new version. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:41, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The newer version resolves all the issues I have, I would say that I'm now "indifferent" regarding which version to use. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I'm going to implement this for now. Of course, if anyone still has objections, let me know. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:50, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Could editors think about how to integrate Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups into the header?, to encourage editors to help with the clean-up process? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably cut that page down in terms of vertical formatting and transclude it somewhere beneath the header. That page should be more of a "current alerts" listing like many noticeboards have. I'd probably make it either a wide(horizontally)/thin(vertically) banner box containing a multi-columned list, or maybe a narrow list down the righthand side. Just my thoughts. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:52, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

While I'm happy to take advice, I'm thinking that a maximum of 3 groups / 1500 lines is a better idea to actually get through stuff without archiving. Which means keeping the "work" on one page, and moving transcluded elements of the page to the archives completely done. The "candidates" ought to handle the alert problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these issues always seem to show up in bunches?

Your discussion is no longer on-point for this noticeboard. To keep this page tidy and functional for other editors with RS questions please take this discussion back to your article's talk page, it is unlikely that editors here will get involved in your argument beyond the RS question, and if they do, it would be on your talk page, not here. Thank-you.

We probably don't need that, but it would save a lot of typing all the time! It would certainly have trimmed down the recent medical discussion, the drug-free Australia discussion, the Thomas Jefferson discussion, and now probably the youtube discussion. Maybe it's just me, I just wanna see the question, get it answered, wait for some consensus, or not, and talk about any clarification, and then move on to the next one. Although I will admit, when an editor says that an award winning director that studied at Harvard isn't RS for what genre a movie he directed is, I do kinda lose my patience a little bit. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just a

Resolved

template at the top of the section instead? Hmm, I don't think that's quite right though, that would seem to indicate that ppl voicing opinions here are some kind of authority on RS-ness. I don't think we really want to create that suggestion. Other ideas? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't answered the question, and if there's a clear RS/N consensus, or, the discussion has moved clearly off topic and stayed there, I suggest closing with an visible "archived" template. Hidden archiving stuffs up the search mechanism. Visible archiving normally sends the message about off-topic discussion. Resolved works when there's a clear resolution to a small section so that other RS/N editors don't attend to already answered questions. Other thoughts? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the {{archive top}} {{archive bottom}} templates? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{archivetop}} and {{discussiontop}} and the like, but not {{hat}} It is important to preserve a searchable record. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the people that are good at templates, that made/make {{hat}} know there's an archiving problem? Maybe they could fix it? Hatting is so much "cleaner" than that hideous white block of text you get otherwise... -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all about it over at template top, I think a really good idea is to see if Miszabot can automatically expand or remove hats before archiving, although it does take away from the fundamental concept that an archive is *exactly* the same... perhaps a warning at the top of each archive stating that hats have been removed (maybe a marker added in place?) for searchability reasons, and no other text has been altered? Anyone have a problem with this idea? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could other editors please examine RS/N#Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales this section to give the original requesting editor more opinions? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is that book actually relevant to the discussion? It seems to have been thrown in as a red herring. I'm unlikely to be able to get hold of it easily, and if it is apparent from the author's credentials and the publisher that is is a populist work, then I'm not sure I would be able to add much anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dragging me into that, and then closing it before I could say something even snottier . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could other RS/N regulars take a gander at the Vassula Ryden's 4 sources? Discussion was disrupted by involved editors, and only two uninvolved editors have commented so far. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#A FAQ? → Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Should we create a FAQ?

There have been previous discussions about establishing a FAQ to address inquiries about frequently recurring sources. IMDB, YouTube, About.com, RT are names that have been mentioned or which spring to mind. Subpages, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/IMDB and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/YouTube have also been proposed. At least the most recent discussion seemed quite positive towards such a strategy but was inconclusive, so I'm basically bumping the subject. Is this something we can set in motion? __meco (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started creating a RSN FAQ a while back, but never finished it. It's available here: Reliable sources noticeboard FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know we discussed recently how to archive sections on the page, and we're not using hat because it screws up the searches (when hatted, the search still works, but it brings you to the collapsed hat, imo, most ppl aren't so dumb they won't open the hat). What if we just use hat to get rid of the "waste of time" sections, never hatting the actual/original question (which is 99% of what would be searched for), just the text that's a distraction, such as the ridiculous wall of text that now sits in the middle of the Ryden section? Thoughts? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually some valuable content in there, indicating that the article's talk page is utterly stewed—I never would have believed that a theologically qualified individual writing on contemporary theology in a theological publisher of the highest standard (OUP), would be shot down for a plain bones account of interfaith interactions. :). Hatting the second section is a warning to involved editors, plus most of the search terms already emerge in the previous discussion. I'm not a fan of hatting, but I used it on the revisiting because it was revisiting. Normal visible archiving encourages editors to believe that their comments will be read, but that further commentary isn't required. When you hide people's text it can suggest to them that their commentary won't be read which can cause problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadn't considered that ppl might think their comments won't be read, I suppose that's a good point, I know how ppl like to whine when others don't immediately agree with them (generally speaking, not referencing any topic in particular). Still makes the page ugly though. And yes, I was a little surprised at that OUP issue too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a hypothetical question, I am posting it here per the instructions. I have long seen editors saying (and have said myself) that YouTube is not a reliable source. I have stated this solely because other editors have stated this as well. Is there any reason to say that this is not reliable? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any evidence that this actually is the named professor, not a hoax? In this case we do, because it's linked from MIT as http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/for-the-love-of-physics/. But in the case of a video like this one, used as a reference in Dorcadion scopolii, it's self-published and therefore unreliable - here, we don't know how credible the identification of the beetle is, and the person who added it to Youtube, naming the beetle, may be accurate, or ignorant, or malicious. PamD 23:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering creating a proposal on the talk page of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and/or to Wikipedia:Verifiablity#Reliable Sources stating

The reliability of YouTube should be determined on a case by case basis. Care must be taken to avoid original research and addition of YouTube as a link should follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Determinations of the reliability should be made on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. A list of YouTube channels that generally contain videos that are considered reliable can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable YouTube sources.

If people tend to agree with this idea, I will work on finding reliable channels to create that page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate textbooks, and by extrapolation undergraduate lectures, are not considered reliable science reporting due to the pedagogical intent overriding the scholarly intent of the text, see Lies for children (surprisingly we don't have a redirect to the article on this pedagogy of science concept). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What policy do you have to support this content? I find your argument ridiculous and it directly opposes Wikipedia:RS which states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" (emphasis added). It goes on to present a "however" but that is something that is also determined on a case by case basis. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-graduate textbooks, whose purpose and function is professional and current are fine. School and undergraduate textbooks are generally "lies for children" and lack a fact checking structure which allows us to be confident of their capacity to supply verifiability. The clear difference between pedagogical texts, and scholarly works that merely happen to be set as texts is blatantly obvious. Moreover, undergraduate lectures, whether videotaped or not, do not enjoy the scholarly methods of fact checking and their purpose is solely pedagogical. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. To make a blanket statement that undergraduate textbooks lie and that professorial lectures are pedagogical is a standard trope of right-wing conservatives. Your comments are WP:SOAPBOX. I'd certainly like to see hard evidence that undergraduate textbooks and college professors are all liars. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly agree with Tenebrae and disagree with you Fifelfoo. It appears [3] that this is a one man campaign by you that you are trying to paint as policy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with Tenebrae's personal attack, I suggest you retract that element. Tenebrae can frankly take their septic US focused analytical frame work and remove it from the encyclopaedia; apart from its obvious invalidity, it is incorrect. Ryan, go read the archives of RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To explain lies to children with a lie to a child: If I'm going to explain to you the process of the Russian revolution, we're not going to start with the class composition of the Moscow workplace soviets and the party balance and function of the Left SRs and Bolshevik majority position in actual workers' control. We're going to start with gross simplifications regarding Lenin's substitutionalist conception of revolution in What is to be Done? Correspondingly, undergraduate teaching does note convey the actual state of scholarly consensus, where scholars attempt to explain the world. Undergraduate teaching starts with useful simplifications aimed at bringing undergraduates into a capacity to receive knowledge. This is pedagogy; this is eduction. And this is precisely what undergraduate lectures and undergraduate (and more so school textbooks are). They're educational tools, they're meant to educt students towards having the capacity to actually understand the underlying mechanism. The valence model of the atom prepares students for the quantum orbital model. But that doesn't mean we use a NSW secondary school text aimed at year 10 students for "the atom." Correspondingly, undergraduate lectures relate tangentially to the actual state of research in their field. They do not present the current state of scholarly work, because they're designed to confer undergraduate degrees. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is purely a transfer mechanism. It has no intrinsic RS qualities good or bad in itself. Any video in question is RS if the source is RS. IE, a CNN news report, uploaded by CNN is RS for CNN's views. The same video uploaded by me is not RS. I watched the video in question, and there are many things that it might be RS for, but there are many things that it would not be RS for as well. One of the keys to RS-ness is context. Is the video RS for the fact that a Professor from MIT has demonstrated that the period of a pendulum is independent of the mass, or the degree of swing? Yes. Is it RS for the fact that physicists agree that the period of a pendulum is independent of the mass, or the degree of swing? No. Also, this is 1 hour out of an entire course, context could be very hard to evaluate. I once had a history prof give an hour lecture about how in the 1940's the Japanese managed to build 250+ miles of railroad through the jungle using nothing but international volunteers, at the end of the hour, he asked us to turn all our notes in, and then told us he was talking about The Death Railway, and his point was how you shouldn't necessarily believe everything people tell you, especially in university. I learned a lot in that class, just not that day . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have notice of two large scale clean-ups required, one related to potential inappropriate uses of sources; one related to definitely inappropriate uses of sources, totally about 1750 uses. What is the best way to deal with uncovering such large scale issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to get stuck into the AiG sources, and would love to do it as part of a collaborative effort. So far I have taken the list of linked pages, deleted all the user, talk and project pages, and put them into rough categories. I'm just doing that in a word document on my PC but I suppose I could put it in a user page. Should we have a Project of the month? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups ? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Could we put some kind of signal to say that it is there and could you help? A bit like wikifying, (but I used to participate in WP:WWF then got fed up because the backlog only ever grew, so we don't want to generate that feeling). Itsmejudith (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started by limiting the number of items to below 1500 as the maximum to accept new incidents, with a space for candidate incidents. I've also added the noticeboard to the noticeboard header's list of noticeboards. I've asked about incorporating this into the RS/N header above. Perhaps the signpost might have an interest in this. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put my categorised list in there, but please feel free to hatnote the sections or find a completely different format in which such lists can be maintained. It's taken quite a long time, and having migrated the list into a Word document and back I have lost the internal links for the articles. The Signpost idea is a very good one, and as well perhaps we could post at BLPN in case some of the BLP activists would like to get involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'm on a suitable computer I can try some regexp magic on the list. Given that we're just starting this kind of job I'm sure we'll get lots of help with structures and presentations. BLPN sounds like a great idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be a little cautious about too much promotion/requests for help on this project. It should be fine for experienced or uninvolved editors, but I can see huge problems springing up quickly both from the groups of less experienced editors removing valid cites in these projects and then getting into edit wars/arguments, as well as involved editors who are going to take this and use it as a "reason" to gut these cites from articles they don't want them in, again, regardless of validity. I would suggest a something in the header that makes mention of something like "Please do not edit any articles you have previously worked on in any capacity" or something to that effect. That would take care of the latter problem (and avoid us being used as a justification for their actions), maybe some similar sentence for newbs too (who's problem is more likely to be just a lack of policy knowledge, combined with an over-abundance of enthusiasm)? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this edit reflects the discussion? I guess I can see your point about developing a culture prior to inviting the whole world in (ala Signpost). I already noted the noticeboard's existence to BLP/N, but my feeling is that BLP/N regulars are much like RS/N regulars in their circumspection. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I would agree that BLPN-ers are probably more paranoid if anything, probably ok. I made a little tweak of the text you just added, but overall, yes I think that's a much needed statement, not totally clear on the intent of this part though, "One or more of the issues listed below may lie outside of your areas of previous work." Is that supposed to mean don't edit articles you don't know about, or be more careful when attempting to fix things you're not sure of, or ?? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also, as a suggestion, as we go through these links, crossing off the one's we've checked, possibly using and {{thumbs up}}/{{thumbs down}} to indicate the validity of the cites would be useful for others to see as well (I'm not particularly thrilled with those icons, I would probably make new ones). Also, and this seems like a lot more work, I know, but... how do we feel about a list of reasons, similar to the "reasons for article deletion" list, so that we could just stick an "A4" or whatever, beside the link to indicate *why* it was decided the way it was decided? (IF we want to do this, one good way might be to start by leaving reasons beside each listing, and I will create a page based on those reasons, and re-assign the reasons with the appropriate linked reason from the "reasons" page). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I meant, "If you're conflicted on current issue X; then Y or Z is probably ok for you to edit." I'm picturing maintaining about 3 major themes on large clean up as maximum, and 1500 items as maximum.

I've been leaving detailed edit summaries when editing, and leaving (reasonably) detailed result summaries after striking items as completed. Before setting up the WP:RS/N/L page, I was checking Young Earth Creationist related sources in detail and passing as appropriate a large number of instances (SPS re self without promotional, etc.). I think that analysing the most common outcomes and making hints is a good thing. Up or down, valid, mixed, unjudgeable, and invalid might be another. I think maybe a week or a fourtnight to cull down some of the YEC / US Political stuff currently on the table will give a good measure. I'm pleasantly surprised at how much YEC content is valid. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed the wording on that sentence to more along the lines of what you said here, you might wanna check to make sure I got that right. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started the creation of this page, will add to it slowly over the next couple of weeks, we'll see how it progresses, if it's useful, we can keep it, if not, nuke it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Yes, I see the potential difficulties of the "all hands on deck" approach. I was thinking of inviting some particular users to help with the AiG load: John Carter for the Bible and theology articles, Dominus Vobisdu and I.R.Wolfie for the science ones. All are very experienced and would be able to comment on this process as well as on the actual articles and sources. Shall I go ahead and alert them? And in these cases it's about getting the right kind of expertise in, by grouping articles. In some other cases it might be enough to alert a WikiProject - perhaps working with them to strengthen their sourcing guidelines and their alerting processes. More often than not, there are other problems with the articles, that go beyond sourcing, and what we as RSN people can best do is to hand the article over for attention. If you see my impressions on the biographies in the AiG list, you'll see quite a lot of neutral/needs more thought, as well as yeses and noes. So it'd be good to have a sideways thumb or a P for Perhaps category alongside the Accept and Reject. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, with regards to a neutral/undecided icon as well, I'm not crazy about the ones I already found, so if I have some time this afternoon, I will either make 3 new ones, or find some free ones that are already available. My thoughts on the first point you raise, I'm neutral on John Carter, and I'd have to re-read the comments from Dom. Vob, and IRWolfie, as the only times I've seen them have been in a dispute at RSN (now at DRN), where my impression is that they were arguing against a clearly RS source. But I will reserve my judgment on that until I go and re-read all that was said, maybe I'm getting that wrong. Although I note that Fifelfoo also had a problem with IRW's attitude above, as did I at the time (I remember that part clearly). No decisions on that made yet however, will re-read it all when I get home today, maybe my perspective will be different. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(To be honest, I quickly forget the editors I've disagreed with, even when I remember the causes of the disagreement. Almost every day here I take arguments fresh from principles, even if I reject them for their same old flaws. Also, I've learnt to be positively surprised by editors I've disagreed with on one matter, agreeing with them on another and respecting their arguments regardless). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A frequent contributor to this noticeboard recently said at an article page, "Let me clarify this: you are ignoring the reliable sourcing standards for this article WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:HISTRS..." and similar statements can be found by that same editor and (far less frequently) by other regular contributors in posts at this noticeboard, though most of the posts here do not so plainly claim HISTRS to be a "standard". HISTRS seems to be being quoted as if it were a policy or guideline when, in fact, it is currently no more than an essay and, indeed, an essay created by and mostly worked on by the editor who most commonly refers to it and also to certain criteria and sources cited at WP:MILMOS as if they were policies or guidelines. The WP:CONLIMITED policy makes it very clear that projects and, by extension, venues such as this noticeboard (and, indeed, dispute resolution venues such as WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCAB where I most frequently work) cannot establish policies and procedures which are binding on the Wikipedia community as a whole, at least not without going through the policy-making procedures set out in WP:POLICY. Treating and referring to HISTRS or criteria established by MILMOS as "standards" or as if they are somehow otherwise binding on all of Wikipedia is misleading, especially to newcomers (and who make up, I suspect, a disproportionate part of the folks who end up coming to this noticeboard) and others who are not sophisticated in the underpinnings of WP, and I object. If HISTRS is to be treated as a policy or guideline, it should be submitted to the Wikipedia community as such for evaluation (and I am not at all certain, I must frankly admit, that it will or should survive such scrutiny), but until it has been and passes that scrutiny, it should not be treated or referenced as if it already has. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers, biographies and pulp tripe are clearly unacceptable for historical articles. If you can't read the existing policy, that exceptional claims (such as scholarly WEIGHT, or historiography) require exceptional sources (such as scholarly sources), then you ought to stop editing in fields covered by scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]