User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1

Improved version

At User:SD0001/unreliabe.js.

@Headbomb: You can copy over the changes.

• When I initially wrote this, I mistakenly assumed the code will highlight the whole citation (rather than just the link). Today when I tested this for the first time, I saw this isn't the case. I've made it so now. I think this is desirable?
• I've tweaked the entire structure (clubbed together the regexes with the corresponding CSS styles) which should make this easier to maintain.
• Fixed the bug with "10\.1011\/\d+"
• Now text content of all list items will also be checked. This should be good enough to catch stuff in further reading, bibliography sections. I know you asked for searching the whole page text, but I am not sure whether that is necessary. That is quite complicated to write, and by checking each and every text node on the page with each of the dozen-odd regexes, some of which are huge, I suspect there will be an impact on performance.

I haven't tested this exhaustively so let me know if anything isn't working.

SD0001 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: I'll test and give some feedback shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the original of only highlighting links, mostly because this can allow for more nuance when a reference has multiple links in it, but also because not everything is within <ref></ref> tags. See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common_non-problematic_cases for example, but you could also have something like citation with url link to Scribd and a DOI. But here only the url to Scribd is problematic. The 1101 thing seems to work, which is weird because I thought I had tried that myself. Either way, very useful to finally have that fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Testing list content might be a good compromise vs whole page however (whole page would still be preferable though). It doesn't work on the last column of User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases, but it does work in other lists elsewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: should work now. SD0001 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, not on that last column. But if you pull that out of the table, it will work. SD0001 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That leads to another bug. We need a different regex for matching "/" when it's in a link vs when its in text. Looking into that now. SD0001 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

fixed. SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Not in the column. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's also fixed. SD0001 (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Alright, so that's possibly a framework for some Frankenstein solution. What it would need now is some sort of logic that if there's a link you check the link, since that's better and more targeted. But if there isn't, then check the list. Because right now, it will highlight whole citations that aren't problematic [1], instead of just the link [2]. And this should really only be done as a fallback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Done. SD0001 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: That looks really, really promising. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: works well, but numbered lists don't seem to work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: done SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: yup. And with this, I believe we have a stable script. Many many thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

How to use?

I saw your recent post at WT:MED. I followed the first 3 steps of installation, but now what are the steps to actually using the script on an article? Thanks! Sorry if I missed that somewhere. I scanned things, and it did not appear obvious. I tried a couple different things to bypass the cache (I'm currently using google chrome on a chromebook), so I hope that's not the issue. Also, I'm in the middle of rewriting deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Might you be able to scan DVT for any of the potentially questionable sources / journals / publishers you posted about at WT:MED and post any hits on the DVT talk page to make sure I'm providing high-quality information? Thank you for your efforts here. Biosthmors (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: basically, you just read the page and it should work right away. You can check Science Publishing Group and you should see 3 red highlighted links or User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases and you should see things working (at least on some of them, I'm still tweaking to expand things to cover more). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's working. I saw 3 pink-highlighted links at Science Publishing Group. Biosthmors (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: In deep vein thrombosis, you should see DOIs that start with 10.2147 (Dove) / 10.4103 (Medknow) / 10.1155 (Hindawi) highlighted in yellow. Keep in mind that those are more grey-area and might even not be problematic to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the yellow color. It's subtle, and I missed the highlighting at first because I was scanning for something more obvious. But I like it because it pairs with the level of concern I have about the sources. (I saw 3 highlighted in yellow at DVT.) I don't have any plans to remove them or recite this material at the present, but thanks again for helping me check this out. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally and utterly awesome. Thank you, Headbomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

JSON?

@SD0001: would there be a way to make use of a JSON-like structure somewhere? Perhaps as a separate subpage?

{
  "Name":    "Publisher",                          // Name of the publisher/journal/website
  "Domains": ["Publisher\.org", "Publisher\.com"], // Regex for URL matches
  "DOI":     ["10\.1234", "10\.4321"],             // Regex for DOI matches
  "Class":   "MEDRS",                              // BL, GUN, PRED, ... to set the CSS classes/colors
  "Note":    "See [[WP:RSPSOURCES#Publisher]]"    // Comment to understand why something is listed, possibly to be displayed as a tooltip
}

(not pretending the above is syntaxically correct, treat this as pseudocode) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that I can build that JSON file myself once I have a working example/the syntax for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I was initially wanting this to simply makes things easier to manage, but it would open up certain possibilities. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Oh, I would love that. I already have a json file that I use to quickly check on all the online sources in an article. If i could just merge in something like the above in stead of maintaining it myself that would be super! Vexations (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Prototype JSON file at User:Headbomb/unreliable.json. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This largely sounds like a good idea. Regarding the schema you have above, there's no need to put the backslashes before periods (in the domain and DOI fields). These can be inserted by the JS script while constructing the regex expression. Also, I'd say keep the domain and doi fields as arrays only if there are multiple of them (see User:SD0001/unreliable.json). This cuts down on the size of the page, and client scripts can easily convert the single-item to an array for processing should they need it. That being said, I'm no expert in writing good JSON schemas. It'd be useful to get advice from more editors.

The text of the "Note" field can probably be displayed as a hover tooltip when the user mouses over the highlighted text. SD0001 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, concerning the backlashes, the software keeps throwing "bad strings" errors at me when they aren't there. For the arrays, 2 extra bits seem pretty cheap for code consistency. No real opinion on the rest, as long as it works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: any progress? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

This looks like a very nice script. I noticed, though, that there is a little functionality overlap with User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js, which uses a really comprehensive list of conspiracy sites, fake news, biased sites, etc. That same list also has a list of generally reliable sources. Just my two cents, maybe we might also want to ping SuperHamster about this idea as well, since he created the list. epicgenius (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely something to look at. Thanks for the suggestion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, epicgenius. Headbomb - thrilled to see more work being done in this space! I'm also going to ping @Newslinger: - we've been looking into taking Wikipedia' perennial sources list and creating a structured data format for it all, and then incorporating it into Cite Unseen (and could be used for other tools as well, of course). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. full docs / info about Cite Unseen can be found at m:Cite Unseen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Colour suggestion

I saw your post at the DYK talk page; this looks very useful, and I will install it tonight. Would it be possible to tweak the colour used for "marginally reliable" sources slightly; it's just because the pale yellow is very similar to the colour used in another commonly used script to signify Disambiguation pages, and I must admit I've used it for so long I completely associate that colour with Disambiguation pages now! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: I use the same script, but since this doesn't highlight a wikilink, but rather external links and list elements, there's no overlap between the two. There might be customizable colours down the road, but for now this is beyond my coding skills. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and no worries; it won't take long to get used to. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I second the request for color customization. :-) In my case, the yellow is nearly invisible on my screen. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary tools?

In response to the request for suggestions, I think it would be valuable to be able to summarize the results we get from the script. In particular, the things that come to mind (if they're possible) are counting the number of links of each type on a particular page, and the ability to categorize pages based on those links. For instance, I'm hoping this could be used to create Category:Articles using predatory journals as sources and equivalents. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise:, see {{Predatory publisher}}, which could probably be updated to add categories similar to {{citation needed}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the category idea, I think I wasn't clear enough (for that matter, come to think of it I suppose such a category might already exist!) I was imagining it as something populated automatically instead of by tagging, but I don't know what that would actually involve. I suppose creating and maintaining it would be different issues, but ideally it might create something like a list of all articles (of a particular category?) sorted by number of hits per article, or something along those lines. That said, I think just a count would be useful as well. Sunrise (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well populating automatically can't really be done. A bot report of such sources could be made, similar to WP:CITEWATCH (see a semi-related botreq). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bullet points

• If you use bullet points while discussing a source in regular text, the script will act on the entire paragraph (as demonstrated here, as long as I mention a source like fb.com). I'm not sure if this is intended, since the documentation mentions checking list items. However, in the case of blacklisted sources the script will create multiple nested boxes if the comment is indented using multiple asterisks. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise: It's intended, but it's not the cutest implementation ever. For instance your above comment is highlighted, because you mention fb.com and have started your comment with a bullet (which makes it a list element), but not this one (because it starts with a colon, meaning it's not in list form). A side effect is that discussion pages can be a bit weird because sources are often discussed and comments often made in list form, but the script does highlight what it's meant to highlight: a list item that mentions a potentially problematic source. It can be weird to see this on talk pages, but I have no good solution to the weirdness. Disabling it on talk pages seems not ideal, given you could be having a discussion about making content based on problematic sources, and then this warns you about it, at least when in external links or bulleted comments.

For the blacklisted source issue, I'd have to see an example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the reply! Mentioning 112.ua with multi-asterisk indenting. Sunrise (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The technical cause of the issue is each list element does contain the problematic 112.ua, and the script can't (at the moment) figure out to apply things to only the last one. But the weirdness here is also caused by a 2px border being applied 3 times to different element. I'll be doing a bit of thinking. Removing the border should be enough, but that's a bit hackish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sunrise: see the new look. It will still color all bullet levels, but the underline instead of borders should make things better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Forbes = marginally reliable?

See #488 and several others at 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#References --valereee (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See WP:RSPSOURCES#Forbes and WP:RSPSOURCES#Forbes contributors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, hm...Forbes is good, but Forbes.com is sometimes suspect. But of course most of what is covered in Forbes is going to get released on Forbes.com, too, and the script doesn't know how to tell them apart. How annoying is that! :D --valereee (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

academia.edu?

Hey, Headbomb! See Sentientist Politics bibliography section Johannsen -- it's getting a highlight from the script, but it's an academic journal? --valereee (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases, general repositories. In this case, the linked version happens to be a preprint. No really super problematic, but if it's used as a source, you'll want to confirm that it's not substantially different from the published version Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I am learning quite a lot from this script and you! :D --valereee (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

IMDb

It is not very reliable as source, but most of the time I see it in articles it's the entry of that movie/person/whatever in the weblinks, where the link is perfectly fine. Is it possible to filter that out somehow? --mfb (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, you mean in an External links section? I actually find the highlighting useful even there, as if there are multiple external links, sometimes the IMDb link represents excessive external linking and can be culled if the other more reliable sites provide essentially the same information. --valereee (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in that section. If IMDb has an entry about that person/movie... then it's good to have that in the article. --mfb (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't filter by section. Also see the bit about external links in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Query re two sources

I was surprised at a recent GA review (Coronariae) to see two sources that I consider reliable, flagged.

• ResearchGate - whatever you think of their practices, the research papers they provide access to are clearly reliable
• Zenodo, an open access project of CERN

I can't see how either of these could be considered unreliable - should they be excluded? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised by this, too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you have already responded on the talk page, thanks --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll copy-paste my reply from Talk:Coronariae/GA1 here so others with the same question can find this.

See WP:UPSD#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases, "General repositories" for your answer. Basically RG and Zenodo is user-uploaded and has no filtering system, so will often host preprints and articles from predatory journals. Hence why the links are in pale yellow (meaning double check, rather than probably problematic).

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dank and Michael Goodyear: doing a deeper review, I did find some predatory publishers on Coronariae though (http://www.cibtech.org/index.htm), so you might want to update the article (should be trivial, since two refs back the same fact, just use the non-predatory one and remove the other). The script will now pick that one up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update

Headbomb, please sync with User:SD0001/unreliable.js.

Improvement made: now when you hover over any link/list item highlighted by the script, you are told why the highlighting has been done ("Deprecated source", "Blacklisted source", "Source that traditionally fails WP:MEDRS, but could be used for other more routine claims", etc). Should alleviate the concerns raised in the previous section. Also, now users will not need to memorise the color codes (or refer to the documentation too often).

SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: Done, thanks. Opens up a lot of possibilities for more categories and better advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Next steps with deprecated sources

I really like how your script works Headbomb as it finds sources hidden in plain sight that are not reliable. I want to ask a logistics question -- is there guidance for how to remove sources or claims or text that cites these sorts of sources that are blacklisted or deprecated? I imagine this has to be done on a case by case basis, but am wondering if there is a checklist or other steps that are recommended for dealing with those that may be used. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@FULBERT: I'm not aware of any specific guidance. I mostly use common sense. If the claim is plausible, I simply replace the source with [unless it's part of multiple sources for the same thing, in which case I just remove it]. If it's MEDRS/BLP related, I remove the passage entirely. If it's one of those indiscriminate list of publications, I usually remove the entirely list, because those are typically WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTCV violations anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Thanks; this is an area of editing I have not done much with so will follow your guidance the next time I see something red or black in this way. Appreciate the suggestions. FULBERT (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Misleading journal metric"—oaji.net

Sources such as the following paper hosted at oaji.net are flagged as "Misleading journal metric"—red, but a different shade than generally unreliable. I am having trouble finding out what it means in terms of reliability. Is it a synonym of predatory journal, and if so, can we have an explanation on User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?

• Šmigeľ, Michal (2017). "Anti-Semitism in Slovakia in Post-War Years 1945 – 1948: A Period of "Common People's Anti-Semitism"" (PDF). Population Processes. 2 (1). doi:10.13187/popul.2017.2.35. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

(The paper is listed as further reading at Partisan Congress riots—it duplicates information that is available in a less dodgy Slovak-language publication by the same author.) buidhe 14:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: http://oaji.net/ is the Open Academic Journal Index, which mostly exists to be an indiscriminate repository of journals which publishes bunk journal metrics (e.g. fake impact factors or similar). It's not a good sign when a journal is in those index, but the issue flagged here is the index itself. The journal may be problematic too, but I'll dig around some more to see if there's a way to tweak things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the link with [3] instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

request to add

I've just been reminded of a "publisher" of public domain texts that sells them on Amazon etc. They are not reliable sources; anyone can cobble together unvetted PD text and try to sell it. With no editorial oversight to speak of, they are "self-published". So I'm wondering if you can add "Delphi Classics" as an unreliable publisher. Here is a blog I found that details some issues.[4] And yeah, there are some uses of these books on Wikipedia (search). Thanks! Outriggr (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I've added delphiclassics.com, but keep in mind that it won't find |publisher=Delphi Classics, but rather only the ones that have a link to the website. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Searches will find you a bunch of them however. See Delphi Classics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Malfunction?

Hey Headbomb, first off thank you for this script, it is very useful. However, it looks like there might be a malfunction. I'm seeing the entire Main Page highlighted red, including TFA, ITN, and On This Day. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just came to mention this, too - a few minutes ago, anything in a bullet list or within certain templates (including list and all ref templates) are now in red. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3 and Kingsif: sorry I missed this and didn't reply earlier. You just happened to view Wikipedia in a 2 minute window where I screwed up the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Always on?

I have a couple of text highlighting scripts now that are always on, is there a way to turn it off/on via the tools sidebar now? I didn't see an option at a glance (haven't installed it yet). I would love if I could easily flip it on when I am source reviewing and have it off in general, in case that is not a current feature, and in case that is easy to install, but I get it if others don't want it to function like that :). Kees08 (Talk) 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I bet most people would not want this feature, and I can't think of any easy way to implement it, but I will leave the request in case you are more creative than me. Kees08 (Talk) 17:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but maybe SD0001 (talk · contribs) has an idea here. Maybe a sort of Ctrl+Shift+U key press combo could toggle on and off, but I'm not sure it's possible. As a note, I have a few text highlighting scripts myself (including Anomie's link classifier), and there doesn't seem to be any problem using many at once here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You can set up the script to load on-demand:

$.when(mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util'), $.ready).then( function() {
    var link = mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', '#', 'UPSD', '#t-upsd', 'Highlight unreliable sources', 'U');
    link.addEventListener('click', function(e) {
        e.preventDefault();
        importScript('User:Headbomb/unreliable.js');
    });
});

Maybe we should offer this as an option in the core script, but until then you can put the above in your common.js, instead of the standard importScript('User:Headbomb/unreliable.js'); line. Clicking on the "UPSD" option (or using the keypress Alt+Shift+U or Alt+U) turns on the higlightings. To turn them off, just reload the page and they'll go. SD0001 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How splendid, this does fine for me. I will add this to my article review toolkit. If it ever becomes a feature just hit me with a ping if you remember, otherwise this works for me. Kees08 (Talk) 14:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

False positive on Wikipedia:Citation expander?

Hello, on Wikipedia:Citation expander the whole section "1." explaining the 2 methods that can be used is marked in bright red as a predatory journal. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redalert2fan: From testing the page with the Preview function, it looks like the script is picking up the example DOI parameter:

• {{cite journal |doi=10.1234/ABC123}}

I would guess that this specific DOI corresponds to a flagged source, so it would need to be replaced with a different example. I changed it to 10.1000/ABC123 and it stopped the script from activating. Sunrise (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sunrise, Yes that seems to have been the problem, Thanks for changing it! Redalert2fan (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice script!

Thanks for making this! I just noticed that Facebook was not listed as an unreliable source. buidhe 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: that's mostly because it wasn't listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. But it's clearly twitter-like, so I'll add it to the generally unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done [5] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, YouTube is marked as unreliable but similar sites Vimeo, twitch.tv, and Dailymotion are not. Could they also be added? buidhe 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, easily.  Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Be still, my beating heart. If they won't build it, happy to use this instead. Thank you! czar 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Some more entries for the "generally unreliable" section

Two different regexes (first one is from COIBot, second is from edit filter 1045, to catch blogs and self-published websites, thought it might be worth tweaking/combining them and adding them to the generally-unreliable list:

• \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.(com|in)\b
• \b(angelfire|blogger|blogspot|geocities|livejournal|rootsweb|wordpress)\.\w{2,3}

Maybe rearrange them to something like this:

• \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall|ger)?\.\w{2,3}
• \b(angelfire|geocities|livejournal|rootsweb|wordpress)\.\w{2,3} already  Done

creffett (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sorry I somehow missed this for a month+. I think most of those are already covered, but I'll double check to make sure I haven't missed a few. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Custom rules?

Hey Headbomb (and other watchers) - how practical would it be to add support for user-added custom rules? JS isn't a language I'm great at (and I don't know the MediaWiki API), otherwise I'd suggest specific changes, but I'd imagine it working something like this:

• User creates User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js, which would contain JSON formatted the same as the rules var. Handmade for now, could eventually create a script to help with it.
• Script checks for existence of User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js, if it exists append the unreliable-rules.js rules to the rules var (this way the built-ins take precedence in case you have a custom entry which later gets added to the main module).
  • Maybe also have some kind of sanity checking when adding the rules? i.e. make sure that the comment, css, and regex fields exist before pushing the rule into the rules list.
• Everything else should be plug-and-play.

Thoughts? creffett (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably a question more for @SD0001: than me. Although if you have specific sources that are crap, it's probably a good idea to let me know here (or WP:RSN) so everyone can benefit from them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and put something together (apparently my JS isn't quite as bad as I thought...just don't look too much at the number of revisions I went through). You can see my changes at User:Creffett/unreliable.js - basically it looks for User:USERNAME/unreliable-rules.js and tries to load an array named unreliableCustomRules (formatted the same way as the existing rules var) and merge that into the rules list. Did some basic testing on it and it seems to work as expected. creffett (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: synced. Please add instructions somewhere in User:Headbomb/unreliable for how to add custom rules. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There were a couple of small issues with the javascript. I've fixed these up in User:SD0001/unreliable.js. Please sync it. The explanations are in the latest few edit summaries should Creffett be interested. SD0001 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Source without URL and DOI

Can this handy tool identify any source without URL and DOI to see if it is a reliable source? For example, Adaptive_behavior#cite_ref-Heward_1-0? If such a feature has not added yet, I would recommend to folks that consider adding it! Thank you. --I am pleased to meet you (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In theory it's possible. In practice you need a very rigorous string (series of characters) that won't match everything else. For example, if you just quote with "Heward" to find that author, you'll find every other author named "Heward". So that would be an example of what a bad pattern would be. It's also something that could grow to be very very hard to maintain in the long run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In practice you need a very rigorous string (series of characters) that won't match everything else. "Title" seems to be viable? In this case, the title is Exceptional Children. I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Exceptional Children is a journal, not even an article's title. That source must be problematic. I gonna take it down. I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a string that appears in several articles [6] and in several unrelated citations/journals/titles, like Teaching Exceptional Children. So that would be an example of a bad string. It's very hard to match on generic sounding titles without causing more issues than you solve. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you for your detailed explanation. Also, I am impressed by your forethought. Cheers! I am pleased to meet you (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this script, and thanks also to User:SD0001, User:Jorm User:creffett. It is very handy. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Record charts to avoid

Hello. I was wondering if you could add the websites listed at Wikipedia:Record_charts#Websites_to_avoid. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Could... at what level should those be highlighted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say Generally unreliable but I didn't create the list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Strange coloration of AfD comment with no link

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven L. Tuck, the first comment (by P Aculeius) is colored entirely pink for me, despite no markup to that effect and despite no external links within it. I think it must be this script, because it doesn't happen not-logged-in. Any idea what might be triggering this? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It sees "Amazon.com" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we really be highlighting that when it is not part of a url? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Limitations, with the second Deprecated.com example (and third bullet in the nutshell banner). Not highlighting it would mean missing out on many 'manual' citations to crap sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd also argue that the script is working as intended here, given the comment is "there are some blurbs from reviews of his History of Roman Art on Amazon.com" and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Generally unreliable:Amazon specifically mentions user reviews as being unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The intent would have been a lot clearer if it highlighted only the "Amazon.com" text and not the whole paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For sure, but apparently that's not really feasible for technical reasons I don't understand. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Add

Hi, can you add rt.com per WP:RSP#RT (or what's your procedure for choosing what to add)? czar 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's already there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll move it from generally unreliable to deprecated however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh, sorry about that. I might have been looking at a diff, which appears to not load the script czar 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Works for me there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Strange. Working for me too but it definitely wasn't before... Thanks czar 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Some more unreliable sources please

royalark.net, thepeerage.com, worldstatesmen.org - all noew deprecated. Also 4dw.net/royalark, which is the actual host for royalark. Thanks! Guy (help!) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, thanks Guy (help!) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A couple updates

I've noticed that RSP currently lists Jezebel as marginally reliable and has upgraded PinkNews to generally reliable (as of yesterday). Both are flagged by this script as generally unreliable; could this be updated? Armadillopteryx 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews just went through RSN, and was closed and archived yesterday. Yes, this would need updating. Normal Op (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Armadillopteryx 18:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

blogspot.com

blogspot.com (Blogger) should be added as generally unreliable per WP:RSP. I see that the script includes blogger.com but not blogspot.com. Most blogs on the site use the blogspot.com domain I think. SD0001 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Weebly

I have on several occasion missed that a source was a *.weebly.com domain, which is a free website creator cited both by well meaning editors (it often hosts school projects) and up-and-coming rappers. Would be helpful to add. (I may also have begun relying too much on this script ) – Thjarkur (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Sure, I'll add it. Marked as generally unreliable since it's equivalent to a bloghost. Feel free to bring up to the RSN though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

I am seeing https://www.latimes.com/ links in red. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not... so... do you have a link to a page where this happens? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Talk:Andy Ngo, it's highlighting a mention of Quillette.com. See WP:UPSD#Limitations for an explanation and workaround. Basically, use Quillete[dot]com in the quote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Great script by the way! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Externalize the css?

@SD0001 and Oshwah:, is there a way to externalize the CSS rules, with mine being default, but so someone was able to override them with their own? That would prevent forks like User:Oshwah/UnreliableSourceHighlighter.js, which haven't kept up with the most recent sources covered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb! The reason I forked this script wasn't to steal any code or steal credit or anything of that sort. :-)I did this so that I could customize the colors in a way where I could register different levels of unreliability of the sources without having to look at the documentation each time. Have there been changes to the code that I need to be aware of? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well, that's a bit the point of externalization; it would let you customize the colours as you want, without having to update the sources covered every time I did. For the changes, look at [7], which is the difference between your version and mine. You can copy-paste over any line start with regex: that changed, and we'll be in sync. Until the next time I update the sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see! You want to make variables that users can set in their common.js, vector.js, etc in order to customize those colors! I think that's a great idea! I'd be totally on board! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's possible of course. We should probably have three different files: a JSON (for storing the data in a very easy-to-edit form), a CSS (for holding the styles) and a JS (which provides the core logic and binds everything together). – SD0001 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory a JSON sounds nice... and allow for things to be re-used in other scripts. In practice, it would likely explode the size of the script because JSON is really not an efficient format. Would be open to exploring it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar

The website, Ultimate Guitar should be highlighted yellow. The music source list lists Ultimate Guitar as a reliable source but cautions editors to only cite articles that are either written by the UG Team, one of their staff members, or authors with credentials to other reliable sources like Rolling Stone. That would make the website only marginally reliable. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Since I'm not really familiar with the topic, I'd rather be able to point out to an RSN discussion with consensus it's problematic enough to be worth highlighting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay. This discussion reached a consensus to only cite articles written by the UG Team or members of it. This discussion reached a consensus that if the author isn't a staff member, but has credentials to other reliable sources, the article can be cited. Lazman321 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Free hosting services

Headbomb, maybe it'd be a good idea to add Appspot, Heroku, and Google Sites domains to unreliable's rules? They're all free-to-use web hosts, and the chances of them containing anything good is about zero. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: There's a often good stuff on those, but I agree they should be flagged in yellow at the very least. I'm a bit busy today, but find me a list of domains and I'll add it to the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Physics Essays

I was doing a bit of cleanup and discovered that Physics Essays has published papers claiming to derive spacetime from consciousness, that energy conservation refutes relativity, that relativistic length contraction is a logical contradiction, and so forth. It should probably be marked as an unreliable journal. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request. I just removed a section [8] from Double-slit experiment claiming that collapse was caused by consciousness, which was based on a paper published in Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I also support this request. Such absurd claims are hampering the progress of science.Guswen (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I added PhysicsEssays.org as a 'borderline source', but since there's no DOI for them (AFAICT), the script will miss a lot of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Upgraded to Generally Unreliable. No way these papers could ever have passed any meaningful peer review process. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The papers do have DOIs, although they are well-hidden. For example [9]. Tercer (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I also found their {{doi|10.4006}} prefix, and added them to WP:CITEWATCH (they'll show up tomorrow). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another winner: A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories [...] based on dark matter [10]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter

Interesting similar script. – SD0001 (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although I feel that one is fundamentally ... misguided is too harsh a word, but something along those veins. Going "New York Times? That's green, therefore reliable!" forgets all the times NYT isn't reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

sptnkne.ws

Headbomb, could you please add sptnkne.ws to the list of deprecated sources? It's an URL shortener for sputniknews.com. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific WikiProjects unreliable sources inquiry

Hello. I was wondering if you could add the unreliable sources to your script from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources. The albums one has more details in that section explaining why several of the sources arent reliable. With About.com (now Dotdash), it's selective critics that are not reliable, but some critics from that site are fine to use. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely possible, the main issue I have is how wide is the consensus that those are unreliable (across Wikipedia, not just for videogame content)? But also that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Generally unreliable sources doesn't have the websites listed, meaning it would take me a few hours to track everything, and compare against WP:RSPSOURCES. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There's some overlap with RSP (i.e. IMDB, HuffPost contributors, Forbes.com contributors) etc. Maybe a separate section would be more suitable like Unreliable sources per Wikiproject? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That could be a thing. All someone needs to do is to make use of this to add their own specific rules. This could be maintained by someone from the project, and then shared with other project members. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary does not indicate why, but GameSpot, which is on the VGRS list as reliable, was recently added as generally unreliable.

Please fix. Izno (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll tweak to yellow later tonight. It was added because there a GameSpot hosted database where information is user-submitted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked, it should only match gamefaqs.gamespot.com now. gamespot.com will be in yellow, to double-check that the article is staff-authored, and not user-submitted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WFM. Izno (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Headbomb, could you remove Film Music Reporter from the script? A recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard has found the website to be reliable, as they appear to simply state press releases from industry insiders. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they found the website reliable. It's still a self-published blog. See also Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide's comments about it. But I'll mark in yellow instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

List of sources?

Nice tool! Something like this should be standard for every new editor to help with identifying reliable sources. The only thing that isn't very transparent is the source for the lists of sources you use. You state it's WP:RSPSOURCES, Predatory open access source list, and WP:CITEWATCH, with some minor differences. If the minor differences could be removed/clarified and direct use of those lists could be achieved then it would be reasonable to propose a wider adoption of this tool as it would reflect exactly the consensus of the community without any kind of filter. It would save a lot of editor time in wasted arguments due to editors not knowing previous community consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The sources are mostly taken from WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG, Beall's list (not wholesale however), various WikiProject/WP:RSN discussions, and obvious nonsense (like satirical sites). The minor differences amount to classifying in yellow vs red or similar. For example, ResearchGate is in red at WP:RSP, but highlighted in yellow by the script, because the vast majority of the time, these are simply convenience links to published journal articles, which happen to be hosted on ResearchGate, and not to some original scholarship published on ResearchGate by a random person. Yellow is a better reminder to double-check, rather than a stronger warning of confirmed crap. Likewise, Forbes is both Green/Red at WP:RSP, but here we put yellow (depends on topic), since we cannot detect weather or not a piece was written by staff (green), or by an external contributor (red).

The sources themselves can be found on User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. I edit the script based on what my best determination of what the Wikipedian consensus is. Anyone is free to challenge specific sources, or requests to a sources at RSN, and I'll happily update the script accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. If this could be automated based on those lists and the lists followed a more stringent criteria (yellow rather than green/red for forbes for example) we could disseminate the consensus of the community more widely in a more efficient/automated way. Every time a user tried to use a deprecated source he could get a warning for example. Just thinking out loud here but it could be an interesting proposal. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:RSP lists do follow "stringent criteria". The issue here is that, for example, Forbes.com or ResearchGate or what have you hosts several types of content, and the script cannot discriminate between said types of content. As for being warned, that's what WP:Edit Filterss are for, but for editing warnings, the concerns about specific sources need to be substantially higher than 'you probably want to double check this/are you sure this is reliable?'. Deprecated sources would likely meet the criteria for an edit filter though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. This should just be a warning to editors. Something like: "The community regards this source as questionable (see discussion here). Please make sure the standards for reliable sourcing are being met or you edit might be reverted". It wouldn't block the user from using it. Just warn him of the previous consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The warning could probably do a simple URL match in the visual editor cite tool. That would be great for both old and new users. How about we take this to WP:VPIL Headbomb? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:VPIL, but I'm fairly weary of making an opt-in script with several warnings on how to properly use it to be the default for masses that maybe don't understand the nuances of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No the script as is is definitely not appropriate for the masses. Either your idea of edit filters (at least for deprecated sources - that would not require any new UI) or something lighter integrated into the cite UI of the visual editor when you input the URL. But I have no idea of how features like that are implemented on Wiki. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

www.ekushey-tv.com

User:Headbomb/unreliable.js marks a reference with www.ekushey-tv.com in its URL as a "Generally unreliable source". Presumably this is because of the pattern the code uses to match the user-generated tv.com. Ekushey Television is a reliable source for the sorts of things TV news is usually reliable for, so it would be nice if this could be fixed. Ekushey TV isn't cited very often, fewer than 100 times, so if fixing it isn't feasible, I understand. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: should be fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Google books highlighted yellow

I see that google books urls are now highlighted as yellow. This is making it much harder for me to find the script useful since there are just so many gbooks URLs in articles I work on. Is there a way I could customize the script to stop highlighting books.google.com for me? No worries if not... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001: I've setup custom rules (for myself) at User:Headbomb/unreliable-rules.js, but it doesn't seem to overrule User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. Is there a way for User:Headbomb/unreliable-rules.js to not just supplement, but rather entirely overrule User:Headbomb/unreliable.js? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove return false; from lines 138 and 153. – SD0001 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I'm exploring a solution (see above), but in the meantime remember that yellow simply is the least problematic. Google Books was added because it's a general repository of books, and will have all sorts of unreliable books, like self-published books (e.g. [11]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. Your point about gbooks is undoubtedly valid, but for me I'm well aware of the limitations of google books. The frequency with which articles include links there means the yellow highlighting won't help me identify potentially unreliable sources, it will just cause me to gloss over all yellow highlighted links and miss more useful highlights, such as to forbes Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891:, create User:Eddie891/unreliable-rules.js and paste

unreliableCustomRules = [
	{
		comment: 'Plain google books',
		regex: /\b(books\.google\.com)/i,
		css: { "background-color": "" }
	},
];

Should fix it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Works like a charm, tyvm!! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sportskeeda

Questionable-at-best source currently used in hundreds of articles, focussed on Indian sports but also on other topics. The editorial process sounds extremely lax -- they publish hundreds of articles a day, most by non-employees who are expected to submit already-factchecked articles. There've been a couple of short discussions at RSN, but nothing much has been done to start to remove this source or check the assertions it supports. I think it would be helpful if it appeared highlighted. —valereee (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'll add to "depends on contributor/topic" for now. But an RSN discussion would be best to determine how to classify it in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was just thinking about opening a discussion at RSN. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Physics Essays

I don't know much about specific journals and figuring out if they are reliable seems to be pretty tricky. I see "Physics Essays" is included in the list but can't figure out why it has been included. Could you clarify Headbomb? I tried a couple of google searches and couldn't find much.

I think you should establish clear criteria for inclusion in the list if you want to have more users adopt this script. At the moment some of the inclusion criteria seem too opaque.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: See User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#Physics Essays and WP:JCW/Questionable3#Physics Essays. You can also search the archives of WT:PHYS for several discussions related to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow. Identifying reliable journals is a real mess... -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird result

The following citation "Conversion Therapy is Torture". International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. Retrieved 31 May 2021. to the website of reputable organization International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims is marked as a predatory journal. I'm guessing it has a suspicious combination of letters in it? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Can't see why it would have been flagged. It's possible IJICRT got cut off to ICRT by accident. Either way, I've fixed it. Thanks for reporting the error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

gen-ph

Headbomb, do you think it would be possible for your script to detect if an arXiv pre-print is in gen-ph? They do this wonderful service of putting the crackpot pre-prints in a separate section, it would be nice to take advantage of their work and mark the links accordingly. The difficulty is that you can't know that from the URL: the "new style" (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.05395 ) doesn't show the section at all, and the "old style" (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609007 ) only shows the larger section "Physics", which has a lot of legitimate research. Your script would need to query the page and check whether the subsection is "physics.gen-ph", I don't know if this is technically possible. Tercer (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

With a bit of tweaking, it could probably detect {{cite arxiv}}s with |class= set to physics.gen-ph or similar, but I'm not super keen on distinguishing within the archive (even if physics.gen-ph is more likely to be bunk nutcase ramblings than hep-ex). The arxiv isn't a reliable source in general, so whenever you see it you should double check if it's used for routine information, or for novel claims. But let it simmer in the brainjuice for a while, see if I can't come up with something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Skilling, John; Knuth, Kevin H. (2020). "The arithmetic of uncertainty unifies quantum formalism and relativistic spacetime". arXiv:2104.05395 [physics.gen-ph].
• Chalmers, Gordon (2006). "Modification to Special Relativity". arXiv:physics/0609007.

@Tercer: I tried something, see above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You can hunt for them here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it does work, thanks! The |class= parameter is seldom set, though, so I guess the vast majority of the cases will be hard to find. Tercer (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, for {{cite arxiv}}, citation bot does set it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how active citation bot is, but for example in Gleason's theorem it is not set anywhere, and this is typically the case. Tercer (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tercer: that's because those are {{cite journal}}s, which are things that have gone through peer-review (well, forgetting predatory/quack journals, but those should be flagged because of their predatoriness/quackness, not because of physics.gen-ph). I've done a rough check and all ~690 or so {{cite arxiv}} with newer links do have their |class= set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, there are also borderline journals which occasionally publish stuff from physics.gen-ph. If I recall correctly there was recently a case with Int. J. Theor. Phys., which is not flagged as quack. Tercer (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tercer: BTW, there's about 12 citations to gen-ph remaining or so. So may be OK, but since you're interested in doing that cleanup, I figured I'd ping you on the progress. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In my first pass I removed the cases where it the citation was unambiguously unwarranted, the cases left are those where it should remain or I find it unclear. I'll take a close look at them tomorrow. Tercer (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I finished it now. Removed some, fixed some, in the end I left 4 citations:

• Brian Josephson: only one item in a long list of unreliable references. No point in removing only this one, and I'm not in the mood for fixing the whole article.
• Steven Weinstein (philosopher): it's being cited as one of his works, I don't see a problem.
• Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments: a large part of the article is about the controversy caused by this paper, and it is specifically mentioned as being unreliable. I think it definitely should stay.
• Energy Catalyzer: again, the paper is important for the article, and it is specifically cited as being unreliable. There's also a debunking, also published in gen-ph. Not acceptable in ordinary circumstances, but given the subject matter it's as reliable a source as it gets. Tercer (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lulu.com

This is a self-publisher/on-demand, should probably be added to the list —valereee (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: It's already listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh...when I checked in my sandbox this morning, it didn't highlight, but now it is. Weird. Sorry! —valereee (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: If you mean User:Valereee/sandbox, it's not highlighted because there is no link to Lulu.com, instead it highlights the link to GoogleBooks and warns you that GoogleBooks hosts self-published material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OOOOH. I'm an idiot. Hahahahaha... —valereee (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Press TV Deprecated

A discussion surrounding the reliability of Press TV on the reliable sources noticeboard was recently closed with clear consensus to deprecate. Would it be possible for someone to add the source's four urls that are listed on WP:RSP to the list, in light of this? Currently, the Iranian TLD is not being highlighted at all, though the now-defunct .com TLD is showing only as generally unreliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Added here. I don't know which other URLs you are talking about however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The station's alternative sites include the [presstv.com now-seized] presstv.com. The group also includes includes presstv.co.uk, and presstv.tv, according to their website. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Added the last two. If you find more, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

ABS-CBN websites highlighted yellow

ABS-CBN is considered a generally reliable source in the Philippines, and its reliability has not been contested in the perennial sources list and in the reliable source noticeboard archives, though Christian Broadcasting Network is also lumped into these results, so I assume this must be to do with the similarity of their urls? Akbermamps 10:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be the case - the regex in question simplifies to \bcbn\.com, and the \b matches the dash in abs-cbn.com. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take care of the false positive by the end of the day. Going to be a bit busy for the next few hours however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Akbermamps: should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Surgical Neurology International is marked as marginal

Some DOIs of Surgical Neurology International are marked as marginal (e.g. 10.4103%2F2152-7806.63896 10.4103%2F2152-7806.103019) but links to the PMC of articles are not (e.g. PMC3514915 PMC2908352). I do not believe this source should be marked as marginal.

There does not exist an RSP or RSN post about this source. The marginal entry in this add-on says: "Borderline source, which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements. For Bentham journals, only those published by Bentham Open are of concern. For Copernicus journals, those from the EGU are fine." SNI is not a part of Bentham or Copernicus.

It is owned by Wolters Kluwer Medknow [12]. Scimago puts SNI in Q3 for Neurology, but Q2 for Surgery [13]. It is ranked 11th of most cited neurosurgery journals by Google Scholar [14]. It is indexed in Pubmed Central [15] and Scopus [16]. The editor-in-chief is a well-respected neurosurgeon at UCLA, James I. Ausman.

There are, truthfully, not that many general neurosurgical journals. And it is a small field (of roughly 3700 practicing neurosurgeons in the US [17], compared to roughly 110,000 internal medicine physicians [18]). So what counts as a "good" journal in this field is skewed in comparison to the rest of medicine. All index factors in neurosurgery are pretty small, comparatively.

For all these reasons, I don't think this source should be listed as "marginal."

Full disclosure, I have also published in this journal: [19] [20].

Anyway, let me know what you think.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Medknow Publications (who did published that article, you can tell by the DOI prefix 10.4103) is borderline , yes. See the note at WP:CITEWATCH#Medknow Publications. Medknow was listed on Beall's list, it then got delisted, but several of its journals got individually re-listed. Doesn't mean SNI itself is problematic (especially after it broke ties with Medknow; it is now published by Scientific Scholar, which you can tell by the DOI prefix 10.25259), but Medknow in general is... to be taken with a grain of salt. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, ohhhh, I see. So the coloration is based upon DOI prefix? That makes a ton of sense, thank you. So the publications that were put out while under Medknow are tainted, but the new DOIs will not be. Okay that makes sense, and is probably fair. I don't really have any intention of ever citing anything from there anyway, as there are better topic reviews in better journals. Thank you for the explanation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's based upon DOI prefixes and URL domains, yes. It could technically match any pattern inside of a URL, but those are usually the ones that make the most sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Predatory" publishers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Journals from European Center for Science Education and Research (EUSER) are coming up red as "predatory journal or publisher" but it's not clear why. They appear on Beale's archived list and are carried over to the Kscien list. But they claim to have double-blind peer review and editorial boards, and I can't find anyone disputing that other than by a bare list entry. I don't see any RFC on Wikipedia, and EUSER doesn't appear in any of the linked lists on this template.

I think the problem is that if we are going to flag a publisher as predatory, we better have developed our own case. Otherwise this a potentially slanderous statement with careless disregard for the truth. If we are just copying someone else's list, that's a problem. More specifically, if we are using Beale's list, he only called it "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals" so by shortening this to "predatory journal or publisher" we are making an extra leap without looking. This should be changed to "potential predatory journal or publisher". If we are using kscien, they only call it "publishers with suspicious scientific peer review" which should only be flagged as "suspicious peer review".

I believe this is an error that needs to be fixed. Dhaluza (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"claim to have double-blind peer review and editorial boards" See WP:MANDY, basically. Their website is clearly set up as a puffery piece, claiming prestige from being indexed in Google Scholar, WorldCat, DOI and other things which are basically automatic or trivial, or non-existent indices [like 'sicilit']. They're not even in the DOAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also affiliated with Open Journal Systems, another predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So guilt by association? Who says they are affiliated, and who says Open Journal Systems is predatory? Mandy only applies after a credible allegation. Dhaluza (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I realize the EUSER website may be an elaborate fraud. Or maybe not. The question is who, exactly, is saying they are a fraud? And how is an editor using your tool to decide if they don't know that?

I hope the irony is not lost that this tool is questioning sources without citing its sources.

We would not consider Beall's list a reliable source for calling a publisher predatory in an article because it's a SPS. It was also criticized for having nearly 20% false positive rate, especially with open source journals in non G7 countries, which leads to first world bias. And it's not clear to me that Kscien is any better. The latter claim to have a committee, but don't name them. You can't see why or when a publisher was put on the list. But I'm left guessing what sources you are using because they are not clearly cited in the tool, or in the docs. An editor should not have to spend hours hunting around to see why a source is flagged. Dhaluza (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The preponderance of evidence, from Beall, to the fairly obvious scam/promotional puffery of their website and obvious pay-to-publish nature of their books, to hitting multiple red flags, a website riddled with typos as soon as you leave the main page, affiliations with other known predatory publishers, combined with the lack of indexing of their journals in reputable/selective services, means EUSER has several strikes against it, and little to nothing going for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Beall published a preponderance of evidence, so that would be interesting. Please link to your source.

But that would also be beyond the point. This is not about whether EUSER is predatory or not, it's about why it is flagged as predatory by this tool. I keep asking you to cite your sources, and you keep citing yourself. Are you telling me that you curate your own list and load that into the tool? Why can't I find this list in the documentation? Dhaluza (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why it is flagged by the tool? Because EUSER is a predatory publisher. See above, and yes I curate the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And is the list secret, or can any editor see what is on the list? Dhaluza (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The source code is public at User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, so the predatory black-list is hardcoded? And is there any metadata on when items are added/dropped and why? Dhaluza (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You can browse the script's edit history if you really want. As for the 'why', see the above. I add sources based on discussions, and whenever I encounter sources that are less-than-stellar that should be flagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, but you don't keep notes on why items are on the list, so an editor who sees a site flagged just has to take your word that it's definitely predatory (not potentially predatory, or something less definitive), and there is no way for them to evaluate that conclusion on their own, because there is no backup metadata?

As for EUSER, I just emailed a couple of their academic references to see if their comments were legit and both confirmed they were. One also offered that when his students publish there, they don't pay a fee. Dhaluza (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"an editor who sees a site flagged just has to take your word that it's definitely predatory" See the disclaimers at the top of the script page. As for emailing their "academic references", whoever those are, whatever their reply is, WP:MANDY will apply. Especially if those are phony references, paid shills, the unscrupulous, or the naive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The disclaimers at the top of the script page still don't really say anything relevant, and they don't make clear that the list of flagged sources are only maintained as embedded in the code. Users should not need to be able to reverse engineer the source code to see how the tool works so they can use it properly. That should all be clearly stated in the documentation, which notes that the tool needs to be used intelligently, but doesn't provide sufficient guidance to do that.

Regarding that proprietary predatory list, apparently you are convinced your assessment is correct, and will dismiss any contra-indications with WP:MANDY. But the irony (again) is that Mandy applies both ways. So naturally you would say that, wouldn't you? See also: confirmation bias.

I picked two of the "Reviews on the past EUSER Conferences" on their main web page, looked them up on their institution web page, and emailed them at their .edu addresses to confirm they were accurate and used with their permission and they did. One is a PhD department lead and the other was an assistant professor who published multiple papers with them and others, so not naïve. I'm not naming them because I didn't ask permission to disclose the communication. But do you actually communicate with people to check your assumptions?

Note that I'm not arguing for or against EUSER's legitimacy--I'm still trying to determine that. I saw it flagged by this tool, so I came here to find out why, and wasted a lot of time trying (I also searched WP space and could not find any public discussions on their reliability). Then I found out it was flagged by you based on your assessment that their website was fraudulent without any hard evidence. I did a quick check of some references and they checked out. So based on the criteria you cited above:

• Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control, including hoax and nonsensical papers. -- No evidence
• Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted. -- No evidence. May actually wave fees for student papers.
• Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards. -- No evidence
• Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission, and not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards. -- No evidence. Checked two conference reviewers who confirmed permission.
• Appointing fake academics to editorial boards. -- No evidence
• Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals. -- No evidence
• Making misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as a false location. -- No evidence
• Using ISSNs improperly. -- No evidence
• Citing fake or non-existent impact factors. -- No evidence
• Boasting about being "indexed" by academic social networking sites (like ResearchGate) and standard identifiers (like ISSNs and DOIs) as if they were prestigious or reputable bibliographic databases. - True, but why wouldn't they provide this "decorative" information?

Bottom line is that I don't see any rational basis for treating them with any more scrutiny than any other open source publisher. Dhaluza (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Look at Eriksson and Helgesson's criteria, you'll find several more deficiencies. These, alongside Beall and Kscien, the lack of indexing in any reputable databases, even the super inclusive DOAJ that goes out of their way to index everything open access that isn't predatory, is enough for me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This is moving the goalposts again. When I check your assertions, they don't withstand scrutiny, so you just keep rolling out new ones. Can you make a complete rational case why you insist that EUSER is a definitely predatory publisher? Because the only way to tell that is to ask the authors to see if they have been preyed upon. All the rest it just reading tea leaves. So have you actually communicated with anyone involved, or referenced this from reliable sources? Dhaluza (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The goal posts haven't shifted. It's a predatory publisher, it's not indexed anywhere reputable, it's been flagged as predatory by both Beall and Kscien, and throws up several redflags. It's unreliable, so we should not cite it, especially when other better sources exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsolicited peer review of this tool and it's documentation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on the discussion above, I see several problems with this tool and its documentation that need to be addressed:

1. Users should not need to read the code to use the tool properly. In addition to the summary table in the "What it does" section, a lookup table is needed for each message generated by the tool so that editors can see what the message actually means in order to act on it intelligently without making assumptions or jumping to conclusions. There should be a short explanation that makes clear whether it is based on a list from a consensus process at Wikipedia, an editor's original research curated on Wikipedia, or an external reliable source, with links. This is a significant deficiency that needs to be addressed.

2. For the lists maintained in the tool, there needs to be a separate page in human readable form to link to. This list needs to explain the general criteria and specify why each item is on the list so editors can decide if they apply to the use of the source. It should also track the date each item is added and/or removed for context. Until this list is published, the code using these lists should be disabled.

3. The messages generated by this tool should reflect the level of uncertainty with subjective judgements based on arbitrary criteria. There should not be any definitive statements unless supported by finding of fact published in a reliable source.

4. For the so-called predatory journals and publishers, we should focus on reliability. Whether the relationship between author and publisher is predatory or not is between them, and none of our business. We are not here to WP:rightgreatwrongs. We only care if they have sufficient editorial oversight to be a reliable source. Dhaluza (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See the big fat disclaimer at the very top of the script page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So write a tool more to your liking, and don't use this one. Sheeesh. Ravenswing 20:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It is not that simple. It was probably I who provoked Dhaluza into that contribution, becuase there is a citation at 'Spanish' flu that the tool flags as predatory or unreliable.

• Ferrandino V, Iacobaccio M, Sgro V (May–August 2020). "Epidemics in Modern and Contemporary Age in a Backward Area of Europe: The Role of Institutions and Socio-Economic Effects in Southern Italy" (PDF). European Journal of Marketing and Economics. 3 (2). European Center for Science Education and Research: 75–88. In France it was initially referred to as 'Parma fever'; 'Flanders fever' in England; 'Bolshevik disease' in Poland. In Spain, however, it was called 'soldier of Naples'

IMO, the article has GA potential but I can't see being awarded GA while one of its citations has a massive red flag. (I see that Headbomb has deleted it again.) So as 'lead editor' in the drive for GA, Dhaluza is certainly being rational in aiming to find out why a source that they consider valid and useful is being deprecated. Why would anyone think otherwise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That, too, is simple: check out the source, do the couple minutes of legwork necessary to assure oneself that the red flag is a false positive (while the publication lacks a Wikipedia articles itself, it's cited in over a hundred other articles), and be prepared to say so in any GA review. For my part, I find Headbomb's tool a very useful one, but I'm also not so much of a cementhead as to swallow it uncritically as a make-or-break resource, immune to examination or rebuttal. Certainly, I would have unpleasant things to say about anyone who opposed a GA promotion on the sole strength of an automated tool's result, especially with a 'lead editor' saying "This is a valid source and here's why." In Dhaluza's boots, I'd put less effort into arguing why the tool is flawed and more effort into why the source isn't flawed.
Or -- having just now looked at the Spanish Flu article -- here's a radical thought. That has to be one of the most heavily cited articles on Wikipedia. Hell, there are more items listed in the Bibliography and Further Reading sections than most articles have cites. There are over three hundred cites. And one cite turns up a red flag? Holy heck, that's the hill anyone wants to die on? An article of that size, with that many cites, there'll be half a hundred battles at GA. Just lose the bloody cite. Ravenswing 21:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] To avoid misunderstanding, I did not say that the article should fail GA because a bot red-flagged it. My point was that, while an article has a dubious citation, a GA reviewer would want to see a very convincing explanation as why it is not really dubious, that it is a false positive. I agree with your last point: don't shoot the messenger, deal with the message. But Dhaluza has Kafka's dilemma: unless they know of what crime the journal is accused, how can they refute it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ref your supplementary comment, I've made the same point: is this citation really so critical? for a sentence that has three other citations??? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't, so I removed it. The rest of the discussion can continue at Talk:Spanish flu#Citation problems. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion should continue there. I started a separate thread here to focus on the issues with the tool and its documentation. Dhaluza (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, that article is GA, and there is no issue with GA other than possible re-evaluation, so that is not a live issue. And this is not about that particular cite, other than as an example. Dhaluza (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I wasn't using the tool, the issue is that others do, and also misuse it, in part because of the issues I outlined above. I came here to see why, and noted what I found as a pair of fresh eyes. But based on the dismissive responses, I think more eyes are needed. Dhaluza (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to move page to mainspace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:UPGOOD Certain kinds of material must not linger indefinitely in user space, in particular, "pages to test bots and scripts without doing harm." Per the discussion above, the user has unequivocally and emphatically stated that, "The tool is working as intended." Furthermore they have made it clear that they are uninterested in working toward consensus on ways to improve the tool to mitigate harm, and are also unwilling to make changes to the tool (without payment). Therefore the testing period has ended, and it is time to move this tool to main-space so the community can develop it further. Dhaluza (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dhaluza: Re your accusations that I'm "uninterested in working toward consensus", I kindly invite you to take the discussion elsewhere, since you seem to have a mix of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, a lack of understand that this is a volunteer project, and a failure to understand that I'm in no way obligated to update my WP:USERSCRIPT in line with your wishes at the expense of several hundred hours of my own time. If you don't like my script, don't use it and feel free to write your own. Also userscripts belong on user pages, not mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:UPGOOD. User scripts are only for development purposes. They need to be moved to mainspace once testing is complete. I understand that this is a volunteer project--I am one of the volunteers. But it is also a collective effort subject to community consensus. Your user page still belongs to the community. Dhaluza (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"User scripts are only for development purposes" No, they are not. And the mainspace is for articles, not scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if "mainspace" was ambiguous. I did not mean article namespace, I was referring to Wikipedia: space. Dhaluza (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also not a space to host userscripts. See Wikipedia:Project_namespace. User scripts, by design, are hosted on userpages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Dhaluza, sorry, but that's not at all what UPGOOD is about. The part you are citing about "pages to test bots and scripts " is for, say, keeping a copy of an article in your userspace while testing a script or a bot, not the script itself. For a variety of reasons, including security, scripts stay in userspace and can only be edited by their maintainer and, on extremely rare occasion, interface administrators. The only time they move out of userspace is on the extremely rare occasion that they become gadgets, and edits to gadgets are also extremely restricted. If you want to change a script and the maintainer does not want to make that change, you are free to fork it with attribution (since all pages on Wikipedia are licensed Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike). GeneralNotability (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry again if I was using incorrect terminology and misunderstood UPGOOD. Based on this feedback, I should have said that this tool should really be a gadget under wider community control. My concern is that this tool is effectively implementing a black-list maintained by a single user, that is embedded in the JavaScript so it is not readable by most editors, and the documentation does not make this clear. The reason I am raising these concerns is that another editor declared that a source I added was from a predatory publisher as fact, and when I asked for his sources he pointed to this tool. So I came here looking for more information and couldn't find it. Dhaluza (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Dhaluza -- while we're talking about consensus -- Headbomb is under no onus to work under your definition of "mitigating harm," which seems to be "your script is doing something I don't like, so change it." Given your multiple attempts to filibuster this, this new swing is petty at best, and bad faith at worst. The nature of a consensus-driven environment is that sometimes you will be on the losing side of it, and the only thing to do then is to lose gracefully and move on. It is time that you did so. Ravenswing 03:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that Headbomb was obligated to make any changes. But he is obligated to assume good faith and try to reach consensus. I don't believe the concerns I raised were addressed. The first discussion became more about the specific example, rather than the original issue. So I opened a new thread incorporating the information I learned, but that thread became all about the specific article. So after those threads were closed, I opened this thread based on the closing statements. I think your characterization of following-up on information that is new (to me at least) as filibustering is unfair. Dhaluza (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb is under no obligation to reach consensus. It is Headbomb's script. As I said before, if people are unhappy with it, they can not use it or fork it. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb is under no obligation to reply, but any discussion must assume good faith and try to reach consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I spent several hours telling you why EUSER was considered predatory, then you started demanding 4 specific changes that "need to be addressed" when you weren't happy with the answers. Changes that a) would take several hundred hours to make happen (#1 and #2) b) are too vague to be actionable (#1) c) completely misguided (#4) or already implemented (#3). If someone is mindlessly using the script, despite the big ass disclaimer warning them not to, take it with the person who is mindlessly using the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, thank you for directly addressing the issues I raised. Please don't misunderstand these as a demand. I apologize if my approach was off-putting, but if you have not guessed already, I'm an engineer, and we engineers tend to take a very direct approach to problems. Raising un-actionable issues is just bellyaching, so I included an action to make them actionable. But I am willing to incorporate additional information and reconsider the observations and recommendations. So let me try to incorporate your comments and explain further:

1. The messages displayed by the tool need to be brief, which means they could be confusing, so users need an explanation to use the tool intelligently as your disclaimer warns. This should not be a big task, and I'm not sure why you think this is vague. As a show of good faith, and that this is not a make-work project, if I was willing to scrub through the code to parse the messages into a table, would you be willing to fill in the intended meaning with links?

2. Yes, creating the metadata for each entry on your blacklist would be a lot of work to recreate retrospectively. But users need this to use the tool intelligently. The lack of metadata was one of the major criticisms of Beall, because it prevented other researchers from analyzing his work properly. The reason I am raising this issue is that another editor took your classification of an example publisher (deliberately unnamed here) as predatory apparently on blind faith, so I came here looking for the backup and found none. I don't think he was acting mindlessly, but I think he assumed that there was backup to support the assertion.

3. For the suspect journals and publishers you label them as just predatory. Beall's list only called it "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals." So you are going beyond that source by removing doubt, and taking on even more liability than he did. A simple first step would be to just use "allegedly".

4. I'm not sure why you think focusing on reliability specifically, rather than predation generally, is misguided. For example, if a publisher charges a hidden fee after peer review, but actually does a proper peer review, that could be considered predatory, but does not affect reliability. Dhaluza (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here alone, this is the THIRD discussion on the same subject you've raised, Dhaluza, and twice after Headbomb asked you to take the discussion elsewhere; I absolutely stand by my characterization of your actions as filibustering. Even if Headbomb was required to "reach consensus" on the doings of his private script -- which he is not -- it seems to me he has it. Every other editor who has chimed in supports his position. You are the only one with a problem. We are indeed enjoined by Wikipedia to assume good faith, but you are also enjoined to act in good faith. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, the definition of "consensus" is not "I get to hammer away until I get what I want," and it is long past time to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing 20:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing, the first two discussions went off into the weeds without directly addressing the issues raised. WP:Fillibustering happens after WP:Consensus which "takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." So if the concerns have not been improper or addressed, then further discussion is not filibustering. This is the talk page for this tool, so it is the proper place to raise concerns with the tool. You are not supposed to raise an issue in another forum before trying to resolve issues and reach consensus first. Also this is not a private script, it is listed at WP:USL and is intended to be used by other editors, and affects non-users as well. Dhaluza (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not that the previous discussions failed to address the issues raised. It's that you didn't get the results you wanted. It is not that there wasn't a clear consensus; it's that consensus didn't go your way. Ravenswing 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

1) "This should not be a big task, and I'm not sure why you think this is vague. As a show of good faith, and that this is not a make-work project, if I was willing to scrub through the code to parse the messages into a table, would you be willing to fill in the intended meaning with links?"

It is a huge task, because there's thousands of different sources, each matched with a brief relevant messages. So what you're asking me is to re-review each source, provide a new individualized message for each, and then make that accessible in "table form", whatever that means. There is zero need for this.

2) "Users need this to use the tool intelligently"

Users have brains. Twitter is highlighted in red, marked as generally unreliable. That warns them there's a potential issue with the sourcing. They then decide if that source is adequate. The tool does not answer if a source is appropriate or not. If they have a question about the source, they can ask at WP:RSN (example). If they have a question about the script (example), they can ask here.

3) "For the suspect journals and publishers you label them as just predatory"

Yes, when they are. Little else needs to be said about them. There's plenty of sources covered by Beall that aren't flagged by the script because they haven't been debated, or haven't otherwise been reviewed.

4) "I'm not sure why you think focusing on reliability specifically, rather than predation generally"

That's not what you said, you said "Whether the relationship between author and publisher is predatory or not is between them, and none of our business." It very much is our business.

Now that's the last time I'll entertain you here, because I'm getting quite fed up with having to answer the same question over and over and over. If you don't like my script, then don't use it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toronto Guardian

Not sure why this website appears in red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Hall#cite_note-:0-1 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#Toronto_Guardian. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sites used by Status Labs

According to the Status Labs article, the websites "MedicalDailyTimes.com", "ChronicleWeek.com", and "ChemFindIt.com" are fake news websites. I just checked whether they were being used on WP and noticed that the links weren't being highlighted.
Also, I assume the investigation found more than just those three websites, so it's possible that more of them have been revealed elsewhere. Sunrise (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I added those three, though they aren't used anywhere on Wikipedia at the moment [21]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

False positive?

I was a bit surprised to see citations to english-heritage.org.uk highlighted in red (see English Heritage). Looking at User:Headbomb/unreliable.js it seems like this is a false positive caused by the entry for Heritage.org. Spicy (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it yeah. I'll try to come up with a fix later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy: should be fixed now. Thanks for the report! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Similarly for Heritage New Zealand which uses heritage.org.nz. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which use this as a reference for notable buildings, mostly via {{NZHPT}}. Would the problematic uses of the American website always have a slash after the .org you could test for?-gadfium 22:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gadfium: should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Great. thanks for the speedy fix.-gadfium 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Page title

I wonder whether a different page title might be appropriate. "Questionable"? "Disreputable"? A questionable or disreputable source can be reliable for certain statements, so the script is not really able to determine reliability at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's designed to find unreliable and potentially unreliable sources. Nothing wrong with the current name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

All sources are potentially unreliable. Any source that does not directly support the content is unreliable for that content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is obviously correct. Furthermore, why would anyone want a tool that ruins an article by cosmetically casting aspersions upon a thing, rather than flag it with {{better source needed}} or delete it or otherwise do their Wikipedian duty? — Smuckola(talk) 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not renaming the page or the script. See also WP:BIKESHED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You're belligerently shushing the very pertinent and correct outside world that you just aimlessly spammed. Your spam included self-aggrandization so I guess that's not surprising. Your irrelevant mention of WP:BIKESHED is the bikeshed here. — Smuckola(talk) 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he's being belligerent. Headbomb and I have been talking about this script and ways of solving the various problems for a long time now. We know each other's views pretty well. I respect his, and I feel like he respects me. It would be incorrect to cast me in the role of the opposition. And not only do I not feel like I am part of the "outside world" in this context, or that the recent message was either aimless or self-aggrandizing, but I also have no intention of demanding that he take my suggestion. mw:Naming things is hard, and sometimes people read more into the name than they should (and, in this specific instance, I feel confident in saying, more than Headbomb intends anyone to). But IMO the benefit of a new name would be limited – not zero, or I wouldn't have suggested it, but limited. If he doesn't feel like it's worth it, then that's okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless another tool arises that has a better claim to the name, or where a lack of disambiguation could cause confusion, it's fairly moot. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: ok but you're all perfectly cherry (nit)picking out the side point, and totally ignoring the vital majority of what I said. — Smuckola(talk) 00:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm using it precisely to scan references and either delete duplicative unreliable sources or tag them as better source needed. It is an excellent tool that saves people scanning 100s of sources, and flags the most dubious. But this process shouldn't be automated, because, as Headbomb notes, some judgement is required. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice tool

Very useful. Good job, and thanks for the mail out. Also hadn't known about the tool ranking - I'll be checking out some of the other entries too now that I know. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been using it for awhile and I really appreciate the value it adds. So in case I've neglected to thank you in the past, thank you now! Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Axishistory.com

Hello, would it be possible to have this website added to the list of depreciated sources, please? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation happens at WP:RSN. I can highlight the link as generally/marginally unreliable, but I'd first need to know the reasons why this should be considered unreliable (if obvious), or point to an WP:RSN discussion about that source if not obvious/contentious since that's where consensus about these things need to be established. Or perhaps a discussion at WT:MILHIST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, thanks for this. There already a discussion about axishistory.com, lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de, and feldgrau.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260 and I don't think anyone would serious doubt that these are unreliable solely as amatuer WP:SPS if not for anything else. They are, unfortunately, still widely cited in low-quality MILHIST articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add all three to generally unreliable. If they get blacklisted, let me know I and I'll move to blacklisted instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You might want to add this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://tsort.info/music/yr1935.htm

1935_in_music#Biggest hit songs See 'Cheek to Cheek' line - "RYM 1 of 1935" <<< this website can never be used here, it is Rate Your Music, where users rate their favorite music. Nothing against website, our editor used http://tsort.com as the source, which is also big mistake. tsort rates songs by year, but it's based on a formula that includes current polls and awards. The Wikipedia "Year In Music" pages are based on real historical events from the subject year, not user-sourced accounts, which is why many websites have been forbidden as sources. I admit I use discogs to examine scans of original records, because it is highly unlikely anybody would go to the trouble of faking them, but I never use it as a reference, just to help confirm or dispute information I already have.

'unreliable' nails RYM as a reference, but nobody caught it on the Year In Music pages. I have replaced many of the corrupt Biggest hit Songs sections, and I promise to eventually do them all. Steve.hawtin (talk | contribs) added this on 3 September 2007 11:56 AM. <<< this who did it. Back then, many of our current rules did not exist.

1936-1940 I have not gotten to yet. I revised 1941-1945.

"I'm using it precisely to scan references" <<< I just read this, so never mind. If works very well, thanks

Tillywilly17 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tillywilly17: I have no idea what I'm looking at now. In plain English, what are you saying? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Chart Entries

1

Fred Astaire

Cheek to Cheek

1935

U.S. Billboard 1 – 1935 (18 weeks), Your Hit Parade 1 of 1935, Grammy Hall of Fame in 2000 (1935), RYM 1 of 1935, U.S. Billboard 2 of 1935, POP 2 of 1935, Oscar in 1935 (film 'Top Hat') (Nominated), AFI 15, Scrobulate 19 of vocal, nuTsie 27 of 1930s, Brazil 38 of 1936 Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

3

Shirley Temple

On The Good Ship Lollipop

1935

U.S. Billboard 1 of 1935, POP 1 of 1935, Music Imprint 9 of 1930s, AFI 69, RYM 109 of 1935, RIAA 136 Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

[[1935_in_music#Biggest hit songs]] Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

https://tsort.info/music/yr1935.htm

Artist

Song Title

Year

Chart Entries

1

Fred Astaire

Cheek to Cheek

1935

US Billboard 1 - 1935 (18 weeks), Your Hit Parade 1 of 1935, Grammy Hall of Fame in 2000 (1935), US invalid BB 2 of 1935, POP 2 of 1935, Oscar in 1935 (film 'Top Hat') (Nominated), AFI 15, Scrobulate 19 of vocal, nuTsie 27 of 1930s, Brazil 38 of 1936, RYM 1 of 1935

2

Eddy Duchin

Lovely to Look At

1935

US Billboard 1 - 1935 (14 weeks), Oscar in 1935 (film 'Roberta') (Nominated), Your Hit Parade 5 of 1935, US invalid BB 12 of 1935, POP 12 of 1935, Brazil 49 of 1935

3

The Carter Family

Can the Circle be Unbroken (Bye & Bye)

1935

Grammy Hall of Fame in 1998 (1935), Music Imprint 13 of 1920s, nuTsie 14 of 1930s, US Billboard 17 - 1935 (1 week), RIAA 116, Acclaimed 735 (1935), Visconti song of 1935, RYM 5 of 1935, Song of 1935

4

Shirley Temple

On The Good Ship Lollipop

1935

US invalid BB 1 of 1935, POP 1 of 1935, Music Imprint 9 of 1930s, AFI 69, RIAA 136, RYM 109 of 1935

5

Bing Crosby

Silent Night, Holy Night

1935

Europe 2 of the 1930s (1935), nuTsie 5 of 1930s, US Billboard 6 - 1928 (3 weeks), UK 8 - Dec 1952 (2 weeks), DMDB 21 (1935), Global 4 (20 M sold) - 1935 Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to point you to the Wikipedia:Tea House and maybe you can ask there whatever it is you are trying to ask me here. If English is not your first language, maybe they can get someone else to translate for you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Professional Wrestling

Hi. Will you add unreliable sources from WP:PW/RS to the list? That would be very helpful for the members of WP:PROWRESTLING. Because many pro wrestling-related articles use those unreliable sources but the script can't detect them yet; e.g. take a look at Sareee. Citation #43 is unreliable per PW/RS but the script does not highlight it. Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann: I could... but it's a bit tricky without a RSN discussions (you can check WT:VG for a similar discussion concerning videogame sources). The key points are

1. I'm not familiar with the wrestling world much, so I can't judge these myself, unless super obvious / an explanation of why something is unreliable. This is a minor point however.
2. I don't know how much the wrestling project's opinion is reflective of the wider community. Typically, an WP:RSN discussion is preferred.
3. Some of these might be unreliable for the wrestling project, but reliable for other topics.

I do note that there seems to be documentation for why each is considered unreliable, which I haven't reviewed yet. It's late here, but I'll check it tomorrow to integrate as many things as I can, and see what I can't integrate without wider community feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can discuss it on WT:PW or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. I saw this message by MediaWiki message delivery about the script on WT:PW and it looked interesting, so I decided to install it. Tested it on some articles and it found some unreliable sources like Sportskeeda (considered as unreliable per PW/RS too). I like this script and it will be useful for me. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mann Mann (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann: I added a few, but for many of them the documented evidence seems weak. Like, All Wrestling is listed as "Article writers use screen names only", but when I check https://allwrestling.com/, I see writer names. Likewise many sites are listed as reporting rumors, but they did report it as a rumor, which doesn't seem like a sin to me. I'd be happy to add more, but I'd want to see stronger cases for unreliability first, or RSN discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Human-readable

Could you make a more human-readable version of the list of websites included in the unreliable.js script? At the moment, it is a dense blob of regex in the code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No idea if it's even possible. Feel free to suggest improvements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Religious sources

Are there any lists maintained on Wikipedia for religious POV sources that could be incorporated into the tool, or does it all flow through WP:RS? There are a lot of low-grade religious sources that have clear neutrality and reliability issues, but are currently not even flagged as yellow. Yet it would be laborious indeed to pass them all, one by one, through a WP:RS RFC process. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a theologian and context matters a lot for religious sources. I wouldn't be able to begin to tell you what's a reliable Hindi scholar and a fringe Hindi scholar, for example. So yes, a project-wide consensus is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Opt-in option?

What about making it opt-in using a class? Details and example at WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's already opt-in. Not sure what a class would add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Misleading journal metric

Ref no. 30 in Museum of Antiquities in Vilnius is being highlighted for "misleading journal metric". What does that mean? I see the website that's hosting the article is somehow problematic, but I don't see explanation in the documentation as to what the problem actually is. Thanks, Renata•3 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Renata3: See User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive_1#"Misleading journal metric"—oaji.net for a similar issue. I'll do more digging about this specific journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So is the problem that OAJI is an indiscriminate collection of journals? What makes it different from, say, academia.edu or reasearchgate.net that are highlighted in yellow? Just trying to understand. Renata•3 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

OAJI is a hoax organization, so if you work with them, chances are you're not a reputable organization and are looking to advertise fake impact factors. In this case, the only online presence of this journal or its publisher (except for their own website), the so-called Scientific Methodical Centre "Scientia Educologica" is facebook. This is not a reputable journal/conference/publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Highlighting whole paragraphs

Special:Permalink/1088052042 highlights the comments in red. This is undesirable and sometimes annoying. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 23:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Limitations. Change * to : at the start of comments to bypass this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add setlist.fm?

Was going through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Music and found a reference to setlist.fm, and was surprised it wasn't highlighted. The site is very clear cut user generated content, and is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, with a (very short) 2018 discussion here. It's usage is unfortunately extensive. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Zeldauniverse.net

Zeldauniverse.net is a blog consisting of various self-published posts. You might want to add this to the list as I have seen it used as a source. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I will note that the site and its YouTube channel do host some interviews with people who worked on various games in The Legend of Zelda series and the TV show, such as this one with the voice actor of Mipha from The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, and this one with the voice actress of Zelda from The Legend of Zelda (TV series). I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on this sort of stuff is though. ~Red Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Circle System: I'd say discuss it with WP:VG first and I'll abide by what they decide (highlight in red as unreliable, or yellow as depends on topic/contributor). See also [22]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Circle System: WT:VGRS is probably where you want the discussion to happen, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Query about AuthorHouse

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

Shouldn’t it show as red when used in a reference? Doug Weller talk 17:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Or did I ask this before? Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more explicit in what exactly it is you're asking here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s used in Aisha, at the moment reference 10. I’m under the impression that the default for self-published books is unreliable. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There's no link for the script to operate on. See User:Headbomb/unreliable#False negatives. Or the "bad at dealing with offline sources" bit in the big notice at the top of the script's documentation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry, I shall set reading that page as homework so I don’t bother you again. Seriously, I’ll try to read it tomorrow, maybe while I’m sitting for two hours having chemo, if the hospital wireless works. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself over it. Life's too short for memorizing pages of technical documentation. Good luck with the chemo, and don't be afraid to ask if you have more questions! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll read it though because I’m interested. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting. So would creating a filter for authorhouse (separately) be a good idea? And maybe CreateSpace (although I guess these might exist). It would have to be for publishers that don't have ambiguous names. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how one would go about doing that. You can always search [23] and [24] to find those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s a better way. I’ve a lot to learn about searching Wikipedia it seems. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

How to utilise this tool?

I was told here that I should use this tool but I have no clue on how to go about it? Is this something that goes under Twinkle tools or something? Please explain to a dummy user or point me to the right page for explanation. Thanks a lot. EMsmile (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: You just install it and that's pretty much that. See how to install. And if you want to test to see if it works, you can check User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases. If the links are highlighted in various colours, the script works and was installed correctly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it to work (I somehow overlooked the "install" button earlier"). I've tested it out on a page that I am working on: sustainability. However, it highlights many books in light yellow as "preprint or general repository which may or may not...". How can I avoid that books like this one are marked in yellow? Or is that unavoidable or the tool doesn't work well for books? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit: ignore my question, I think I've found my answers about books here. EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The answer you want is actually at WP:UPSD#OCLC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Pink paragraph

Does it cause whole paragraphs to turn pink? As in HMS Terror (1813)#Legacy the paragraph starting "In July 2013, an anonymous miniaturist began reconstructing". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See User:Headbomb/unreliable#Comments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Distinguishing unknown sources from generally reliable sources

This is one of the best user scripts, but I think it would be a lot better if there was an option to configure showing "generally reliable" sources differently from sources that are of unknown quality. This addition would make reviewing AfC submissions a lot easier. There could be a separate list of reliable sources as determined on WP:RSP. Thank you for the script! 0xDeadbeef 07:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Unknown quality" is basically everything not highlighted. You can combine this script with WP:CITEUNSEEN or use User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter instead, the latter of which I do not recommend specifically because it highlights sources in green when it shouldn't. You have no way of knowing if something published in the New York Times is reliable or not, even if the New York Times itself is generally reliable. Likewise for something published in Science or any other generally reliable publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Predatory sources

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

One more predatory journal to your script: Sys Rev Pharm, they use enterosorbents in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: [25], "The main medicinal drugs of choice, with a proven pathogenetic mechanism of allergens removal from the body, are enterosorbents". D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: do you have a source to back up the predatory-ness of this source? Because the above is completely meaningless to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. But the statement I've quoted is backed up by two another publications, one of which relies on activated carbon usage in allergic diseases in Russia and the another is about Enterosgel and has only one mention of allergic diseases in the context of interactions with other drugs. I doubt that a good peer review process would accept papers with such claims. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: Maybe so, but bad papers (or good papers with different conclusions) get through to good journals all the time. If there's a systematic issue with that journal, you can bring it up to WP:RSN or WT:MED and get consensus that this is a terrible journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, one another paper about antihistamines ([26]) with the same authors cites this one: "Recently, data have appeared on the complex use of antihistamine drugs and enterosorbents in the treatment of allergic diseases [14]. This approach accelerates the elimination of the allergen from the patient's body, suppresses the body's sensitivity to its sensitizing effect, and, therefore, increases the effectiveness of antiallergic drug therapy". If I'll find more such articles I'll open the discussion WP:RSN or WT:MED. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember that you have to show that these papers are somehow discredited. Not just that they say X causes Y. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

They say that enterosorbents increase effectiveness of antihistamines but their arguments are not backed up by reliable sources. And the only reliable source I've found about enterosorbents and allergy is [27], but the authors are from Russia too, so they could simply describe Russian traditions in treatments which often far from evidence-based medicine. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Using unreliable.js in other scripts

Copied from User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2022/July#Using unreliable.js in other scripts

Hi! I was hoping to use the data in unreliable.js in other scripts. I can think of a couple ways to do that. The method with the least change is to just have unreliable.js stash its "rules" list in a global variable like window.unreliableBuiltinRules (like the existing window.unreliableCustomRules variable). Alternatively, the list could also be moved out into a separate .json file. Or we could do something else. I would be happy to send in patches for either option or to make the edits myself. Thoughts would be appreciated. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I'd love to have a JSON file, but making that JSON file is a major headache. And would possibly balloon to a several megabytes file. You're welcomed to take a shot at it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Or any other ways of externalizing the rules if JSON isn't viable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the green light. I've made a JSON file at User:Enterprisey/TESTING-unreliable.json and a new version of the script that uses the JSON file at User:Enterprisey/unreliable.js. Let me know what you think! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take a look in more details this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but any updates on this? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

None so far, I got distracted by other projects (like the new WP:JCW/DIACRITICS and a bunch of The Foobar → Foobar redirects). I haven't forgotten about it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Copied and old discussion (in beige) so I don't forget this and that others are kept abreast. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central

Add royalcentral.co.uk as a deprecated source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Sydney_Zatz_on_Royal_Central. I have also requested that this site be blacklisted, so by the time you read this it will probably be on the blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Added, ping me if/when it gets blacklisted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Another false positive

Links to https://examiner.com.au are showing up as blacklisted, I assume because of the entry for Examiner.com. This seems to be a normal Australian news site that has nothing to do with the blacklisted Examiner. Spicy (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that one might be hard to bypass, given it literally contains the full domain. But I'll try to see if there's a way. I might need a few days before I get to this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Article history links

Hi Headbomb, hope you are well. Is it possible to disallow the script to run on article talk pages? It looks like the script is highlighting some of the links listed at MediaWiki:Histlegend as unreliable. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

List of sources you can maybe add to your script

you can find it at your meta talk page. They're put in 3 categories: one for RSP stuff, one for other discussions, and one for miscellaneous stuff (lists, self published stuff, general garbage news).

@Headbomb 137a (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• bump

137a (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the list posted here: Feel free to strike ones that you have added and maybe add a comment.

stuff at add

title:FROM WP:RSP (most are yellow) theamericanconservative.com (“no consensus” on RSP, but should not be used for facts) aa.com.tr (anadolu agency, yellow on general topics, red for controversial issues on RSP) boingboing.net borderline source. Some subject matter experts businessinsider.com (WP:BI) chinadailyasia.com and chinadailyhk.com (chinadaily.com is already listed, see WP:CHINADAILY) cliffsnotes.com one below WP:CSMONITER cosmopolitan.com (“no consensus” on RSP) mirror.co.uk (daily mirror, “no consensus” on RSP) democracynow.org entrepreneur.com (“no consensus”, but contributor pieces are generally unreliable) geonames.nga.mil (yellow or red for on RSP depending on what is being used) searchlightmagazine.com (Hope Not Hate, yellow on RSP, one row below WP:THR) humanevents.com Some are missing from WP:IMC. ibtimes.sg (WP:IBTIMES; other URLs are present on the script) whoswhoinamerica.com (Marquis Who's Who) mashable.com (WP:MASHABLE; sponsored content is generally unreliable, anything else is used with caution) mediamatters.org (one row below WP:MBFC) mrctv.org and newsbusters.org (media research center, generally unreliable) morningstaronline.co.uk thenextweb.com (one row below WP:NEWSWEEK, avoid sponsored content and contributor pieces) skepdic.com (The Skeptic's Dictionary) techcrunch.com (WP:TECHCRUNCH) vice.com (WP:VICE) sbs.com.au (Vice Media) washingtonexaminer.com (one row above WP:WAPO FROM DISCUSSIONS dexerto.com not on RSP, but considered generally unreliable according to past discussions on WP:RSN and WT:VGRS. bozhdynsky.com self published, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#bozhdynsky.com. (BTW, self published/user generated sources should probably be its own category) cahighways.org unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 374#cahighways.org. twnews.co.uk self published Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#RfC:The World News (twnews.co.uk) tghat.com reliable for own opinion only per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#RfC: tghat.com. peakbagger.com mixed responses at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?. Links associated here have been blacklisted: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 365#RfC: Srivastava Group Metalmaidens.com unclear reliability, RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Metalmaidens.com cctv.com see previous discussions] headlineplanet.com Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Headline Planet Tibetan Political Review, see this discussion off-guardian.org WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#OffGuardian armchairempire.com at WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources gov.genealogy.net user generated Jrank.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&search=%22jrank.org%22&ns0=1 various issues] distractify.com may need further review, but discussions have not been promising (article on it is still a stub, "no consensus" at WP:NPPSG. Likely should be in "borderline source" category) spacefacts.de allthatsinteresting.com and thegreenpapers.com "no consensus" at WP:NPPSG boundingintocomics.com yellow at best, maybe red, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Bounding into Comics and previous discussions skynews.com.au closed as "additional considerations apply", see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Sky News Australia dailytelegraph.com.au generally unreliable tabloid, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Not to be confused with the reliable UK daily telegraph independentaustralia.netWP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia thetab.com likely yellow per WP:NPPSG See this discussion 🡺 Special:PermaLink/1116534869#Military fansites imnialu.net Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Self-published website claiming that soccer players are gypsies Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Reliability of Filipino tabloids: Hataw! and Pilipino Mirror thecritic.co.uk suggest an investigation into this one, particularly for politics. Claimed vaccines are racist, uses pseudonyms sometimes svg.com Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 27#SVG.com Navypedia.orgSpecial:PermaLink/1121718879#Navypedia.org True North News: WT:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30#True North News - Reliable or not reliable? yellow maybe? OTHER blogto.com do an investigation, but this site doesn’t seem that promising to me. Maybe yellow? Briefly discussed in some places such as RSN. thebeaverton.com satirical news source Dailyhive.com (lower quality and less reputable, although you should use your own judgement for that) Habr.com (tech blog that is considered self-published) Wikihow, rationalwiki, lostmediawiki.com, creationwiki and maybe some others, for obvious reasons WP:Record charts/Special:AbuseFilter/554. The charts to avoid should probably be in the pink section, unclear what the deprecated section is. Maybe the deprecated ones could be in pink or yellow? Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources lists of sources by reliability for specific WikiProjects (WP:VGRS, WP:A/S as examples), maybe you can include the situational/unreliable ones theamericanreporter.com blacklisted website redice.tv fringe news site 978-1-105 (apparently, many of these belong to Lulu.com) Several essay sites, with ibl.org/essay and bartleby.org/essay being just a few examples (looks self published, although I can’t say that for sure. Probably pink, and at the very best yellow.) National Report, Peace Data, TruNews, EPtoday. All egregious disinfo sites. (EPToday is blacklisted) worddisk.com, wikiwand.com, wikizero.net, thereaderwiki.com, bestref.com common mirrors of wikipedia; circular. Maybe add some other mirrors that frequently pop up? bollywoodhelpline.com User:GeneralNotability/unreliable-rules.js is interesting en.12up.com found in sponsored content, with typical sponsored content title, but 12up.com actually has quite a few citations. I suggest you do an investigation, but it is possible that www.12up.com and en.12up.com are completely different. heraldweekly.com also found in the sponsored section. Can’t be sure if either of the above two sources have only sponsored content, but this one has 12 citations in article space, so do a small check and there is no pain in adding it. Titled as entertainment news/gossip website. One headline I found is "[Gallery] After 220 Years Two Brothers Finally Found The Oak Island Treasure". thestar.com/sponsored_sections (obvious, just as) lamag.com/sponsored ctvnews.ca/sponsored-content nationalpost.com/sponsored amny.com/sponsored seattletimes.com/sponsored lfpress.com/sponsored gq.com/sponsored newsweek.com/sponsored (check newsweek.com/insights as well) vancouverisawesome.com/sponsored Sptrkr.com (sponsored garbage) Whtrkr.com (also sponsored) factable.com learnitwize.com Also, check out https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/dont-get-fooled-by-these-fake-news-sites/17/ and https://gizmodo.com/the-9-worst-fake-news-sites-1681729157 for more stuff you should probably add.

137a (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb still a few topics to address here. 137a (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the current thinking about which updates like this should hit RSP or CITEWATCH and which should just update this script? If available, I'd love to see something like the videogames list in terms of edit-summaries, last-decision, and the sequence of historical reevaluations. – SJ + 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean... If it has been discussed enough times on RSN, it should probably make RSP and WP:NPPSG. But I haven't really thought about that. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that is eligible for RSP listing. It it's not eligible, it might at last make NPPSG. (please ping on reply) 137a (talk • edits) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb hasn't edited this talk page since September 23 see page hist and the script since Dec 5 hist. A few edits on User:Headbomb/unreliable in January. 137a (talk • edits) 14:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Need advice

Mr. Headbomb I am a dedicated user of the unreliable script. I do a lot of work improving Wikipedia's music pages, Year in Music pages, etc. I have removed a huge number of sections riddled with unreliable user-sourced information that have no citations, and replaced them with comprehensive data with many references and text explaining everything to the reader.

In the course of my work, I need to find many recording dates for hit records of the 20th Century, and of course they are useless to me without reliable citations. When I come up empty on the internet and my books, I go hunting for album liner notes on anthology-type releases, where often the record companies list the musicians and recording details. I will cut to the chase. This is a line from an infobox:

| recorded =August 16, 1967 (1967-08-16)

from Woman, Woman infobox

If you click on the url, it goes straight to an image of the cd booklet that is the source of my information. The booklet was printed by Sony, and the information comes from their Archives in New York. There is no better source in the world than this for Columbia, RCA Victor, and the other companies they have acquired.

There is only one problem, the scanned page is on discogs website. All the other websites I checked had the cover only. The reason discogs and 45world are blacklisted is their information is unreliable user-sourced. But I use them all the time to double check the information I get from my reliable sources because their pictures are the original records. Of course you need to know exactly what you are looking for, but it comes in handy to confirm exact spellings of artists and titles. Here it came in very handy, I got 7 extremely reliable recording dates from that one page.

However, we have a rule about using that website. My argument is that my information is sourced from Sony, not discogs. I saw all the pages scanned from the booklet. and it was obviously authentic. Like I said, I do this all the time, and I am probably as crazy as you are about reliable information. Even with the rules, I see stuff I am very uncomfortable with i.e.List of best-selling singles and its related pages List of best-selling singles in the United States, loaded with unreliable hyped up numbers we should have nothing to do with. Oh well, I am not in charge, and we can't blacklist everything, and I have plenty of work to do.

I could change my citation to not use the url if I have to, but I think it is better the way it is. Let me know what you think, and I'll make any changes necessary-Dave Tillywilly17 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tillywilly17: I don't really see where there's a problem here. The issue with discogs is the user generated content. A scan of official content is as good a source as any. There's no need to change your URLs to anything. If someone is removing them for whatever reason and you're constantly running into headaches, you can always add a comment like <ref>[https://www.discogs.com/whatever Scan of Official Cover ] via Discogs<!--This is not user-generated content--></ref> or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you, that was a great answer, I will add that Tillywilly17 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Some sources to add

• Dexerto is generally unreliable per WP:VGRS
• Distractify is borderline per WP:NPPSG
• seattletimes.com/sponsored is self-explanatory
• redice.tv is generally unreliable
• Entrepreneur (magazine) is listed as no consensus on WP:RSP, but the site has contributor pieces which are unreliable
• dailytelegraph.com.au (the Sydney one) is generally unreliable per this RSN discussion

More on this section above

Also, has this been addressed yet? 137a (talk • edits) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Iranian gov sources

Iranian government sources seem to be being leant an undue degree of leniency at present, with the exception of Press TV. A list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here. The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials; the Tasnim News Agency, which also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger; and Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though it's the least concern. Past discussions of the first two sources can be found here and here Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Hey, do you monitor this talk, or have any thoughts on the above, or should I just take it back to the noticeboard? Would be good to have your input one way or another, even if it's just to tell me to take this elswhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do, however, I'm fairly busy until early March. An clear RSN discussion makes it easier for me to not have to use my brain. You have some, but I haven't taken a look at them yet because of said business. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

EWG.org Generally Unreliable?

This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group is an advocacy group. You can search for "EWG.org" or "Environmental Working Group" at RSN and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 62#EWG) for a few hits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are Advocacy groups usually considered unreliable? I don't see any consensus that they are "generally unreliable" on RSN. Just a few mentions (many are actually confirming they are usually reliable). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not all of them, but this one is an alarmist organic food advocacy group. See updated links above. Or this Forbe's article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (and from a yellow link ;-)). The link to the fringe theories noticeboard is between two users with no sources. This seems a rather poor evaluation. The article on EWG is also poorly sourced in it's statement that it "has been criticized". I think we need more solid sourcing to reach this conclusion. It appears the script is marking EWG without any actual inclusion in one of "the lists" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take Quackwatch's or the American Academy of Dermatology's opinions over your personal preferences on this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Me too. Would you have a link to those sources?

Also: this means that some sources are marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? Doesn't seem specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?

Don't want to sound too critical here (this is YOUR script after all!). I would just like to know exactly what I'm using. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

They're both in the EWG article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that AAD source from 2010 appears to be substantially out of date. It mentions "safe new chemicals" in sunscreens that the EWG has criticised "unfairly" such as oxybenzone. They mention that the only chemicals they support are "old technology" like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. However in 2021 the FDA supported completely what EWG was saying. The only chemicals they currently consider GRASE for use in sunscreens are Zinc and Titanium. Oxybenzone has been banned for various reasons around the world and linked to various negative effects such as killing off corals. Like they say: hindsight is 20/20 right?

Quackwatch still has them on the list of questionable organisations as of Feb, 2022.

What about the other point I raised about the script? Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What other points? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are some sources marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? I don't see that specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's technically possible, but I don't recall making unilateral judgments except in very clear cases of nonsense (like flagging certain satire sites like The Beaverton). There are some differences with WP:RSP's classification, like arXiv being flagged in yellow, rather than red, because preprints are often used in lieu of their published version (or alongside them). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I ended up here through a rabbit hole of sorts, but I will echo Headbomb's comment on the EWG. Whether it's on-wiki or just us university agricultural scientists speaking up IRL, it is well known as unreliable for misleading or outright fearmongering purposeful misrepresentations dealing with chemicals. For those of us that to deal with legitimate chemical safety issues and concerns, EWG has us starting in the negatives for public education rather than just square 1. Just calling them a "boy who cried wolf" type organization is already being pretty generous. There hasn't really been a need to designate it over at WP:RSP though since the only people I've seen really pushing that it's reliable are usually those who end up topic banned for pushing fringe advocacy. If more people get caught off-guard by the group though on-wiki, it may be worth adding it to the list someday though. KoA (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some additional up to date sources to report? I'm editing Environmental Working Group as we speak and most of the critical voices are 10+ years old. Since then it seems to me that they have been largely proven right by history - there WAS a wolf! E.g. the sunscreen report they have been publishing since the early 2000s: some of the substances they have criticised turned out to be harmful and are basically only used in the US nowadays and even there they are banned in several places. FDA is reviewing their classification. In addition to this, reliable sources routinely cite them, and large industry players have partnered with them. I don't think that makes them qualify as a generally unreliable source. Surely not in such an egregious manner that it shouldn't even be discussed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Congralutations, you've found a brocken clock. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm starting to see WP:COATRACK problems related to that one when EWG's actions really aren't discussed much in that regard later on. That Gtoffoletto is describing them is largely proven right by history is a huge red flag when it comes to WP:FRINGE advocacy groups like this. There just hasn't been that much advocacy on-wiki related to this group that we've needed to spell it out in terms of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP/WP:NOTBURO, and that's mostly because those of us who deal with MEDRS/FRINGE issues handle issues from these groups when they come up without much issue. KoA (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay. I think we need to make decisions based on Reliable Sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, documents published by NGOs in the field of human rights, consumer protection, environmentalism, health or development need to be cited with care. If e.g. it's about their position on a certain point, this needs to be clearly stated. For instance, the hazard score of a chemical in EWG's Skin Deep database may be provided, if it is made clear what kind of organization EWG is. The same holds true for other organizations with a (potentially) biased view such as companies or trade organizations. CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles, respectively. On the other hand, all references to the Pesticide Action Network and its Pesticide Info database are regularly being removed, even though it is an accredited stakeholder organization regularly contributing to UNEP work (example). Furthermore, a self-statement on accuracy of data is provided, the Arizona Department of Agriculture states This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate. and an assessment of toxicological databases concludes that the PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases.
Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. --Leyo 23:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with this view. This is a very slippery slope towards an extremely dangerous bias. Picking and choosing which advocacy groups are allowed/reliable and which aren't based on the opinions of a few bloggers really bothers me. I find it worrisome that many of those bloggers only tend to criticise advocacy groups that don't align with industry. We should definitely give an equally cautious treatment to content coming from any advocacy group and especially those tied to a specific industry (for obvious reasons). We should always strive for independent and reliable scientific accuracy, and that doesn't mean giving industry a free pass without allowing any questioning. If Wikipedia doesn't already have it, I think a general policy on how to treat content by advocacy groups would be an important priority. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 02:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

pesticideinfo.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Take it to WP:RSN - Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I request that pesticideinfo.org be removed from "Generally unreliable source" in User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, since this judgement is unfounded and actually contradicts the evidence:

• Self-statement on accuracy of data
• Assessment of toxicological databases: PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases
• Arizona Department of Agriculture: This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate.

Leyo 20:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The group is part of those outright denying the scientific consensus on GMOs and related pesticides, so that'd be a pretty hard no for me.[28] This is 2023, so we should be long past the point of people trying to argue these groups are reliable. KoA (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A user's judgement is certainly not superior to the reviews linked above. --Leyo 22:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You're trying to claim a science denial advocacy organization is reliable. Full stop. Since we're on usertalk, I will remind you that I had to caution you for disruptive behavior in this subject in the past, especially in a discretionary sanction/contentious topic. This really does not look good, especially for an admin. KoA (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You are describing your own behavior here, in past and now. You are on thin ice. As stated, your opinion is not given more weight than Arizona Department of Agriculture or an evaluation in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. --Leyo 23:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to urgently address this issue more systematically. It is obvious that there is a worrisome trend of totally discrediting independent NGOs that "touch" certain subjects. Meanwhile we do not apply any kind of warning or editorial limit to content produced by industry lobbying groups funded explicitly by various industries. This is a huge problem. I think we need to move to more widely read noticeboards and discuss this with a wide user base. @Leyo as an admin could I ask what forum would be the most appropiate for this discussion? Are you aware of any discussion already addressing this issue in the past? Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do I run unreliable.js on my wiki page.

How do I run uneliable.js on my wiki page? I can install it, but there are no instructions on how to run it in order to check a source. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScooterMcGruff: if it's on the English wikipedia, just follow the instructions from User:Headbomb/unreliable#How_to_install. If it's on a different wikipedia (e.g. Spanish Wikipedia), or a private wiki, you'll need to create your own .js page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And for Physics Essays in particular, see User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive_1#Physics_Essays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That does not explain how to run the script. It only explains how to install the script. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It you install the script it automatically runs. Once installed, you can go to User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to see if it works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Where do I type in the name "Physics Essays" to get output from the script? ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't, that's now how the script works. Read the documentation to see what it does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the documentation. It does not tell you how to search a source. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

See Help:Search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no search box for the script that I see. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm I don't know what you expect this script to do. It's explained black on white here. You can check User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to see if you have it correctly installed. If you see links highlighted in yellow and red, it's correctly installed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Jrank

Per past RSN discussions, this source should be highlighted as generally unreliable. Thanks. 137a (talk • edits) 18:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Motley fool

Hi, is there a discussion you can point me towards for the listing of the Motley fool as generally unreliable? :3 F4U (they/it) 23:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed at RSN here and here (just search for Motley Fool). It's also listed here and in here. It doesn't seem to be the worst source in the world, but it seems very speculative and opinion driven. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic tool

Just a thank you for creating such a useful tool. Amigao (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Any chance of also picking up other language lists?

For example I write quite a lot about Turkey and sometimes cite Turkish sources here on English Wikipedia. Any chance of your very useful script also scanning the other language lists such as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar

I am incited to request this after Yeni Şafak was described as "obviously reliable" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nail_Olpak Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You can port the script to other Wikipedia, but you'll be responsible for its maintenance over there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

genealogy.euweb.cz

genealogy.euweb.cz is a self published genealogy website that's been discussed a very time as being junk, but the script doesn't pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Mayadeen

WP:ALMAYADEEN was recently deprecated. Amigao (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Simple Flying

It was suggested that I submit Simple Flying here as an unreliable source. There's been a couple of discussions that seem to repeatedly confirm the view of them being unreliable. Most recently: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SimpleFlying.com. Could you add it? Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

When I suggested that you propose it here, I said that you would need to provide evidence that it is consistently unreliable in many respects. You still need to do that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There's enough consensus to mark it unreliable. Deprecating needs more. Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing deprecated sources

Recommend adding all WP:DEPSOURCES to the script. And thanks again for creating such an outstanding resource. Amigao (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure these are already all covered. Do you notice any that are missing? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not flagging all instances of WP:SPUTNIK listed at both WP:RSPSOURCES and WP:DEPSOURCES. For example, if you check out International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, you should see a Sputnik cite that the script does not flag. Amigao (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, WP:SPUTNIK has most but not all of the website instances. These are missing:

• sputnikmediabank.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnikglobe.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnikportal.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.africa: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Added those four. If you notice others missing, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look like all these sister sites under WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM are being flagged. Here are the others:

• sputniknews.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.by: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• armeniasputnik.am: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.kz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.cn: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.md: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-georgia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-georgia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-abkhazia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-ossetia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-ossetia.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknewslv.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.lt: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews.gr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputniknews-uz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik-tj.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.az: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sputnik.kg: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• radiosputnik.ria.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• voiceofrussia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• russiatoday.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• russiatoday.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ruptly.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• redfish.media: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• rt.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple more Sputnik sister sites that have been popping up more recently:

sputniknews.uz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

sputniknews.lat: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Amigao (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another WP:SPUTNIK site that popped up:

• sputniknews.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yet another WP:RT.COM sister site:

• actualidad-rt.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki URL shortner

Obviously no wiki domain can be a reliable source, could you add w.wiki to unreliable urls. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of such a link? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/7vGc

As was being used as a reference in Phoenix, KwaZulu-Natal, before I removed it in this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added. It won't show on this talk page, but it will show in mainspace/on that old revision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is The Paper (newspaper) unreliable?

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

Flagged by your script. I am having trouble finding justification in RSP or RSN archives? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sister publication of Sixth Tone. RSP splits it into two categories, so this should probably be yellow. I'll investigate more later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts? In other news, a bunch of red-tagged sources from here should probably be yellow, given how much that discussion was disrupted by socks. (And some non-colored sources could be yellowed too - I'd suggest making everythign from 'naTemat' below yellow, except gazeta.pl). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ping ping? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved to yellow. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb Thank you for this. How about the adjustment to the Polish sources I pointed out above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific and point to RSN discussions because from a relatively long glance at things, I fail to see where removing the socks chance the outcome of these discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Baike.com

Baike.com probably ought to be flagged by your script the same way other WP:UGC sources are. Amigao (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, flagged as generally unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Stylesheets and dark mode

Hi Headbomb. I love the script. I have a request. Rather than inserting a style into each modified anchor, could you please instead add a class to the <a> and perhaps also the parent element if it's a related like <cite> elements? You can then inject a short stylesheet into the document like:

a.source-blacklisted { "background-color": "#dddddd", "text-decoration":"underline", "text-decoration-style": "wavy", "text-decoration-color": "#cc0000"; }
a.source-unreliable { "background-color": "#ffdddd"; }

And so on. While overriding with a title selector is possible, using classes would make it easier (and cleaner) for dark mode users to override the styling with CSS. The current colors are not really usable in dark mode. Adding a class to the parent element would also allow people to highlight the parent element with CSS. You could probably also group the styles a bit more cleanly than the current implementation (it looks like multiple groups intentionally share the same styling). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Update needed

Hello Headbomb, as a regular AfD participant I find it very disturbing to always have to check WP:RSMUSIC before assessing a discussion to verify the reliability of a source, luckily I came across this script which is very helpful in most topics but no source from WP:RSMUSIC is identified, and BBC and Times of India are reliable per WP:RS/Noticeboard but the script says otherwise. Can you please update the script and keep it in sync as stated here. Thank you in advance. dxneo (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The script doesn't do anything to BBC urls, and Times of India is marked as 'reliability depends on contributor or topic', per WP:TOI.

If you have specific sources in WP:RSMUSIC that should be flagged, let me know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

TikTok.com and Douyin.com

These two should be flagged as WP:UGC sources. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Baidu Baike sister site

Yet another sister site for WP:BAIDUBAIKE:

• baike.baidu.hk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, it looks like this one might not be getting flagged the way other WP:BAIDUBAIKE sites are by your script. Thanks for the superb work as always! - Amigao (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Opast

another predatory publisher, via Phoebe: https://www.opastpublishers.com/ – SJ + 11:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Already flagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)