Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1
|
![]() | This talk page is to discuss the Wikipedia CiteWatch, both the listing itself and its setup page (including what sources to base The CiteWatch on).
|
Q1: A questionable source is cited in an article inappropriately! What should I do?
A1: First, see the disclaimer. If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation.
Q2: A questionable source is cited in an article appropriately! What should I do?
A2: If you want to flag an unreliable source as appropriately cited, so others do not remove it, you can put a comment in the |journal= parameter, such as |journal = Nonsense Journal<!--This source is cited in accordance to [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] --> or similar. The CiteWatch does not currently have a way of tracking which sources are appropriately cited, but this could change in the future.Q3: I don't understand why a source is listed! How can I find out why?
A3: First, see the disclaimer. Additionally, each target column should have at least one link or explanatory note detailing why a source is listed. Follow these links, and you should have your explanation. Keep in mind, false positives do happen! See Q4 for more details on what to do if that's the case. Q4: A false positive is listed! What should I do?
A4: Report it here! Make sure to include the rank number and the false positive. For example Real J. Foobar is reported as a match for Rank #470 Fake Journal of Foobar, but these are not the same journals! is a clear report, but Real J. Foobar shouldn't be listed! or Fake Journal of Foobar is wrong! Fix it! are not. If you are comfortable with templates, you can add {{JCW-exclude|TARGET|FALSEPOSITIVE}} to the relevant section of WP:JCW/EXCLUDE yourself. For the above case, this would be {{JCW-exclude|Fake Journal of Foobar|Real J. Foobar}} in WP:JCW/EXCLUDE#F. After a source has been added/removed from The CiteWatch, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next daily run (see Q9).Q5: I think you should add/remove a source from The CiteWatch! What should I do?
A5: For most sources, you should discuss this at WP:RSN first. If consensus is that the source is questionable enough to at least be worth watching (or reliable enough to be removed from the CiteWatch), leave a notice here and it will be added/removed to WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP. Note that the threshold for inclusion in the CiteWatch is somewhere between WP:MREL (unclear reliability) and WP:GUNREL (generally unreliable). After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot (typically on the next daily run). See also Q6 for how to deal with unreliable publishers. Q6: A new problematic publisher has popped up / a current problematic publisher doesn't list some of its journals! What should I do?
A6: Report it here! For predatory publishers like OMICS Publishing Group and their ilk, please provide
Q7: A journal with an article (e.g. Journal of Foobar) has some red linked variations of its name (e.g. Journal of foobar or J. Foobar)! What should I do?
A7: In the case of a legitimate variation, create a redirect and tag it with {{R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}, {{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from former name}}, {{R from acronym}}, or similar. In the case of an illegitimate variation, like a typo or a capitalization mistake, simply fix the article. If the mistake is common or likely to occur again in the future, you can create a redirect and tag it with {{R from typo}}, {{R from miscapitalization}} or similar. If dealing with a false positive, see Q4. There is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next WP:DUMP (see Q9). Q8: How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not?
A8:
Q9: When is The Citewatch updated?
A9: The Citewatch is on a dual update cycle.
Q10: What is the difference between The Citewatch and Headbomb's unreliable/predatory source detector script? Which is better?
A10: The Citewatch looks at data dumps and reports what is found in the |journal= and, to a lesser extent, the |doi= parameters of {{cite xxx}} templates. Headbomb's script instead looks at the URLs found in live version of articles. While both are developed in parallel, they are independently maintained and operate based on different principles and not all sources picked by one will be picked by the other. In general, The Citewatch is a good tool to find articles with bad sources, while Headbomb's script is a good tool to detect which sources are bad. Both have their uses, but the script will catch more things since it is not limited to only the |journal= and |doi= parameters of citation templates, but rather all URLs and all source types, regardless of template usage.
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
![]() | The following articles mention the Citewatch
|
Search engine version?
[edit]Has anyone created a custom search engine that filters out the domains of all the unreliable sources listed here?
I documented all the custom search engines that search the more reliable sources, but have not found any that take the opposite approach (which would be nice for when not enough results turn-up from these narrow search engines) Superb Owl (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- A search engine seems rather overkill solution for this. Check out scripts like WP:UPSD instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Love this script you made - thanks!
Would still love a broader custom search engine option if anyone has ideas on how to extract all the domains Superb Owl (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Love this script you made - thanks!
Op-eds and blogs?
[edit]I created a list of urls to filter out op-eds and blogs on many of the perennial reliable sources for the Reliable Source Engine. Flagging that list here in case it's of interest for this project. Superb Owl (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
times of Israel
[edit]i think this is generally unreliable source. can we add this to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Gsgdd (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)