| Revision as of 02:16, 3 June 2023 editGtoffoletto (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,980 edits →EWG.org Generally Unreliable?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:20, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,317 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1) (bot | ||
| (174 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| == Suggested addition of news-pravda.com == | |||
| == Need advice == | |||
| Recent RSN ] of this outlet that looks to be part of the ] Russian disinformation network. - ] (]) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Mr. Headbomb I am a dedicated user of the unreliable script. I do a lot of work improving Misplaced Pages'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. | |||
| ⚫ | :Marked in yellow / depends on topic/contributor for now, since this seems to be an aggregator.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| 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 ={{Start date|1967|8|16}}<ref name=GaryPuckett>{{Cite AV media notes |title = The Best Of Gary Puckett And The Union Gap |last = Gary Puckett & The Union Gap |first = |url = https://i.discogs.com/WsSn8kEgQmd8e7xT4AJfXOMH4h4EMQkLntAR8DCDLvI/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:593/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTE0MTY1/MTExLTE1NjkwNzI2/NDYtMjU1Ni5qcGVn.jpeg |date = 2004 |access-date = 2023-02-04| page = 10 |type = booklet |publisher = Sony, Columbia|id = CK 90626}}</ref> | |||
| Can we mark ] as we do other ] sources? - ] (]) 23:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ⚫ | :Done.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| from ] infobox | |||
| == PubPeer comments == | |||
| 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. | |||
| The discussion at ] might be of interest. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Army Recognition == | |||
| 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.] and its related pages ], 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. | |||
| Can you please also add the sister site for ], a ] source? | |||
| 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 ] (]) 12:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{linksummary|armyrecognition.com}} | |||
| ::{{Re|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 <code><nowiki><ref> via Discogs<!--This is not user-generated content--></ref></nowiki></code> or similar.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 12:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{linksummary|navyrecognition.com}} | |||
| :::thank you, that was a great answer, I will add that ] (]) 12:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| - ] (]) 20:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Some sources to add == | |||
| ⚫ | :Done.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *Dexerto is '''generally unreliable''' per ] | |||
| *Distractify is '''borderline''' per ] | |||
| *seattletimes.com/'''sponsored''' is self-explanatory | |||
| *redice.tv is '''generally unreliable''' | |||
| *] is listed as '''no consensus''' on ], but the site has contributor pieces which are unreliable | |||
| *dailytelegraph.com.au (the Sydney one) is '''generally unreliable''' per ] | |||
| More on ] | |||
| Also, has ] been addressed yet? ] (] • ]) 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 ]. A list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found . The most spurious among them are the ], which is run by the ] and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials; the ], which also has links to the ] and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger; and ], 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 and ] (]) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: 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. ] (]) 12:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do, however, I'm ]. 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.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jrank== | |||
| Per , this source should be highlighted as generally unreliable. Thanks. | |||
| ] (] • ]) 18:02, 31 March 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 <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 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 <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] is an ]. You can search for "EWG.org" or "Environmental Working Group" at RSN and elsewhere (e.g. ]) for a few hits.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 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). <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 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 . <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 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" <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 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.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 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: ]? | |||
| ::::::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. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 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 ]. They mention that the only chemicals they support are "old technology" like ] and ]. However in 2021 the 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 . 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 <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 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: ]. Thanks. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 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 '']''). There are some differences with ]'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).  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 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 ] 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. ] (]) 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you have some additional up to date sources to report? I'm editing ] 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. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 2 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 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. ] and ], for example, are cited in {{search link|insource:/croplife\.org/|19 articles}} and {{search link|insource:/americanchemistry\.com/|53 articles}}, respectively. On the other hand, all references to the ] and its are regularly being removed, even though it is an accredited stakeholder organization regularly contributing to UNEP work (). Furthermore, a is provided, the states <small>''This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) <u>completely transparent</u>; site is very easy to navigate.''</small> and an concludes that the PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases.<br/>Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. --] 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 Misplaced Pages doesn't already have it, I think a general policy on how to treat content by advocacy groups would be an important priority. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:20, 31 December 2024
 | If you're curious about why a source is highlighted, first check common cleanup and non-problematic cases and limitations, which should answer most questions. Feel free to make requests for various tweaks or more sources to be covered below and I'll address things as best I can. − Headbomb {t · c · p · b} | Shortcut |
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Suggested addition of news-pravda.com
Recent RSN discussion of this outlet that looks to be part of the Portal Kombat Russian disinformation network. - Amigao (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Marked in yellow / depends on topic/contributor for now, since this seems to be an aggregator. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Qiuwen Baike
Can we mark Qiuwen Baike as we do other WP:UGC sources? - Amigao (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
PubPeer comments
The discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Collaboration_with_PubPeer might be of interest. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Army Recognition
Can you please also add the sister site for WP:ARMYRECOGNITION, a WP:GUNREL source?
- armyrecognition.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- navyrecognition.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com