Wikipedia talk:Articles on sources
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Why articles?
editI do agree that having sources used in articles evaluated for reliability and having results stored on a page would be beneficial. However, if it is intended mainly for internal use by Wikipedians, I see no reason why it would not be better suited for project space (user space?) rather than article space, where it would be constrained by principles of WP:No original research and WP:Avoid self-references, and where it would not be permitted to link to in-Wikipedia discussions.
In fact, I came up with an idea like that long before you: I called a prototype implementation KITE (here is an example entry). Created November 2013, though I had a faint glimpse of the idea back in August 2012. Though I never really took it anywhere, because there are so many other things to do...
Writing a two-paragraph essay accomplishes very little. It will just linger here and gather dust. You would have to put some actual work into this to make it happen. — Keφr 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Because the intention is to assist readers (as well as editors) to evaluate the reliability of sources. I think that if readers see something interesting cited to a source in one of our articles, their next act will be to look at our article on that source. That is what I do. You might as well ask why we put sources into articles in the first place. One of the reasons for including references is to enable readers (not just editors) to confirm that we have not made something up. They are not solely for internal use by editors. That said, I have no objection to the inclusion of evaluations in the project space for internal use, in addition to having mainspace articles on notable etc sources. Indeed, I would support it, as a means of avoiding certain restrictions that apply to mainspace (such as notability). Although we have WP:RSN, its archives are bewildering because they are in no particular order and contain a lot of needless waffle. I have no objection to you merging your material/idea into this essay. I first had this idea in (roughly) 2008 or 2009. James500 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)