Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability

Update

Cremastra (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The drive is going well! Great! — Iadmc♫^talk  12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated for 11 Jul. The drive is not going well. :( Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Who will win: This drive, or the secret drive to add ^{[citation needed]} to unsourced statements? I think that's the better way of interpreting this development! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the cn tag is just the flag to add citations or remove the unverifiable content. They are very necessary. But so is the need to cite over them and other unsourced material... — Iadmc♫^talk  21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think {{cn}} should only be very rarely applied: if you come across unsourced content, you should either add a citation, or, per WP:BURDEN, remove it entirely, as you are well within your rights to do. I usually do the latter. Cremastra (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I add CN tags and try to remember to check the page again in a couple of weeks and remove content that hasn't been cited. Half the time I forget though.

Fyi, my laptop broke down the other day so I am currently on a Wikibreak. I'm hoping to get it fixed by the end of the week but I'm having trouble with the warranty so it might take longer. I've tried editing Wikipedia on my phone and tablet but I absolutely hate it so will be waiting for the laptop. Anything I can help with in the meantime, leave a message on my talk page or send an email. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all you've done so far. Cremastra (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be the beginning of next week before I'm back online normally. Today was my birthday. Aging isn't as fun as it used to be - excessive quantities of alcohol had to be consumed to make the day tolerable. I doubt I'll be fit to negotiate laptop warranties in the morning. I've got a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, I might have a go at editing on tablet again over the next few days. Will try to keep contributing, at least. Get rid of some unsourced statements if nothing else. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123: mentioned on Discord that the large amount of cn tags for May 2024 and June 2024 are due to no sources added with Module:Sports table. It's possible that the spike in the total of cns are from these table tags, like at 1898 Argentine Primera División. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yuk. That module should just disallow adding the information if you don't provide a citation... although I guess we'd likely end up with a boatload of bad citations. Cremastra (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason this graph hasn't been updated for some time? //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Replayful Laziness. I've got all the data in a spreadsheet; I'll upload a new version shortly. Cremastra (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yay, AMAZINg! I was afraid something had come in your way. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Should be  Done. You can look here because there's often quite a lag between my upload and the update here. Cremastra (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooooh! That's some great work! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, why is 13 June asterisked? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Because was late adding the data to the spreadsheet, so it actually comes from early June 14th. :/ Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Update for June 21st: for the first time since the start of the drive, the number of articles in the backlog is lower than 520,000. We've net reduced the backlog by almost 1.5 thousand articles. Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh no, that didn't last long! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 22:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars

Will there be a barnstar for reaching 3,000 points? I'm getting there... LOL — Iadmc♫^talk  10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a special barnstar awarded to first place. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping pong for me and Conyo! — Iadmc♫^talk  11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me — I'm going to unavailable at the start of July, starting June 28th or so. I've made WP:JUN24/B to facilitate handing out barnstars. It works like this:

{{subst:WP:JUN24/B|1= (The point bracket, e.g. 200) |2= (Recommended; the exact number of points) |3= (Optional, any extra message at the end.) }}

The rest is automatic. So, for example, {{subst:WP:JUN24/B|100|157}} gets you

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 157 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive. Thanks for helping out!

If at some point in July (I should be able to help as well) Tails Wx and/or Adam Black could hand out some barnstars, I'd really appreciate it. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be available to help. A small suggestion, though, could we add "earning you this [award name]" or something like that. E.g.:

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 25 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this Minor Barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try, to add that; I think it can also be done with {{#switch:}}. Also, I realized that the template probably shouldn't be subst'd. Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your response (had a wall of notifications the other day). Isn't it standard practice to subst barnstars? E.g. WP:BARNSTAR lists all of the barnstars there like {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message ~~~~}} Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It is, but I noticed that when this particular template is subst'd, the {{#switch:}} paraphenalia is visible in the source. I guess that isn't that big a deal, since people aren't analyzing the aesthetic value of the source code of their talk pages. But I've also heard of this thing called "safesubst", which I'll give a try. Cremastra (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that only a handful of barnstars have been awarded. Should we wait for the return of Cremastra to hand them out? I can do a few if needed (though I suppose it would be weird to hand out one to myself!) Pichpich (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if you could help out. I can do a few, but I'm travelling and on holiday until August. Cremastra (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I just sent out thirty or so barnstars (up to and including That Tired Tarantula if anyone else wants to help out). I'll try to do a few more tomorrow. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be back to distributing barnstars in the coming days. I've had a string of technical issues the past few weeks and unfortunately haven't been able to contribute as much as I'd like. My laptop (which is only 2 months old and had an in-warranty repair last month during the drive) is now definitively dead and I'm being sent a brand new one. It should arrive in the next few days. I've made the occasional edit on my phone recently but I really hate editing without a mouse and keyboard. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've sent the barnstars up to Mgp28 (included) if anyone wants to take over. A little over 30 are left. Pichpich (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've finished awarding the barnstars. I'll leave to Cremastra the pleasure of awarding the special barnstar for the highest score (which goes to Iadmc with a whopping 3104 points). I think the drive was a big success. It should be repeated! Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Cremastra (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Another one to confirm

Does count? — Iadmc♫^talk  09:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, damn, I forgot about that one. Ideally, I think it would be included, but since I've been saying from the start of the drive that you get points only through {{citation needed}}, {{fact}}, {{cn}} and so on, it feels dishonest on my part to let this one in through the back door two-thirds of the way through. Cremastra (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Next time — Iadmc♫^talk  12:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you organisers!

This was the first drive of this type I've taken part in and I really enjoyed it - many thanks to Cremastra for organising it. Turns out I'm really motivated by the promise of virtual points! Orange sticker (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I found this to be oddly entertaining hunting for sources, some of which were easy, and some that required a deep dive. Thanks from me as well. The graph shows a serious dent put into the overall number, but it always moves towards an upward slope--almost Sisyphean, yet still entertaining trying to bring it down. I was always more hesitant about removing statements than trying to source them... "There must be a source for this somewhere; I just can't find it... Maybe someone else can." I don't know if others felt the same, but if so, I'm sure that overall number would sink dramatically if we were more bold in just removing them. I think the chart was key for my participation, and FYSA on how I found the drive (in case it helps for the future), I found the drive via a notification in my watchlist. Thanks! -2pou (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And a big thanks to Adam Black for lending a hand as well, and for offering along with Tails Wx to hand put awards while I'm away on vacation. The drive wouldn't have been as successful without them. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Past closing date

Is the drive properly closed now? At least remove the "Sign up" button? Mox Eden (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Bit of an aside here: I don't know what the final value was at 00:00 1 July 2024, but for posterity sake, right now, the total sits at 520,265. Since the number displayed on the main page is a moving target from the category. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra said earlier he would be unavailable in some unspecified early part of july //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the drive ended at the end of June. Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistics if any

I'm interested in any statistics regarding the dispositions of the {{cn}} tag during the project. A while back I did a personal project where I resolved about forty or so randomly selected such tags. It turns out with little effort I found valid references for about 80% of them and with minor editing another 10% or so were referenceable leaving about 10% for deletion of the tagged statement as not referenceable. I suspect most {{cn}} are attached to valid statements and too many have been applied by tag bombers who have no idea whether the tagged statement is valid or not, see for example Remove tag bombing of Floppy Disk Article wherein an editor admits to tag bombing for nearly two decades

It seems to me that such tag bombing litters Wikipedia with unjustified questioning of facts which to the casual reader makes Wikipedia seem to be much less reliable than it actually is. I'm going to propose a change to the policy regarding {{cn}} to make tag bombing explicitly a form of disruptive editing; it would useful for such a proposal to have more statistics on how many {{cn}} tags have been replaced by readily found references.

Any statistics would be appreciated. Tom94022 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iadmc, Conyo14, Nick Number, Apollo468, D-Flo27, Butlerblog, Jpeeling, Ligaturama, GranCavallo, and Wizardman: Thanks you all for your efforts in the June 2024 drive to reduce unsourced statements. A while back I ran into a tag bomber at a site I monitor, so I did some research and found that most fact tags were applied to readily verifiable statements; is this your experience? It would be great if you had some qualitative or quantitative information about your June experience that you would be willing to share. If inclined to do so you can post it below. Thanks Tom94022 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

While I didn't keep any specific quantifiable notes, I can say that, yes, I did experience some {{cn}} tags that were unnecessary. In cases where they were obviously not needed, I removed them altogether, noting this in the edit summary for forensics if someone objected. I didn't find a lot of these, but there were a few dozen maybe.

Also, since I work a lot on the Westerns project and its task forces, I focused on articles in that space. I found that when looking at actor biographies, there were often {{cn}} tags for credits (such as a TV show where the specific episode is noted). These are not necessary, since the credits of the show noted are the primary source (per MOS:TVPLOT: Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given., emphasis added). In those situations, if I could locate a decent secondary source, I did that. Otherwise, I left the tag. I would feel that these {{cn}} tags could be removed, but really only if the credits were verifiable. Some of these classic TV shows did not always list everyone in the onscreen credits, so it's better to verify rather than assume.

I don't know if that helps. I'm certainly willing to go back over my stuff and give some specific examples for review. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I likewise didn't keep notes, and it's hard to offer anything but vague impressions after the fact. Since this was framed as a drive with a time limit, I was cherry-picking tags that were relatively easy to fix. The majority could be referenced with articles via Newspapers.com – a resource that not everyone has access to – or Google Books. A significant fraction of them, maybe 10%, could be resolved by adding a footnote to one of the citations already present in the article. A small handful of statements weren't verifiable and were sufficiently dubious that I ended up removing them.

I don't know that I saw too many instances of clear-cut tag bombing. There were at least a few articles where someone had slapped CN tags on almost every paragraph. Nick Number (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Most tags were attached to easily sourced material. Made it easy to get so many done, though! — Iadmc♫^talk  19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was mainly doing sports articles, so a majority of them were needed and easily accessible, but some not so accessible. Only in 5 instances, that I can recall, did a source already exist in the article and be used again for a cn tag. The remaining ones were "source=" tags for sports tables. Conyo14 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Of the ones I found (also sports), I'd say about 50% did need a citation and it took some effort to find (either with newspapers.com or book sources), 25% needed a citation and were easy to find, and the remaining 25% were either uncncyclopedic things that I removed as trivial or things that really did not need a cite (I found "he became a free agent after the season[citation needed]" multiple times despite the next sentence being signed to a new contract which proves the prior sentence). I did find a few articles that do have ref-bombing and it made me question the point of doing so (one had 30+ cn tags and it was a rather short article). Wizardman 20:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I dislike the characterisation of tag-bombing as intrinsically bad. Yes, there are a few problematic editors who inappropriately tag, but one of the most important policies of Wikipedia is that everything must be supported by reliable sources. Any editor who questions the validity or verifiability of any content should always feel free to tag it. If the tag is inappropriate or unnecessary, it can be easily removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black: While it is true that everything needs to be verifiable only those "likely to be challenged" require inline citations! When an editor who has never made a contribution to an article adds 30 {{fact}} tages in one edit I have to question whether that editor has a "good faith" basis for adding such tags particularly since there is a presumption of "good faith" of the editors who created and allowed the material to stand until the tag bombing. Removing such tags is tedious so they tend to remain in place littering Wikipedia and making it seem less reliable than it actually is. I think we need a change to the policy to make removal of such tags easier. Tom94022 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone attaching a cn tag to a statement means it more than meets the threshold of being "material whose verifiability has been challenged", the second type of statement which requires a citation as per WP:VERIFY. I've already conceded that some "tag-bombers" as you call them are acting in bad faith but the vast majority of cn tags I have come across in my editing were valid and vilifying those who tag uncited statements because it is "tedious" to remove them appears to me to be incredibly bad faith.

If anything, I think we need to be much stricter on verifiability. You claim these tags make Wikipedia seem less reliable than it actually is, but in its current form with over 6.8 million crowdsourced entries the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are about as reliable as the rhythm method is at preventing pregnancy. Hit the random article button and you're way more likely to be hit with an unreferenced stub than a reliable, well crafted featured article. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black: I believe there is independent evidence that Wikipedia articles are at least as accurate as Britanica which is quite a bit more reliable than the rhythm method. Personally, I undertook a small study of fact tags and found most of them were applied to verifiable statements; although my sample size is small I believe the study is statistically valid and it seems to be supported by qualitative experience of these participants above. There are 500,000+ fact tags throughout Wikipedia, if most of them are attached to referenceable statements then I consider litter to be an accurate description and such litter has to make a casual reader question the accuracy of the article; there is no such litter in Britanica. This is particularly so when a tag bomber places 30+ tags in one article to which they have never made a contribution. We obviously disagree and I look forward to continued discussion when I raise the policy question regarding improving the criteria for adding and removing fact tags Tom94022 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I tried your random page test; only one of the ten pages had an article needs references tag; none were stubs. Tom94022 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ALPH

A novel written by Charles Eric Maine is not included in his written works@ 2601:1C2:100:E9E0:D173:9CB5:2C76:7DB1 (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § References not notes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § References not notes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!

Hello, we are reaching out to members of this project, because you are experts when it comes to referencing. For many years, community members have requested an easy way to re-use references with different details. Now, a MediaWiki solution is coming: The new sub-referencing feature will work for wikitext and Visual Editor and will enhance the existing reference system. You can continue to use different ways of referencing, but you will probably encounter sub-references in articles written by other users. More information on the project page.

We want your feedback to make sure this feature works well for you:

• Please try the current state of development on beta wiki and let us know what you think.
• Sign up here to get updates and/or invites to participate in user research activities.

We are aware that enwiki and other projects already use workarounds like {{sfn}} for referencing a source multiple times with different details. The new sub-referencing feature doesn’t change anything about existing approaches to referencing, so you can still use sfn. We have created sub-referencing, because existing workarounds don’t work well with Visual Editor and ReferencePreviews. We are looking forward to your feedback on how our solution compares to your existing methods of re-using references with different details.

Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team is planning to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We will reach out to creators/maintainers of tools and templates related to references beforehand.

Please help us spread the message. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to join

How do I add my name to the list of participants? Electrou (formerly Susbush)(talk) 09:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)