Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 10 February 2021

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T254649

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved

There appears to be disagreement over whether the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" are racist, which was presented as a reason to move the page. Regardless of whether the terms are racist, I see consensus against renaming this page at this time.

That being said, within the MediaWiki developer community there has been discussion over this same issue of using "whitelist" and "blacklist" rather than some other name, and within code these terms are slowly being replaced where possible. There is a chance that the SpamBlacklist extension, which this page is about, may be renamed at some point. If this does occur, I suggest revisiting this issue, to align this page's title with what it documents.

(closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist → Wikipedia:Spam blocklist – The title uses racist language. We should stop using blacklist and whitelist. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How the hell are 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' racist? Adam9007 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ignorance is not an argument. Show me any article anywhere suggesting this is not racist. I can show a bunch of articles saying this is racist. Just Google it to inform yourself before commenting further. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just Google it to inform yourself I did; there's nothing about those terms being racist in the Oxford English Dictionary, Macmillan Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, or Merriam Webster (just to name a few). Unless you can provide solid evidence that these terms are in any way racist, I shall oppose this move. Adam9007 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam9007: See the discussion above this one and google the phrase is the term "blacklist" racist? to see why some people think it is. I'm not saying that society as a whole or that a large-enough part of the English-speaking world thinks it is or is not, but I am saying that enough people do that the suggestion should not be summarily dismissed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, Well, it's just that this claim is a rather bold one to make without anything to corroborate it. if I wanted to claim something is racist, I'd quite rightly be expected to provide some hard evidence. Besides, just because black and white happen to be skin colours too doesn't mean that all words containing them may be racist. Adam9007 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman: This issue is bigger than this page. Recommend withdrawal and opening a full-fledged WP:RFC with a centralized discussion notice about whether the English Wikipedia should use terms like "whitelist" and "blacklist" when referring to internal things (obviously, actual pages like blacklisting or Hollywood blacklist are outside the scope of any such discussion, as their page titles will reflect off-wiki use, which may change over time). If this is not done, my "!vote" follows.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't rename yet until there is a broader discussion as to whether the English Wikipedia, as a matter of practice, should allow, discourage, prohibit, or otherwise limit the use of "blacklist" and "whitelist" in Wikipedia:-namespace page names. This is a "procedural" recommendation and does not reflect the merits of the name or what I would recommend in any broader discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• If we start a discussion here and move this page to the correct footing then we can continue and fix other ones. There may be some pages that are easier to fix than others and there’s a specific question of what new name would be best. If you think a centralized discussion is needed please feel free to commence one. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence presented that the term is "racist".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Do at least a precursory investigation before sharing an opinion. As an example, [1]. Many more can be found. Please avail yourself of Google. Words affect how people think. If somebody comes here from another culture, the concept of 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' are not self-explanatory. 'Blocklist' and 'safelist' as examples are equally concise, more meaningful, and have no racist overtones. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  As pointed out by Nohomersryan "Though the origins of those terms don't appear to be directly connected to race, some argue that they reinforce notions that black is bad and white is good. Sorry, I'm not really seeing much reinforcement from this CNN article that this term, which has nothing to do with race, has been "tainted". At least "lamest" actually had a harshly derogative connotation." Moreover, no established dictonaries have labelled the term outdated/racist in any capacity. I see no "racist overtones", nonsense.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  Spy-cicle, denial is not just a river in Egypt. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Oh snap! PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  I guess you must have missed the part where no evidence had been presented prior to Spy-cicle's !vote, which means that the statement you are attempting to refute is, in fact, correct. It's not Spy-cicle's fault that the OP settled for a half-hearted opening statement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  @JzG: As pointed out by Lepricavark the proposer gave no evidence that the term was "racist" when he started this requested move and when did in response to my comment I reponded and refuted those claims. So I'm not really sure what you or anyone gains by making such a comment. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Spy-cicle, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/06/google-chrome-proposes-an-internal-code-change-to-replace-the-word-blacklist-to-blocklist-to-eliminate-all-the-instances-of-racism.html Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Snowclose. This is being done to make a point, not to actually move the page. The words "blacklist" and "whitelist" have absolutely nothing to do with skin color. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Old Naval Rooftops, Exactly. I'd like anyone who thinks 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' are racist to explain how 'greylist' is also racist. It's clear to me that these words refer to the colours in general, not the skin colours. Adam9007 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose At first I thought this was a joke, I kind of wish it was. But no evidence is given that it is racist or even an issue. With out that there is nothing to do here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black = bad. White = good. If you can't see the racism in this, please just keep quiet rather than putting your opinion into the permanent history of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose the video game Black & White is racist then? Or could it be referring to the colours in general? Adam9007 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  That has nothing to do with this. Do you have any sources showing that blacklist/whitelist is good terminology to use? Everything I've seen says that this is not good terminology. Consider https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jehochman, Do you have any sources showing that blacklist/whitelist is good terminology to use? Yep: Cambridge Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, and Merriam Webster. None of those give the slightest hint of any racist origins or meaning. Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Those are definitions. They do not say that the terminology is unbiased. Here's another source for your potential enlightenment, https://jdsupra.com/legalnews/racist-language-and-origins-i-didn-t-35616/ Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jehochman, I daresay dictionaries are the first thing most people go to if they want to know more about a word. If a word can be misconstrued as offensive, most good dictionaries will say so. For example, both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster note the potential for 'Niggard(ly)' to be mistaken for a racial slur. Adam9007 (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jehochman, "Those are definitions". If the 'definitions' are offensive, the dictionary would define that as such or even discuss it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This is ridiculous and pointless; it's a commonly used term and not racist. I believe it was derived from the practice of using black and white balls for secret voting. It may sound racist if you try to make it, but this is a step away from saying all colours are racist. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'd prefer not to be ridiculed for suggesting a way to improve Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to ridicule you but I think that this RM is entirely pointless given that the term is definitively not racist and that there is nothing wrong with the title. Some words or phrases sound a lot more racist but still aren't — such as "niggardly". — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Cisco and Google are already both doing this.[2][3] Blocklist is actually clearer than "blacklist." The times are a'changing and this is a good proposed change. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on the premises presented. There is nothing offensive or racist about the word 'blacklist' or 'whitelist'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "blacklist" is a far more common term that "blocklist" which I've never heard of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The insularity on display here is depressing. The reason we don’t have more diversity of editors is that we are not a welcoming place. There is no reason to use terminology that is inscrutable, backwards and tainted with racism. There is no benefit. Jehochman ^Talk 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jehochman, can you please show us any evidence that the word 'blacklist' is tainted with racism? Thus far, the only references that I have seen do not show that in any form. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  There are at least four links in the discussion already. Please research it yourself. I encourage you to look into the issue with an open mind. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jehochman, yes, and a number the other way around as well. I disagree with making causal connections correlated and stigmatizing unrelated situations: 'Black Lives Matter, so any link between something with any (even remote) negative connotation and the word 'black' has to be removed'. The change has to come from within, symptomatic relieve is not going to solve your problem. It is still a blacklist even if you name it something different. (Besides that, renaming this list is not achieving anything as long as the underlying problem is not solved through phabricator, and the problem is way bigger than just the word 'black'). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Moving this page strikes me as largely meaningless unless the extension itself is renamed, which requires more effort than a page move (T190521). Regardless of the black/whitelist terminology, which I agree should be updated, 'spam blacklist' just isn't a good name for how this extension is used in practice anyway - it's not just for spam and is increasingly being used for purposes like deprecated sources too. Sam Walton (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  The page can be renamed first; for example AbuseFilter is used for more than what it was originally created for, and the Wikipedia page was moved to Wikipedia:Edit filter in 2009 although the extension has not been renamed. I would support renaming this page, but the "spam" part should also be changed. Peter James (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone please remember to assume good faith. While the proposal's rationale may seem nonsensical to many, I'm confident that it was a good-faith proposal intended to make Wikipedia more welcoming. People come from very different perspectives on things, and plenty of things are obvious to some while the opposite is obvious to others. (On the actual proposal, I oppose, and I'll post more about why later.) --Yair rand (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yair rand, People come from very different perspectives on things, and plenty of things are obvious to some while the opposite is obvious to others. Maybe so, but just because some may think these terms are racist doesn't mean they are. Are we also going to ban the words 'niggard(ly)' and 'snigger'? I can't help but think this is an attempt to censor Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Meanings of words are dependent on how they are understood. If a word is understood to both imply a reference to a particular group and to suggest negative characteristics, the word is problematic and should be avoided. The term "blacklist" is not understood, by anyone, as referring to Black people in any way. Nor is black magic, black markets, blackmail, the Black Death, nor is black tie, "in the black", etc, nor white lies, white belt, to white-label, etc. Yes, there is a cultural theme of "light" and "darkness" corresponding with good and evil, no, these are not referring to skin color, unstated or otherwise. Maybe the connection will be attached in the future if people push a certain narrative hard enough, but for now these speculated implications of language are an obscure idea that is extremely unlikely to occur to anyone unless it's actively pushed, and is therefore unlikely to be considered as a statement against anyone. These words simply do not mean those things. --Yair rand (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No valid reason for move. Pavlor (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The section on black/whitelists from the CNN article posted above is particularly insightful. Chromium, Android, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and U.K. National Cyber Security Centre [4] have all dropped the term because of its racist connotations. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though the origins of those terms don't appear to be directly connected to race, some argue that they reinforce notions that black is bad and white is good. Sorry, I'm not really seeing much reinforcement from this CNN article that this term, which has nothing to do with race, has been "tainted". At least "lamest" actually had a harshly derogative connotation. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. See also relevant discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Code of conduct, including Jimbo's comment: I support this 100%. What is necessary to make it happen? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yair rand's insightful comments above. For what it's worth, "blacklist" dates to 1624, and there's no etymological evidence that it entered the language because of racist stereotypes. It's one thing to deprecate words that have a racist history, but's quite another to deprecate words because someone might think that they have a racist history. "Blacklist" falls into the latter category, and so I cannot support the proposed move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per [5]. --JBL (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yair rand and Extraordinary Writ. Those are technical terms that cannot have a different meaning and should not be seen as discriminatory. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Motion to close as moot as IMO Jimmy Wales' statement on his talk page indicates that this is a thing that will happen, i.e. that it is outside of community consensus. Note this is not a reflection on the decision by the OP to call for a vote, as I FWIW fully support the terminology change. ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I read Jimbo as simply predicting that this will happen, based on his assessment of the arguments. I don't think he's suggesting that this is outside of community consensus, and in any event I'm not sure how it could be. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    I interpret "there are zero valid arguments against it" to mean just that; oppose votes above will not be considered, and that he is only concerned about the technical aspects of the change. As to your "how", its a pretty simple WP:OFFICE action. ValarianB (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    I just don't think that's accurate. Jimbo says he wants to "put whatever weight he can behind" it, not to override the community. Whether oppose votes will be considered is a question for the closer, not for Jimbo. And I see no indications that the WMF would act unilaterally on this issue, and I certainly don't think we should close the RM just because the Foundation might act. (In my humble opinion, this is outside the scope of an office action altogether.) Let's allow the community to work this one out; argumentum ad Jimbonem doesn't strike me as a solid argument. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    • Thank you. I think it is beneficial to air all the arguments. The Foundation may eventually take matters in their own hands, but maybe some interesting remarks will emerge in this conversation that informs their work. I recognize that we may not be able to move the page due to technical limitations, but at least we can register our consensus pro or con. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• support the change, though I dislike blocklist because it's too easily confused with blocking accounts. Denylist is perhaps better but I think blacklist needs to go, as does whitelist (allowlist makes more sense.) CUPIDICAE💕 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also if you don't "see why" this should be changed and thinks it does no harm, why not just sit down and shut up and let it get changed? If it makes no difference as blacklist, it should make no difference as blocklist to the naysayers. CUPIDICAE💕 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak oppose I don't care if it gets changed, we aren't stupid, we can still tell what it is even if it doesn't say "blacklist". But, I do think there's no actual evidence to show this is racist, so I can't support an RM that says it is. Also I do think this will probably be changed regardless of whatever happens here, so maybe there is no point in commenting --Quiz shows 01:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I don't see any reason to oppose. If some people feel uncomfortable with it, then I say it should be changed. Besides, nothing is taken away or harmed with this change. (Please don't reply to this. I don't want a debate.) CodingCyclone ^{citation needed} 04:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Tired of tip toeing around those with nothing better to do than conjure up ridiculous arguments about a term that only the perpetually offended would be offended by.--MONGO (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  We are not changing it to avoid offending those who look for things to argue about. Such people annoy me. I know exactly the type you're talking about. They always find something to complain about. We should change to be more welcoming. In addition to the silent discomfort this term might cause some people, it is also unclear from the name what exactly this list does. The current name is jargon. "Link filter" would be an example of a better name. We have an edit filter already. Why not use parallel terminology. JzG has pointed out that not everything on this list is spam (canned breakfast meat? evil canned breakfast meat?). As an example, the list prevents use of URL shorteners. These aren't spam, and they are not immoral. We just want the original URL. Jehochman ^Talk 10:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As has been suggested earlier, I would really just close this discussion, we're obviously at the moment not going anywhere. This should be an RfC at a village pump, broadening the scope and preferably with the devs developing systems where Special-pages can be custom aliased (so the AbuseFilter extension does not use e.g. Special:AbuseFilter anymore, but that is aliased to Special:EditFilter) and where location of MediaWiki pages can actually be chosen (so e.g. the spamblacklist extension uses MediaWiki:<whatever our choice is>, or even Wikipedia:<whatever our choice is>). I'm glad that Jimbo is agreeing that something needs to be done, but I am not holding my breath (the very issue of the spamblacklist extension being wrongly named was first raised in Phabricator on Jul 3, 2008 (12.5 years ago!), supported by many including Jimbo in the same month, and discussed before that date; T16719). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to stew in the discomfort of our own bad practices to generate an impetus for more action, such as dev's solving problems. Wikimedia staff typed up an aspirational Code of Conduct that we don't follow very well in designing our software. I very much like your suggestions that each Wikipedia be able to alias special pages so that these page names are not defined by software developers who are inept at linguistics. Jehochman ^Talk 10:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose no, the terms are not racist. We have better things to do than argue over manufactured controversies. I'm disappointed that the OP and at least one other proponent of this move have adopted a 'shut up if you disagree with me' mentality. Such argumentation is uncollegial and unconvincing. If you can't debate an issue on the merits, then maybe you need to reconsider your position. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the sole reaosn that the target title is incorrect. It needs to be link blocklist. The word "spam" leads to endless faff with people claiming that they didn't spam their website and so on. Link blocklist is spot on. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  JzG, well, spot on ... this is also a 'link'. And this is also a blocklist. Endless confusion. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree completely and changed the proposal accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Christ, The world really is getting dumber by the day!, First statues, then companies rebranding, then car parks facing being renamed, then pubs renaming ... and now we're all offended over the fucking word "blacklist", Good job blackboards went out of fashion because Christ some of you would have a field day over that word. Race has been a problem for decades and I absolutely agree everyone should be treat the same regardless of sex, race and all that .... but this mission to replace history and to become offended over words is becoming ridiculous. Some are looking too much into words where no racial connotations exist. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: some people find the current name inappropriate; we learn from this and make this easy change. No need to hold on to the status quo given that the rest of the world is moving to the new nomenclature. "Blocklist" is not at all confusing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose; dictionaries are the relevant authority here and anything else is WP:FRINGE; random corporations eager to signal their virtue are not an authority. I submit that the only problem lay in those who, without presuggestion, think of black people when they hear completely unrelated words like "blacklist". That's not our problem and there is no evidence that this term is in any way actually unwelcoming. 'It's the right side of history!' is not a reason; see WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia should not participate in psychologically ignorant language-WP:ADVOCACY efforts to make the word "black" taboo. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific proposal; I think the rationale basing this on racial sensitivity concerns is getting in the way of a good technical discussion about the best terminology for this application. The black- and white- pages should be discussed and moved as a package, rather than just the blacklist page only. I agree that "spam" isn't the best term to use and simply "link" is too vague. This is not about internal wikilinks. Suggest starting over with External link block list and External link unblock list. "Unblock" is better than "white" or "safe" because WP:Assume good faith assumes by default that everyone's links are safe. Nothing gets on the white list that wasn't first on the blacklist, thus I think "unblock" is more intuitive and understandable. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support link blocklist/link unblocklist, or pretty much anything that's not "blacklist" and "whitelist" (with "external" if that's needed to disambiguate) — It's an RM, we don't need to accept the proposed target title. So some of the "oppose X" !votes could be reframed as "support Y" !votes. These names (or something similar like allowlist/denylist) are clearer and less culturally insensitive than using the white/black color metaphor. Other tech companies are making this change (and similar, e.g. master/slave) (see links above), because it's clearer and less insensitive, and WP should follow suit. I'm not going to do any of this, but some of ye editors-more-experienced-than-me should consider either pinging the opposers to solicit alt targets, restarting this RM with a better proposed target, and/or listing this at WP:CENT. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Either or In this case block list is a clear term to describe what the list is, in fact it's more clear than even blacklist even though "blacklist" is such a common term as to have clear meaning. However, the claim that blacklist is a racist term... no I'm not buying that. The term appears to date back to at least the 1500s and appear to literally refer to a book. We should be mindful of casual racism but that doesn't mean we should support the invention of such issues. Springee (talk) 20:56, 18 February 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.

Why is it blocked?

Why is petition.parliament.uk blacklisted? It is an official government website and surely is not to be considered a source of Spam. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for the template/notice

Greetings and felicitations. In the last section of the notice:

Solutions:

    If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
    If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative.
    Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative.

Please capitalize "google" (two instances; "Google") and "url" (seven instances; "URL"). I'm asking here because I have no idea where the notice actually resides. —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've edited Template:Spamprotectionmatch accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Nutshell

Added nutshell for this page. Does it sum up the page well? Or is a nutshell not at all necessary? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is not adequate. The nutshell doesn't make clear that the page is about the workings of the black-listing and not a list itself (which I can't find -- at least not one containing a page that is black-listed when I try to use it (the .net page for ''Ancient Origins''. Kdammers (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Phys.org

Why has the website Phys.org been blacklisted? It is authoritative and it has a specific WP article. 151.38.251.187 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the WP article, "Phys.org is one of the most updated science websites, with an average of 98 posts per day." Even if it makes use of churnalism, it is an updated source of informations, which are usually corroborated by direct interviews to scientists, researchers, first and senior authors of the published studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.99.76 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it isn't blacklisted. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me check: https://phys.org/. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely not blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)