Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Deprecation

I'm thinking 'Deprecate' shouldn't be one of the options for standard RFCs. It's always contentious and often misunderstood (as simply being worse than unreliable). That's not to say we shouldn't have it or use it, I think we should, but the standard discussion should be about how reliable a source is rather than if technical methods should be used to discourage it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement. At worst, and only in cases where a source has a history of being abused across articles, the question of deprecating (such as adding to the blacklist) should be handled as a separate section asking “if the source is determined to be unreliable, should it be added to the blacklist” or similar. And to make abundantly clear, the vast majority of sources shouldn’t need this extra question - if the discussion is about specific topic area(s) then the question is moot as that generally wouldn’t be added to the blacklist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, it seems somehow to create a drift towards ever more harsh judgements of sources. Deprecation should be the end of a process and not a potential outcome at the beginning. For example comments such as 3 but I wouldn't object to 4 don't actually make a lot of sense. In fact, I believe that we should not deprecate a source unless it has been designated generally unreliable first (there are possible exceptions to such a rule but then that is like every other WP rule). Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there could still be need of discussing deprecation as a first measure, but I agree that that should be the exception. That it being proposed in the current DT discussion shows that there's a certain level of misunderstanding going on, as it's just not a feasible outcome. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There was actually an RFC to try to remove deprecation, but it failed. You could run another one - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link? I vaguely remember the RFC, but can't find it in the archives here. If those vague memories are right this is a different question, this isn't about the use of deprecation but how the RFC header should be formatted (I could be wrong about that). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

ah right - well, I'd say discussion belongs on the main board - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you perhaps vaguely remembering Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I was just talking to someone about this recently. I don't think that deprecation should be on the table, except for the most egregious cases, like websites that churn out made-up AI-generated stories. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons stated by Philomathes2357 in their agreement. Further, having deprecation as an option in RSN RfCs limits the procedural nuisance that would otherwise arise by making deprecation a multi-step process. Finally, we should not obliviate an option from consideration by the community because of our belief that community is not cosmopolitan enough, or is too unsophisticated, to understand its meaning. Whether or not that's true, less autocratic and more inclusive methods -- such as explanatory notes -- should be tried first. Chetsford (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Some of the sources listed at RSP as "generally unreliable" are not actually generally unreliable. So, if there was a separate deprecation process, I would want to be able to !vote for options 1 and 2 there and then, during that deprecation process. I would not want to have a choice between only options 3 and 4. Subject to that qualification, I do not have a problem with the exclusion of deprecation as an option in RfCs on sources that have not already been classified as generally unreliable in a previous RfC. James500 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Header tweak

I've tweaked the RSN header, mostly adding [Before starting an RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed?].

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This duplicates the sentence directly below RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. Having the same sentiment twice is not going to get editors to read it, extra clutter just means that editors are less likely to read the header at all.

This is especially true when the edit notice that appears when you start a new section has an even blunter sentence stating that you shouldn't open an RFC. So I don't see how stating it for a third time is going to have anymore impact.

Instead of duplicating the whole thing would highlighting the pre-existing sentence be a better option, see example here (the formatting still needs work, it has issue on some screens). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't duplicate it at all. Above it says check that these discussions about the source haven't happened already, and that you're not just threading old grounds. There's 50+ discussions on Daily Mail. Over 45 for NYT and Twitter. 30+ for IMBD. Near 20 for CNN. We don't need more discussion on those sources unless something drastic happens to them.

Below is says don't start an RFC about a source unless it's widely used and there was multiple discussions about it. That's because you shouldn't jump to an RFC as a first resort. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok I think I've slightly misunderstood you intent, but I still think having to sentences for two very similar issues isn't necessary. Would modifying the current sentence on RFCs be a way forward? Adding a part on not starting a new RFC unless there is material reason for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that extra note is necessary. The header already tells editors to check the archives, and as a regular lurker, I don't see people opening discussions about over-discussed sources too much. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Page is very large right now

And a big chunk of it happens to be a single closed RfC. Would it be OK to manually archive it, so that the page size can be reduced? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking the same, loading the board is glitchy at the moment. So I would support manually archiving it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'm going to archive it now, manually. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate post?

I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it. Diff

I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As there's been no comment I'm going to archive the section. That will get the board down to 500k, still to big but it's a start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)