719:
118:
138:
1262:
190:
98:
128:
44:
148:
108:
158:
1592:
To begin with, cut out that "search" which misleadingly lists every journal known to man. The best part is the list of redlinked sources - but as there are an infinite number of possible redlinks to add, that does not help. I suspect that the separated "actual real
Knowledge (XXG) problem sources"
1731:
listed as "hijacked"? Item number 30 on the very first page of your list? Did you read Beall's comments which made clear that "Tec Review" was his problem and not "MIT Technology Review"? That would be reassuring as it would then be clear that evil forces are corrupting my downloads. Meanwhile, it
952:
is a good starting point to find unreliable sources, at least those which make use of citation templates. Once they are found, the community can then critically evaluate whether or not they should be cited, leading to a better, more reliable, Knowledge (XXG). Whether a source should be cited can be
2367:
The list is a tool, and like any other tool it can be abused if you really want to. But you'd have to ignore the bigass disclaimer the top of the list, saying that the SourceWatch is only a starting point, that it's not perfect, that it doesn't know the full context in which a source is used, and
2106:
is a neutral noticeboard, and I stated the issue clearly. It is not "CANVASSING" buy a mile or two. The article has exceedingly few viewers, and you "pinged" friends to go there, while I "pinged" no one at all. Period. I rather think that when a reliable source uses a word, we should not assign it
1567:
It is on the list in the very first column one arrives at through the only "search" box provided! - and even casual users would notice it, as most of the "bad sites" are also in that second column. This from the "search" function on the "Sourcewatch" redirected page. As are all the other NY
1018:
710:
640:
883:
is something that should be usable by the community at large. While there likely is still room for improvements and debates on what should or should not be listed, one no longer needs to be familiar with the intricate workings of the bot to make sense of
37:
The
Knowledge (XXG) SourceWatch is a new project designed to find unreliable sources cited by Knowledge (XXG). The SourceWatch's creator presents a brief history of the project, along with its motivations, and what exactly it means to be listed on The
690:
is necessarily inappropriate – the newspaper did not exclusively publish Nazi propaganda over the 84 years of its existence – but it is good to verify that we are not citing Nazi propaganda inappropriately. This can be found either by browsing
1593:
list will be much more manageable. Oh, and blacklisting every "wrong science source" may be nice to some, but deleterious to many articles. Meanwhile, is there a reason to keep publishers on the whist which Beall had deleted from that list?
878:
during development, but it was only known to a handful of people due to its unpolished state. The compilation was at times plagued with a staggering number of false positives and poor presentation structure. Now, after several iterations,
1589:
464:
2136:. But that's rather irrelevant to this Signpost piece, so can we please keep debate about what to do with the article on the article's talk page, rather than have a meta debate about how to have a debate on a half a dozen page?
372:
2358:) and aren't used to back up completely wild OR/POV claims. Likely all this list will be doing is accelerate the rate at which those discussions occur, since it makes finding these potential problematic citations easier.
1221:
2329:
My gut feeling is that this is as 'gameable' as any of the original sources themselves. Debate about whether something on Beall's list is reliable has occurred countless of times. The answer with Beall is usually
1900:
Hijacked journals are legitimate academic journals with imposters pretending to be the legitimate publication. These citations are likely not problematic, but it is good to check that the real journal is being
2310:
Given the above assumption, is there any way that this list of questionable sources be gamed in such a way that it can be weaponized in the ongoing bare-knuckle, no-rules brawl between Team Blue and Team Red?
903:
If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then
Knowledge (XXG) will cover it appropriately.
659:
potentially unreliable citation is cited. This is useful when you edit an article and want to make sure you are not citing bad sources. However, this method only works if 5 or fewer articles cite a specific
1311:
1336:
1326:
1321:
1301:
246:
984:
could draw from, like lists of journals lying about being indexed by reputable databases. Other efforts to identify and prevent unreliable sourcing can be found in the "other efforts" section of the
1306:
1286:
1331:
291:
218:
1361:
1356:
1316:
1291:
343:
330:
317:
259:
84:
1665:
1387:
1296:
2196:, as has been requested of you over a dozen times now, where a discussion of the actual issue can happen, rather than these silly meta debates about how to have a debate about something.
1279:
426:{{cite journal |last1=Yager |first1=K. |year=2006 |title=Wiki ware could harness the Internet for science |journal=Nature |volume=440 |issue=7082 |pages=278–278 |doi=10.1038/440278a}}
2407:
2164:
You hatted and rehatted my post which I believed and still believe set forth the issue. That you assert it was not "neutral" and not placed in a "neutral" place is not of import as
494:
that a journal is indexed in DOAJ even if its web site carries the DOAJ logo or says that it is indexed ". This is good advice, which applies equally to the other indexing services.
1273:
1248:
205:
63:
52:
739:
854:
may be my ideas, but JLaTondre is the one responsible for the heavy lifting and making them a reality since 2011. I must also acknowledge the contributions of several people:
1341:
796:, which are fraudulent publications designed to have identical or similar names to established publications. Other false positives can include members of categories such as
1346:
304:
2184:
Again, I did not ping three friends. I pinged the original author of the words, and the two people that posted on the talk page before. Neutrally. You on the other hand,
442:. The compilation is organized in many ways (alphabetically, by citation count, and so on) and is typically updated a few days after the 1st and 20th of each month, when
1198:
1101:
be a citation to one of the fraudulent websites, even though in all likelihood those citations will be to the real website. This behaviour may change in the future.
2459:
2305:
Assume for a moment that for ideological reasons a fairly large number of
Knowledge (XXG) editors dislike some reliable sources and like other, unreliable sources.
2037:
847:
is heavily based on third party lists and will to an extent reflect the opinion of those lists' compilers, which could be inaccurate or outdated in certain cases.
1834:
is the hijacker. The Beall website gets the terminology wrong. Also I've tweaked the search box to only search in the SourceWatch when on a /Questionable page.
1222:"Jimmy Wales, Founder of Knowledge (XXG): Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing. : -->
21:
850:
I want to emphasize here just how much work JLaTondre has done on this and JCW over the nearly 10 years of the compilation. The original JCW compilation and
2435:
1466:
I second this, and I'd like to thank everyone involved for stepping up to make
Knowledge (XXG) a more reliable and trustworthy resource for our readers. —
628:
directly. If 5 or fewer articles cite a specific publication, the links to these articles will be given. If more than 5 articles cite it, you will have to
1804:
One column (the left one in his list) is the fakes, the second column (the right one is clearly labeled "authentic journal") is the "authentic journal"
632:
to find where it is cited. This is useful to find articles which need to be updated with reliable sources, or where unreliable sources need to be removed.
2430:
2425:
1051:
Maddox, J.; Randi, J.; Stewart, W. W. (1988). "'High-dilution' experiments a delusion". ''Nature''. '''334''' (6180): 287–290. {{doi|10.1038/334287a0}}.
367:
2111:. Maybe I am in a minority, in Carrollian way. That should end the contretemps as I have done my best to state facts and not hat the helk of someone.
101:
2420:
2073:
is to discuss whether or not sources are reliable. It is not the place to debate their interpretation, or decide on what terminology is clearest.
808:
them. Yet another cause of false positives is that the algorithm used to find those unreliable sources is not perfect. It is designed to find
499:
The idea of using the JCW compilation to fight unreliable sourcing stewed in my mind for a while, until I finally decided to take action in
1449:
Thank you for fighting the good fight. Efforts like this are why the credibility of
Knowledge (XXG) is increasing. Keep up the good work.
1948:
which admits Butler (a main source" was "misused - but doubled down on the misuse? Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt --
1673:
1736:. I am glad you pointed out that many organizations are given deprecatory descriptions, by the way. It makes one feel reassured that
1498:
in its talons. Bot-generated lists are not something I recommend for use as the number of "false positives" is beyond belief. Argh.
2415:
2256:
1261:
578:
471:
403:
57:
43:
17:
2354:
check, but would be often be considered perfectly valid sources for basic claims that aren't at the cutting edge of research (e.g.
526:
2168:. Or possibly actually feel it was a reasonable post on the proper noticeboard, and less CANVASS that "pinging" three friends.
907:
416:
2378:
2278:
2206:
2146:
2083:
1976:
1912:
1844:
1772:
1703:
1650:
1541:
1427:
1646:
1136:
702:
598:
443:
1206:
913:
797:
2266:
977:
899:
574:
475:
554:
1588:". Page N18 of the sources list. I fear the "search box" missed your editorial review I had suggested a while back?
697:
670:
602:
500:
1090:
1864:
As noted, Beall only lists the fake one as the "hijacked journal" and the "real one" is listed as "authentic."
2441:
683:
679:
2391:
2320:
2291:
2260:
2219:
2177:
2159:
2120:
2096:
2052:
1989:
1961:
1925:
1885:
1857:
1816:
1785:
1749:
1716:
1641:
1602:
1554:
1507:
1483:
1461:
1440:
1144:
840:
692:
625:
382:
1456:
1413:
2058:
945:
566:
718:
421:
templates found in articles, and compiles them into various lists. For example, in the following citation
1176:
abbreviations of such journals. It also puts appropriate disambiguation notes in articles, when relevant.
2252:
2193:
1822:
1798:
1724:
1681:
1569:
636:
586:
1830:(a legitimate academic journal for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party),
558:
292:
Knowledge (XXG) predicts flu more accurately than Google; 43% of academics have edited
Knowledge (XXG)
2040:
which seems not to relate to the problems at hand - specifically making "interpretations of sources"
1476:
780:
to researchers, but which nonetheless remain committed to scientific and academic standards. For the
2133:
2033:
1966:
See the note on the talk page. And no one cares about a talk page message posted by a bot ages ago.
1623:
590:
2316:
675:
606:
2386:
2286:
2214:
2154:
2091:
1984:
1920:
1852:
1780:
1711:
1549:
1435:
747:
rigorous data on why Mazières and Kohler should be taken off from the aforementioned mailing list.
533:
is not perfect by any means, especially if you want a list that only identifies journals that are
439:
2374:
2274:
2202:
2142:
2079:
1972:
1908:
1840:
1768:
1699:
1618:
1537:
1521:
1495:
1452:
1423:
1066:
479:
2351:
2192:, presenting your side, rather than neutrally advertise the ongoing discussion. Now, take it to
331:
Wikimedia
Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
111:
2346:, which isn't the greatest, but it's not zero worth'. Facts backed up by those journals would
2185:
2173:
2116:
2048:
1957:
1881:
1812:
1745:
1669:
1598:
1581:
1503:
1383:
1161:
1115:
785:
730:
451:
131:
2382:
2282:
2210:
2150:
2087:
2029:
1980:
1916:
1848:
1776:
1737:
1707:
1545:
1431:
962:
752:
Of course, due to the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes an unreliable source,
711:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Academic Journals/Journals cited by Knowledge (XXG)/Questionable1
641:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Academic Journals/Journals cited by Knowledge (XXG)/Questionable1
2368:
tells you that you shouldn't go on a mass purge without discussing things at the RSN first.
2243:
1895:
1827:
1755:
1661:
1577:
1412:
A previous discussion about a technical error related to the publishing script was moved to
1086:
921:
793:
399:
2189:
2125:
2103:
2070:
1740:
is adhered to in all projects. And the reason for "redlinked journals" in profusion is?
1628:
1527:
985:
958:
954:
867:
743:. The journal's 'review' process deemed the paper "excellent". Figure 2 in the paper shows
570:
447:
377:
141:
2066:
1469:
966:
665:
376:(JCW) compilation, I realized we could harness the power of bots to identify a variety of
937:
726:
161:
2312:
1686:
1525:
is not on the SourceWatch anywhere (if I'm wrong, please point where). It is listed on
1157:
1128:
1111:
871:
859:
855:
765:
504:
487:
455:
27:
2166:
it is still hatted and anyone can read it for themselves to see how non-neutral it was
2453:
2370:
2270:
2198:
2138:
2075:
1968:
1904:
1836:
1764:
1695:
1533:
1419:
522:
517:
478:
about being included in DOAJ to appear more legitimate. Predatory journals will also
171:
2169:
2112:
2044:
1953:
1877:
1870:
The person who writes the first list is the one who gets to choose his terminology.
1808:
1741:
1609:
1594:
1590:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Knowledge (XXG)/N18
1514:
1499:
734:
594:
446:
are generated. Those who want a bit of history and technical details can check the
151:
843:, and the compilation will be updated accordingly in future bot runs. And lastly,
562:
219:
Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures
823:), but will sometimes pick up journals that are obviously (to humans) unrelated (
1132:
889:
629:
431:
121:
1952:. Add all the sites you wish as I seem to have a very bad taste in my mouth.
1226:
582:
391:
655:
potentially unreliable publication is cited, but it will let you know that
1950:
but misusing sources and doubling down on that misuse is not my cup of tea
674:, a German newspaper published from 1861 to 1945, which is categorized in
507:, who runs the bot, and together we began laying down the first bricks of
474:
does not allow predatory journals to be listed on its directory. As such,
344:
Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication
305:
Licensed for reuse? Citing open-access sources in Knowledge (XXG) articles
980:. Particularly welcomed would be suggestions for additional sources that
777:
772:
we have, for example, journals and publishers which may merely engage in
395:
1938:? The one where you removed an old talk page entry as "no one cares"?
2342:
journals, these discussions often result in 'Yeah this is published by
2239:
610:
390:), as it aims to identify and combat unreliable sourcing, similarly to
1645:, which is a specific subset of JCW (specifically the pages ending in
463:
789:
483:
862:'s for their help with the creation of several redirects useful to
2038:
WT:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Talk:Hijacked_journal#bad_reverts
1173:
1164:(Tasks #5 and #6 especially), which creates redirects of the type
957:, or alternatively at a relevant WikiProject's talk page, such as
181:
A new project to find unreliable sources cited by Knowledge (XXG)
2356:
Foobarin is a complex protein discovered by James of Foo in 1942
809:
545:, but it was a good start. Since there are other efforts beyond
62:
896:
515:
parameters of citation templates and cross-check them against
1649:). A thing that will help here is that if you do not see the
1260:
910:
is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
717:
462:
380:
which are cited by Knowledge (XXG). I've dubbed the project
188:
42:
2024:
And I am getting a teensy bit upset about your hatting and
1872:
But "The Beall website got the terminology wrong" does not
874:
in particular. Hundreds of citations were cleaned up using
2061:, if you want to bring people to a discussion, you give a
1666:
Category:United States government propaganda organizations
944:
unreliable, it does not definitively answer whether it is
609:
could not be included as of writing due to the exorbitant
482:
or about being included in high-reputation databases like
1073:
s web presence has been hijacked (with the fake websites
1030:
As of writing. If you are reading this at a later date,
1946:
1939:
1399:
1392:
1372:
1199:"Bogus journal accepts profanity-laced anti-spam paper"
1035:
706:
260:
Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
792:
papers, if you pay them. For false positives, we have
549:
to identify unreliable sources in general, I expanded
740:
International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology
206:
Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged
858:'s for their help managing the configuration pages,
2069:by injecting your opinion/side all over the place.
1397:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
491:
409:For context, the JCW compilation takes the various
601:(which are broadly speaking the subcategories of
1414:User talk:Evad37/SPS.js#Publishing script error
1064:For example, the perfectly respectable journal
2065:notice of the discussion happening. You don't
906:What we won't do is pretend that the work of
8:
1934:You mean the article I corrected because it
1758:is. I also don't know what you mean by the
804:hoaxes and nonsensical claims, rather than
664:For example, as of writing, the article on
2332:Beall was right, this is a garbage journal
2460:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2019-03
639:on an article and looking for links from
613:, they might get included in the future.
247:New guideline for technical collaboration
866:, as well as the help of many people at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1868:? Nope. It quite appears the reverse.
1866:And Beall got his own terminology wrong
1400:
1376:
1189:
1002:
605:and a few others). While journals from
537:, rather than journals that range from
490:. The DOAJ advises "to ALWAYS check at
78:
2128:is a neutral noticeboard, yes. It was
1890:Jeffrey Beall did not invent the term
1806:It helps to read the column headers!!!
1653:on the page, you are not dealing with
1636:
1135:(Task #10), which sorts and organizes
512:
435:
410:
2042:directly contradicted by the sources.
1093:. As of writing, the bot will report
870:over the years with various matters,
707:Special:WhatLinksHere/Heinrich Albert
651:, ...). This won't directly tell you
511:. The bot would look for the various
36:
7:
1754:I don't think you understand what a
965:for sources claiming to have proven
727:Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List
394:, which aims to identify and combat
2132:that was not neutral, and violated
1832:TECH REV: Technology Review journal
839:). However, false positives can be
366:A few years back, while working on
1674:Category:Anti-communist propaganda
1531:, but that's not the SourceWatch.
1055:are completely ignored by the bot.
961:for medically dubious sources, or
349:
336:
323:
310:
297:
265:
252:
239:
224:
211:
64:
35:
2030:WP:RS/N#Hijacked_journal_problems
1760:"redlinked journals" in profusion
1639:used across Knowledge (XXG), not
1629:Journals Cited by Knowledge (XXG)
1528:Journals Cited by Knowledge (XXG)
1382:These comments are automatically
1083:www.multidisciplinarywulfenia.org
756:includes sources that range from
686:. This does not mean that citing
579:Directory of Open Access Journals
529:until it was taken down in 2017.
527:predatory journals and publishers
521:, a list maintained by librarian
472:Directory of Open Access Journals
373:Journals Cited by Knowledge (XXG)
2109:a diametrically opposite meaning
1147:(which removes false positives).
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
2408:putting together the next issue
1572:(listed quite prominently as a
974:The Knowledge (XXG) SourceWatch
888:lists, or spend months playing
597:, and sources from notoriously
480:lie about having impact factors
383:The Knowledge (XXG) SourceWatch
233:The Knowledge (XXG) SourceWatch
231:
79:The Knowledge (XXG) SourceWatch
1945:my actual use of the sources?
1393:add the page to your watchlist
1220:Wales, Jimmy (23 March 2014).
1197:Beall, J. (20 November 2014).
972:Suggestions on how to improve
938:whether a source is unreliable
1:
2340:literally zero academic worth
2334:, but since Beall classified
1047:Non-templated citations like
798:Category:Paranormal magazines
555:variety of additional sources
368:WikiProject Academic Journals
1732:means the "search" function
1091:Regional Museum of Carinthia
955:reliable sources noticeboard
2057:That's because, again, per
1794:" as the hijacked journal,
1734:is totally useless for this
936:does not definitely answer
698:Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
688:Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
671:Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
603:Category:Pseudo-scholarship
587:non-recommended periodicals
2476:
1936:misrepresented the sources
1441:23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
776:practices such as sending
725:A figure from the famous "
709:, which shows a link from
575:lying about being included
318:Loss of an Internet genius
2392:15:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2321:15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2300:Can this system by gamed?
2292:02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2261:02:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2220:01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2178:01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2160:01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2121:01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2097:00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
2053:00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
1990:21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1962:21:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1926:20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1898:and the explanatory note
1894:. Again, see our article
1886:20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1858:20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1817:20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1786:20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1750:20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1717:20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1603:20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1555:18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1508:18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
1484:04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
1462:04:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
918:
892:against false positives.
786:literally accept anything
476:several journals will lie
1494:- even managing to have
1011:The Wikipiedia CiteWatch
868:Village Pump (technical)
784:, we have journals that
764:, but it also has a few
684:Category:Nazi newspapers
680:Category:Nazi propaganda
406:in scientific journals.
2265:Hmm that's a bummer...
1802:as the genuine journal!
1723:Are you asserting that
1651:big SourceWatch warning
1223:Jimmy Wales's response"
1079:www.wulfeniajournal.com
800:, which may set out to
705:' category, or through
616:Two main ways of using
454:I gave in Montreal for
28:User:Headbomb/Crapwatch
1941:? The one where you
1390:. To follow comments,
1265:
1075:www.wulfeniajournal.at
946:appropriate to cite it
722:
630:search Knowledge (XXG)
591:self-published sources
467:
438:and then report it at
193:
47:
2194:Talk:Hijacked journal
1823:MIT Technology Review
1799:MIT Technology Review
1725:MIT Technology Review
1682:MIT Technology Review
1570:MIT Technology Review
1490:The "list" is rather
1264:
1203:Scholarly Open Access
1034:may be reported at a
782:definitely unreliable
762:definitely unreliable
721:
637:Special:WhatLinksHere
466:
192:
46:
1386:from this article's
1137:WP:SOURCEWATCH/SETUP
1118:to take care of JCW.
1097:, out of concern it
992:Notes and references
959:WikiProject Medicine
837:rican Journal of ...
829:rican Journal of ...
571:generally unreliable
543:definitely predatory
535:definitely predatory
2338:journals alongside
2036:while your post at
1876:impress me. Sorry.
1632:, a compilation of
1170:Predatory Publisher
1110:From 2009 to 2011,
963:WikiProject Physics
940:. Even if a source
841:manually identified
812:and similar names (
676:Category:Propaganda
595:vanity publications
559:circular references
2032:as a violation of
1664:is categorized in
1619:The New York Times
1586:propaganda sources
1522:The New York Times
1496:The New York Times
1377:Discuss this story
1312:Arbitration report
1266:
1036:different location
908:lunatic charlatans
818:Journal of Science
814:Journal of Science
737:, accepted in the
723:
607:Cabell's blacklist
573:sources, journals
468:
404:retracted research
378:unreliable sources
194:
53:← Back to Contents
48:
2240:the name is taken
2186:poisoned the well
1670:Radio Free Europe
1626:which is part of
1582:Radio Free Europe
1519:To my knowledge,
1481:
1401:purging the cache
1337:From the archives
1327:News from the WMF
1322:Technology report
1302:Discussion report
1166:Predatory Journal
1089:is hosted by the
1017:in May 2019, per
953:discussed at the
948:either. However,
929:
928:
794:hijacked journals
695:, which features
649:.../Questionable3
645:.../Questionable2
599:unreliable fields
360:
359:
58:View Latest Issue
26:(Redirected from
2467:
2444:
2406:needs your help
2390:
2290:
2267:Time for an RFC!
2249:
2246:
2218:
2158:
2095:
1988:
1924:
1896:hijacked journal
1892:hijacked journal
1856:
1828:hijacked journal
1784:
1756:hijacked journal
1715:
1662:Voice of America
1638:
1613:
1578:Voice of America
1574:hijacked journal
1568:newspapers, the
1553:
1518:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1460:
1459:
1439:
1404:
1402:
1396:
1375:
1307:Featured content
1287:From the editors
1284:
1276:
1269:
1252:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1233:
1217:
1211:
1210:
1205:. Archived from
1194:
1177:
1172:, including the
1154:
1148:
1125:
1119:
1108:
1102:
1072:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1045:
1039:
1028:
1022:
1007:
925:
897:
514:
492:https://doaj.org
437:
427:
420:
412:
402:, which reports
400:Retraction Watch
396:medical quackery
351:
338:
325:
312:
299:
273:
272:
267:
254:
241:
226:
213:
197:
196:Related articles
191:
174:
160:
159:
150:
149:
140:
139:
130:
129:
120:
119:
110:
109:
100:
99:
70:
68:
66:
31:
2475:
2474:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2440:
2438:
2433:
2428:
2423:
2418:
2411:
2400:
2399:
2369:
2302:
2269:
2247:
2244:
2197:
2137:
2074:
2067:poison the well
1967:
1903:
1835:
1790:Beall's lists "
1763:
1694:
1687:indeed hijacked
1655:The SourceWatch
1642:The SourceWatch
1607:
1584:are listed as "
1532:
1512:
1477:
1470:
1451:
1450:
1418:
1406:
1398:
1391:
1380:
1379:
1373:+ Add a comment
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1332:Recent research
1277:
1272:
1270:
1267:
1256:
1255:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1231:
1229:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1181:
1180:
1155:
1151:
1141:The SourceWatch
1126:
1122:
1109:
1105:
1070:
1063:
1059:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1029:
1025:
1008:
1004:
994:
982:The SourceWatch
976:can be made at
967:aether theories
950:The SourceWatch
934:The SourceWatch
930:
919:
894:
886:The SourceWatch
881:The SourceWatch
876:The SourceWatch
864:The SourceWatch
852:The SourceWatch
845:The SourceWatch
766:false positives
754:The SourceWatch
749:
748:
715:
666:Heinrich Albert
618:The SourceWatch
563:Knowledge (XXG)
553:to draw from a
551:The SourceWatch
509:The SourceWatch
496:
495:
460:
436:|journal=Nature
425:
414:
388:The SourceWatch
363:
362:
361:
356:
324:14 January 2013
311:15 January 2014
253:4 November 2016
212:4 December 2023
201:
200:
195:
189:
184:
183:
176:
175:
169:
168:
167:
166:
157:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
91:
88:
77:
73:
71:
61:
60:
55:
49:
39:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2473:
2471:
2463:
2462:
2452:
2451:
2439:
2434:
2429:
2424:
2419:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2402:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2324:
2323:
2307:
2306:
2301:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2028:of my post at
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1677:
1658:
1647:/Questionable#
1622:: That's from
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1453:SchreiberBike
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1381:
1378:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1362:Community view
1359:
1357:Special report
1354:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1317:Traffic report
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1292:News and notes
1289:
1283:
1271:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1212:
1209:on 2014-11-22.
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1178:
1156:Specifically,
1149:
1145:WP:JCW/EXCLUDE
1143:is based) and
1127:Specifically,
1120:
1103:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1040:
1023:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
993:
990:
978:WT:SOURCEWATCH
931:
927:
926:
916:
915:
912:
901:
895:
750:
731:David Mazières
724:
716:
693:WP:SOURCEWATCH
662:
661:
633:
626:WP:SOURCEWATCH
503:. I contacted
497:
488:Web of Science
469:
461:
456:Wikimania 2017
444:database dumps
429:
428:
413:parameters of
364:
358:
357:
354:
353:
347:
341:
340:
334:
328:
327:
321:
315:
314:
308:
302:
301:
295:
288:
285:
284:
276:
270:
269:
263:
257:
256:
250:
244:
243:
237:
229:
228:
222:
216:
215:
209:
202:
198:
187:
186:
185:
182:
179:
178:
177:
165:
164:
154:
144:
134:
124:
114:
104:
93:
92:
89:
83:
82:
81:
80:
75:
74:
72:
69:
56:
51:
50:
41:
40:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2472:
2461:
2458:
2457:
2455:
2443:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2417:
2409:
2405:
2393:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2309:
2308:
2304:
2303:
2299:
2293:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2241:
2237:
2236:
2221:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2105:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2059:WP:CANVASSING
2056:
2055:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
1991:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1940:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1678:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1576:) and more.
1575:
1571:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1524:
1523:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:all-inclusive
1489:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1415:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1374:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1275:
1274:31 March 2019
1268:In this issue
1263:
1254:
1228:
1224:
1216:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1193:
1190:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1085:), while the
1084:
1080:
1076:
1069:
1068:
1061:
1058:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:The CiteWatch
1012:
1006:
1003:
996:
995:
991:
989:
987:
983:
979:
975:
970:
968:
964:
960:
956:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
923:
917:
911:
909:
902:
898:
893:
891:
887:
882:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
848:
846:
842:
838:
836:
830:
828:
822:
821:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
746:
742:
741:
736:
732:
728:
720:
714:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
694:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
667:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
619:
614:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:Jeffrey Beall
520:
519:
510:
506:
502:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
465:
459:
457:
453:
449:
448:main JCW page
445:
441:
433:
424:
423:
422:
418:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
379:
375:
374:
369:
355:
352:
346:
345:
339:
333:
332:
326:
320:
319:
313:
307:
306:
300:
298:30 April 2014
294:
293:
287:
286:
283:
282:
281:
280:More articles
275:
274:
271:
268:
266:25 March 2015
262:
261:
255:
249:
248:
242:
240:31 March 2019
236:
235:
234:
227:
225:27 March 2022
221:
220:
214:
208:
207:
180:
173:
163:
155:
153:
145:
143:
135:
133:
125:
123:
115:
113:
105:
103:
95:
94:
86:
67:
65:31 March 2019
59:
54:
45:
29:
23:
19:
2404:The Signpost
2403:
2355:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2336:questionable
2335:
2331:
2238:Bad news...
2165:
2130:your message
2129:
2108:
2062:
2041:
2025:
1949:
1942:
1935:
1899:
1891:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1831:
1821:
1805:
1801:
1795:
1791:
1759:
1733:
1728:
1680:
1654:
1640:
1633:
1627:
1617:
1585:
1573:
1526:
1520:
1491:
1468:
1467:
1411:
1351:
1297:In the media
1280:all comments
1230:. Retrieved
1215:
1207:the original
1202:
1192:
1169:
1165:
1162:TokenzeroBot
1152:
1140:
1139:(upon which
1123:
1116:WikiStatsBOT
1106:
1098:
1094:
1087:real website
1082:
1078:
1074:
1065:
1060:
1043:
1031:
1026:
1014:
1010:
1005:
981:
973:
971:
949:
941:
933:
932:
905:
885:
880:
875:
863:
851:
849:
844:
834:
832:
826:
824:
819:
817:
813:
805:
801:
781:
774:questionable
773:
770:questionable
769:
761:
758:questionable
757:
753:
751:
744:
738:
735:Eddie Kohler
696:
687:
669:
663:
660:publication.
656:
652:
648:
644:
617:
615:
557:, including
550:
547:Beall's List
546:
542:
539:questionable
538:
534:
531:Beall's List
530:
525:to identify
518:Beall's List
516:
508:
498:
430:
408:
387:
381:
371:
365:
348:
342:
335:
329:
322:
316:
309:
303:
296:
290:
289:
279:
278:
277:
264:
258:
251:
245:
238:
232:
230:
223:
217:
210:
204:
203:
102:PDF download
38:SourceWatch.
2442:Suggestions
1792:Tech Review
1384:transcluded
1232:18 February
922:Jimbo Wales
890:Whac-A-Mole
778:spam emails
729:" paper by
701:under the '
585:'s list of
501:August 2018
434:would find
350:14 May 2012
337:28 May 2012
199:Open Access
152:X (Twitter)
2134:WP:CANVASS
2034:WP:CANVASS
1624:WP:JCW/N18
1471:Newslinger
1253:"In focus"
1227:Change.org
1184:References
806:perpetuate
768:. For the
703:Propaganda
583:Quackwatch
567:deprecated
392:Quackwatch
90:Share this
85:Contribute
22:2019-03-31
2436:Subscribe
2313:Guy Macon
2026:rehatting
1637:|journal=
1388:talk page
1158:Tokenzero
1129:Ronhjones
1112:ThaddeusB
872:Galobtter
860:Tokenzero
856:Ronhjones
745:even more
624:Browsing
513:|journal=
505:JLaTondre
452:this talk
440:WP:JCW/N7
411:|journal=
386:(or just
2454:Category
2431:Newsroom
2426:Archives
2371:Headbomb
2352:WP:MEDRS
2271:Headbomb
2257:contribs
2199:Headbomb
2139:Headbomb
2076:Headbomb
1969:Headbomb
1943:reverted
1905:Headbomb
1837:Headbomb
1765:Headbomb
1696:Headbomb
1534:Headbomb
1420:Headbomb
1352:In focus
1251:Previous
1095:Wulfenia
1067:Wulfenia
1009:Renamed
988:navbox.
417:cite xxx
172:Headbomb
142:Facebook
132:LinkedIn
122:Mastodon
76:In focus
20: |
2350:fail a
2348:usually
2170:Collect
2113:Collect
2063:neutral
2045:Collect
1954:Collect
1878:Collect
1826:is the
1809:Collect
1742:Collect
1738:WP:NPOV
1679:3) The
1610:Collect
1595:Collect
1515:Collect
1500:Collect
788:, even
620:exist:
611:paywall
577:in the
2245:python
2190:WP:RSN
2126:WP:RSN
2104:WP:RSN
2071:WP:RSN
1901:cited.
1342:Humour
1160:coded
1133:RonBot
1131:coded
1114:coded
1032:Nature
986:WP:JCW
802:debunk
790:SCIgen
668:cites
635:Using
484:Scopus
162:Reddit
112:E-mail
2421:About
2248:coder
1874:quite
1634:every
1347:Op-Ed
1174:ISO 4
997:Notes
810:typos
682:: -->
678:: -->
653:which
432:a bot
16:<
2416:Home
2317:talk
2253:talk
2174:talk
2117:talk
2049:talk
1958:talk
1882:talk
1813:talk
1796:and
1746:talk
1685:was
1668:and
1599:talk
1580:and
1504:talk
1478:talk
1234:2019
942:were
733:and
657:some
643:(or
593:and
470:The
398:and
2188:at
1729:not
1727:is
1672:in
1660:2)
1616:1)
1099:may
1019:RFC
1013:or
831:vs
816:vs
760:to
569:or
561:to
541:to
486:or
450:or
170:By
87:—
2456::
2385:·
2381:·
2377:·
2319:)
2311:--
2285:·
2281:·
2277:·
2259:)
2255:|
2213:·
2209:·
2205:·
2176:)
2153:·
2149:·
2145:·
2119:)
2090:·
2086:·
2082:·
2051:)
1983:·
1979:·
1975:·
1960:)
1919:·
1915:·
1911:·
1884:)
1851:·
1847:·
1843:·
1815:)
1779:·
1775:·
1771:·
1748:)
1710:·
1706:·
1702:·
1601:)
1548:·
1544:·
1540:·
1506:)
1457:⌨
1434:·
1430:·
1426:·
1417:.
1249:←
1225:.
1201:.
1168:→
1081:/
1077:/
969:.
924:,
920:—
914:”
900:“
835:me
713:.
647:,
589:,
581:,
565:,
458:.
419:}}
415:{{
370:'
2410:.
2389:}
2387:b
2383:p
2379:c
2375:t
2373:{
2344:X
2315:(
2289:}
2287:b
2283:p
2279:c
2275:t
2273:{
2251:(
2242:—
2217:}
2215:b
2211:p
2207:c
2203:t
2201:{
2172:(
2157:}
2155:b
2151:p
2147:c
2143:t
2141:{
2115:(
2094:}
2092:b
2088:p
2084:c
2080:t
2078:{
2047:(
1987:}
1985:b
1981:p
1977:c
1973:t
1971:{
1956:(
1923:}
1921:b
1917:p
1913:c
1909:t
1907:{
1880:(
1855:}
1853:b
1849:p
1845:c
1841:t
1839:{
1811:(
1783:}
1781:b
1777:p
1773:c
1769:t
1767:{
1762:.
1744:(
1714:}
1712:b
1708:p
1704:c
1700:t
1698:{
1689:.
1676:.
1657:.
1612::
1608:@
1597:(
1552:}
1550:b
1546:p
1542:c
1538:t
1536:{
1517::
1513:@
1502:(
1455:|
1438:}
1436:b
1432:p
1428:c
1424:t
1422:{
1405:.
1395:.
1282:)
1278:(
1236:.
1071:'
1038:.
1021:.
833:A
827:f
825:A
820:s
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
