984:
would allow those interested to add sources which have been found to be unreliable or even to remove "unreliable sources" which have been found to be generally credible? Has any provision been made to report on the progress of work? WikiProjects Women in Red and Women were the first of over a hundred projects you invited to provide support or leave comments. Have you any indication that these projects have a particular problem with the credibility of the sources they use? My greatest concern is that the bot could be used by article reviewers to call for article deletions if the sources used, for example in a woman's biography, are flagged as insufficiently credible.--
51:
38:
1018:
64:
678:
This would also coincide with data checks of when the data was collected. I come across outdated data regularly, particularly related to statistics related to food and nutrition. Happy to help test if I can, or offer assistance in other ways. Looking forward to utilizing this tool! (I'm not sure how likely language localization will be, but if I can offer some help, I'd be happy to do that, too.)
85:
754:
book. Looking forward to seeing future developments. I'm particularly curious if this could be also tied somehow to the
Programs & Events dashboard, helping to track EDUWiki work around the world. AFAIK, this is the largest outreach effort we have, and is responsible to bringing many new editors into the movement (10% globally, 19% in EnWiki specifically), so worth the effort. Best,
541:
climate-change-related topic, like renewable energy sources, and then see what needs work or is under-sourced or out of date. I spent a lot of my time looking at articles and going THIS IS OUT OF DATE. FEATURE REQUEST: I would love a tool to assess the recency of the sources cited (in terms of when they were written, not when they were added) to see how up-to-date it is.
833:
Endorsing, especially in the scope of my work on WikiProject
Climate Change -- makes a lot of sense for fields of knowledge that we expect a lot of vandalism or suspect sources. I wish it were a bit easier to configure (i.e. 1 click to add and remove from suspect lists from the reports themselves). I
995:
It's not very clear from the scope and example
Vaccine Safety report how this would work. The example Vaccine Safety alerts do not appear useful in that they are not necessarily flagging traits that require action (e.g., articles can use Twitter.com as a primary source so a link to the site does not
612:
The credibility bot is a fantastic tool, and I'm excited to see how it can be used across WikiProjects and topic areas—particularly areas prone to misinformation and poor sourcing. On top of helping editors monitor and improve sourcing, I'd be interested in seeing how the aggregate information about
983:
himself. The displays look fine but it would be useful to have more evidence of how this would operate in practice, even in a restricted domain. Would the bot be installed by individual users or would it be operated at the level of a wikiproject? Has any consideration been given to a feature which
870:
Offer us your most useful, targeted, idealistic, or critical feedback on the features you need or want. What's missing, what would make you adopt this tool, what would make it ten times better, what do you see as a subtle or obvious flaw? Now is the time to influence the direction of for what and
677:
I love the concept and where this tool is going. A source check/flag is critical for continued improvement of the reliability of the project. I must echo Mary above: I think a feature that could access the recency of the sources (in terms of when the sources were written) would be really helpful.
753:
An important tool to help us address the issue of using reliable sources and combat misinformation, disinformation and fake news that are heavily available online. Any project that focuses on helping our community of volunteers be more efficient, and strategic in its work, is a blessed one in one
535:
Support the future of the project by commenting on how it would be useful to you, your work, subjects you care about, on-wiki processes, reliability, fact-checking, disinformation, task management, or any other positive aspect you anticipate. If you endorse, please feel free to give a reason, and
729:
has been working closely with WikiProject organizers to assess an ever-growing need for organized article tasks and priorities. I think this is one critical step to increasing the coverage and relevance of articles in need of edits and creation, as well as those that will make the biggest impact
575:
With literally millions of articles to maintain on
Knowledge (XXG) and a flood of pseudoscientific misinformation on the internet constantly trying to make its way into Knowledge (XXG) articles, it's vital that we develop processes and tools like this bot to maximize the usefulness of volunteers
540:
I would love to have this to use at the WikiProject level but it would also be great to be able to aggregate information within a particular topic area that is more bounded. I would love to be able to easily find all the articles that relate to a particular area of scientific disinformation or a
810:
It would be amazing to see this up and running! In addition to improving source reliability generally, I can see this helping editors find articles where greater breadth of sources may be needed to support knowledge equity goals. We would definitely use this on WikiProject
Writing.
281:
Sign up below if you are interested in having this bot run for your WikiProject. You will be informed when capacity becomes available. To expedite the process, define a set of articles (based on categories, Wikidata queries, etc.) that the report should be based on.
741:
The first time I saw this tool I was in awe of its potential. Definitely a great tool for
Wikiprojects to identify the quality of references used on articles tagged under them and in future could help small and non-english language Wikipedias improve the quality of
653:
Seems like a very positive move, both for areas of high controversy, and the less-well-watched backwaters of
Knowledge (XXG). I can think of several external organisations that I have worked or liaised with who would be reassured by the proposed reports.
594:
I'd love to be able to create a credbot subpage for any wikiproject that's hosting an editathon, as a way of visualizing changes to citation distribution across the covered articles (and fast feedback for people who clean up citations across the board).
271:
From a defensive perspective, citation alerts could also enable bad actors or trolls to see when their preferred or most hated work is cited. That should be overwhelmed by good actors, as usually happens on
Knowledge (XXG), but it's a concern to
254:
CREDBOT would show where flagged sources are located and offer the ability to improve them, helping across a subject area to learn about new sources both good and bad. Having source monitoring would encourage rating more sources, with more
689:
This looks like something that could be very powerful, useful, and insightful. Kudos! Extra kudos for making the code language-agnostic. -- I'm curious if anything could be done/planned to reduce the duplication between pages like
258:
CREDBOT is trying to save time and raise reliability, put more automatic eyeballs on peer review processes, help editors understand the distribution of cited domains, aggregate stats across a category, and detect poor sources more
713:
Obviously useful tool for editors to monitor source quality, especially in light of the overall lack of officially maintained infrastructure and tools to make sourcing and reference management more efficient and usable.
779:
I am heads over heels with the idea of a bot to help us easily review the reliability of references. Not just for controversial articles but for the ones that get almost 0 attention. I would love to see it work.
761:
I think this would be really helpful - providing tools for editors to monitor what needs their attention on
Knowledge (XXG) is increasingly important given the breadth of content and edits being made.
368:
would greatly benefit from this tool. It has been difficult to create accurate article lists that are aligned with our priorities through the use of categories and
Wikidata queries (See documentation
390:) is absolutely interested in this tool, as there are many, MANY articles under our scope that are very poorly or questionably referenced. It would be great not to review them manually. The scope is
369:
887:
I feel a step-by-step guide is needed. Do we need a list of bad/good sources? How do we build it? Are there templates or a specific bot-readable subpage/syntax, or is it just drawn from
191:
698:(which will proliferate when this tool becomes widely used), but that might be unavoidable in order to keep the latter manageable. Perhaps just list these new lists in the latter's
552:
Sources are critical for the reliability of this project. Having tools rapidly flag poorly sourced material will help us maintain accuracy and reliability within our movement.
488:
409:
169:
This bot is under development. We are currently gauging support for additional development work. Our vision is for any WikiProject to customize their own alerts and reports.
484:
268:
Expanded to Wikidata, we could track citations to urls in statements, which is sorely lacking. Further, common reliability measures themselves should be Wikidata properties.
466:; might be useful to sort out what sources are or are not credible. Project has a large amount of dead links being discovered as well as several self-published sources.
891:? How do we build a list of physics articles if we don't use categories or wikiproject tagging? Can we still use them anyway, or are they completely unsupported?
932:, and we are trying to gauge interest to see if projects would like to have similar tools. If we can demonstrate that this support exists, it will make it easier for
699:
695:
247:
At Wikiconference North America in Toronto, we held our first user design session. We asked a group of 25 editors 8 questions. Here's a summary of their feedback:
947:
If you don't want to go directly to the CIA or DARPA, then talk to the US State Department, the EC censorship team, and major political parties of your choosing.
702:
section and encourage WikiProjects to share a list when possible? and perhaps this project will eventually lead the way to another evolution of that older index!
1085:
822:
I think this will be a great tool to help editors sort through and improve the sources being used on Knowledge (XXG). It should be useful for any WikiProject.
691:
262:
At a macro level, we could create master monitoring capacity by identifying universally good or bad sources from those that are only contextually reliable.
510:. I'd have to put some work into defining a set of articles, since the field is notoriously broad, but to give you an idea the inactive wikiproject has
251:
Citation monitoring is currently done with blunt white/black lists, or checking someone's private notepad or 'text highlighter' of good and bad sources.
286:
949:
Of course you can get funding for centralized control of "acceptable" sourcing for controling Knowledge (XXG) coverage of major controversial topics.
936:
and I to get funding to work on it. This will allow us to support more projects than just the current one. This is why we are requesting feedback.
440:
311:
408:; I'd like to use this to review and improve sources used for North American locomotive articles. There are about one thousand articles within
1067:
507:
387:
221:
A concern or task raised in one corner of Knowledge (XXG) is relayed to relevant, interested people and doesn’t just sit in its one corner
670:
304:
325:
152:
875:
I'm still just as confused now as I was at the Signpost submission pages. I see talks of frameworks and scalability, but I still have
647:
631:
426:
184:
158:
30:
372:
under "Very few composition/rhetoric scholars exist on Wikidata"). I hope this provides some context into what our community needs.
209:
You define the parameters of that project, based on whatever criteria you want, without needing to create categories or tag articles
177:
480:
383:
500:
849:
tagging and related reports, which many editors rely on (including me) but are very labour-intensive to maintain. –
463:
454:
365:
565:
355:
405:
901:
483:; would be useful to track articles that may be citing social media sources. We're also thinking of using it specifically on
413:
1090:
265:
If this feature was available to individual editors, it could be combined with the Watchlist, customized and personalized.
84:
1059:
120:
116:
569:
359:
929:
412:
and there should be significant overlap in the sourcing. If you wanted to crack all Trains articles that's close to
801:
looking forward to using this in the future. We really need to gauge the reliability of sources in our articles. --
150:
monitors and collects data on source usage within Knowledge (XXG) articles. It generates automated, well-designed
979:, I've looked at the reports and alerts. Surprisingly the only flagged alert is the result of something added by
834:
also worry about generating these kinds of reports off-EnWiki, especially where WikiProjects don't exist widely
92:
996:
necessarily require action). It would take specific scoping and a lot of configuration to make this effective.
846:
666:
474:
300:
202:
While we currently support one project, we would like to make this functionality available for any project.
124:
56:
643:
628:
883:, and see (or at least can't recognize) no human-editable/configurable page or subpage. So again, I ask,
342:
would love to have this running. Would help us trim predatory publishers and other poor quality sources.
735:
606:
546:
377:
333:
319:
69:
960:
773:
638:
This sounds pretty useful. I am thinking if there are plans to introduce it to small wikis as well? -
496:
795:
785:
561:
448:
420:
399:
351:
909:
897:
707:
657:
584:
469:
296:
880:
163:
989:
856:
747:
639:
616:
521:
290:
905:
96:
1036:
839:
816:
731:
719:
683:
602:
542:
373:
329:
315:
1017:
888:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
941:
762:
511:
492:
107:
443:: To review and improve sources used by articles that come in the ambit of the project. -
1063:
998:
792:
781:
553:
444:
431:
417:
395:
343:
17:
1079:
976:
917:
893:
827:
802:
703:
577:
985:
850:
743:
515:
791:
Any kind of aggregated reporting on cross-article source usage would be helpful.
601:
I support this and I'd like it to be available for non English projects as well.
328:
might be interested and might have valuable information about credible sources —
238:
Building templates to accept localized template parameters in addition to English
933:
835:
812:
715:
679:
458:
235:
Using translatable message strings in scripts instead of hard-coded English copy
228:
We intend to build it as a wiki- and language-agnostic system. This is done by:
845:
I think this is an extremely promising potential replacement for the system of
1025:
980:
937:
755:
726:
103:
391:
224:
The bots are built on top of open APIs that can be used by other bots as well
123:
edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
218:
Known outstanding article issues are listed within the project, with updates
823:
232:
Not building in to the script assumptions around English Knowledge (XXG)
596:
212:
A list of relevant pages is created and automatically updated over time
132:
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please
885:
what do I need to do to have something like this setup for WP:PHYS?
314:
would hugely benefit from organization and this type of support —
613:
sources can be used for analysis, research, and other tooling.
339:
1012:
215:
Reports about the sources used on those articles are generated
79:
457:, where there is a lot of disinformation around the edges. -
190:
Credibility Bot is currently under the approval process at
173:
429:
is open to trying this. I've added my own concerns below.
192:
Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Credibility bot
879:
how you use this project to do anything. I've looked at
951:
You don't need to even ask. It's less clear why anyone
725:
I am thrilled to see a tool like this being developed.
133:
920:, I think it's important to clarify that this is all
410:
Category:Standard gauge locomotives of North America
172:The original development of this bot was funded by
696:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Perennial sources
692:Knowledge (XXG):Vaccine safety/Perennial sources
289:, based on the list of articles under its scope
8:
441:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Indian politics
187:for tracking citations and misinformation.
312:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Climate change
294:
287:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women's Health
206:You fill out a form to start a new project
162:. Currently it supports a single project,
955:of those circles would think this was in
1086:Knowledge (XXG) bots with unknown status
508:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Anthropology
77:Knowledge (XXG) editing bot run by Harej
326:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism
975:Further to these useful queries from
427:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Anarchism
7:
481:Knowledge (XXG):Tambayan Philippines
183:It is one component of the emerging
464:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Weather
455:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ukraine
416:covering a wide variety of topics.
25:
536:also your relevant affiliations.
506:I'd love to try this to relaunch
1068:WikiProject Notification Service
1016:
83:
62:
49:
36:
27:
730:toward knowledge equity goals.
503:) 18:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
930:Knowledge (XXG):Vaccine safety
115:It is used to make repetitive
1:
959:way a good idea. —
944:) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
842:) 21:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
830:) 13:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
477:06:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
451:) 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
992:) 06:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
819:) 16:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
788:) 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
776:) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
750:) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
512:about 6000 articles in scope
402:) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
968:06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
914:19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
738:) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
722:) 11:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
710:) 20:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
686:) 18:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
609:) 00:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
572:) 17:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
549:) 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
380:) 16:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
362:) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
1107:
1004:10:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
807:01:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
798:19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
758:20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
576:dealing with this flood.
437:10:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
423:19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
861:12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
674:16:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
650:02:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
635:16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
591:17:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
526:12:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1091:All Knowledge (XXG) bots
388:WikiProject Tree of Life
1060:Full-date unlinking bot
922:still under development
18:Knowledge (XXG):CREDBOT
871:how we build CREDBOT.
700:#Topic-specific pages
185:Credibility Framework
31:Credibility Framework
470:Weather Event Writer
384:WikiProject Protista
866:Product development
366:WikiProject Writing
406:WikiProject Trains
1074:
1073:
1070:
928:for one project,
860:
634:
590:
525:
308:
145:
144:
139:
16:(Redirected from
1098:
1040:
1020:
1013:
1003:
1001:
966:
965:
913:
854:
805:
673:
664:
660:
627:
624:
620:
587:
582:
580:
558:
519:
514:. –
436:
434:
348:
138:
129:
114:
101:
87:
80:
66:
65:
53:
52:
40:
39:
21:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1076:
1075:
1057:
1039:
1033:Credibility bot
1030:
1011:
999:
997:
963:
961:
892:
868:
803:
662:
656:
655:
622:
618:
585:
578:
554:
533:
489:High-importance
432:
430:
386:(if not all of
344:
279:
245:
243:Design (update)
200:
148:Credibility bot
130:
128:
112:
99:
78:
75:
74:
67:
63:
54:
50:
44:Credibility Bot
41:
37:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1104:
1102:
1094:
1093:
1088:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1031:Current bots:
1021:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
993:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
867:
864:
863:
862:
843:
831:
820:
808:
799:
789:
777:
759:
751:
739:
723:
711:
687:
675:
651:
636:
610:
599:
592:
573:
550:
532:
529:
528:
527:
504:
485:Top-importance
478:
461:
452:
438:
424:
403:
381:
363:
337:
323:
309:
278:
277:Request access
275:
274:
273:
269:
266:
263:
260:
256:
252:
244:
241:
240:
239:
236:
233:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
199:
196:
164:Vaccine Safety
143:
142:
140:
121:semi-automated
88:
76:
73:
72:
61:
59:
48:
46:
35:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1103:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1008:
1002:
994:
991:
987:
982:
978:
974:
967:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
865:
858:
852:
848:
844:
841:
837:
832:
829:
825:
821:
818:
814:
809:
806:
800:
797:
794:
790:
787:
783:
778:
775:
771:
769:
765:
760:
757:
752:
749:
745:
740:
737:
733:
728:
724:
721:
717:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
688:
685:
681:
676:
672:
668:
663:Pigsonthewing
659:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
626:
625:
621:
611:
608:
604:
600:
598:
593:
588:
581:
574:
571:
567:
563:
559:
557:
551:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
530:
523:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
476:
472:
471:
465:
462:
460:
456:
453:
450:
446:
442:
439:
435:
428:
425:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
347:
341:
338:
335:
331:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:Netha Hussain
292:
288:
285:
284:
283:
276:
270:
267:
264:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
248:
242:
237:
234:
231:
230:
229:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
204:
203:
197:
195:
193:
188:
186:
181:
179:
178:Read the Blog
175:
174:Hacks/Hackers
170:
167:
165:
161:
160:
155:
154:
149:
141:
137:
135:
126:
122:
118:
111:
109:
105:
98:
94:
89:
86:
82:
81:
71:
60:
58:
47:
45:
34:
32:
29:
28:
19:
1032:
1023:
956:
952:
948:
925:
924:. We have a
921:
884:
876:
869:
767:
763:
742:referencing.
671:Andy's edits
667:Talk to Andy
658:Andy Mabbett
640:Satdeep Gill
617:
614:
555:
534:
531:Show support
467:
345:
280:
246:
227:
201:
189:
182:
171:
168:
157:
151:
147:
146:
131:
102:operated by
93:user account
90:
43:
1037:Reports bot
934:User:Ocaasi
847:WikiProject
732:Breadyornot
603:Naval Scene
543:MaryMO (AR)
374:Breadyornot
330:MaryMO (AR)
316:MaryMO (AR)
1080:Categories
1041:Replaced:
1009:Other bots
493:Ganmatthew
491:articles.
475:Talk Page)
340:MDWiki.org
125:bot policy
57:Workspaces
1064:Harej bot
1058:Retired:
926:prototype
793:Mackensen
782:Snoteleks
556:Doc James
445:MPGuy2824
418:Mackensen
396:Snoteleks
346:Doc James
255:subtlety.
117:automated
1024:Bots by
977:Headbomb
962:Llywelyn
918:Headbomb
894:Headbomb
881:WP:VSAFE
804:Lenticel
704:Quiddity
648:contribs
632:Contribs
579:Gamaliel
566:contribs
501:contribs
356:contribs
305:contribs
259:quickly.
134:block it
70:Pagesets
1055:One bot
1043:RFC bot
986:Ipigott
953:outside
877:no idea
744:Flixtey
623:Hamster
414:140,000
153:reports
1051:GA bot
1047:RM bot
889:WP:RSP
853:
836:Sadads
813:Drkill
796:(talk)
716:DarTar
680:JamieF
518:
459:Mzajac
421:(talk)
198:Vision
159:alerts
113:
100:
68:
55:
42:
1026:Harej
981:Harej
938:Harej
770:alton
756:Esh77
727:Harej
619:Super
570:email
360:email
272:note.
104:Harej
95:is a
91:This
1000:czar
990:talk
942:talk
857:talk
840:talk
828:talk
817:talk
786:talk
774:talk
748:talk
736:talk
720:talk
708:talk
694:and
684:talk
644:talk
629:Talk
607:talk
586:talk
562:talk
547:talk
522:talk
497:talk
487:and
468:The
449:talk
433:czar
400:talk
392:here
378:talk
370:here
352:talk
334:talk
320:talk
301:talk
291:here
180:).
156:and
108:talk
957:any
851:Joe
824:WWB
766:am
665:);
516:Joe
166:.
127:.
119:or
97:bot
1082::
1066:•
1062:•
1053:•
1049:•
1045:•
1035:•
964:II
908:·
904:·
900:·
669:;
646:•
597:Sj
568:·
564:·
499:•
394:.
358:·
354:·
303:•
295:—
293:.
194:.
110:).
1028::
988:(
940:(
912:}
910:b
906:p
902:c
898:t
896:{
859:)
855:(
838:(
826:(
815:(
784:(
772:(
768:W
764:S
746:(
734:(
718:(
714:—
706:(
682:(
661:(
642:(
615:~
605:(
589:)
583:(
560:(
545:(
524:)
520:(
495:(
473:(
447:(
398:(
376:(
350:(
336:)
332:(
322:)
318:(
307:)
299:(
176:(
136:.
106:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
