This task is about making editors aware before they add unreliable sources to an article.
As noted in T265163, inexperienced editors often make edits that defy the project they are editing's policies and guidelines. One such policy we see new editors break is not citing reliable sources. [i]
This task is about making editors aware before they violate said sourcing policies.
🌱 This section is a draft.
Work on this task depends on some not-yet-existing "components":
- A way for volunteers, on a per project basis, to define, in a machine-readable way, what sources they reached consensus on being reliable and unreliable.
- Think: unit test analogy and 9-March-2021 conversation with @Esanders.
- A way for volunteers to add to and edit the "list" described in "1."
- A way for the editing interface to check a source someone is attempting to add "against" the "list" described in "1."
- A way to make the person editing aware, in real-time, when they have added a source that defies the project's policies
- Rough ideas in T95500#6873217.
- Optional: a way for the person attempting to add a source to quickly: A) why the source they are attempting to add likely defies the project's policies and/or B) talk with someone about why they think the source they are trying to include does belong in the encycolopedia.
- English Wikipedia
- "With this new proposed UI we could have a clear summary of the criteria for notability and eligibility on Wikipedia. The current requested articles system does not explicitly put those critera on the page, instead users need to navigate elsewhere to find them." -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elli](User:Elli)
- "... requested articles should require RS for example." -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elli](User:Elli)
- " If we do require RS, we would still need to the community to somehow vet the sources." -- User:Philipp.governale
- " We could even attach an edit filter that barred it if there weren't at least 2 URLs in it." --User:Nosebagbear
- French Wikipedia
- English Wikipedia