As a first step towards equipping people with the knowledge and tooling they need to identify and add reliable sources to Wikipedia, T347531 will offer people feedback when they are attempting to add a reference projects have deemed to be definitively unreliable.

This task involves the work of expanding reliability feedback to include sources where the reliability of a source is not definitive.

Story

As a person who is unaware of/inexperienced with Wikipedia's reliability policy and who is attempting to reference a source, I'd value being equipped with information that can help me decide how reliable people who are reviewing the edit I'm making will perceive the source I'm adding to be, so that I can decide A) whether to proceed with including the source and B) what – if any – evidence has led me to perceive this source as reliable in the context I'm adding it within.

🚧 Requirements

The below are still evolving...

• This task will require the introduction of a generic, machine readable list that, at a minimum, enables volunteers to specify the "level" of feedback people ought to receive who attempt to add a domain that is present on this yet-to-be-created list as well as a message that will be presented to them.
  • More context in this offline conversation.

Approaches

Approach #1: Quantitative Feedback

• Ideas
  • Prevalence: show people how prevalent the source they're attempting to add is within Wikipedia. E.g. https://bestref.net/ .
  • Revert-risk: show the revert rate of edits that involve someone citing the same domain/source they're attempting to add.