This task is about making editors aware //before// they add unreliable sources to an article.
=== Background
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.
=== Components
//馃尡 This section is a draft.//
Work on this task depends on some not-yet-existing "components":
1. 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.//
2. A way for volunteers to add to and edit the "list" described in "1."
3. A way for the editing interface to check a source someone is attempting to add "against" the "list" described in "1."
4. 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.//
5. //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.//
=== Approaches
**Approach #1: Provide proactive guidance**
- Description: //before// someone attempts to add a source [for the first time], prompt them to consider whether the source they are thinking of adding will be one experienced volunteers are likely to consider //unreliable// and thus, undo the edit they're motivated to make.//
**Approach #2: Provide feedback about source reliability**
- Description: //after// someone generates a citation for the reference they're in the midst of inserting, provide feedback about the likelihood that other volunteers will consider said reference to be reliable.
- Implementation Ideas:
-- //"The source you're attempting to add is used in < .001% of articles. As a result, people who are reviewing this edit are likely to consider this source *unreliable* and potentially undo this edit. Consider using a different source or sharing why you think this source is in fact reliable."//
---
=== Links
//Research//
- [WikiCite: Editing Awareness and Trust Experiments](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mppDpBJSB_cZVlmccX_drmj-vEnomvORNdEBNhdAMGs/edit#slide=id.g84802bc108_0_239) via @cmadeo
- [Research:Analyzing sources on Wikipedia](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Analyzing_sources_on_Wikipedia#Characterizing_sources) //via @Isaac.//
- [Sources investigation and PoC](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TFwOvQ1p6ULX3JF5DQcIiJuDW61f7sBoXYUGh9-VfzI/edit) via @FNavas-foundation
- [Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05227) via @Pablo
-- The % of English Wikipedia sentences missing a citation has dropped by 20% in the last decade, with more than half of verifiable statements now accompanying references. The % of non-authoritative sources has remained below 1% over the years as a result of community efforts.
-- Editors with more experience tend to make better changes in terms of reference quality by adding missing references and removing potentially risky sources.
-- New editors who have co-edited an article with an experienced editor on the same day are more likely to avoid risky references in future edits compared to their peers who have not.
- Multilingual Wikipedia perennial source list (preprint avail. soon) via @Pablo
-- Some sources deemed untrustworthy in one language continue to appear in articles across other languages.
-- Non-authoritative sources found in the English version of a page tend to persist in other language versions of that page.
- [Wikipedia Source Controversiality Metrics](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Source_Controversiality_Metrics) via @Pablo
-- First findings suggest that statements backed with reliable sources tend to receive less edits than those with unreliable sources (case study: enwiki articles on climate change; reliability taken from the perennial sources list)
//Relevant conversations//
- **MediaWiki**
-- @Sdkb [writes in "So glad to see!"](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_check#c-Sdkb-20230128064700-PPelberg_(WMF)-20230127193200): //"... we'll absolutely want control over the source list there, so that we can modify it as RSP changes, and ideally we'll want to be able to provide context/specific conditions for (sometimes-)unreliable sources, as it's far from just a binary reliable/unreliable switch."//
- **English Wikipedia**
-- [Easier_new_articles_suggestion_for_non-contributors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_35#Easier_new_articles_suggestion_for_non-contributors)
--- //"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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nosebagbear)
//**Tools**//
- [User:Headbomb/unreliable
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Headbomb/unreliable) via @Pablo
-- The script breaks down external links (including DOIs) to various sources in different 'severities' of unreliability.
-- //See: [User:Headbomb/unreliable#What_it_does](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Headbomb/unreliable#What_it_does).//
- [
User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen) via @Pablo
-- Adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, providing readers and editors a quick initial evaluation of citations at a glance
- [User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter) via @Pablo
-- Highlights 1800 sources green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability
//**Source lists**//
Listed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q59821108
- **French Wikipedia**
-- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Observatoire_des_sources
-- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Identifiez_des_sources_fiables
- **English Wikipedia**
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide
---
i. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ENieves1&type=revision&diff=1009512219&oldid=1009437193&diffmode=source