User talk:Newslinger

Thank you for your patience as I review and respond to your messages, emails, and notifications. To bring a matter to my immediate attention, please start a new discussion or post a new comment on this page. — Newslinger talk 23:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Newslinger's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Hey Newslinger, hope you're well.

Some time ago, I felt that we needed more guidance to aid the operation of WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Having closed a lot of those discussions, I feel there is more work to be done on the PAG framework in this area. I was going to run some thoughts by you as I think you’d be a good thought partner on this, but you were inactive at the time and this fell off my radar. I’m thinking back to that now, and I feel like this is still needed. Here’s some of the problems I think would be good to address:

• Effect of a source being listed at RSP. WP:RSPISNOT isn't really followed in practice, which means editors care a lot about the colour a source is given at RSP. For instance, I’ve seen talk page discussions regarding a specific source in a specific context, where discussion is bogged down with “but it’s yellow/red on RSP”. Or a talk page consensus arrives at one decision, but the source is still removed on drive-by. Thus, I think it’d be good to explicitly clarify to what extent a talk page may override a general determination listed at WP:RSP.
  Further, this ultimately means our coverage of entire topic areas can be changed by listing a couple of sources as reliable or not. I think that fact should mean we are deliberate about how these discussions take place. Hence:
• What makes a source unreliable? This falls into a few parts:
  • Structure of discussions. Surely if we're talking about the reliability (or lack thereof) of a source, we should be able to point to a bullet-pointed list of some specific articles by the source and quotes which are factually incorrect. Without this, RSN discussions are vulnerable to deciding on a source "based on vibes". In particular, editors often believe a source is or isn't reliable and comment this as if it's a "sky is blue" fact, without really providing or referring to any clear evidence. That works if the evidence has already been established in discussion by others and isn’t worth repeating, but that’s often not the case.
    The current structure of RSN is also difficult for closers. For instance, it’s hard to tell whether a brief !vote is based on evidence of the source's reliability, or a personal like/dislike for the source's editing and leanings, unless the editor makes this obvious. Thus, I think bias and reliability is sometimes conflated in these discussions (by different editors), and if it happens then a closer may be left to untangle the mess themselves.
    To wit, I think it’d be good for RSN discussions to be split into two sub-sections: a list of articles and quotes with falsehoods, and a !vote section that is the same as now, but editors may more clearly reference some article in the list and make an argument for why it's not a purported falsehood, if they wish. We might also want to reconsider whether the status quo 4 option RfC is a good template for RSN discussions to follow.
  • Standard of proof. What should editors look for to decide if a source is reliable or not? Do we need other reliable sources to explicitly call out the source as unreliable? How important are decisions by regulators (like IPSO), if they exist in the country? Can editors look at what a source is reporting and determine themselves whether it is factually correct? If so, how should they do this?
  • Consistency across sources. I am not sure our “standard of proof” is actually consistent between sources currently. FWIW I don’t think we should change how RSN currently works, but instead just codify current practices. Codifying what kinds of things editors should look for alone would help ensure consistency across discussions of different sources, and raise the quality of discussion.

What do you think of these things? Is it just me here? (talk page stalker comments also welcome). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, thanks for sharing your thoughts and for closing many of these discussions. I agree that longer noticeboard discussions would benefit from additional structure, especially for closers like you. Currently, it is common for RfCs on RSN to be split into "Survey" and "Discussion" sections. It may be useful to have an additional "Evidence" section for editors to list specific examples of a source's reliability and third-party assessments about the source. However, with threaded replies, I am not sure whether an "Evidence" section would differ significantly from the common "Discussion" section. Perhaps you might consider adding an "Evidence" section the next time an editor starts an RfC on RSN and monitoring the participation to see if the discussion becomes more focused and constructive.

In discussions about general reliability, editors should always be encouraged to share evidence of a source's reliability that can be tied in some way to a relevant policy or guideline. Some of the most common source evaluations are based on the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:UBO – Broadly covers assessments and usage by other reliable sources, which also includes regulator decisions, fact-checker evaluations, journalism awards, and third-party accreditations
• WP:QS – Establishes that a pattern of publishing false information negatively impacts a source's general reliability
• WP:NEWSORG – Considers "well-established news outlets" generally reliable by default in the absence of evidence to the contrary; allows the publication of corrections to be a mitigating factor against the publication of false information
• WP:SPS – Considers self-published sources generally unreliable, with an exception for subject-matter experts in some situations
• WP:BIASED – Although a source's bias is evaluated independently of the source's reliability, bias should be noted in closing summaries when prominent

It is up to individual editors to weigh the available evidence and provide their own assessments of the source's general reliability. I do not think there would be popular support to prescribe a specific formula for evaluating the evidence that would make editor evaluations more consistent. There are third-party evaluators, such as the IFCN (RSP entry), AllSides (RSP entry), Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry), and Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), that do use methodologies that are more standardized than how Wikipedia implements consensus, and editors are free to cite their evaluations as available evidence, but each editor ultimately makes their own determination of a source's general reliability using their own judgment.

Of course, in many discussions, there are editors who only post comments that cannot be linked to relevant policies or guidelines like the ones I listed above. This is not too different from what we see in deletion discussions, in which some editors cite relevant guidelines and policies, and others do not. I believe guidance in the form of "Reasons for deletion" and "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" would help steer editors in the right direction when participating in RSN discussions. On the other hand, since reliability is much more complex than notability, I do not believe it is feasible to implement something along the lines of the mostly binary WP:GNG for determining general reliability. In addition to the the considerations introduced by the policies and guidelines I listed above, the overarching standard we have for general reliability is the requirement that reliable sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Finally, editors who made policy-violating edits while citing RSP as justification should have their relevant edits contested per the appropriate policy or guideline, and be directed to review WP:RSPIN. — Newslinger talk 20:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Just wondering if you could help take a look at this case. Said IP address has persisted with disruptive behaviour and I feel it best to request urgent intervention on this. Thank you! hundenvonPG (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HundenvonPenang, I've responded at WP:ANI § Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63. — Newslinger talk 04:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be ask a general question:

Am I allowed to changed mentions of "Gayard" to the proper Hindi translations madad or nayaak? The translation makes no sense and I am going to search now for credible sources regarding his actual achievments. I did do a draft edit of this but abandoned it at the last minute to follow the rules, (which I did). I think this is a case of ANI given the creditionals of the Hindu American Actor and Lawyer. I may be wrong so thats why im asking!

For more context see the Teahouse post I made, aswell as my diffs here: Help adding Proper (formatting) of citations on Abhishek Nigam

I did go ahead and restore the previous version. (new territory for me so I want to make sure I do everything correctly)

Best, L.E. Rainer 02:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke Elaine Burke, could you please be more specific? I don't see any changes involving Gayard, madad, or nayaak in the diff you linked (Special:Diff/1262338758). — Newslinger talk 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, L.E. Rainer 18:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC), under deed "Attribution 4.0 International", encourage any constructive critcism, and commentary. Furthermore, all text, images, and otherwise uploaded works to the English Wikepedia, past, present, and future (and any of its charitative sister sites). In the time of an untimely death, Larry Warsh or similair academics are allowed to write anything they please under NMR, or any other credible organization.[reply]

Hello, Newslinger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

{{subst:xsign}}

Hi Luke Elaine Burke, this type of license declaration would be appropriate on your user page, but is not a good fit for other talk pages. Your email did not contain enough context for me to understand what you were saying. — Newslinger talk 04:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contribituion

Thanks L.E. Rainer 21:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newslinger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

1. Open the email we sent them with subject: Wikimedia Canada Wikimédia Canada’s application for Canva’s program
2. Click “Yes” to confirm you work or volunteer for them.

L.E. Rainer 08:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke Elaine Burke, I am not interested in this program. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newslinger, please share your views at WT:INDIA#The state of Indian media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, thanks for the invitation. I understand that the continued decline of press freedom in India is concerning. Although I don't have any specific details to share on the noticeboard at this time, I look forward to updating articles about Indian news organisations when I come across the opportunity to introduce new reliable sources, particularly academic ones. — Newslinger talk 04:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recent development is this: Anti-Bangladeshi disinformation in India. The page on Freedom of the press in India turns a blind eye to everything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Newslinger! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L.E. Rainer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

L.E. Rainer 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article AdNauseam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the browser extension AdNauseam blocks and clicks on advertisements at the same time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/AdNauseam. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, AdNauseam), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,671 views (722.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]