973:
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.--
40:
27:
1007:
53:
74:
667:
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 I come across outdated data regularly, particularly related to statistics related to food and nutrition.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.)
743:
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,
530:
climate-change-related topic, like renewable energy sources, and then see what needs work or is under-sourced or out of date. I spent a lot of my time looking at articles and going THIS IS OUT OF DATE.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.
822:
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
984:
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
601:
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
972:
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
859:
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
666:
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.
742:
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
564:
With literally millions of articles to maintain on
Knowledge and a flood of pseudoscientific misinformation on the internet constantly trying to make its way into Knowledge articles, it's vital that we develop processes and tools like this bot to maximize the usefulness of volunteers dealing with
524:
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
718:
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
529:
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
799:
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.
270:
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.
730:
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
583:
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).
642:
Seems like a very positive move, both for areas of high controversy, and the less-well-watched backwaters of
Knowledge. I can think of several external organisations that I have worked or liaised with who would be reassured by the proposed reports.
122:
260:
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, but it's a concern to
243:
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
678:
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
247:
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
702:
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.
768:
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.
357:
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
379:) 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
750:
I think this would be really helpful - providing tools for editors to monitor what needs their attention on
Knowledge is increasingly important given the breadth of content and edits being made.
876:
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
358:
687:(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
541:
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.
158:
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.
257:
Expanded to Wikidata, we could track citations to urls in statements, which is sorely lacking. Further, common reliability measures themselves should be Wikidata properties.
455:; 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.
880:? 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?
921:, 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
236:
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:
936:
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.
691:
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!
688:
477:
398:
251:
At a macro level, we could create master monitoring capacity by identifying universally good or bad sources from those that are only contextually reliable.
180:
811:
I think this will be a great tool to help editors sort through and improve the sources being used on Knowledge. It should be useful for any WikiProject.
473:
499:. 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
240:
Citation monitoring is currently done with blunt white/black lists, or checking someone's private notepad or 'text highlighter' of good and bad sources.
925:
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.
938:
Of course you can get funding for centralized control of "acceptable" sourcing for controling Knowledge coverage of major controversial topics.
397:; I'd like to use this to review and improve sources used for North American locomotive articles. There are about one thousand articles within
684:
1074:
680:
864:
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
361:
under "Very few composition/rhetoric scholars exist on Wikidata"). I hope this provides some context into what our community needs.
210:
A concern or task raised in one corner of Knowledge is relayed to relevant, interested people and doesn’t just sit in its one corner
198:
You define the parameters of that project, based on whatever criteria you want, without needing to create categories or tag articles
166:
275:
838:
tagging and related reports, which many editors rely on (including me) but are very labour-intensive to maintain. –
1056:
472:; would be useful to track articles that may be citing social media sources. We're also thinking of using it specifically on
429:
402:
300:
254:
If this feature was available to individual editors, it could be combined with the Watchlist, customized and personalized.
659:
293:
636:
620:
496:
376:
105:
109:
401:
and there should be significant overlap in the sourcing. If you wanted to crack all Trains articles that's close to
790:
looking forward to using this in the future. We really need to gauge the reliability of sources in our articles. --
489:
314:
141:
968:, I've looked at the reports and alerts. Surprisingly the only flagged alert is the result of something added by
554:
415:
344:
173:
147:
19:
823:
also worry about generating these kinds of reports off-EnWiki, especially where WikiProjects don't exist widely
985:
necessarily require action). It would take specific scoping and a lot of configuration to make this effective.
890:
469:
372:
452:
443:
354:
191:
While we currently support one project, we would like to make this functionality available for any project.
139:
monitors and collects data on source usage within Knowledge articles. It generates automated, well-designed
1048:
394:
73:
1079:
872:, and see (or at least can't recognize) no human-editable/configurable page or subpage. So again, I ask,
558:
348:
331:
would love to have this running. Would help us trim predatory publishers and other poor quality sources.
627:
This sounds pretty useful. I am thinking if there are plans to introduce it to small wikis as well? -
289:
81:
918:
655:
463:
632:
617:
279:
835:
724:
595:
535:
366:
322:
308:
949:
762:
485:
113:
45:
500:
8:
1043:
1031:
784:
774:
550:
437:
432:: To review and improve sources used by articles that come in the ambit of the project. -
409:
388:
340:
1039:
1035:
886:
696:
646:
573:
458:
285:
58:
978:
845:
736:
628:
605:
510:
1025:
898:
828:
805:
720:
708:
672:
591:
531:
362:
318:
304:
930:
869:
780:
Any kind of aggregated reporting on cross-article source usage would be helpful.
751:
590:
I support this and I'd like it to be available for non English projects as well.
481:
317:
might be interested and might have valuable information about credible sources —
227:
Building templates to accept localized template parameters in addition to English
152:
96:
224:
Using translatable message strings in scripts instead of hard-coded English copy
217:
We intend to build it as a wiki- and language-agnostic system. This is done by:
1052:
987:
894:
834:
I think this is an extremely promising potential replacement for the system of
781:
770:
542:
433:
420:
406:
384:
332:
85:
1068:
965:
906:
882:
877:
816:
791:
692:
566:
380:
213:
The bots are built on top of open APIs that can be used by other bots as well
112:
edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
1006:
207:
Known outstanding article issues are listed within the project, with updates
974:
839:
732:
504:
922:
824:
801:
704:
668:
447:
1014:
969:
926:
744:
715:
201:
A list of relevant pages is created and automatically updated over time
92:
121:
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please
874:
what do I need to do to have something like this setup for WP:PHYS?
812:
303:
would hugely benefit from organization and this type of support —
221:
Not building in to the script assumptions around English Knowledge
585:
602:
sources can be used for analysis, research, and other tooling.
328:
204:
Reports about the sources used on those articles are generated
446:, where there is a lot of disinformation around the edges. -
179:
Credibility Bot is currently under the approval process at
162:
418:
is open to trying this. I've added my own concerns below.
868:
how you use this project to do anything. I've looked at
940:
You don't need to even ask. It's less clear why anyone
714:
I am thrilled to see a tool like this being developed.
909:, I think it's important to clarify that this is all
399:
Category:Standard gauge locomotives of North America
181:
Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/Credibility bot
161:The original development of this bot was funded by
1066:
278:, based on the list of articles under its scope
685:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
176:for tracking citations and misinformation.
681:Knowledge:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources
195:You fill out a form to start a new project
151:. Currently it supports a single project,
944:of those circles would think this was in
1067:
854:
964:Further to these useful queries from
430:Knowledge:WikiProject Indian politics
1001:
301:Knowledge:WikiProject Climate change
276:Knowledge:WikiProject Women's Health
172:It is one component of the emerging
68:
405:covering a wide variety of topics.
13:
1075:Knowledge bots with unknown status
497:Knowledge:WikiProject Anthropology
231:
66:Knowledge editing bot run by Harej
14:
1091:
525:also your relevant affiliations.
495:I'd love to try this to relaunch
265:
1057:WikiProject Notification Service
1005:
315:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism
72:
51:
38:
25:
16:
719:toward knowledge equity goals.
519:
492:) 18:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
416:Knowledge:WikiProject Anarchism
470:Knowledge:Tambayan Philippines
104:It is used to make repetitive
1:
997:
948:way a good idea. —
933:) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
831:) 21:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
819:) 13:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
466:06:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
453:Knowledge:WikiProject Weather
444:Knowledge:WikiProject Ukraine
440:) 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
981:) 06:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
808:) 16:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
777:) 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
765:) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
739:) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
501:about 6000 articles in scope
391:) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
7:
957:06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
903:19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
727:) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
711:) 11:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
699:) 20:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
675:) 18:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
598:) 00:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
561:) 17:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
538:) 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
369:) 16:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
351:) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
10:
1096:
993:10:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
796:01:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
787:19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
747:20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
426:10:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
412:19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
18:
850:12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
663:16:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
639:02:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
624:16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
580:17:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
515:12:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
186:
919:Knowledge:Vaccine safety
377:WikiProject Tree of Life
1049:Full-date unlinking bot
911:still under development
860:how we build CREDBOT.
23:
689:#Topic-specific pages
174:Credibility Framework
20:Credibility Framework
459:Weather Event Writer
373:WikiProject Protista
855:Product development
355:WikiProject Writing
49:
36:
1080:All Knowledge bots
395:WikiProject Trains
1063:
1062:
1059:
917:for one project,
849:
623:
579:
514:
297:
134:
133:
128:
1087:
1029:
1009:
1002:
992:
990:
955:
954:
902:
843:
794:
662:
653:
649:
616:
613:
609:
576:
571:
569:
547:
508:
503:. –
425:
423:
337:
283:
127:
118:
103:
90:
76:
69:
55:
54:
42:
41:
29:
28:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1065:
1064:
1046:
1028:
1022:Credibility bot
1019:
1000:
988:
986:
952:
950:
881:
857:
792:
651:
645:
644:
611:
607:
574:
567:
543:
522:
478:High-importance
421:
419:
375:(if not all of
333:
268:
234:
232:Design (update)
189:
137:Credibility bot
119:
117:
101:
88:
67:
64:
63:
56:
52:
43:
39:
33:Credibility Bot
30:
26:
12:
11:
5:
1093:
1083:
1082:
1077:
1061:
1060:
1020:Current bots:
1010:
999:
996:
995:
994:
982:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
856:
853:
852:
851:
832:
820:
809:
797:
788:
778:
766:
748:
740:
728:
712:
700:
676:
664:
640:
625:
599:
588:
581:
562:
539:
521:
518:
517:
516:
493:
474:Top-importance
467:
450:
441:
427:
413:
392:
370:
352:
326:
312:
298:
267:
266:Request access
264:
263:
262:
258:
255:
252:
249:
245:
241:
233:
230:
229:
228:
225:
222:
215:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
188:
185:
153:Vaccine Safety
132:
131:
129:
110:semi-automated
77:
65:
62:
61:
50:
48:
37:
35:
24:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1092:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1016:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1003:
991:
983:
980:
976:
971:
967:
963:
956:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
862:
861:
847:
841:
837:
833:
830:
826:
821:
818:
814:
810:
807:
803:
798:
795:
789:
786:
783:
779:
776:
772:
767:
764:
760:
758:
754:
749:
746:
741:
738:
734:
729:
726:
722:
717:
713:
710:
706:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
677:
674:
670:
665:
661:
657:
652:Pigsonthewing
648:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
615:
614:
610:
600:
597:
593:
589:
587:
582:
577:
570:
565:this flood.
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
546:
540:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
512:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
465:
461:
460:
454:
451:
449:
445:
442:
439:
435:
431:
428:
424:
417:
414:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
336:
330:
327:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
306:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:Netha Hussain
281:
277:
274:
273:
272:
259:
256:
253:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
226:
223:
220:
219:
218:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
193:
192:
184:
182:
177:
175:
170:
168:
167:Read the Blog
164:
163:Hacks/Hackers
159:
156:
154:
150:
149:
144:
143:
138:
130:
126:
124:
115:
111:
107:
100:
98:
94:
87:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
60:
47:
34:
21:
17:
1021:
1012:
945:
941:
937:
914:
913:. We have a
910:
873:
865:
858:
756:
752:
731:referencing.
660:Andy's edits
656:Talk to Andy
647:Andy Mabbett
629:Satdeep Gill
606:
603:
544:
523:
520:Show support
456:
334:
269:
235:
216:
190:
178:
171:
160:
157:
146:
140:
136:
135:
120:
91:operated by
82:user account
79:
32:
1026:Reports bot
923:User:Ocaasi
836:WikiProject
721:Breadyornot
592:Naval Scene
532:MaryMO (AR)
363:Breadyornot
319:MaryMO (AR)
305:MaryMO (AR)
1069:Categories
1030:Replaced:
998:Other bots
482:Ganmatthew
480:articles.
464:Talk Page)
329:MDWiki.org
114:bot policy
46:Workspaces
1053:Harej bot
1047:Retired:
915:prototype
782:Mackensen
771:Snoteleks
545:Doc James
434:MPGuy2824
407:Mackensen
385:Snoteleks
335:Doc James
244:subtlety.
106:automated
1013:Bots by
966:Headbomb
951:Llywelyn
907:Headbomb
883:Headbomb
870:WP:VSAFE
793:Lenticel
693:Quiddity
637:contribs
621:Contribs
568:Gamaliel
555:contribs
490:contribs
345:contribs
294:contribs
248:quickly.
123:block it
59:Pagesets
1044:One bot
1032:RFC bot
975:Ipigott
942:outside
866:no idea
733:Flixtey
612:Hamster
403:140,000
142:reports
1040:GA bot
1036:RM bot
878:WP:RSP
842:
825:Sadads
802:Drkill
785:(talk)
705:DarTar
669:JamieF
507:
448:Mzajac
410:(talk)
187:Vision
148:alerts
102:
89:
57:
44:
31:
1015:Harej
970:Harej
927:Harej
759:alton
745:Esh77
716:Harej
608:Super
559:email
349:email
261:note.
93:Harej
84:is a
80:This
989:czar
979:talk
931:talk
846:talk
829:talk
817:talk
806:talk
775:talk
763:talk
737:talk
725:talk
709:talk
697:talk
683:and
673:talk
633:talk
618:Talk
596:talk
575:talk
551:talk
536:talk
511:talk
486:talk
476:and
457:The
438:talk
422:czar
389:talk
381:here
367:talk
359:here
341:talk
323:talk
309:talk
290:talk
280:here
169:).
145:and
97:talk
946:any
840:Joe
813:WWB
755:am
654:);
505:Joe
155:.
116:.
108:or
86:bot
1071::
1055:•
1051:•
1042:•
1038:•
1034:•
1024:•
953:II
897:·
893:·
889:·
658:;
635:•
586:Sj
557:·
553:·
488:•
383:.
347:·
343:·
292:•
284:—
282:.
183:.
99:).
1017::
977:(
929:(
901:}
899:b
895:p
891:c
887:t
885:{
848:)
844:(
827:(
815:(
804:(
773:(
761:(
757:W
753:S
735:(
723:(
707:(
703:—
695:(
671:(
650:(
631:(
604:~
594:(
578:)
572:(
549:(
534:(
513:)
509:(
484:(
462:(
436:(
387:(
365:(
339:(
325:)
321:(
311:)
307:(
296:)
288:(
165:(
125:.
95:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
