Requests for Comment/Changes to the Source Reliability-O-meter

I would like to propose various changes to the Source Reliability-O-meter. For those of you who are not aware, the Source Reliability-O-meter is a blog on CGW that is used to point out which sources are reliable, neutral, questionable, or unreliable. Although it is a useful blog post, it has many flaws which I would like to be fixed, and therefore am proposing that various things be changed. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Changing wiki and namespace
As of now, the Source Reliability-O-meter is a blog on CGW. Now, I do understand that (a CGW is the most popular wiki and (b This wiki did not exist at the time, and that the argument that blogs about cross-wiki topics should be on here instead of CGW has often failed to succeed in its intentions, but the problem here is that the SROM (my own acronym for it) can and should be more than a blog post, as it is supposed to be an important guide for users. It is also similar to Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources. As a result, I believe that it should be imported to Qualitipedia Meta with all revisions copied and all edits assigned to users if they exist locally and be moved to the mainspace. Update: I think that the outdated blog should have its history imported in the same way as well.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the name "Source Reliability-o-meter" sounds too silly. And besides, this is a "Reliable source 101" for users, wouldn't it be better for it to belong in the NAME OF WIKI namespace? 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  15:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) It's not just for CGW, it can be used for all the Qualitipedia wikis. And like Katsumi suggested, we should also rename it, as the name "Reliability-O-meter" sounds too informal for something that is aiming for more reliable information. I can suggest naming it simply "reliable sources" like Wikipedia does, with subpages like deprecated sources.  -  20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Exactly, this is the central wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Don't really care where it is, but it should be here as it is a global rule on QP.    21:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) The meter should be used in every wiki really, to make things easier. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Sounds interesting. Rem69 03:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Minor format changes
I would like to propose some minor format changes:
 * 1) There should be a minor part of each list with the letter that the source starts with. See the lists on the mh:rottenwebsites:Non-fungible token page on RWW for an example of this.
 * 2) Also like the lists on the NFT page, the lists should be numbered. In coding, this means it should be hashtags ( # ) instead of asterisks ( * ).
 * 3) The formatting of the website names need to be fixed. Here are some tips for formatting them properly:
 * 4) Website names are either italicised or in neither italics or quotation marks. If it has one, it's a good idea to check the website's Wikipedia article to get the format that is most likely accurate, and MOS:ITALICWEBSITE also explains a reasonable amount.
 * 5) Web and video series should be italicised as they are similar to television shows, a major work, but YouTube channels themselves should not be as they are more similar to users, which are not italicised.
 * 6) Although it is not proven to be an official rule, based on the fact that it is the common format on Wikipedia and the fact that in some cases, in neither is a better assumption than in italics, put television channels in neither italics nor quotation marks.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems reasonable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Great idea. It would make the formatting easier to count for those that don't understand how many. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Separate sections
Something that the SROM does not understand is that there is a difference between being reliable in information and in reviews. For example, very few YouTube channels are entirely reliable sources for information - even if some YouTube videos can be used to prove some things if they are clear in their proof, it's hard to say an entire YouTube channel is reliable/unreliable for information. The only YouTube channels that are entirely reliable is ones powered by reliable news programs, newspapers, magazines, and other reliable news websites. The thing that YouTube channels can be reliable for is their reviews.

An example of the opposite of this is IGN. Although it does appear that IGN's reviews are bad (haven't watched a lot of them, but from what I've seen of the page, they do seem pretty stupid), where's the proof that the information IGN gives is false? Also, the punishment for a source having lots of bad reviews should be not being involved in the math that results in a piece of media being on one wiki or the other, and whether they are bad/average or good/decent. They should still be allowed to be in the reception section.

In conclusion, I propose that there should be two separate sections, Information reliability and Review reliability, and they should both contain their own version of each section (Reliable, Neutral, Questionable, and Unreliable).

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) There may be overlap between information and review reliability, though this generally seems reasonable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) It makes Qualitipedia look like another Wikipedia anyway. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems more organized. Rem 69 03:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Political bias
The SROM has several sources added simply for being politically biased or biased in some way. However, in my belief, this is not a good idea, as political bias or other bias does not necessarily make a source unreliable, or at least, not for information. Any source that is not proven to be completely false or often false and is simply added for bias should be removed from the unreliable section. However, this does not mean that pages should use this bias in pages.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely. No more political bias. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you have this confused. I am talking about how politically biased sources are considered unreliable simply because of their bias, even though political bias does not necessarily mean a source is unreliable. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Political stuff should be mentioned ONLY if its the issue with the product. Other than that, we shouldn't be a propaganda site filled with political-wings. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Not sure where to place my vote here. Since QP is apolitical, shouldn't they go in the neutral category? If we support or oppose one side, it makes us look like we are politicized.   20:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, sources should not be considered unreliable simply because they are politically biased. Politically biased content should not be added to pages, sure, but still, being politically biased does not make a source unreliable. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Use of Wikipedia and other wikis as sources
As I have also proposed here, sources such as Wikipedia and other wikis should only be used as sources if it's for convenience. In addition, the article you are using as a source must source all of the claims you are trying to prove. Wikis that do not source these things, or worse, do not source anything, are not reliable at all.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) with the suggestion of moving Wikipedia to the neutral section as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. While Wikipedia aims to use reliable sources, there could still be unsourced information or information cited with unreliable sources. However, it should be fine for things like dates that are too tedious to search online for but are unlikely to be unreliable.  -  20:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Wikis are not supposed to be reliable anyways. They can be edited at any time, even if the information was true. Maybe just use the sources from Wikipedia to get reception but not the site itself. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about wikis being reliable, it's about not using wikis as reliable sources unless they are (a fully sourced and (b it is inconvenient to use so many sources just to prove a simple statement. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Linking rules
All sources should be linked to in some way. There are three rules to this:


 * 1) If it has a page on a reception wiki, then that should be linked to, unless the community consensus is against linking to the wiki (consensus is not necessarily needed, but if a user feels it is necessary, a discussion can be started).
 * 2) If there is no reception wiki that it has a page on but it has a page on Wikipedia, link to the Wikipedia page instead.
 * 3) If there is no reception wiki that it has a page on and it does not have a page on Wikipedia, link to the website itself. If it does not have an online format and is an offline source, it does not need a source, unless more specification about where to find it is necessary.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 07:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Generally seems reasonable, though may be hard to enforce, and linking isn't always necessary. There are also the reference tags. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Sounds good in all. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)