Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/assessed source reliability

< Wikidata:Property proposal

‎assessed source reliability edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn
Descriptionassessed reliability of a given source for factual accuracy
Data typeItem
Allowed valuessource known to be unreliable (Q22979588); other items pending creation including known reliable source, source of mixed reliability, source known to promote conspiracy theories, source blocked from being used, Vaccine Safety Net+ source; other items as other assessment systems necessitate
Example 1Boston Herald (Q773802): generally reliable source
Example 2Wikipedia (Q52): generally unreliable source
Example 3Proto Thema (Q3564122): mixed reliability
Sourcetypically on-wiki source lists such as w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; those should have a qualifier to state it applies to that language edition. I suppose there could be non-wiki lists
Planned usemapping data from w:Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources; in the long term, Wikidata should play a role in populating the table

Motivation edit

Pages such as w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and w:Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources make assessments as to the reliability of a given source, either generally or in a given context. The value for this property would be an item in a controlled vocabulary of generally reliable, generally unreliable, mixed reliability, blocked source, evaluation in progress, and source promoting conspiracy theories. (I will create items for these concepts based on what people here recommend.)

These statements would necessarily need to be supported by references. Each reference would include:

This will help in the development of automatically updated source usage reports.

Harej (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model A edit

described by source
  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources edit
assessed source reliability source known to be unreliable
applies to part English Wikipedia
point in time 31 July 2021
1 reference
reference URL [2]
add reference


add value

Model B edit

described at URL
  [3] edit
assessed source reliability source known to be unreliable
applies to part English Wikipedia
point in time 31 July 2021
1 reference
reference URL [4]
add reference


add value

Discussion edit

We need a qualifier (not reference) to indicate the website (e.g. English Wikipedia) that assessments are made.--GZWDer (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference would still be needed to support the claim (otherwise it's an empty opinion), but I agree that a qualifier is also needed to specify the project. Harej (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both ref and qualifier. The property makes sense + examples are clear; there are a few current "source reliability assessment" claims in WD, using other properties, which might more clearly use this property. Sj (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support property creation. Increasing focus on citation credibility as opposed to just verifiability necessitates we begin tracking a variety of ratings. This simple property is a great start! Ocaasi (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support property creation, with references and qualifiers. It would be great for Wikidata to store how sources are rated by Wikimedia entities (RSP, WikiProject reliable sources lists, etc.) as well as external groups (MediaBiasFactCheck, Ad Fontes, etc.). This property can also be useful as a data source for some Wikimedia tools, such as the citation annotating user scripts out there (e.g. Headbomb's unreliable and my own CiteUnseen script). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - PKM (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment This is a really sparse proposal, could you please add some more of the parameters of the proposal template to it, so it is easier to evaluate how the property is meant to function? For now, it's too little information for me to support it. For example, would you kindly model the examples to include qualifiers and references the way you suggest it to be used (possibly with {{Statement+}})? Ainali (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - This property would benefit the WikiCred-supported project to add reliability-related data to news outlets in Wikidata. An example: 2K entities have the Identifier: Media Bias/Fact Check ID (P9852). For each, I'd like add their MBFC rating for "Credibility" (Low, Medium, High) and "Factual Reporting". I have the data and permission to use it. But I don't have an appropriate property for these values. I found nothing in the Wikidata:List_of_properties for source reliability or credibility. Having an "assessed source reliability" is what we need to proceed. Hearvox (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer, Ainali, I have added more details to the property proposal. The idea I settled on was to make assessed source reliability a qualifier to a statement describing where the publication has been described. This would allow the most reuse of existing properties. Harej (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer, Ainali, would using assessment (P5021) paired with assessment outcome (P9259) as qualifiers to a described by source (P1343) or described at URL (P973) statement be sufficient instead of the new property? See Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source Reliability#Proposed statement model for source assessments Harej (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this proposal as I proceeded with an approach using existing properties. Harej (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/assessed_source_reliability&oldid=1926621310"