There were many discussions this month about the practice of deprecating sources deemed to be extremely unreliable (i.e. caught multiple times fabricating stories). Deprecated sources are strongly discouraged from being used in articles and may not be used to establish notability.[a] As proposals to deprecate additional sources stacked up, other editors weren't so sure.
The Sun is a British tabloid that some consider even less reliable than the Daily Mail. Many supporters were surprised it wasn't deprecated already. Opposers, meanwhile, warned of instruction creep and apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources (out of the 5 deprecated/banned sources on WP:RSP, only Occupy Democrats is listed on adfontesmedia.com as left-wing). The community is very divided on this issue, with 24 supports and 21 opposes as of December 21.
There's also a proposal the other way: to un-deprecate the Daily Mail. Some supporters argue that a change in editors has led to an improvement in the paper's reliability; many opposers disagree on this point, though some are open to change in the future after more time to see if the tabloid has improved in their opinion.
Administrators: ending with a whimper?
2018 saw half as many RfAs as 2017, though a higher percentage were successful.
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_252#Nine was a lively conversation for November and the first week of December, concerning the new record low nine admins recruited this year (now ten, still a record low). The conversation petered out without any plan for action. –B
Other discussions this month
On WP:VPP: Should victims of tragedies who would not otherwise have their own articles be listed in the article about the event?
On WT:N: Can interviews be used to establish notability? The argument is that they are not independent of the subject because the subject was involved in creating them.
When the ability for admins to unblock themselves was removed from the MediaWiki software, a new feature was added to block the admin who blocked you. Wikipedians are now discussing under what circumstances such blocks should be acceptable.
BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.
^This is often misleadingly called "banning" sources; only a very small number of possible sources, such as Breitbart and InfoWars have been formally banned via en entry on the spam blacklist.
Discuss this story
Fake news alert: those passing by might like to compare the Signpost's coverage of the Daily Mail story with what has actually been said at RS/N [1]. Many have argued the ban should never have been promulgated in the first place. I suppose the most straightforward approach would be just to ask the authors: "Why didn't you report this?" It's there in black and white (and sometimes ) in the page you were covering.
As an aside, it is extremely misleading not to call a "general prohibition" a ban. As I understand it the Daily Mail can only be used as a source about its own reporting, a luxury of verifiability which apparently "banned" outlets are not even permitted. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources"
This caught my attention: . I've previously avoided discussing Ad Fontes Media's "Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0", since it's a self-published source. However, assuming the chart is accurate, a close look at the low-quality publications in the chart reveals why most of the currently deprecated sources have a right-wing bias.
The following is a list of the sources in the Red Rectangle ("Nonsense damaging to public discourse"), which includes sources that fit these classifications: "Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info", "Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info", and the lower half of "Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion". All sources with an "Overall Quality" score of 19 or lower are included in the chart. (The raw data is available at adfontesmedia.com.)
2
3
2
2
2
Note: There is a discrepancy with Ad Fontes Media's data table and chart. PJ Media had an "Overall Quality" score ("Vertical Rank") of 17 ("Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion") in the table, but its position in the chart is around 27 ("Opinion; Fair Persuasion"). I excluded PJ Media from the above list.
When the list is sorted by "Alexa Rank", it's clear that among low-quality sources, the websites with the highest traffic are right-wing sources. Assuming that Ad Fontes Media analyzed all of the most popular publications, it's reasonable to conclude that, due to their popularity, low-quality far-right sources are more likely to be discussed and deprecated on WP:RSN than low-quality far-left sources.
If you're interested in this topic, there is another active discussion at WP:RSN § Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?. I'll repost this list in that discussion. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the Daily Mail is primarily one of bias: specifically of certain editors against the paper. It is true that The Sun is less reliable, and that the Mail's web-site is pretty useless, containing as it does mostly syndicated stories. However, those that understand the British press have a good idea of where the Mail could be considered a reasonably reliable source and where it cannot. In many circumstances (for example age of people) the whole of the British press has a bad reputation, while for inaccuracy in spelling the Guardian is best known. The I magazine regularly mixes up millions and billions, and makes other egregious errors. While it is true that the broadsheets are in general more reliable than the tabloids, neither the distinction nor the scope are clear cut. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Rf A Action!
Since publication there's been a desparate sprint for RfA in the end of the year with 1 candidate finishing up just in time, and another kicking off. Still would be 4 off, though...anyone else feeling like too many people like them? Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]