Talk:Community Notes/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking this on so quickly, that was quite unexpected. In case you didn't see, the original review is here, although obviously a full review is still required. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) by Cocobb8

Status:  Done:  Passed

100% reviewed

   

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

@CommunityNotesContributor: @CodemWiki: I am starting this review. It shouldn't take too long! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions during the review process.

First reading the article, it reads very easily, and summarizes very well the subject and is also understandable to a broad audience.

@CommunityNotesContributor: Please consider moving the sources in the lead somewhere else in the article to avoid sources repetition, see WP:LEADCITE.

•  Done Thanks for the complimentary words. I've moved the cites to the body as recommended, and as should have been done a long time ago. I had been meaning to do this, since the article migrated from Twitter, but never quite got round to it. Also made me realise how there was content that wasn't a summary of the body, but merely a summary of the program, so some content has been moved to the body and now either summarised in the lead or simply removed, as was unnecessary detail. Especially given the article length, as 3 paragraphs is already pushing the limits of recommended WP:LEADSIZE. So let me know if you think I should refine further, even though lead length isn't a fixed policy, even if a useful guideline, and I'm not sure what else could come out of it personally. Techdirt source also removed, as not confidently considered reliable, nor was it really adding any useful info that Wired didn't already cover in criticisms section.

Excellent, thank you. Here's me doing a couple random sources spot-checks:

By September 2022, the program had expanded to 15,000 users. Verified with source.

As of October 2023, a source is attached to the note so the information can be verified, in a similar manner to Wikipedia, (...) Verified with source.

As of November 2023, it has expanded to over 50 countries, with approximately 133,000 contributors. Verified with source.

The Community Notes algorithm publishes notes based on agreement from contributors who have a history of disagreeing. Verified with source.

The list of references is excellently formatted. Citation Bot and IABot didn't find anything to complain about, so full marks there .

Earwig's Copyvio Detector did not find any copy-violations (as I had expected). I like how the article makes an excellent use of a neutral-point of view, and gives due weight to every side, including criticism of the X function.

Again, appreciate the feedback. Can't take credit for citation cleanliness, other contributors have conveniently run a multitude of bots over this article since it's creation. Re: NPOV, I made the effort to include every "positive" I could find, as the majority of content based on WP:DUE and WP:RS is generally negative. I guess you haven't got the criticism section, as there was very little positivity to add there, especially when X/Musk refuses to comment on most of these studies. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: That is the point of a criticism section, so that the negative POVs have a chance to be addressed, and both "sides" don't necessarily have to be balanced as long as they reflect what has been mentioned in other sources.

In any case, spelling and grammar in the article are excellent, and my Autocorrector didn't fins anything to fix. Everyhting seems to be according the Manual of Style, including section titles, etc...

Checking the article's history and talk page, there isn't any edit war going on at this time, and there isn't a content dispute either. I strongly disagree on that point with the previous reviewer: stability simply means that a content dispute isn't making an article change all the time, not the subject being recent. The previous reviewer failed the article because the sources were released recently, which is not what is implied by stability in the Good Article Criteria.

Relevant images to the topic are included in the article, and their captions are written in accordance to WP:CAP. The images are tagged with valid copyright tags.

I am now mostly done reviewing, and will be finalizing by tomorrow, Saturday.

Sounds great. Thanks for acknowledging the meaning of stability, I had a suspicion that if re-nominated this article it could be a relatively easy pass, because despite the failing of the preivous GAN, a lot of work was done on improving the article, such as spelling, grammar and sources etc. So without the original review, the article wouldn't be in the better state it is now - so I'll take the positives from that at least.

I've otherwise returned the suggested paragraph with Verge and Mashable sources, per query. There is an additional line to the lead to provide some NPOV regarding the "tens of millions of views per day" claim, that deserves to be contextualised. I leave the rest up to you. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Query

Re: Feel free to let me know if you have any questions during the review process.

Thought I'd ask for your opinion about the following content that was previously removed in GA1. I was told The Verge was not a top tier source, despite broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles, so am confused as to how you can get more reliable than that. The overall reasoning for issues with this paragraph was: We can take them as a reliable source for their reporting but a reliable source choosing to publish an unreliable one does not make the unreliable one reliable, which overall I completely disagree with, despite removing for convenience of progress.

My reasoning: a reliable source may have the ability to verify information from a source not considered reliable, and that an "unreliable" source, doesn't necessarily mean the content they publish is always unreliable. Notably, NewsGuard published their research publicly (with spreadsheet linked in the Verge article), so clearly in this case it was verifiable. Likewise, publishing content from a reliable source does not imply that the original "unreliable" source of content they are reporting on is necessary a reliable source, as an entity, if that makes sense? Generally speaking, reliable sources are considered reliable, there is no caveat that I know of that says "unless they report on findings from a source not considered reliable".

I can otherwise understand the concern with the WP:MASHABLE source, but given it's not outside their remit of "tech news and pop culture", and clearly not sponsored (written by Mashable journalist Matt Binder), I believe in this case the content to be reliable, as per "case-by-case" assessment. I agree that the mashable content requires heavy refining (example provided with strikethrough, but otherwise believe it adds useful context for NPOV regarding "notes reportedly received tens of millions of views per day", when in fact, sometimes notes are seen less than 1-5% of users viewing the content, which is otherwise the other side of this impressive sounding statistical argument, not forgetting that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

A NewsGuard report found advertising appearing on 15 posts with a Community Note attached in the week of November 13, 2023, indicating that "misinformation super-spreaders" may still be eligible for ad revenue, despite posts with notes attached being ineligible according to Musk. On November 30, a Mashable investigation found most users never see published notes, with examples highlighting notes seen by less than 1% and 5% of users who viewed misinformation content. Overall, a large disparity was found between the number of views on posts and the notes that attach themselves, with only 3 of 50 notes from the study receiving half as many views as the post they were attached to. Posts with misinformation were often found to receive 5 to 10 times more views than the fact-checking note, proving the approved note wasn't removed but remained attached.

The other "odd" aspect of this review was that the following paragraph, that is another NewsGuard study documented by The Verge, was not considered an issue: Analysis from NewsGuard of 250 of the most-engaged posts, spreading the most common unsubstantiated claims about the Israel-Hamas war and viewed more than 100 million times, failed to receive notes 68% of the time. The report found Community Notes were "inconsistently applied to top myths relating to the conflict.". So I got the impression it was a content issue, rather than a source issue personally. In hindsight, had I had known I could of asked for a second opinion with GA1, I would of done so.

Thanks in advance, apologies for the length question, but I think all information is relevant here in order to have an informed opinion.

@CommunityNotesContributor: Whenever in doubt, I'd simply refer to this list of perennial sources. The Verge is considered reliable, so I don't see why it shouldn't be incldued here, even if it discusses a study reported by another source. However, I would not include the Mashable source due to it not being considered fully reliable, depending on whether it is sponsored or not. If you only have the Verge source for that paragraph, I would limit the information that you want to include to what is mentioned in the reliable source. Maybe finding other sources. For the most part, I disagree with what the previous reviewer said. As I said before, if the source you are looking at is green-checkmarked on perennial sources, then sure, include it. Otherwise, if it isn't checkmarked, it does get more complicated. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. With Mashable, there is consensus that non-sponsored content, within their niche tech news and pop culture, is generally fine. So unless you or others consider the content as sponsored, or outside that niche, I'll run with the idea that it's reliable in this case, as I don't see an argument for the reference in question being unreliable. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good to me. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.