Wikipedia talk:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources

Merge w/ recent efforts?

Hello Netha and all -- I was looking for a project like this, glad to have found it :) How do you feel about merging this with this idea about a full perennial-sources table? We can add it as a section on this page, and perhaps change the page title to Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Reliable sources to match other RS tables. – SJ + 18:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cc Ariel, econterms – SJ +

Hi Sj. I think this would be a great place for place for the table.-Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- please update w/ other classification information you have. @SuperHamster: ditto for data you have on CiteUnseen sources! Feel free to tweak the table to be more friendly to your scripts, or suggest changes: so far nothing depends on this format. – SJ + 17:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging w/ current page

This subpage needs cleaning up: Wikipedia:Vaccine_safety/Reliable_sources/NAS_bibliography -- some of these (book) sources can be added to the RS list, especially if there is an online version that's kept up to date. – SJ + 13:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related projects to review:

CiteUnseen -- a great taxonomy of types w/ icons, mostly adopted in the table here
Unreliable -- a composite list of unreliable sources, from RSPSOURCES, NPPSG, CITEWATCH, and Beall's list
unreliable.js - the list of regexps to match various sources. (Discussion)

categories: preprint or general unreviewed repo, reliability varies w/ contributor + topic, borderline unreliable, generally unreliable, sponsored content, predatory, blacklisted, misleading journal metric – SJ + 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the bottom. – SJ + 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schema + vocabulary discussions

What should we track re: reliability, what are other sources of reliability-info tracking, what vocabularies should we use for each field?

content type: one or more of advocacy, blog, book, community, editable, government, journal, news, opinion, press, research, social, tabloid, tv/radio
source: organization or source
assessment: one or more of 🔹Member, ✅Reliable, ⚠️Mixed, 🚫Unreliable, 🛑Conspiracy, ✖️Blocked, ⏳️Stale/In-Progress; Member: part of this work, a group defining assessments (Vaccine Safety Network member, or reliable government source (?)); Blocked: external links to the site are blocked (by Wikimedia?), due to abuse; Unreliable -- Our group classifies it as unreliable (?); Obsolete?

discussions: list: links to discussions for each assessment; last: date (year) [of last assessment; summary: reason for assessment, other comments

site: root web domains
uses: link to list of refs to these sites – SJ + 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sj, a question related to these assessments, taking a look at STAT News: what does it mean to have something both reliable and mixed? I also looked for the STAT News reference in the RSN and couldn't find it. If there are no references there, is it ok for example to try and note that it has major awards for COVID-19 and other coverage (ref)? Connieatwork (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you can remove the 'mixed' icon and update it to Reliable; it wasn't discussed enough to make it into the overall table (not perennial enough? but it's referenced in over 100 pages) and there was just one Q about an article of unknown reliability. – SJ + 15:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, done. Perhaps also good to consider moving forward, maybe, which of these ratings can actually co-exist with each other. Unreliable and blocked seems to make sense. Probably.. Reliable/Mixed/Unreliable are mutually exclusive? If it's not, then does this mean that... conflicting judgements exist on multiple pages that could use resolving? Connieatwork (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal + book reliability

Traditionally, the global PS list only includes domains / publishers. Is it useful to track discussions about individual journals or books? That may be more relevant to a focused topic like this. unreliable.js seems to track individual journals in a relevant way.

I've been thinking about how to flag journals that have repeatedly had crank anti-vax articles retracted (e.g., as noted in Retraction Watch), or that are otherwise visible predatory (like hijacked journals). Many but not all have their own root domain. – SJ + 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domains vs authors

Right now WP:RSP focuses on domains + publishers, not authors. Talk + noticeboard discussions sometimes include popular individuals; if there are enough may be worth including but leaving out of the table for now. It would take different tools to track authors in cites, which I haven't seen in use. Removed:

Ben Shapiro (⚠️ / "More reliable on vaccines than other topics / the rest of Daily Wire, should not be a sole source.")

Bret Weinstein (🚫 / " ")

– SJ + 17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should make its own decisions about reliability

I note in this page we have "VSN+" sources and we appear to be assuming this means that they are reliable. We should not do this. VSN are in my opinion a public health advocacy group with the goal of increasing vaccine uptake and not a scientific organization. Certainly this information might be useful in our assessing reliability, but such decisions should not be moved over to VSN. Additionally WP:MEDRS should be the policy we use here and we should be favouring the best academic sources public health resources aimed at patients (often with the goal of increasing compliance rather than ensuring that patients are informed).

By analogy suppose we were citing the "World Airline Consortium " about the impacts of flights on health. Talpedia 23:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]