Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability/Self-published source usage report

False hits

The article Trafford Publishing legitimately discusses AuthorHouse, Xlibris and iUniverse as Trafford Publishing is itself a self-publisher, and the discussion is regarding market share amongst self-publishers and acquisitions. Maybe need to think about the false positives? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is right. And there are other problems with Aventine Press due to the search engine. So we have to figure out how to deal with those. Probably need a statement upfront. I will add that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is bloody beautiful though, well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my computer did most of the work... History2007 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over the yump?

IDK if it's been encountered yet, so let me raise one. Rallying uses the self-published Marathon de la Route 1931/1971 & Le Rallye Monte-Carlo au XXe Siècle as sources. (No publisher given, just the author's name.) They don't appear to be main sources, but they are being used several times on the page (& perhaps on other pages I haven't seen). Is it known yet if they are reliable? Should they come up, let me consider this a request it be addressed; I won't be watchlisting this page for an answer. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has not been even thought about yet. My guess is that sometime in 2013 I could look at that. What this report includes is really just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The next steps will be to resolve the ambiguities here, then deal with ISBN usage by looking up in Worldcat. That should hopefully happen in 2012. In 2013 we could then look at reporting references that have no publisher and no ISBN. That is possible, but will require significant computing resources, e.g. two computers running 24 hours a day. Given the low cost of computers, that is not a big deal, however. In any case, that was a good suggestion and I will think about it more. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about the reliability of a particular source in a particular article the reliable sources noticeboard is the best place to get help. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]