~> move to main + better name ...
We don't currently have anything like perennial sources focused on vaccines and related health information. Nor do we have a way to track specific unreliable sources, even though there's a power law there as with source-domains re: the sources that are most often used to back up unreliable claims.
There have been discussions lately about how to improve on this, connecting WikiMed and WP work in various languages. For COVID-19 in particular the WikiProject has links to a spreadsheet w/ lists of sources and source-reliability assessments. Past waves of antivax disinfo were caught by general reviews, and not widely present on the projects, but the latest wave [starting with but not limited to COVID vaccines] has found greater purchase.
This is a draft project page for how we could compile such source-lists, summarize and link to evaluations in different communities and contexts, and make it more broadly reusable.
Wikidata + Meta
- WikiMed, Covid-19
- Analysis and Response for Trust Tool ... + Other uses of ARTT?
- Vaccine safety: Reliable Sources
- COVID-19: Source list, SureWeCan COVID task force
- Vaccines: Vaccine Safety project (sources)
- Medicine: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
- General: RS noticeboard (searchable), Perennial sources [RSP]
- Challenge: topical RS lists are not uniform, not widely used outside their topic
- es-WP, pt-WP
- noted in April to have state disinfo as sources in some articles
- Main site | Meta overview
- When are [WP] articles on vaccines worth referencing as sources? [classic wikimed Q]
- For those that aren't, what is needed to get there?
Each subsection could become a perennial-sources table. Both those positively used perennially, and those that keep coming up as conduits for controversial or misinformation.
WHO position papers - who.int
CDC on vaccines - cdc.gov, and their catalog
NNII - National network for immunization information (US)
Commonly used/discussed sources
Assessments (composite RSP)
- Moved to w:Wikipedia:Vaccine_safety/Reliable_sources#Perennial_sources
- To add to this table: lists from elsewhere : public sheets, RSN discussions, wikimed discussions
Keys + schemas for assessments
Member: a member of a group specifically focused on conscientious fact checking (Vaccine Safety Network, ...). Network named under Discussion
Reliable: generally reliable for vaccine topics (including sources rated by Members)
Unreliable: generally unreliable for these topics
Mixed: depends on article and context
Conspiracy: publishes hoaxes and conspiracy theories
Projects for identifying + vetting sources
Vaccine Safety Project
Tools: CiteUnseen, Unreliable.js
- Identifying audiences (and their contexts: what information do they need to find appropriate sources?)
- Identifying measures of reliability (like individual RS/PS)
- Add your name below if interested in participating or getting updates on this work
- –SJ talk 18:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- –Connieatwork (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- econterms (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Netha Hussain (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
People to reach out to:
- Brian Choo + user:Green Means Go talked about something similar at a WikiConf.
- L235 noted current RS lists are curated by a narrow group (may benefit from multiple parallel lists curated by different community groups)
- Netha did work specifically on reliable COVID sources (see WikiCred)
|This content is a stub. You can help by expanding it.|