Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| A May 2023 RSN discussion about Healthline raises the question about whether Healthline should be deprecated as generally unreliable or blacklisted as fabrication and spam on many of its health-related article pages.
Healthline is frequently used by novice editors to source medical, nutrition, and lifestyle content. Its name implies health expertise, and its author(s) or editors are identified as having "medically reviewed" articles, despite most having no medical expertise (BS or MS degrees in non-medical fields). Healthline commonly cites individual primary studies to extrapolate to an anti-disease effect or "health benefit", a term used in many of its articles on foods, phytochemicals, and supplements. Previous RSN discussion: Feb 2022 goji berries Examples of spam health misinformation are Healthline articles on coffee antioxidants ("Many of coffee’s positive health effects may be due to its impressive content of powerful antioxidants"), anti-disease effects of black tea, "proven health benefits" of ashwagandha, and "proven health benefits" of blueberries, among dozens of others. Search "antioxidant" on Healthline and browse any retrieved article for the extent of misinformation (where only vitamins A-C-E apply as antioxidants for the human diet). Diffs on goji - this talk discussion on goji nutrition and health benefits; continued further here. Numerous others under my history, here. It may be justified to blacklist Healthline as a perpetual source of fabrication and spam. Similar to reputations in scientific publishing generally, blatant misinformation destroys confidence permanently in the rest of the source. Seeing an edit containing a Healthline source is WP:REDFLAG for revising or reverting the edit. There are no circumstances where a Healthline source could not be MEDRS-sourced. Healthline should be blacklisted. Zefr (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
| Is the content below suitable for being the lead of the Wikipedia article?
Wikipedia[note 1] is a multilingual crowdsourced online encyclopedia. The content on Wikipedia is available without charge and is distributed under free content licenses (CC BY 3.0 and GDFL for texts), allowing for widespread use and furthering its goal of democratizing knowledge. At its core, Wikipedia aims to cover any topic that is above a notability threshold, based on external reliable sources, and its content must not contain original research by its editors. Wikipedia is available in 333 languages and features a total of 61 million articles across all languages. Among them, the most popular language edition is the English Wikipedia with 6,664,279 articles. Wikipedia as a whole is the most widely read reference work in history.[1][2] Almost all articles on Wikipedia are available for editing by registered editors and visitors. These articles are collectively written via a wiki system; as such articles on Wikipedia generally provide more up-to-date information and have a wider range in reliability than paper encyclopedias. Though the Wikipedia community is popularly known by its anarchical structure, the community has adopted elements of democratic and bureaucratic systems, as demonstrated by the establishment of user rights, policies, guidelines, and the final avenue of dispute resolution – the Arbitration Committee. Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001, as a publicly editable encyclopedia initially associated with Nupedia. Both of these projects were owned by the Bomis company. As Wikipedia became increasingly more popular than Nupedia, its website experienced a rapid growth in content, editors, and language availability. In 2003, Wikipedia was transitioned from a commercial to a non-profit encyclopedia and is now hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, based in the United States. Around late 2000s, as Wikipedia became one of the most visited websites in the world, the number of active editors reached its peak and has since remained stable.[3] Throughout its existence, Wikipedia consistently faced concerns about its reliability, systemic bias and its editor base, though over time the website began to be viewed more positively, largely due to the overall improvement in the quality of its articles. – CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox legislative election
Should links to lists of elected and outgoing MPs be included in the {{Infobox legislative election}} like in the {{Infobox election}}?
Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
- ^ Pronounced /ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ (
listen) wik-ih-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪki-/ (listen) wik-ee-
- ^ Cohen, Noam (February 9, 2014). "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
- ^ "Wikistats – Statistics For Wikimedia Projects". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
- ^ Mandiberg, Michael (February 23, 2020). "Mapping Wikipedia". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on November 15, 2021. Retrieved November 26, 2021.