Jump to content

User talk:Hearvox/WikiSignals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demo

[edit]
[edit]

Citations

[edit]

User scripts

[edit]

The InsertAnyChar user script (InsertAnyChar.js ) calls an external JSON (Unicode chars): let response = await $.get('//en.wiktionary.org/w/rest.php/v1/revision/80968402');

The wikEd user script(wikEd.js) adds dozens of buttons to the Editor for additional functionality.

The edit-tool bar "Cite" button is added by the RefToolbar gadget, which is default enabled in a user's Preferences. 50% What, if anything, does our script do for citations if user's RefToolbar pref is off?

Libraries

[edit]

Wikipedia pages auto-load:

Hearvox (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSPS Legend

[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources:


  • Shortcut
      Generally reliable Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
  • Shortcut
      No consensus No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
  • Shortcut
      Generally unreliable Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.

CiteUnseen: Classifications

[edit]

Cite Unseen (User Script) classifies sources into eighteen categories.



Icon Description Code
Advocacy: An organization that is engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can very well be a reliable source; this indicator serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies. The websites in this category predominately come from articles in Category:Advocacy groups. advocacy
Books: Books and other similar printed matter. Not an indicator of reliability by itself. books
Blog post: Note that a blog post may be considered reliable as a source on the author themselves, or when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS for more information. blogs
User-generated news: News sites that accept articles from the community, such as Examiner.com or Global Voices. community
Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs). editable
State media and other government sources. This categorization takes into account the direct editorial control the government has on the source. Some public broadcasters and other outlets in which the state does not exercise tight editorial control (such as PBS in the United States) will not have this icon. government
News: News published in reputable news sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. news
Opinion piece: Opinion pieces and op-eds. opinion
Predatory journals: Predatory journals and publishers; these sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy. This list is derived from Template:Predatory open access source list. predatory
Press releases press
Satire: Sites that publish satirical articles, such as The Onion. satire
Social media: Usually a post from a user on a social media platform. Note that a social media post may be considered reliable as a source on the author themselves, or when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS for more information. social
Sponsored: Articles that have been paid for or otherwise sponsored. As an example, see the sponsored section of the Seattle Times. Depending on the publication, sponsored content may be produced by a third-party. sponsored
Tabloids: Sites that publish celebrity gossip and tabloid journalism (as in the style of largely sensationalist journalism; publications that publish in tabloid format but are otherwise generally reliable and non-sensationalist are not categorized as tabloids). tabloids
TV / radio programs: TV and radio programs, which may or may not qualify as news and/or reliable depending on the individual program. tvPrograms
[RSP] Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Per RSP, editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. rspGenerallyReliable
[RSP] Marginally reliable: Per RSP, the source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. See Wikipedia's perennial sources list for more details. rspMarginallyReliable
[RSP] Generally unreliable: Per RSP, there is community consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. rspGenerallyUnreliable
[RSP] Deprecated: Per RSP, there is community consensus to deprecate the source. The source is considered [generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. rspDeprecated
[RSP] Blacklisted: Per RSP, due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. rspBlacklisted
[RSP] Varied consensus: Per RSP, the community's consensus on the reliability of this site depends on one or more factors (for example, Forbes articles by staff are considered generally reliable, while articles by contributors are considered generally unreliable). See Wikipedia's perennial sources list for more details. rspMulti
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hearvox/WikiSignals&oldid=1297634601"