Module talk:Find sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:00, 3 August 2023

Latest revision as of 19:41, 17 October 2024

(41 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Hatnote|This talk page is intended for discussion of template content and links. For discussions relating to technical aspects of the Find sources template, see '''[[Template talk:Find sources]]'''}}

{{Permanently protected}}

{{WikiProject Reliability}}

{{central|text=[[Special:PrefixIndex/Module talk:Find sources/|all talk subpages of this page]], as well as [[Template talk:Find sources mainspace]] , [[Template talk:Find general sources]], and [[Template talk:Find biographical sources]] redirect here.}}

{{oldtfdfull|date= 2017 May 14 |result=no consensus |disc=Template:Find sources}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Reliability}}

}}

{{archives}}

{{Lua sidebar}}

Line 15 ⟶ 17:

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

== Number of transclusions of Template:Find general sources ==

== Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2022 ==

{{Moved from|Module talk:Find sources/links|[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)}}

[[Template:Find general sources]] has "869860 transclusion(s) found" as of 06:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC), as I just checked https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Find_general_sources#bottom .

{{edit template-protected|Module:Find sources/links|answered=yes}}

Please change "WP Library" to "TWL" as it is the more common term (see [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library|reference page]]). Thanks! [[User:EpicPupper|🐶&nbsp;EpicPupper]] ^{(he/him &#124; [[User talk:EpicPupper|talk]])} 21:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Appreciate it if another user can reply below and confirm this.)

:Just as a passing comment: TWL is a lot unclearer for me as someone who knows nothing about ''The Wikipedia Library''. TWL is just another [[Three-letter acronym|TLA]] on wikipedia ([[Wikipedia:Shortcut table/uppercase|of many]]) whereas at least you can gather that WP Library stands for Wikipedia Librabry even if you have a passing knowledge of Wikipedia. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|^{<span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span>}]] 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

:: Why not spell it out in full as "Wikipedia Library" or "The Wikipedia Library"? [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

:Going ahead with this, because the tooltip for when a mouse hovers gives away "The Wikipedia Library", and "TWL" is more consistent with the other source-link initialisms. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;<small>17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)</small>

This is written here because [[Template talk:Find general sources]] redirects here. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|talk]]) 06:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

== Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2023 ==

:Quoting from what appears right now on the template page, this is "'''roughly 1% of all pages'''" on English Wikipedia. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|talk]]) 06:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

{{protected edit|answered=yes}}

::Also, quoting from [[Module_talk:Find_sources/Archive_1#Wikipedia_Library_text]], "'''this is an 800k-transclusion template'''" in September 2021. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|talk]]) 06:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Add to [[:Category:Articles for deletion templates]] as it is used at [[Template:Afd2]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 06:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

: You need to specify what template you want the category added to. Presuming you mean [[Template:Find general sources]] (the target of [[Template:Find sources AfD]]), I'm not convinced it belongs in that category since its used for far more than AfD discussions. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

== Edit request 1612 MarchJanuary 20232024 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Find sources/templates/Find general sources|answered=yes}}

A discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]] resulted in consensus supporting the proposal to "remove all individual news outlets" from [[Module:Find sources/templates/Find general sources]] (closure: [[Special:Diff/1195065906]]). This means removal of the following lines:

'''Description of suggested change:''' Change the link for the "WP refs" link to the one used in [[WP:RSSE]]. Much more accurate than the current one (which as an example, the current one, when searching "Euro Truck Simulator 2", has a top result for "download.com" to "download" the game, as opposed to the RSSE one which has the top result of the game's page on Metacritic) ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|^Talk]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 01:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

<pre>

: Do you have the list of domains searched by the RSSE google custom search? The existing one lists 496 sites, and the list is open to view to anyone. I don't think we should change it to any list that isn't transparent about what is being searched. If it's already there, maybe I didn't see it; can you point me to it? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

{

::I don't believe the existing one is actively maintained. Is there an issue with one that isn't transparent about what's being searched? It says its limited to those published by "well-known reliable sources", but I"ve asked on the talk page about what sources are specifically used. ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|^Talk]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 13:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

code = 'new york times',

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> Barkeep has answered there. Consider further whether that's the set of pages you'd like to search. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

display = "Reuters''NYT''",

tooltip = 'The New York Times',

},

{

code = 'ap',

display = "Associated Press"'AP',

tooltip = 'Associated Press',

},

</pre> [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 05:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}<!-- Template:ETp --> by Sdkb in [[Special:Diff/1195169672]] [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 22:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== Proposed removal on 'Find video game sources' template: ==

== Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2023 ==

Remove both [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Find+video+game+sources%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Find+video+game+sources%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk] (both don't seem to link anywhere) on [[Template:Find video game sources]] (these are the last two links) [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Find sources mainspace|answered=yes}}

add: Unclear what googleyou withchange braveyou searchare andrequesting. sciPlease hubclarify. [[User:BaratiimanMathglot|BaratiimanMathglot]] ([[User talk:BaratiimanMathglot|talk]]) 0809:1527, 1225 MayJune 20232024 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ETp --> 1. We will not be linking to Sci Hub. 2. We already have one Google search. I don't see a reason to use a second. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

::but google and bing dont work in my country only brave [[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

== Trim "list of" from argument? ==

== Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2023 ==

{{edit template-protected|Module:Find sources/links|answered=no}}

Add Reuters and AP search as link codes to the Find sources module. There is some discussion on this change at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace nyt with reuters]]; while the proposal to ''replace'' NYT with Reuters is clearly controversial, there seems to be less controversy with adding it (and/or the Associated Press) as an option, and in either case having them available as a link codes would be a prerequisite.

Can the logic here convert "List of foo" as a parameter to become a search for "foo"? e.g. "List of fictional rutabagas" becomes "fictional rutabagas" for search purposes? This would help correctly identify relevant sources in AfDs, and those who actually meant to search for "List of foo" can add the prefix back if desired. My experience is that "list of foo" consistently fails to produce any relevant sources, while "foo" will produce more sources, with some arguably relevant to the discussion. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe adding the following to the code in [[Module:Find sources/links]] should work (though I'd appreciate a double check; also as far as I know news wires are not italicized as titles the way newspapers are, but again, a double check on language and formatting would be appreciated):

== Chatbots as valid sources or identifiers of them ==

<syntaxhighlight lang="lua">

["ap"] = {

url = 'https://apnews.com/search?q=$1',

display = "Associated Press",

description = "The [[Associated Press]], an American news agency",

},

</syntaxhighlight>

{{u|Awesome Aasim}}, Can you please elaborate on your intentions with [[Special:Diff/1251335553|this sandbox edit]] ? I believe that it would be a perversion of this module and the associated template to admit any notion of AI bots into the module configuration either as 1) a reliable source, or as 2) a good way to find reliable sources (their hallucinations are legion). Hence, I would be against porting your changes to the module or to the template without consensus achieved at an Rfc on this page advertised at the main venues where AI bots are being discussed, as well as at [[WP:VPR]]. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 04:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight lang="lua">

["reuters"] = {

url = 'https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=$1',

display = "Reuters",

description = "[[Reuters]], an international news agency",

},

</syntaxhighlight>

:I kind of agree as well. However, Google and Bing also index unreliable sources. I was initially going to put in a query "find reliable sources for $1" but then decided against it for some reason. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 14:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the link codes table in [[Module:Find sources/doc]] needs to be updated if this change is made, though the documentation does not appear to be template protected so I am happy to make said change myself. Thanks! [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])} 00:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:: That is, of course, true. However, I have never seen Google or Bing invent a very convincing-looking source out of whole <s>cloth</s> bits, creating authors who do not exist, or very complex and scholarly-looking titles that look real but do not exist (but are quite similar to pieces of other titles that do exist), and so on. If the task assigned were to add sources to an article that do not exist but would rarely get challenged, AI bots are definitely the way to go. It's quite possible vandals or lazy or clueless editors are doing this already, and it is a problem that will have to be addressed at some point. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

: Not opposed, but imho, this isn't the sort of thing that should just be added to the module as a simple response to an edit request (although I think it's fine to request it that way), but by broader [[WP:CONS|consensus]], as this would have a wide impact. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:::When a chatbot is powered by a search engine, it is less likely to make stuff up; but that doesn't mean it doesn't pull from unreliable sources. I have tried Copilot before (not necessarily for Wikipedia tasks, but for personal tasks like clarifying math concepts) and it has not really failed me. On the other hand, ChatGPT has occasionally made stuff up, especially when it does not query from the web. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::That makes sense to me! Two questions:

:::: Imho, this page is not the place for Wikipedia editors to debate whether chatbots are more or less likely to hallucinate under this or that circumstance, and, pardon me, but anecdotal evidence about failure to fail in casual use by non-experts is close to worthless. Please use the AI discussion venues for that. Here we should debate whether a find sources module should use the results of AI, however triggered, and imho the answer to that is a slam-dunk 'no'. I will shut up now, and hopefully others will chime in. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::# I want to make sure I really understand the change I proposed here, since I'm not generally familiar with modules. I was under the impression adding the link codes wouldn't impact existing templates, though looking more into it, it also seems like there's no configurability in the current templates so maybe adding the link codes is a useless no-op. Is the right thing here to seek consensus on the full change altogether (i.e. get consensus on adding one or both newswires to the find sources template before making any changes like adding them as options to the link codes list)?

{{Moved::::: from|ModuleAgreed talk:Findentirely with Mathglot here. sources/links|[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 0216:3853, 1316 DecemberOctober 20222024 (UTC)}}

::# Is the right place to seek consensus the VPR thread ([[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace nyt with reuters]])? Adding the sources to the default find sources does seem like a pretty major change, and I assume a handful of editors doesn't make a proper consensus for something like that.

:Google's top-level "AI overview" results are rarely totally accurate, but they do give the source links, which in aggregate ends up being significantly ''more reliable'' for us than their raw top search results, which, often being shit like quora or low-quality zines, do not provide sources at all.

::Thanks for your help here! [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])} 16:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:I don't know if linking to another engine prompting something like ChatGPT would get better AI-enhanced results than Google or Bing in that respect, since they are putting a good deal of effort into making it give back real online-accessible sources. That seems to align with our goal here.

::: As for #1, you're correct; merely adding the config wouldn't change the behavior. Not sure about the second half of #1, but as it wouldn't do anything and consensus isn't guaranteed, it seems to me it would just be clutter, and there's no rush, so why bother?

:::Of #2course Wasn'tthe awareother ofquestion is whether it's untilmore youenticing mentionedfor it,the butnovice VPReditor isto have a highlyshiny visiblelink ___locationsaying and"ChatGPT" oneor possiblewhatever venue,latest soAI astool it'sis openout there already, thatinstead wouldof certainlyjust beclicking the"Google", placeeven toif gainthe consensusresult foris it,the imhosame. I'mAlso, notcalling aexclusively gatekeeperthe here,Google justAI tryingoverview toresults adddoes mynot ownappear opinionpossible aboutright your questions, butnow as it's astill considered highlyan visibleexperimental changefeature, imhoand ait soliddoesn't consensusappear shouldto be soughtavailable in private browsing either. HopeBut thisthat's helps,my thought going forward. [[User:MathglotSamuelRiv|MathglotSamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:MathglotSamuelRiv|talk]]) 17:3052, 316 AugustOctober 20232024 (UTC)

<small>'''Listed at:''' [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)</small>

::::There are two relevant entities here: [[Module:Find sources]] and [[Template:Find sources]]. The module is the sort of core, which contains the structure for adding links, whereas the template is what determines which links are actually used, and is what appears on many talk pages. There are [[Module:Find_sources#Available_templates|a few other templates]] that also use the module core.

:I think that even if chatbots were 100% accurate in their output, we would still want to avoid using them for use-cases like this because of how heavily these technologies rely on Wikipedia itself as an information source. We need to stay upstream of LLMs to avoid circular referencing. _signed,[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] ^{[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]} 16:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Adding AP and Reuters to the module is something I'd support, as they could feasibly be used. But adding them to the find sources template in addition to ''NYT'' is something I'd oppose, as that'd be the first step down the path that ends with us listing every large-scale reliable news organization, and then we have something that's no longer one line but half a dozen, contributing to talk page bloat and [[banner blindness]]. We need to think about that actual workflow that someone search for sources for an article goes through. It's generally not to go to the website of every reputable news organization to see what coverage they have; rather, it's to use Google News, which will bring up stories from the ''NYT'', AP, Reuters, and all the others. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> ^{[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]} 18:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::I wonder if with the right prompt engineering we can get these chatbots to actually spit out reliable sources. We can maybe base our entire prompt based on something like [[WP:RSPS]]. Although it probably would overfill the query parameter. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 17:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::: Clarification: the template selects the [[Template:Find sources#How this works|search ___domain]], and the module config files determine which links are displayed for each search ___domain. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::: Are you proposing to engineer a solution that operates without human intervention? Because if you are successful, you should quit your day job and launch the next AI start-up, or become CTO of one of the existing ones. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::::No, a person will still need to click on and then review what is provided, and provide follow up queries. The queries I pass into the ?q=... parameter may be a good start, but I don't think they are a good end. But us Wikipedians should know this; just as the first page of Google/Bing search results can at times be littered with stuff like [[WP:DAILYFAIL]] and [[WP:NEWSMAX]], depending on the query and depending on previous searches.

::::I have largely toyed with ChatGPT and found it is not always good. Web-based LLMs like Copilot and Gemini are a bit better, although I remember they had a bumpy start, sometimes pulling nonsense from places like Reddit and Facebook.

::::I do not agree that we should just copy and paste the exact output of an LLM. I only think AI is good to assist humans, but practically can never replace humans. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:I think that including AI-oriented links is likely to cause more problems than it solves. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)