Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This topic has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Priority 4
|
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
| A summary of this article appears in Wikipedia. |
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable. If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question. |
Other as first subsection?
editThe section Propagation of misinformation has its first subsection called Other. I think Other is more appropriate for being the name of a last subsection of a section. I think "Commentary [or Comments] about Wikipedia and misinformation" sounds more appropriate. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 30 § Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought until a consensus is reached. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2026
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a second paragraph to the subsection "Tools for testing the reliability of articles":
More recent research has examined automatic assessment of Wikipedia article quality using machine-learning methods. A 2023 systematic literature review of 149 studies found that such approaches commonly use article features, quality metrics, datasets, and machine-learning algorithms, while noting that machine learning is still not widely used by Wikipedia for article-quality assessment.[1] One later study explored real-time quality prediction using 36,000 English Wikipedia articles and 145 features.[2] Carla.lopes (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done. Wordy, but basically no actual information in it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- ↑ Moás, Pedro Miguel; Teixeira Lopes, Carla (2023). "Automatic Quality Assessment of Wikipedia Articles – A Systematic Literature Review". ACM Computing Surveys. 56 (4). doi:10.1145/3625286.
- ↑ Moás, Pedro Miguel; Teixeira Lopes, Carla (2026). "Real-Time Prediction of Wikipedia Articles' Quality". Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 16097. Cham: Springer. pp. 304–320. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05409-8_18.