This page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
The journal,The Black Scholar, has been COI-ridden for many, many years. When asked, the editor admitted to their COI and seems receptive to feedback on the article talk page. More eyes on this would be helpful for cleanup/NPOV purposes. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed partially paragraph or section 1 and made minor edit, citations are needed and typographical error correction should be made. I will review the integrety of the document if possible during the wee-end and update as needed here.
I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{Erratum}}, {{Expression of concern}}, and {{Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:
If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{retraction|...}} with {{retraction|...|intentional=yes}}/{{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}/{{Erratum|...}} with {{Erratum|...|checked=yes}}.
I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:JOURNALS in sub-bullets. Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}02:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wikidata as backup for when |website is left empty in Infobox Journal
According to this list there are currently around 700 articles that use {{Infobox journal}} without the |website parameter. This is either because there is none, there was one that isn't available anymore or because it hasn't been added yet. I wonder if we could use the Wikidata value in cases like this. The expected behaviour would be: If the journal doesn't have a website, it should also have nothing to add from Wikidata; if the website is dead it should be deprecated on Wikidata and therefore also not show here; if theres a normal or preferred value on Wikidata it will show that one on here. Thoughts on this? Nobody (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a backup, sure. But Wikidata data is evil, and shouldn't be relied upon. Wikidata can sync from Wikipedia if they want, but the reverse shouldn't be true. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Headbomb that Wikidata is unreliable. Whatever the people over there do is their business and they can import from WP all they like, but WD should not be used as a source for anything here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
