Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Participants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDogs Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Question[edit]

Where can I go to post a question for the Wiki Dogs project people? 67.91.12.101 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in[edit]

I couldn't find any way to add my name to the list of contributors, but count me as a member. If you want to see some dog-related work I've done, check out Maltipoo. Thanks, WAM White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to establish guidelines[edit]

How to get dogsbite.org evaluated as RS[edit]

Hey all, I saw this [1] and was wondering if there was any appetite to get a determination on the reliability of dogsbite.org. It is a self-published website, which is by WP:RS guidelines typically not considered reliable. It's data collection methods also don't appear to be reliable. However there are those that argue because its used widely, that its a reliable source. I saw a list of reliable/unreliable sources, so I was hoping to get it evaluated and added under one of the two.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thought it was already on the list of generally unreliable sources; it is listed now. The site claims to "educate and advocate" but our experiences tell us they "advocate and incite by fear mongering" not to mention providing misinformation using stats derived from hyped-up media clickbait and various other unverifiable documented reports. It is already pink highlighted by Headbomb's script. Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I know WP:RS largely found it to be unreliable in 2020, but for some reason there are those that still argue that it's reputable. That's good information about the Headbomb's script. Thank you for that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "our experiences" isn't a source we can cite. That just sounds like a euphemism for "my opinion"
Can you explain the results in Headbomb's script for this source so it can be properly documented? The first thing it says on the page description is "This is not a tool to be mindlessly used." PartyParrot42 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice that animals24/7.org was left off that list as well, but it was viewed to be unreliable along with dogsbite.org.[1] Is it safe to include that one as well on the list? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]