Login
Login

User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter

{{Infobox user script

| name = CiteHighlighter

| desc = Highlight citations green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability

| author = Novem Linguae

| source = User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js

| screenshot = 300px

}}

Highlights 1800 sources green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability.

Color codes

  • Dark green = Generally reliable and potentially WP:MEDRS qualityFor journal articles to pass MEDRS, make sure they are secondary sources (review, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, practice guideline) and not primary sources (study, clinical trial, etc.)
  • Light green = Generally reliable
  • Yellow = Marginally reliable or no consensus
  • Orange = Suspicious word detected in URL, such as "blog" (list of words)
  • Red = Generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted

Installation

Go install User:Enterprisey/script-installer, then come back to this page and click the giant blue "Install" button in the infobox on the right.

Or install it manually by adding the below code to your Special:MyPage/common.js file:

{{subst:iusc|User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js}}

Bugs and feature requests

Your feedback is essential. Please report all bugs and feature requests on the talk page.

Quality control

CiteHighlighter mostly uses sources that have had some kind of multi-person vetting, such as RSPSOURCES AND NPPSG (which are both based on RSN discussions), and WikiProject reliable source lists (which is a bit more hit or miss with their vetting, but hopefully they have a process, and the WikiProject members can also iterate by modifying the list page).

One exception to "multi-person vetting" is some sources I added based on frequent use in featured articles - these are assumed to be generally reliable.

Requests to add/change a source with no supporting discussion at RSN or a WikiProject page will often be declined.

Original source lists

Ratings are taken from the following sources:

== Good, but all books, so can't detect, need websites ==

== To examine more closely ==

The ideal list says if the resources are reliable, iffy, or unreliable. Some pages just list a bunch of sources with an implication that they're reliable. These may need a bit more investigation before adding.

== Categories I already added to this list ==

== Will add when time permits ==

How you can contribute sources

Both of these lists are editable by YOU. Please edit wisely.

Please allow a couple weeks/months for CiteHighlighter to be updated. Someday I may have a bot do this daily, but for now I have to manually run a script.

Novem's source tools

I will run an update script every few months that parses the two pages listed above, then imports the results into CiteHighlighter. In case I go inactive or something, here are links to the tools I use.

  • User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/SourcesJSON.js - The above two lists, combined and stripped down to just domain names.
  • [https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/tree/master/CiteHighlighter/table%20to%20bulleted%20list%20tool Table to bulleted list tool] - For parsing tables on WikiProject reliable sources pages.
  • [https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/tree/master/CiteHighlighter/deploy%20source%20list%20tool Deploy source list tool] - I use this tool every time I update CiteHighlighter's list of sources. It has around [https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/blob/211ff2762af2e49339fc406747a50c7e6b78db02/CiteHighlighter/NPPSG%20to%20array%20tool/script.js#L128-L184 20 hard-coded source fixes], so if the output isn't matching the two above source lists, this code is probably changing a couple things.

TODO: These are currently manually updated by me running the NPPSG to array tool every couple months. This could be automated with a daily bot.

Tasks this tool can help with

  • Article improvement - Glance at a reflist, hone in on the red sources, and try to replace or eliminate them.
  • New page patrol / Articles for Creation - You can probably ignore red sources when evaluating if the article passes WP:GNG, and focus on evaluating the other sources.

Algorithm

CiteHighlighter looks solely at website domains. For example, if twitter.com is added to CiteHighlighter's dictionary, then it will look for links to "/twitter.com" and ".twitter.com", and then add an HTML class to them, and this class causes highlighting by changing the CSS background-color. CiteHighlighter does not look at any parameters of a citation such as publisher, ISSN, etc.

I am not sure how CiteHighlighter would behave in the case of conflicting domains and subdomains. For example, marking google.com as reliable and docs.google.com as unreliable. Best to avoid conflicting domains and subdomains.

Config

Add these config settings TO THE VERY TOP of your common.js if you want to override the defaults.

class="wikitable"

|+

!Add this to top of common.js to activate

!Description

window.citeHighlighterAlwaysHighlightSourceLists = true;

|Used for testing. Highlights everything on source pages such as WP:RSP. Then you can make sure everything is getting highlighted correctly.

window.citeHighlighterHighlightEverything = true;

|Highlights all links on a page, not just in the references section.
Careful, this may cause large pages to load slowly.

window.citeHighlighterLighterColors = true;

|Uses a lighter set of highlight colors. User requested. May make it easier to read highlighted citations.

window.citeHighlighterUnreliableWord = '#ffb347';

| rowspan="7" |You can override any of the default colors with your own colors. These must be HTML color names (e.g. limegreen) or HTML color codes (e.g. #32CD32). [https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp Example color picker website.]

window.citeHighlighterPreprint = 'lightcoral';
window.citeHighlighterDoi = 'transparent';
window.citeHighlighterMedrs = 'limegreen';
window.citeHighlighterGreen = 'lightgreen';
window.citeHighlighterYellow = 'khaki';
window.citeHighlighterRed = 'lightcoral';

Secondary sources

This user script highlights based on reliability. Reliability is whether or not Wikipedia trusts data and statements on that website to be accurate. This is different than secondary. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed for notability and for getting the WP:WEIGHT right. Be careful of this when writing and editing articles. You can have 20 green cites, and still have a non-notable article or an article with undue weight problems.

Notes

{{Reflist}}

{{User:Novem Linguae/Templates/Scripts|state=plain}}