Re: Credible sources
Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
For me it is one more sign, that our focus on the 0,1% of our articles with subjects of recent events that is dependent on newspaper sources should be changed. We have no problem with sources for 99% of our articles about things like nature reserves or basic Cv of notable persons . living and historical etc. I just read an article describing how the Wikipedia's in Estonian and Latvian language have been invaded by Russian paid editors that rewrite articles on Russian-Ukraina war etc, and at the same time I notice that the fork done by Russian government still have 99% of all entries from Russian Wikipedia (the same as Grokopedia) My conclusion is that we ought to focus on the 99%, and just have very basics in recent controversial subjects. Anders Den 2026-02-09 kl. 08:41, skrev Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l: > Hoi, > Framing that the English Wikipedia has processes means that it > is irrelevant that its references are copied at a large scale. Given > that the international press provides too many instances with proof > demonstrating that previously robust sources are no longer > trustworthy, why have a local conversation? Democracy is bought and > newspapers are bought. Is there any doubt that the editorial processes > of several papers reflect the interests of their proprietors? If there > is, there might be room for a more global discussion. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 at 00:42, Raymond Leonard via Wikimedia-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think a nuanced example to consider is the New York Post at > Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New York Post > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post>. > > Excluding entertainment: > > There is consensus the /New York Post/ is generally unreliable > for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, > particularly New York City politics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_politics>. A tabloid > newspaper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism>, > editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or > corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors > consider the /New York Post/ more reliable before it changed > ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage > involving the New York City Police Department > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department>. A > 2024 RfC concluded that the /New York Post/ is marginally reliable > for entertainment coverage; see below. > > This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the > same name, that existed from 1801–1942. > > Entertainment: > There is consensus that the /New York Post > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post>/ (nypost.com > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22nypost.com%22> > Links > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.nypost.com> > Spamcheck > <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=nypost.com>) and its > sub-publications /Decider > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(website)>/ (decider.com > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22decider.com%22> > Links > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.decider.com> > Spamcheck > <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=decider.com>) and > /Page Six <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Six>/ are considered > to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, > including reviews, but should not be used for controversial > statements related to living persons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>. > > > The quality of individual newspapers & their reliability of > coverage areas clearly can vary over time. I think it behooves us > to reconsider the reliability of a source as it changes. > > Peaceray <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray> > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 2:50 PM Benjamin Lees via Wikimedia-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, as Andy points out, the English WIkipedia has processes > for determining source reliability. Those processes > address the fact that reliability may change over time as > organizations change ownership or management, and so formerly > reliable sources may ultimately be deprecated, or vice versa. > I'm not really clear on what you're saying is inadequate about > those processes. > > Benjamin > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 3:01 PM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, > A follow up thought. When our community finds suspect > sources wanting and refuse it as a source for references, > we devalue the investments made by moguls and maga. There > are valid USAmerican sources and they need as much as we > do, a public. A public that is not lied to because its > sources are not suspect. > Thanks again, > GerardM > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, > It is not about sources being American. It is about > the question if they cover the news. When their source > is the US government, it is no longer acceptable to > recognise its information as valid or consider it as > one side in a story.. The result produced is often > baloney, particularly when their proprietor has > imprinted its staff to produce output that reflects > the business interests outside of the publication. > > Given that resources from for instance Africa are > frowned upon, the imbalance is glaring. Given that > even the notion of considering the quality from > suspect sources is not taken seriously; it is met by > bureaucracy, the question will become to what extent > Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 15:17, Andy Mabbett via > Wikimedia-l <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 08:58, Gerard Meijssen via > Wikimedia-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In the past several British papers were no > longer considered credible sources. Given the > dominiation of USAmerican publications by a > USAmerican government that is known for distorting > the truth about everything, it is relevant to > consider the extent we trust American sources. > > We won't deprecate American sources simply because > they are American, > in the same way that we do not deprecate British > sources simply > because they are British. > > We already deprecate individual American sources > where they are shown > to be unreliable, for example: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261#RfC:_National_Enquirer > > You—or anyone else—are welcome to raise a similar > RfC if you find an > American—or any—source which is unsuitable. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- > [email protected], guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GKMJU7PYOU5PJXLJ2INZF5ELINAHFBRW/ > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- > [email protected], guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/V7GQ3IBLFETZXFGXXGMMW4LVKHO2XQIW/ > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/A5N53ERCAJA2UQHPOIEW47KRYRFYTK5C/ > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/33HIGJX536P3DZ6QD53H5PI6UZPYSYSM/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected], guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/AZQZFDR3KIRECXI6Z56LK3Y4TEPUNGUZ/ > To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MAAEFPK4LCURTUEPXGULMMUWWD666Z36/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org