Re: Credible sources
Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
A shorter answer then. If you think a subject is only sourceable from corrupt sources, do not create that article. Anders Den 2026-02-09 kl. 11:18, skrev Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l: > Hoi, > Given that the staff for for instance climate (this includes nature > reserves) has been axed in many a publication, this makes it a lot > easier to dismantle your argument. > > When paid editors invade our projects, it is a completely different > subject. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 at 10:39, Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/WGJ3VT6VJ4TPG5QBDFDHYX267UFNHVIT/ > 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/GWKGGGVCI2ROX4NZH2ELCQCQF4ZUA4F5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org