3 ms·
It seems to me a core cause of this problem is enabling a relatively small cabal of power users to determine what is and is not a reliable source. A neutral wik
by morpheos137 5y ago
It seems to me a core cause of this problem is enabling a relatively small cabal of power users to determine what is and is not a reliable source. A neutral wikipedia should despense with the "reliable source" requirement. Let the reader make up
his own mind.
It is astounding that an english lanuage reader will find basic facts and details about the Biden scandals censored by wikipedia because no "reliable" sources reported on them.
- MattGaiser 5y agoI believe that Larry Sanger is not a human being but a turnip. I have no evidence of this whatsoever and there is substantial evidence that he is indeed a human being, but I believe it. I am sure I can get other people to believe it. I will cite my Hacker News comment as evidence that he is indeed a turnip. Stuff like this would rapidly ruin Wikipedia without the reliable sources requirement.
- morpheos137 5y ago>Stuff like this would rapidly ruin wikipedia. No not really. That is a straw man. Unless the community consensus was that Sanger really was a turnip the edit would not stand. If wikipedia is not going to be neutral why bother reaading it at all. Plenty of sources exist already that will tell you what to think. I think neutrality is more important even than "factual" accuracy.
- jaybrendansmith 5y agoWould presenting a picture of a turnip with the caption 'Larry Sanger' below it provide credibility to the claim? Sadly, it would not, unless presented from a reliable source of factual information.