3 ms·

Wikipedia has blacklists for websites saying you can't use them, and their notability rule says if a topic isn't heavily covered by allowed sources it's not wor

Wikipedia has blacklists for websites saying you can't use them, and their notability rule says if a topic isn't heavily covered by allowed sources it's not worth having an article on. Unfortunately what happens is that right wing outlets are generally banned while left-wing sources are defended, so it can be impossible to add relevant facts to articles since no left-wing source wants to talk about it and no right-wing source is allowed to publish on it. For example, site that are allowed (all green): BuzzFeed News, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, Anti-Defamation League, The Guardian, Jacobin, Mother Jones, Playboy, Snopes, SPLC, The Daily Dot And some site that are banned (red or fully blacklisted) The Epoch Times, Fox News (for science and politics), The Federalist, The Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, The New York Post, NewsMax, OANN, Blaze News, The Cato Institute, Project Veritas, The Post Millennial I'm not aware of a single news source that has a pro-Trump opinion section which is still allowed on Wikipedia; the only two generally conservative outlets I saw were ReasonTV and WSJ, both of which were generally opposed to Trump. It (somehow) used to be worse although they've moved a bunch of ridiculous left-wing sources to a shade of red. Here's the full list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... Edit: improved formatting

jamespo 4y ago
Are you equating The Gateway Pundit and the BBC?
- autoexec 4y ago
  I'm honestly not sure at this point if people really can't tell the difference or if they're just fine with ignoring it when it's convenient for them. One of those possibilities can be fixed with education, but I'm not sure anything can be done to help prevent the other.
- guywithahat 4y ago
  No, it was a broad smattering of different popular conservative news outlets and think tanks vs left-wing outlets and think tanks. It's very hard to directly compare any two news sources from opposite sides of the political isle so I didn't even try. I encourage you to look at the list though and derive your own opinions. My point is that it's not just people freely editing, there are strict rules and these rules are political. I mean think about the Hunter Biden laptop story; it was published by the New York Post, but they were (and are) banned at the time. Meanwhile many "reputable" organizations (according to this list) were lying about the laptop insinuating (if not claiming) it was Russia disinformation or otherwise fake. How would you get the truth through to Wikipedia? The reality is you couldn't, because of the political bias, and this showed through at the time where pages on the topic claimed it was fake/disinformation even though it was obvious it wasn't.

jamespo 4y ago

Are you equating The Gateway Pundit and the BBC?

autoexec 4y ago
I'm honestly not sure at this point if people really can't tell the difference or if they're just fine with ignoring it when it's convenient for them. One of those possibilities can be fixed with education, but I'm not sure anything can be done to help prevent the other.
guywithahat 4y ago
No, it was a broad smattering of different popular conservative news outlets and think tanks vs left-wing outlets and think tanks. It's very hard to directly compare any two news sources from opposite sides of the political isle so I didn't even try. I encourage you to look at the list though and derive your own opinions. My point is that it's not just people freely editing, there are strict rules and these rules are political. I mean think about the Hunter Biden laptop story; it was published by the New York Post, but they were (and are) banned at the time. Meanwhile many "reputable" organizations (according to this list) were lying about the laptop insinuating (if not claiming) it was Russia disinformation or otherwise fake. How would you get the truth through to Wikipedia? The reality is you couldn't, because of the political bias, and this showed through at the time where pages on the topic claimed it was fake/disinformation even though it was obvious it wasn't.