3 ms·

Here is a list of perennial resources and reliability as assessed by the wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#

by mc32 4y ago

Here is a list of perennial resources and reliability as assessed by the wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... Interestingly they rely on politifact which is a somewhat opinion-based fact checker. They also consider WikiLeaks "unreliable". It's dumps from companies and govt's, so the lying and unreliability should not be a reflection of their reliability but the gov'ts and companies whose leaks reach them. I love how they lob accusations of clickbait at some orgs but not others, when almost all news orgs engage in clickbait.

dionian 4y ago
How wonderfully convenient
Beltalowda 4y ago
It has this to say about WikiLeaks: "WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. No consensus exists on its reliability. Some editors questioned the applicability of reliability ratings to Wikileaks. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK." Which seems reasonable to me.
- mc32 4y ago
  That's fine... but when has their material proven false in practice any more than what WP deem reliable sources?