4 ms·

This is caused by how a source is deprecated. You have source deprecated by RfC, following a discussion/controversy (half of the examples probably came from the

by orwin 2y ago

This is caused by how a source is deprecated. You have source deprecated by RfC, following a discussion/controversy (half of the examples probably came from the Sandy Hook edit war). Then you have sources, the vast majority, that are de facto deprecated, hence are not on any list. If as an example, Counterpunch and AlterNet are never cited except following the 'verifiability policy', they are de facto deprecated, and if it's the case, the author never bothered researching his subject or even reading Wikipedia rules. Which would explain why thecritic is also de facto deprecated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

perching_aix 2y ago
That thecritic article claims the listed questionable left leaning sites are heavily cited, is that not true then? Is there a way to search for this effectively?
- orwin 2y ago
  The only page i found AlterNet cited was AlterNet itself, so i would guess no. If only the article provided sources, or at least example, but i guess it's too much to ask To be honest, it's quite easy, wiki moderators use custom search engines to improve links (especially on heavily discussed or heavily viewed article), here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_searching#Custom_search_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_sear... if one of the engine return AlterNet or CounterPunch articles on political questions, it's probably "heavily used". If not, the author is a probably a liar, the editor certainly don't check articles and the publication is surely as worthless as AlterNet.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    I checked the article again and it says the following right after the quoted part: > An external links search shows around 2,580 [1] Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 [2] linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 [3] linking to AlterNet. [1] https://archive.is/PWPNB https://archive.is/PWPNB [2] https://archive.is/R19OZ https://archive.is/R19OZ [3] https://archive.is/kNtgq https://archive.is/kNtgq Considering how many pages there are on Wikipedia, and how many of these results are notes and talk pages, I think one can conclusively determine that these sites are in fact not "widely used" sources. This isn't to say they're aren't questionable or shouldn't be filtered against of course (nor that they are and should be).

by orwin 2y ago

perching_aix 2y ago

That thecritic article claims the listed questionable left leaning sites are heavily cited, is that not true then? Is there a way to search for this effectively?

orwin 2y ago
The only page i found AlterNet cited was AlterNet itself, so i would guess no. If only the article provided sources, or at least example, but i guess it's too much to ask To be honest, it's quite easy, wiki moderators use custom search engines to improve links (especially on heavily discussed or heavily viewed article), here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_searching#Custom_search_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_sear... if one of the engine return AlterNet or CounterPunch articles on political questions, it's probably "heavily used". If not, the author is a probably a liar, the editor certainly don't check articles and the publication is surely as worthless as AlterNet.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  I checked the article again and it says the following right after the quoted part: > An external links search shows around 2,580 [1] Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 [2] linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 [3] linking to AlterNet. [1] https://archive.is/PWPNB https://archive.is/PWPNB [2] https://archive.is/R19OZ https://archive.is/R19OZ [3] https://archive.is/kNtgq https://archive.is/kNtgq Considering how many pages there are on Wikipedia, and how many of these results are notes and talk pages, I think one can conclusively determine that these sites are in fact not "widely used" sources. This isn't to say they're aren't questionable or shouldn't be filtered against of course (nor that they are and should be).