12 ms·

You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get

You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing.

alex1138 11mo ago
Yeah, exactly. Maybe before 2020 I would say Wikipedia is the gold standard (meaning those were my political views/biases, not that I think it got worse after 2020 although it probably did) but I've seen too much in the last few years to trust anything approximating mainstream notions of "misinformation". There's official narrative being enforced
- greggoB 11mo ago
  > but I've seen too much in the last few years Can you share at least your top 3 examples? Claims of an "official narrative" frankly just sound kookie when made without a shred to back them up.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    Maybe before November 2024. Now MAGA supporters control CBS News, Fox, and others; and ABC News, the Washington Post, etc. openly comply with their demands.
  - alex1138 11mo ago
    Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure There's other things as well I could probably think of but when you have politically motivated actors going on edit wars and the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem (And why does Youtube put Wikipedia entries as official truth under certain videos?)
    - greggoB 11mo ago
      > Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there So what I'm actually asking for is credible references/citations to back up your claims - otherwise they're at best just your opinions, or at worst you spreading conspiracy theories. > the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem Seems conspiracy theories it is. From experience, I know it is highly unlikely that I or anyone else is going to pull you away from your convictions, so I won't even bother. What I will say is you're also unlikely to find a receptive audience to such views on HN, especially if you're not even going to try substantiating them.
- biophysboy 11mo ago
  Social media is much more feelings driven than mainstream media. They are basically tertiary sources, 2+ steps removed from actual source material.
- jibal 11mo ago
  > There's official narrative being enforced There's no such thing and it's not happening. WP mechanisms don't even allow for "official narratives" to be "enforced". > Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure You were asked for examples, not antivax talking points, or things that you're "sure" of without a shred of evidence. Wikipedia tells the truth--which includes the data on the efficacy of masks and the ratios between people dying from vaccines and people dying from the diseases those vaccines mitigate. And the credibility of epidemiologists is not measured by which ones some ideologue agrees with--but Wikipedia covers a broad range of statements made by epidemiologists. And the fact that Wikipedia articles say things that some ideologue disagrees with does not entail that an "official narrative" is being enforced. P.S. The response displays the complete lack of intellectual integrity that was already evident.
  - alex1138 11mo ago
    [flagged]
dragonwriter 11mo ago
> If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation. Well, no, because secondary sources are not limited to news media sources (and for current events, primary sources are allowed.) If literally everyone creating media of any kind other than Wikipedia itself relating to a subject is in on a conspiracy to suppress it, yes, you are SoL on Wikipedia.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  >literally everyone creating media The WP:Reliable Sources rule limits who can be used as a source. And it's not about the other side being supressed, but that there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it.
  - jibal 11mo ago
    This, like most of your claims, is simply wrong. Unreliable sources are unreliable because they are unreliable, not because "there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it", which is a mass of confused pronouns. You seem to have the policy on reliable sources mixed up with the policy on notability. > In regards to notability, I would rather these topics not have articles at all since they aren't notable enough to have balanced coverage by secondary sources. That's exactly what the policy does ... it's applied at the article level--articles on insufficiently notable subjects are deleted.
    - feetsoup 11mo ago
      The person he was responding to was claiming that "literally everyone creating media" is permitted to be used as a source on Wikipedia, which isn't true. There are some issues that are niche enough that the only articles written by 'reliable sources' on them are articles written with ulterior motives. Even if the line between reliable and unreliable is defined in a way we can all agree on, the problem still remains that Wikipedia is only as trustworthy/unbiased as the secondary sources it derives its content from (the claim in the OP).
pveierland 11mo ago
I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewers. Wikipedia is able to cover many topics that are less contested in a slower and more tempered manner, as the content does not need to be marketable or immediately available. As an example, for STEM topics I'd trust Wikipedia far more than any news media.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  >as the content does not need to be marketable For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.
  - greggoB 11mo ago
    I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      My original comment is about cases where only biased secondary sources exist due to the story not being notable enough to be picked up by other authors. What appears to you as moving the target is clarifying that the situation the replies commented won't happen in the situation I am referring to.
      - greggoB 11mo ago
        Thanks for clarifying. So one can surely imagine cases where the only references are sensationalised/biased new media reporting. However: 1) Isn't this confined to a pretty small proportion of articles, given the breadth of topics Wikipdia covers expands well outside the purview of news media? E.g. any basic physics or math articles, like Electromagnetism or Linear Algebra - a lot of the sources for these seem to be textbooks. 2) Can we not assume any editorial leeway on the part of contributors to try and contextualise such sensationalism/bias? No examples are coming to mind now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen qualifiers in articles at least hinting that the cited source could be potentially problematic.
mmooss 11mo ago
> If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ... The 'news media' is an incredibly diverse range of disconnected groups of people, especially in the Internet era. Look at the front page of HN. You hardly see the leading journalism organizations (e.g., NY Times, network news, etc.). That "everyone" is against you is a conspiracy theory.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  I am talking about cases where 99% of people ignore the topic and potentially 1 person writes on it in a biased way. Diversity doesn't matter if everyone ignores it.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    It sounds possible, though could you give an example? How do you know about the topic?
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      In my experience just look up any niche community you are a part of that has a controversies section. You'll be able to see inaccuracies due to these articles being written by people outside of the community. Sometimes inconsequential drama will be the only thing the article is about since otherwise your community is not noteworthy enough. It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be.
    - jibal 11mo ago
      Of course they didn't provide an example, they just waved their hands. If someone does encounter an example, they are free to correct it by adding sourced material or by removing unsourced material (preferably after a notice on the talk page). And they say "It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be" after saying that this happens because 99% of people pay no attention to the topic.
      - 11mo ago
jibal 11mo ago
I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. But in fact it virtually never happens, yet it's a prerequisite for the claim "it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing" -- if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source--and if there isn't then you're making your claim up out of whole cloth. (Which in fact is usually the case for people who make these sorts of claims.) P.S. > No it isn't. Of course it is. As others have pointed out, "the news media" is diverse, and includes FN, NewsMax, OANN, etc. > One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) The reasons for not allowing reports of personal experience are obvious to any remotely intellectually honest person. Unsurprisingly there's a lot of bad faith in the responses here ... my quota for responding to such dreck is exhausted.
- f33d5173 11mo ago
  > when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favour of. > But in fact it virtually never happens, If it sometimes happens, and if you can take the inside view of a particular topics, then you can determine if it is one such instance. > if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source Your source may not be considered valid by wikipedia, for reasons that are fundamental to wikipedia as an institution, but incidental to an individual trying to determine the truth. One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) which are not covered or referenced by "reliable" (wikipedia term of art) secondary sources.
- bawolff 11mo ago
  > I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. While i generally agree, and most of the critics of Wikipedia seem to be mad that Wikipedia doesn't take their pet conspiracy theory seriously, which, well, good. However, i still think systemic bias is something to be seriously considered. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that aims to summarize reputable knowledge ("verifiability not truth"). As such there is a significant risk of systemic biases being reflected in Wikipedia. But i think that's ok. Wikipedia can't be all things. It is not scientists/ acedemics. It is not in the business of creating new knowledge, just summarizing it. Its someone elses job to create it
jancsika 11mo ago
Not really. 1. I just checked Epstein's Wikipedia entry-- it lists the very recent Drop Site News allegation of his and Wexner's ties to the Iran-Contra drug smuggling operation. And that in a whole section on the topic of intelligence ties going back years. The links covered in that Drop Site story were left out of a recent NYT article that covered a lot of the same period of Epstein's life. (I also haven't seen that Drop Site News story picked up by any of the other mainstream news sites or shows.) NYT is prominently listed as a reliable source, Drop Site News isn't. Yet I can still read a nice summary of that Drop Site Story on Wikipedia. 2. Also checked the entry on Bin Laden killing. It not only includes a substantial summary of Hersh's account that was widely criticized by both other journalists and the Obama White House, but that Hersh story also has its own entry. > You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. I'd reword this to say if you can trust that at least one reputable journalist has covered a given subject, a Wikipedian has most likely already included a summary in the relevant article for you. Edit: clarification
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  That's a fair rewording.

alex1138 11mo ago

Yeah, exactly. Maybe before 2020 I would say Wikipedia is the gold standard (meaning those were my political views/biases, not that I think it got worse after 2020 although it probably did) but I've seen too much in the last few years to trust anything approximating mainstream notions of "misinformation". There's official narrative being enforced

greggoB 11mo ago
> but I've seen too much in the last few years Can you share at least your top 3 examples? Claims of an "official narrative" frankly just sound kookie when made without a shred to back them up.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  Maybe before November 2024. Now MAGA supporters control CBS News, Fox, and others; and ABC News, the Washington Post, etc. openly comply with their demands.
- alex1138 11mo ago
  Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure There's other things as well I could probably think of but when you have politically motivated actors going on edit wars and the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem (And why does Youtube put Wikipedia entries as official truth under certain videos?)
  - greggoB 11mo ago
    > Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there So what I'm actually asking for is credible references/citations to back up your claims - otherwise they're at best just your opinions, or at worst you spreading conspiracy theories. > the fact Wiki may even be controlled by the intelligence agencies we have a problem Seems conspiracy theories it is. From experience, I know it is highly unlikely that I or anyone else is going to pull you away from your convictions, so I won't even bother. What I will say is you're also unlikely to find a receptive audience to such views on HN, especially if you're not even going to try substantiating them.
biophysboy 11mo ago
Social media is much more feelings driven than mainstream media. They are basically tertiary sources, 2+ steps removed from actual source material.
jibal 11mo ago
> There's official narrative being enforced There's no such thing and it's not happening. WP mechanisms don't even allow for "official narratives" to be "enforced". > Literally everything to do with covid. I can list "at least 3" right there. Masks don't work, the vaccine has killed people, epidemiologists (credible ones) warned against lockdowns. Wikipedia will tell you otherwise I'm sure You were asked for examples, not antivax talking points, or things that you're "sure" of without a shred of evidence. Wikipedia tells the truth--which includes the data on the efficacy of masks and the ratios between people dying from vaccines and people dying from the diseases those vaccines mitigate. And the credibility of epidemiologists is not measured by which ones some ideologue agrees with--but Wikipedia covers a broad range of statements made by epidemiologists. And the fact that Wikipedia articles say things that some ideologue disagrees with does not entail that an "official narrative" is being enforced. P.S. The response displays the complete lack of intellectual integrity that was already evident.
- alex1138 11mo ago
  [flagged]

dragonwriter 11mo ago

> If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation. Well, no, because secondary sources are not limited to news media sources (and for current events, primary sources are allowed.) If literally everyone creating media of any kind other than Wikipedia itself relating to a subject is in on a conspiracy to suppress it, yes, you are SoL on Wikipedia.

charcircuit 11mo ago
>literally everyone creating media The WP:Reliable Sources rule limits who can be used as a source. And it's not about the other side being supressed, but that there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it.
- jibal 11mo ago
  This, like most of your claims, is simply wrong. Unreliable sources are unreliable because they are unreliable, not because "there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it", which is a mass of confused pronouns. You seem to have the policy on reliable sources mixed up with the policy on notability. > In regards to notability, I would rather these topics not have articles at all since they aren't notable enough to have balanced coverage by secondary sources. That's exactly what the policy does ... it's applied at the article level--articles on insufficiently notable subjects are deleted.
  - feetsoup 11mo ago
    The person he was responding to was claiming that "literally everyone creating media" is permitted to be used as a source on Wikipedia, which isn't true. There are some issues that are niche enough that the only articles written by 'reliable sources' on them are articles written with ulterior motives. Even if the line between reliable and unreliable is defined in a way we can all agree on, the problem still remains that Wikipedia is only as trustworthy/unbiased as the secondary sources it derives its content from (the claim in the OP).

pveierland 11mo ago

I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewers. Wikipedia is able to cover many topics that are less contested in a slower and more tempered manner, as the content does not need to be marketable or immediately available. As an example, for STEM topics I'd trust Wikipedia far more than any news media.

charcircuit 11mo ago
>as the content does not need to be marketable For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.
- greggoB 11mo ago
  I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    My original comment is about cases where only biased secondary sources exist due to the story not being notable enough to be picked up by other authors. What appears to you as moving the target is clarifying that the situation the replies commented won't happen in the situation I am referring to.
    - greggoB 11mo ago
      Thanks for clarifying. So one can surely imagine cases where the only references are sensationalised/biased new media reporting. However: 1) Isn't this confined to a pretty small proportion of articles, given the breadth of topics Wikipdia covers expands well outside the purview of news media? E.g. any basic physics or math articles, like Electromagnetism or Linear Algebra - a lot of the sources for these seem to be textbooks. 2) Can we not assume any editorial leeway on the part of contributors to try and contextualise such sensationalism/bias? No examples are coming to mind now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen qualifiers in articles at least hinting that the cited source could be potentially problematic.

mmooss 11mo ago

> If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ... The 'news media' is an incredibly diverse range of disconnected groups of people, especially in the Internet era. Look at the front page of HN. You hardly see the leading journalism organizations (e.g., NY Times, network news, etc.). That "everyone" is against you is a conspiracy theory.

charcircuit 11mo ago
I am talking about cases where 99% of people ignore the topic and potentially 1 person writes on it in a biased way. Diversity doesn't matter if everyone ignores it.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  It sounds possible, though could you give an example? How do you know about the topic?
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    In my experience just look up any niche community you are a part of that has a controversies section. You'll be able to see inaccuracies due to these articles being written by people outside of the community. Sometimes inconsequential drama will be the only thing the article is about since otherwise your community is not noteworthy enough. It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be.
  - jibal 11mo ago
    Of course they didn't provide an example, they just waved their hands. If someone does encounter an example, they are free to correct it by adding sourced material or by removing unsourced material (preferably after a notice on the talk page). And they say "It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be" after saying that this happens because 99% of people pay no attention to the topic.
    - 11mo ago

jibal 11mo ago

I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. But in fact it virtually never happens, yet it's a prerequisite for the claim "it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing" -- if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source--and if there isn't then you're making your claim up out of whole cloth. (Which in fact is usually the case for people who make these sorts of claims.) P.S. > No it isn't. Of course it is. As others have pointed out, "the news media" is diverse, and includes FN, NewsMax, OANN, etc. > One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) The reasons for not allowing reports of personal experience are obvious to any remotely intellectually honest person. Unsurprisingly there's a lot of bad faith in the responses here ... my quota for responding to such dreck is exhausted.

f33d5173 11mo ago
> when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favour of. > But in fact it virtually never happens, If it sometimes happens, and if you can take the inside view of a particular topics, then you can determine if it is one such instance. > if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source Your source may not be considered valid by wikipedia, for reasons that are fundamental to wikipedia as an institution, but incidental to an individual trying to determine the truth. One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) which are not covered or referenced by "reliable" (wikipedia term of art) secondary sources.
bawolff 11mo ago
> I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. While i generally agree, and most of the critics of Wikipedia seem to be mad that Wikipedia doesn't take their pet conspiracy theory seriously, which, well, good. However, i still think systemic bias is something to be seriously considered. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that aims to summarize reputable knowledge ("verifiability not truth"). As such there is a significant risk of systemic biases being reflected in Wikipedia. But i think that's ok. Wikipedia can't be all things. It is not scientists/ acedemics. It is not in the business of creating new knowledge, just summarizing it. Its someone elses job to create it

jancsika 11mo ago

Not really. 1. I just checked Epstein's Wikipedia entry-- it lists the very recent Drop Site News allegation of his and Wexner's ties to the Iran-Contra drug smuggling operation. And that in a whole section on the topic of intelligence ties going back years. The links covered in that Drop Site story were left out of a recent NYT article that covered a lot of the same period of Epstein's life. (I also haven't seen that Drop Site News story picked up by any of the other mainstream news sites or shows.) NYT is prominently listed as a reliable source, Drop Site News isn't. Yet I can still read a nice summary of that Drop Site Story on Wikipedia. 2. Also checked the entry on Bin Laden killing. It not only includes a substantial summary of Hersh's account that was widely criticized by both other journalists and the Obama White House, but that Hersh story also has its own entry. > You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. I'd reword this to say if you can trust that at least one reputable journalist has covered a given subject, a Wikipedian has most likely already included a summary in the relevant article for you. Edit: clarification

charcircuit 11mo ago
That's a fair rewording.