3 ms·

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 so

by jibal 10mo 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 10mo 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).
- jibal 10mo 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. It's damned close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited." > There are some issues that are niche enough that the only articles written by 'reliable sources' on them are articles written with ulterior motives. Says you. But if you encounter such an article, you are free to improve it by making it NPOV ... and people do that all the time at WP. And if you can't find such material then you have no basis for your contrary beliefs. You folks act like there's some cabal of editors with a unified ideological outlook, but this is the furthest thing from the truth. Whatever your ideological outlook, there's a large cadre of active WP editors who share it and are constantly trying to push articles in that direction ... but they have to be able to make their case, and even the most ardently biased editors learn that bad faith must at least be disguised. > the problem still remains that Wikipedia is only as trustworthy/unbiased as the secondary sources it derives its content from It's not a problem because there's a vast range of such sources (people talking here about "news media" as if that's all that's allowed as a source are clueless), and as a whole they are vastly more reliable than WP's critics, who basically whine that they aren't allowed insert blatant lies into WP just because they happen to believe those lies.
charcircuit 10mo ago
>because they are unreliable, not because "there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it" That is not what I said. That quote was in relation to me saying that I don't think viewpoints are being suppressed. There just is naturally not enough interest from sources wikipedia consists reliable. 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.

by jibal 10mo ago

feetsoup 10mo 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).

jibal 10mo 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. It's damned close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited." > There are some issues that are niche enough that the only articles written by 'reliable sources' on them are articles written with ulterior motives. Says you. But if you encounter such an article, you are free to improve it by making it NPOV ... and people do that all the time at WP. And if you can't find such material then you have no basis for your contrary beliefs. You folks act like there's some cabal of editors with a unified ideological outlook, but this is the furthest thing from the truth. Whatever your ideological outlook, there's a large cadre of active WP editors who share it and are constantly trying to push articles in that direction ... but they have to be able to make their case, and even the most ardently biased editors learn that bad faith must at least be disguised. > the problem still remains that Wikipedia is only as trustworthy/unbiased as the secondary sources it derives its content from It's not a problem because there's a vast range of such sources (people talking here about "news media" as if that's all that's allowed as a source are clueless), and as a whole they are vastly more reliable than WP's critics, who basically whine that they aren't allowed insert blatant lies into WP just because they happen to believe those lies.

charcircuit 10mo ago

>because they are unreliable, not because "there is not enough interest for someone to write a balanced article on it" That is not what I said. That quote was in relation to me saying that I don't think viewpoints are being suppressed. There just is naturally not enough interest from sources wikipedia consists reliable. 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.