Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia/Reliability"
(Worth its own page) |
(Unreliable sites) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Guidelines== | ==Guidelines== | ||
| − | Wikipedia explicitly seeks to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its guidelines on reliability state that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited]" which sounds reasonable until we note the definition of a 'questionable source'- ''"those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."'' At a stroke, individuals are out, organisations are in, especially those which promulgate the official narrative. | + | Wikipedia explicitly seeks to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its guidelines on reliability state that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited]" which sounds reasonable until we note the definition of a 'questionable source'- ''"those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."'' At a stroke, individuals are out, organisations are in, especially those which promulgate the [[official narrative]]. |
| − | Blogs, say the reliability guidelines, ''"may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."'' <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable Sources"]</ref> | + | ==="Reliable" sites=== |
| + | So, Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their message through the {{ccm}} may ipso facto also tell their story on Wikipedia. Those who have less influence over big media have correspondingly less influence over Wikipedia. Blogs, say the reliability guidelines, ''"may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."'' <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable Sources"]</ref> | ||
| − | So, | + | ==="Unreliable" sites=== |
| + | Wikipedia deems certain ''sites'' unreliable (including this website). So for example, in 2019 an editor quickly reverted an addition to the list Bilderberg visitors, even though it cited their inclusion in the Bilderberg guest list.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bilderberg_participants&type=revision&diff=895630446&oldid=895503080</ref> The editor did ''not'' challenge the authenticity of the reports (which are available in hardcopy in various public libraries), merely claimed that the sites was not reliable. This is equivant to an ''[[ad hominem]]'' attack in debate, invocation of an [[enemy image]] in a debate to distract from the factual evidence presented. The converse policy is also in evidence - citations of "reliable" sources are welcomed without sufficient critical enquiry. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Flexibility=== | ||
| + | Sites do change from "reliable" to "unreliable" (e.g. ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a UK [[corporate media]] outlet. | ||
==Persistence of deliberately introduced mistakes== | ==Persistence of deliberately introduced mistakes== | ||
Revision as of 12:43, 31 May 2019
 Wikipedia/Reliability    | |
|---|---|
| Wikipedia assumes that corporate media is reliable, which this website does not. |
Wikipedia's reliability is patchy. Its guidelines ensure that those people and institutions capable of using commercially-controlled media to spread lies will receive effective support in this effort from Wikipedia.
Contents
Guidelines
Wikipedia explicitly seeks to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its guidelines on reliability state that "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" which sounds reasonable until we note the definition of a 'questionable source'- "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." At a stroke, individuals are out, organisations are in, especially those which promulgate the official narrative.
"Reliable" sites
So, Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their message through the commercially-controlled media may ipso facto also tell their story on Wikipedia. Those who have less influence over big media have correspondingly less influence over Wikipedia. Blogs, say the reliability guidelines, "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." [1]
"Unreliable" sites
Wikipedia deems certain sites unreliable (including this website). So for example, in 2019 an editor quickly reverted an addition to the list Bilderberg visitors, even though it cited their inclusion in the Bilderberg guest list.[2] The editor did not challenge the authenticity of the reports (which are available in hardcopy in various public libraries), merely claimed that the sites was not reliable. This is equivant to an ad hominem attack in debate, invocation of an enemy image in a debate to distract from the factual evidence presented. The converse policy is also in evidence - citations of "reliable" sources are welcomed without sufficient critical enquiry.
Flexibility
Sites do change from "reliable" to "unreliable" (e.g. The Daily Mail, a UK corporate media outlet.
Persistence of deliberately introduced mistakes
The claim that the "wisdom of crowds" ensures accuracy is unproven.[3]
Related Quotation
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quotation | “The problem with internet quotes is that you cant [sic.] always depend on their accuracy” | Abraham Lincoln | 1864 |
References
- ↑ Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable Sources"
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bilderberg_participants&type=revision&diff=895630446&oldid=895503080
- ↑ A simple experiment by Adrian Hänni revealed that deliberately introduced errors can persist for months.
