Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

More information to possibly add in
I made a draft about this same topic (yet it cannot become an article since this one exists,) but I figured I would post it here if anyone wants to look at it and possibly add the information into this article, since my draft is a lost cause at this point. I just want to contribute into this article, since my own cannot be published. It has some pretty important points, in my opinion.

~

Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site by AriLovesTacos (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Ari. I see the above draft has been moved to User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site. Feel free to be bold and update any article you think you can improve. That's how Wikipedia was written. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
113.160.204.217 (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific about what you would like us to change. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove image?
Just my two cents, but the first image seems more decorative than anything. At any rate, might as well put the WP home page, a random diff has no specific link with our reliability. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed, except to say the image in question isn't even decorative! The second image does have that quality in addition to being an appropriate illustration for the article. I say dump the Klee-Irwin.gif (or move it elsewhere in the article if it has some redeeming quality that escapes me) and let the South American coati/Brazilian aardvark lead. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll go on with it, then, if it's not just me. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 17:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have either of you actually read it? It doesn't seem so. It is a very extreme example of the removal of damaging facts, replacing them with PR fluff. I will return it; you didn't even put the coati at the top. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An image is supposed to illustrate, not to be read. We might as well replace articles by screenshots of them. And even if we really want an image instead of text pointing out some of the interesting changes, we could at least take a more recent diff, where you actually see easily the changes and you don't have to fish through four paragraphs of text to see the point. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)