Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia/Archive 4

Does editor have COI?
At 20:12, 25 May 2018, User:Netoholic undid revision 842936880 by User:JzG, explaining in his edit summary "Rvt WP:COI - editor removing this item is mentioned by name within it." Seven minutes later User:Ronz undid revision 842951657 by Netoholic, explaining "per NOT, IAR - poor research is of little use out of context." I request discussion of this issue. In particular, I ask Ronz to demonstrate how WP:NOT (What Wikipedia is not) and WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules) apply here, and equally important, how he determined that Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017), constitutes poor research. KalHolmann (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the source of the study (paywalled, but reproduced here) and User:JzG is specifically identified and criticized by the author. This represents a very clear WP:COI and JzG should distance himself from this topic. I tried to address this with him personally, but he's now recently gone around and removed this study from several pages it was mentioned on. He also has opened Fringe_theories/Noticeboard and now Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Netoholic @  20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The supposed COI is the result of Brian Martin taking the time to write an attack on me for removing the promotional guff added to his article by a now checkuser-blocked sockpuppet. In the absence of any serious commentary on this incident in reliable independent sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia articles. And speaking of COI, you should not be adding material that attacks people with whom you are in dispute, into articles. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:JzG, your recent formal proposal to have me topic banned from any further mention of User:Philip Cross failed, with the reviewer finding "Reasonably strong opposition to enacting a TBAN on KalHolmann." If you know of some policy or guideline that now prevents me adding reliably sourced content about Philip Cross to appropriate Wikipedia articles—such as Press_coverage_2018—please advise. KalHolmann (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as long as it is from reliable independent secondary sources which are not clearly vested in the dispute. So we would exclude Galloway's website, RT, and Sputnik, and (because of the real-world threats in play) require heavyweight sources with a good reputation for fact-checking. The Times, say, or The Guardian, any of the broadsheets, the BBC or similar. If high quality sources cover it, we should too. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, Further reading sections are a main target of spammers and the like (covered in many sections of NOT, but I think WP:SOAP is especially relevant in this situation). Further reading sections have little or no contribution to the encyclopedic value of an article, hence IAR. Martin wrote the article with a clear conflict of interest, and it is a case study of the editing of a single Wikipedia article, the one for Martin. That's incredibly poor research.

Specifically, poor research is of little use out of context: Adding an individual study, and a very poor one at that, is almost never appropriate in a Further reading section because it has no context. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ronz the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review published the paper by Brian Martin. It should not be within the purview of individual Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not Martin's research is "poor." Unless you can cite a WP:RS to that effect, enforcing your unfounded opinion violates WP:NOR. KalHolmann (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I'd argue that the basis for our content policies, especially those policies that have changed over the history of Wikipedia that have dramatically improved the quality of Wikipedia's content, require us to evaluate sources.
 * But this isn't a source, so I'd say the burden is on those seeking inclusion to demonstrate encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Related AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia. This article has been mentioned there as highly-related, so if you're inclined, please comment. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Bias or US Bias?
We have a sub-section called Liberal bias. That's a bad title. "Liberal" means many different things around the world. In my country, Australia, the main conservative party is the Liberal Party. So, that title is perhaps a sign of the (American or conservative?) bias of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A Problem with a capital "P" (sentence case)
At the bottom of this page, "Reliability of Wikipedia", where people go to find out just how reliable we are (don't look at me), readers were invited to go to a series of articles from our projects. These pages have interesting names like, , , and.

When one of them grabs their interest they click, travel in time or space or however these pages get from somewhere to right-in-front-of-you, and when they get there they find incomplete, badly edited, woefully inadequate historical dioramas. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the mule they rode in on. Of all the articles for these links to be on. Luckily nobody gets down to the bottom of the page (except maybe readers and journalists who want to report on how professional, ah, I mean, reliable, Wikipedia is).

So I moved those links to the bottom four from - believe it or don't - the top four. I'd suggest that these historical pages be opened up again, good editors descend on them like ants, and make them sparkle. I'm not heading up this thing, I just happened to be on an italics run and came across them, like finding fool's gold where I expected the true gold vein to be. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading them some aren't as bad as I thought, although I think they all need work (and Credibility needs a back-hoe to the North 40). I was looking at them as if from the viewpoint of a serious researcher into the question. The main peer review page, which I've just added to the section, is interesting and informative, although it needs edits. I can see the gold appearing through the golddust, but am surprised that the information is so dated and new research into the question hasn't been added (maybe, if they aren't doing it now, the foundation can fund a few independent studies from universities, experts in their fields, etc. to add to the older data). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Credibility page link, an article which should maybe be deleted entirely. Seems to me to have too many problems to work on, if it is to be salvaged it would likely need a major if not full rewrite. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to links
Consider changing

"An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a Nottingham University Business School lecturer in Information Systems"

to

"An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a University of Nottingham Business School lecturer in Information Systems" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.207.81 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2018‎ (UTC)

Possibly balancing
While there is a lot of criticism about hoaxes, Wikipedia is also lately used by Google and Youtube for its ability and reputation to curb hoaxes (with Wikipedia's community's ability to quickly remove them being praised). Potential source: — Paleo Neonate  – 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * More related information: here. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And so likely a bit soon, but related news are expected...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More: — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparative studies
Some of the studies mentionned in the comparative studies section are not comparative (i.e., they don't evaluate wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias). MonsieurD (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"A 2012 study co-authored by Shane Greenstein examined a decade of Wikipedia articles on United States politics and found that the more contributors there were to a given article, the more neutral it tended to be" It should also be noted that results from that same study show that in almost all cases Wikipedia articles are initially left-leaning and become neutral after the acummulation of edits. 190.18.10.90 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

To the Gentleman @ 190.18.10.90|talk
My friend, we've got to get away from this simplistic, misleading and false left-right narrative. I urge you to stop using these words, including the words 'conservative' and 'liberal.' The problem is that our Constitution has been betrayed by billionaires, who control Western governments, and the means by which they do it have already been explained by Prof Lessig of Harvard and Prof Gilens of Princeton, among others. This has nothing to do with 'left or right.' It has to do with the corruption of our government officials, as shown in the recent Chatham University study showing that the greatest fear of Americans is corrupt American politicians. So when you find yourself saying 'left' or 'right,' bite your tongue. Remember that most people are good, and we will prevail. But we won't until we get money out of government and restructure our economy away from those whom Nobel Laureate Bod Dylan called the 'Masters of War.' Maybe reaching out to Holy Russia and the Middle Kingdom of China might be the best way, or indeed the only way of saving this human race of ours that the psychopaths in power seem determined to lead over the cliff like the lemmings they themselves are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.139.74.39 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation 25 broken
Citation 25 is broken. Right now it points to http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html. I visited https://s23.org/wikistats/ and clicked on a link that lead me to https://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php, which I believe is the same content as the original citation. The difference between the old and new is the ".php" at the end. I would edit this myself, but I am not autoconfirmed at this time. JRubsWell (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Loyalty Throughout Africa
Our nation is turned to something we didn't want. We can't demonstrate what's happening in our world. Our world has changed. Anyone of u wanna help but don't know how. Do what your heart tells you. You're you. Just don't compare yourself with others rather compare yourself With yourself. They wanna compete with you but they cannot. Stay true to yourself and always fear stronger than love. Precious tsoete (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense
I'm a 13 year veteran editor on here and can't believe how naive you all are. I have made numerous good faith edits over the last year that are 100% true but they have been removed and I've been threatened with a ban because of various reasons. But my housemate who is a deliberate vandal (as much as I ask him not to) can continue to ruin this project as you are too stubborn to make it a pre-requisite to register. Face it, this project we all love is shot and a joke :-( Cls14 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you give examples of some of these edits, both good edits that got removed, and bad edits that were not, please? -- The Anome (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Anything by unregistered users that are vandalism can be avoided. My friend is User:James Bowes and he is spamming constantly. In terms of unregistered users making rubbish edits, it's admitted 97% of nonsense is by unregistered users. Classic examples of where my edits that have been deleted with threat include those on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Leno. I merely stated that Dan Leno was represented in a film and the person who created the article said it wasn't notable even if I referenced it. Look at the Dan Leno talk page, I was bullied off it. Cls14 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

WCC 'hoax' hoax does not belong here
Per reason explained at Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp as well as at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions, this is not a good addition. In particular, concerns over WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING, and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland all suggest caution at the very least, and together make it a pretty bad idea to link to this in our article space.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be throwing around Wikipedia policies that have no relation to anything.
 * WP:UNDUE is a bogus argument — this is an article about hoaxes on Wikipedia, and hence the material is appropriate
 * WP:NOTNEWS is a bogus argument — the policy is about routine news events, this is not routine news
 * WP:OUTING is a bogus argument — the editor named himself on his user page
 * WP:BLP is a bogus argument — the editor is dead
 * It therefore makes no sense not to include this hoax in this article. Banana Republic (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Silly arguments by Piotrus who has a conflict of interest. The source thoroughly roasted edits by Piotrus. Reported to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.176.221.108.218 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should report yourself. Above comment likely by indef banned User:Icewhiz who co-authored this piece in which he harasses a number of editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not likely. Haaretz says that Icewhiz is Israeli, whereas IP 176.221.108.218 is in Poland. So unless Icewhiz is currently on vacation in Poland, your allegation is bogus. Banana Republic (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Pick up by outlets in several countries, comments by six RS - that's not WP:UNDUE nor WP:FRINGE. François Robere (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Picked up by several minor outlets. But on second thought I agree this article does discuss other hoaxes of similar notoriety. As long as we don't link to the article which outs editors/violates BLP/OUTING (Haaretz piece links directly to a hate site that contains antisemitic content, and death threats and outing information for several editors) or such but use a reliable mirror for the hoax part like and don't violate BLP etc. ourselves I think the mention of the incident can stay here. And yes, BLP does apply to dead people too, despite the name...  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely bogus arguments. WP:BLP does not apply to dead people. Only certain aspect apply for the recently deceased. The editor who created the hoax has been deceased for close to two years. WP:BLP hence does not apply. We really need to drop the WP:OUTING argument, since the editor self-outed. Banana Republic (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The report ain't of the highest quality but clearly deserves inclusion. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP clearly applies here as it is about possibly defamatory information added in relation with recently deceased. Further, this is WP:UNDUE, the name of that editor is not mentioned by rhe few other outlets that picked up that story, like Times of Israel and such. The hoax may merit a mention, but who added this information does not. It is worth pointing out that no other hoax described here mentions who added it, it is irrelevant and undue (and considering it slanders a deceased colleague of ours, also in bad taste). Finally, it is factually incorrect, as even his original version did not endorse it, it just presented it as one of the possibilities. It is worth noting that back then this was not widely disproved, relevant works that challenged Trzcinska's claims and described it as a fringe theory with errors etc. came out years later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not factually incorrect. The conspiracy theory was never accepted as mainstream, and was clearly refuted as early as 2003 by the IPN and at least one other scholar (I assume more - haven't looked for other sources). And no, the first revision didn't give Tr's theory as "one of the possibilities" but as fact, in Wikivoice. François Robere (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the IPN source that "clearly refuted it" in 2003? I can't find any source that criticized her theory until 2007. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * François Robere (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , outside a generic note that we cannot expect editors to speak all languages, and it is unreasonable to expect an average Pole, even if he speaks English, to be able to even find a German source. As for the Polish article, it doesn't debunk this theory, it states that no evidence have been found to corroborate it so far and that investigation is ongoing ("Dotychczasowe ustalenia śledztwa nie pozwalają na jednoznaczne potwierdzenie, że w KL Warschau zamordowano około 200 tysięcy ludzi... Kwestie te są przedmiotem dalszych dociekań w toku śledztwa."). It is clearly incorrect to say that an update that said 'no evidence found so far, investigation ongoing' is the same as concluded that 'this is false'. Said investigation AFAIK finished in 2007 and according to PL wiki then it said this, through it seems to be mostly in offline sources so I can't verify that, but I think it's AGF to say that the 2007 mainstream publications refuted her theory - but NOT the 2003 press release. We could perhaps say that the 2003 news release from IPN cast her theory in doubt, or found no corroborating evidence, but it was not debunked/invalidated until 2007 (see pl:Warschau_(KL) which does not mention 2003 at all). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Andreas Mix rejected 2003. IPN can't find anything. Trzcinska wasn't Columbus. She was a crazy lady. KZ Warschau known long before mad ravings of Trzcinska. Hundreds maybe thousands Jewish inmates survived the war. IPN cites Central Office of the State Justice Administrations for the Investigation of National Socialist Crimes estimate from 1973 of 1,500-6,000 prisoners. Das IPN in 2003 wrote it found discrepancies in number of victims, gas chambers existing, size of camp. KZ Warschau was known in 2004, known in 1994, known in 1984, known in 1974. Mad ravings should not be used. Newspapers covering this are clear on hoax.Gunter888 (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If only we had thought about the "average editor" when Icewhiz repeatedly raised WP:NOENG!
 * I don't care who the editor was, the fact is there were sources available.
 * As I wrote in one of the other thread, I read statements like "the findings do not confirm the death estimate, nor the existence of gas chambers, nor the suggested size of the camp" as as polite a rebuttal as can be (would you be more comfortable with "rebuttal" than with "refutation"?) - and this is after an 18 months investigation. Recall our standard isn't to include everything that wasn't completely and utterly refuted, but to include that which has has been accepted as reasonably plausible. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 starship .paint  (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this a version you are endorsing? I am not sure what purpose does it serve otherwise to post it here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - your ping did not work. Yes I endorsed that. I posted it here because I posted the edit of the text to be that. I meant to notify people of the current text at that point in time.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think we should mention the real name of the editor who added it, where no other incident here attributes neither the username or real name of the involved editors? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm fine with leaving it out. I'm okay with the current version in the article.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Piotrus: this article is not an RS (as I explained here (last comments)), and it appears to be the only publication to support the claim . My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Starship, version follows writing in newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter888 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
Change

A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005

to

A study in the journal Nature concluded that in 2005

82.14.227.91 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This changes the meaning of the sentence in a way that I don't believe is warranted. If another editor disagrees they are welcome to make a change or discuss as they feel appropriate. Marianna251TALK 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But surely drawing a conclusion is the purpose of any study, else why bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.227.91 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
The overwhelming bias within articles relating to America, sport and, especially both, also reflect in the Reliability of Wikipedia. Krzyzewskiville is a typical example, such an entry would not be noteworthy as a separate article from a lesser-known university in any other country. It only exists because of the direct link between the habitat of said university, the attitudes of its country's male inhabitants towards sport (which happens to be the real phenomenon here, not the 'grasp' used within this article to describe itself), and the stats concerning who edits this shit, both nationality and gender (84%-91% are male).

Another factor influencing the Reliability of Wikipedia rests within certain other stats. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, less than a fifth of editors stay longer than 100 edits. It's most prolific users are older, have the most user rights, essentially unchecked, and from direct experience, this number includes the 'petty-minded', the 'meanspirited', and, most disturbingly, the persistent 'bullies'. Mostly towards the new editors that occ<asionally "slip up", in essence, for not knowing as much about the site's archaic, heavily code biased implementation and rule sets, and the cold depths of its cliquish lifedraining inner sanctum.

Considering it is contributed towards by anyone with a viewpoint, no matter how extreme, it has become impossible to take anything written here at face value, especially articles concerning the U.S. in any way. Just imagine how the background/outcome/aftermath of such military conflicts as the American Revolutionary War, Tecumseh's War or the Sixty Years' War will fare in another 40-50 years if this bias continues unchecked.

82.14.227.91 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a chatroom. It is a Wikipedia Talk page. Therefore, your opinion above is not relevant here. If you had reliable sources for what you say - someone who is not a random person on the internet having said that - we could add it to the article, but it seems you have not. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Many thanks for making that incredibly relevant distinction. I think it is always wise to value the opinion of a far less random person on the internet than oneself. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(I am a random person on the internet with a computer and am no way an expert in any field) In the Encyclopedia Britannica when I grew up, it told stories of how the American Indians and the settlers were great friends, taking care of each other. That theme was duplicated in the textbooks of our nation's schools. We now know that this "fact" is only partially true and that there are many instances that have come to light that the Indians and the settlers slaughtered each other by the thousands. This is just one example of how encyclopedias are changed over time. They are written and maintained by people. People are easily influenced by current thinking and (especially) religious beliefs. History books have been rewritten, not because history changed, but because new information has come to light. Wikipedia should not be held to a higher standard. However, I do feel that a person should be able to contact the foundation to correct “facts” as they have supporting documentation. Tinner2002 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not get it.
 * There is nothing wrong with you saying all that.
 * But there is something wrong with you saying it on this page.
 * This page is for concrete suggestions on how to improve the article Reliability of Wikipedia.
 * Your preaching is not what this page is for. It is as if you wrote it with paint on somebody else's wall: you may think that is what his wall is for, but it is not.
 * Now please go away and do this somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias (Chronological, for Reference sources)
Not covered in the article is chronological citation bias (this includes citations, references, quotations, etc.). This is an issue that exists across all of Wikipedia, and therefore worth mentioning on this 'Talk Page'.

In this context, 'chronological' should be understood to refer to the recent-ness* of whatever source the article's writer/editor considers citation-worthy.

While it is acknowledged that "new thinking" can legitimately supersede "old thinking" (e.g. Topic: Feathered Dinosaurs) it is highly unlikely that literally *all* historically "old" thinking, by definition, is incorrect and not worthy of citation (e.g. Topic: Mathematics).

Chronological reference bias is best demonstrated in Wikipedia articles where the article's topic happens to have been the subject of a substantial critical academic corpus prior to the popularisation of the internet.

A salient example is Shakespeare (Author). Critical analysis of Shakespeare spans, literally, centuries. The "Shakespeare Industry" (in academia) and the associated topic of "Bardolatry" testifies to this, since at least the time of Voltaire.

And yet the Wikipedia page on Shakespeare contains (as of FEB-2020) some 280 references of which more than 50% are cited as 21st-Century sources.

Wikipedia's chronological citation "bubble" exists widely elsewhere on the site and Shakespeare is chosen here merely as an easily-testable example, with a well-known background of secondary opinions. A "Bubble Test" can no doubt be constructed to demonstrate this, throughout the site.

[*] As a corollary, Wikipedia appears to feature a preponderance of citations that are hyperlink-able (i.e. they are already online). Online journal articles, web news stories, web sites, etc. are more easily verified (and cited) than those that are not. Many reputable academic journal articles are still either offline or are pay-walled. And copyright-protected and still-in-print academic text books, are by definition, less linkable. Thus, in defence of those Wikipedia editors who choose to cite recent works in preference to older works, it it likely that for reasons of practical purpose (rather than conscious bias), recentness and hyperlinkability are simply bedfellows.

Given this is a 'talk page', I should doubtless cite an action required. Other than updating the article on Wikipedia's Reliabilty, I here propose nothing more.

However, if you (the reader of my text), ever edit or write a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum prior to the internet – maybe try to include some of the original thought.

We are already "standing on the shoulders of giants" (Newton, et al.). Where appropriate, try to give the Giants slightly more citations; and the 'Shoulders' slightly less so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.109.25 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia bias" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia bias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger and Wikipedia bias
Larry Sanger wrote on wiki bias here (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Worthwhile adding this link to further reading or external links?? --1.152.111.77 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that's a very convincing article. OTOH, any notion that WP should be considered as "reliable" is misplaced. One should only "rely" on WP to the extent that one would rely on what you heard from a "friend of a friend".  You might be able to decide that the chance that somebody is intentionally hoaxing you is low enough that you can trust it for your personal purposes, but if you're passing this information on for others to use, you need to actually verify it first. This seems to be a blind spot in this article.  =Fabrickator (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Regional bias
This article and its linked study have some really good data on geographic bias in Wikipedia:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/15/wikipedia-view-of-the-world-is-still-written-by-the-west

I did not find any references to that study/article, or any equivalent documentation of the bias it describes, while skimming this article.

Fixing that bias across all of Wikipedia would be hard, but it could theoretically be mitigated a lot just by including data about it somewhere on Wikipedia itself.

I'm going to mention this on the talk pages for Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia too.

69.172.176.96 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems Biased in favour of Wikipedia after the first paragraph
This article would benefit from more discussion of paid editing scandals, and a heavier focus systemic bias and restricted demographics. The latter exacerbated by the prediliction of a small number of editors for removing and restricting others. What are the consequences of ever decreasing circles in allowable edits, and who best to go to when you wish to assess this impact? 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:5070:E740:6327:CE12 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov
It was deleted in Russian Wikipedia (instead we have ru:Миф о Джебраилове = The myth of Jebrailov). Descriptions of the heroic deeds differ from each other so much that it is impossible to write a single story based on them. This is the result of state propaganda, I think. I think also it can be added here with a short description. ·Carn· !? 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Mineralogy
Reliability of Wiki would be greater if some sciences wouldn't be underestimated by some "Wiki masters" who "know better" than true specialists in their disciplines. This is a very case of mineralogical data and Wiki sites. I've tried to correct numerous errors in such data, which were completely misunderstood exactly due to underestimation of mineralogy by a/some chemists (or "chemists"). I assume Wiki is constituted to rather omit and crush such mind blockaced ad narrow-minded way of thinking. Unfortunately, I've encountered numerous cases where ego (even though I clearly confirm my state and sources of mineralogical knowledge at my Wiki site) won over truth. As a result, numerous errors and antediluvian, wrong nomenclature is still in Wiki. As such, it is and will be repeated and copied into other sources of, wrong, information - as soon as some Wiki rules are not changed.Eudialytos (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) I have also noticed this as an issue with the accessibility of wikipedians as a community. Wikipedia, while an encyclopedia, undermines active and open participation by expecting every scientist or expert who was trained in technical writing to also possess a degree in composition. It leads to certain topics being gatekept by individuals in a field or incredibly terse incomprehensible jargon that's been syntaxed correctly. It is not uncommon for my fellow mathematicians to be frustrated at best with the presentation on this website. For example, the topic of Magmas doesn't come up in most basic abstract algebra courses as a mathematical structure and most texts I've come across operate off the closure axiom. So whoever chose to be in charge of abstract algebra has saw fit to define all of abstract algebra with Magmas in mind and the definition of the totality axiom as opposed to the closure axiom. This is not an incorrect way to go about things, however, one can see how reading the page on Abstract Algebra first would make most entry level courses and texts from the past 100 years in Abstract Algebra incredibly confusing if you read a post-graduate proof of a different but equivalent axiom first. In short I feel this ego issue combined with moving forward without experts who aren't experts in english has made Wikipedia not a good source of generalized accesible information despite being an encyclopedia, and I really feel some of these pages need to be scrapped into Wikibooks and rewritten with the layman who knows basic algebra and calculus in mind. Most working scientists have access to paper databases, so every technical topic on wikipedia being written like a citable academic paper instead of relatively accessible to the layman when scientists don't cite wikipedia often seems like egotistical hope as opposed to genuinely "Editing the article to sound more rigorous solely to help people understand and not to show off one's intellect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.195.140 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New article: Wikipedia and fact-checking
I just created this new article. I presented the fact-checking article as a subsection of this reliability article.
 * Wikipedia and fact-checking
 * special:diff/998967369/1002133079

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
Could I gain access to change the part that states about how you guys are not a reliable source. 237663 years (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You must make a specific edit request here so others can make the edit. However, we cannot change it to say that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Read WP:UGC. Sundayclose (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-promotion?
So, if I add a source to an article on WP that is a company or individual promoting themselves, it will get removed immediately. But this article, where WP is shamelessly self-promoting itself, is perfectly acceptable? How can those two principles exist on the same site? Apeholder (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In what ways are this article self promotion?
 * If you find any claims in this article that are not supported by evidence that seems to be the best generally available, you are openly encouraged by Wikipedia's rules to change this article, subject to the standard Wikipedia rules of writing from a neutral point of view citing credible sources.
 * Are you saying that you tried that, and someone reverted what you wrote, because they didn't like it, not because it wasn't accurate and not because it wasn't supported by a credible source?
 * Wikipedia is not perfect. Biased editors do sometimes gang up to drive away honest edits of articles.  If you have evidence that you've experienced that here, please start a discussion of that on this talk page -- after reviewing the archived history.


 * Are you saying that errors are NOT deliberately entered into Wikipedia, as with the "Brazilian Aardvark" example?
 * Are you saying that errors generally stay much longer than described herein?
 * Are you saying that Wikipedia articles generally, especially those with high traffic, do NOT compare favorable with review articles in refereed academic journals?
 * Are you saying that people with very different perspectives do NOT collaborate here to develop descriptions on controversial topics that all sides can more or less live with, while most other sources wind up being echo chambers for one perspective, e.g., as documented in ?


 * Are you saying that most other sources are vastly superior?
 * I honestly have the opposite perspective. I've been generally impressed by the quality of the discussion here, including the open discussion of its weaknesses as well as its strengths.  I'm come here repeatedly to check, e.g., the details of the comments based on  and.
 * I fact, I just added this to my "Watch list", because it seemed to me that the discussion of this last article on "polarized crowds" is not now as accurate a reflection of that article as I remember it. I could be wrong.  I will need to reread that article to see precisely what it says and compare it with what I've said about it elsewhere.


 * I've heard Conservatives claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias; see, e.g., Conservapedia.
 * I was raised on a farm in arch right-wing America. However, after listening to people with different perspectives, I turned off the mainstream media, because they seemed to be echo chambers for the establishment, and clandestinely suppressed contrary evidence.  I became a compulsive fact checker, looking for sources that contradicted my preconceptions.  My views began to change to match the weight of the evidence I've been able to find.
 * Wikipedia seems to me to be the best source I know of on many topis.
 * Other publications do not permit Wikipedia as a primary reference with good reason. I come here.  I read what Wikipedia says.  I cite its sources for what I write with secondary references to the relevant Wikipedia articles, because those will change with the accumulation of available evidence.
 * Please modify this and any other Wikipedia article according to Wikipedia standards but please provide more specifics if you claim that this article is self-promotion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-references
Could you explain: "alleged 'self-references' are to different articles, i.e., NOT self-references", please? The two links I previously removed and which you reverted were  and. These two pages aren't articles, they are project pages, and they are definitely self-references, as they link from the article namespace to the project namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification.
 * Might it be feasible to add a section to the current article briefly describing "WikiProject Wikipedia" and / or "WikiProject Wikipedia reliability" and how they have contributed to improving the reliability of Wikipedia?
 * In studying your response above, I noted that "WikiProject Wikipedia" is cited in this Talk page, and "WikiProject Wikipedia reliability" is cited in a "Wikipedia project pages" at the end of this article AFTER the 272 References, "Further reading" and "External links" sections; I hadn't noticed them before.
 * I know relatively little about WikiProjects in general and nothing other than the titles of "WikiProject Wikipedia" and "WikiProject Wikipedia reliability". Their titles suggest they are worthwhile, and their existence and accomplishments to date would seem to be relevant to the current article.
 * However, I have too many other commitments to even consider researching and writing such a section.
 * Permit me to add that I'm not a complete novice with the Wikimedia Foundation. I attended 5 Wikimedia Foundation Conferences in the previous 4 years, and I do not recall having seen a session at any of those conferences discussing WikProjects.  I've logged over 16,000 edits to Wikimedia Foundation projects since 2010-03-26.  I've made multiple attempts to enlist the support of someone in Wikiproject Law to improve the standards for documenting court cases in Wikidata;  I do not recall having received one reply.
 * Thanks for your efforts to improve the quality of Wikipedia and to educate me in particular. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the reply. It might be possible if reliable sources for that information may be found and cited. --Bsherr (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

New records in hoax length
This article Jang Ju-won is up for deletion, and it is suggested it may be a hoax. It has lasted 16 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021
The grammar and word structure is wrong 125.209.131.57 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Edit requests are not supposed to be criticisms of the article. --Ferien (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of non-English editions of Wikipedia
Is this article only about the reliability of the English Wikipedia?

Some other language editions of Wikipedia have been found to be less reliable than the English Wikipedia, but this article doesn't mention them. Jarble (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Liberal bias" section
Makes a vague wave to "critics" which, looking at the sources, are actually Larry Sanger and Andrew Schlafly. Where is the independent coverage that explains how this negatively affects the reliability of Wikipedia? This is not criticism of Wikipedia or ideology of Wikipedia. Larry saying that we're not neutral because we don't give fringe theories a false balance isn't an argument that Wikipedia is unreliable. Schlafly saying that Wikipedia is biased because we side with science over fundamentalism is not sufficient to make a claim about Wikipedia's reliability (unless contextualized in terms of resilience, I guess?). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Our Criteria for evaluating reliability includes Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias, so it's within the scope of the article. Terjen (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So what separates the role of bias in this article from bias in ideological bias on Wikipedia and criticism of Wikipedia. Seems to me it should bias insofar as it affects the reliability of Wikipedia. As in, someone has changed an article so as to be unreliable due to [editorial] bias, or certain articles are poorly developed and more likely to be wrong due to [systemic] bias. In neither case does it mean that any time someone says Wikipedia is biased, that it affects reliability -- certainly not in the negative way that's implied here. As says: yes, we are biased. Not liking that bias is why conspiracy theorists, pushers of fringe theories, anti-vaxers, flat earthers, young earth creationists, etc. call us biased.
 * In short, if bias is going to be part of this article, we need reliable sources explaining not just that someone said it's biased, but how that affects reliability. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, an effort to improve the coverage of civil rights movement-related topics seems to be included as another reason why Wikipedia is unreliable due to bias. ...And the Black Lives Matter project was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was "non-neutral advocacy." (!!) Someone nominated a page on Meta (not Wikipedia) for deletion, was overwhelmingly shut down, yet someone has included that in this article as evidence about Wikipedia's neutrality. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why liberal bias merits its own subsection in the article, when racial bias and gender bias, while mentioned in the lede, do not. It seems that the "Liberal bias" section should be removed, or new "Racial bias" and "Gender bias" sections should be added (perhaps along with sections for spin bias, corporate bias, and national bias, also mentioned in the lede). Mojoworker (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a fine point, too. It seems like people are adding the same "criticism" to many articles regardless of redundancy or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I think it certainly makes sense to link to the articles we have dedicated to the subjects of those various biases here, but unless we have reliable sources making clear claims about the impact on reliability/accuracy (stronger than just "person X says they're biased"), they're more appropriate to cover in depth elsewhere (in their dedicated articles and summarized in criticism of Wikipedia). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it appears that there once were Gender bias and American and corporate bias sections added at the same time as the Liberal bias section, but subsequently removed. Mojoworker (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia U
What do you know about the book, whose citation you removed from this article:



The title alone seems to make it relevant to me. My brief review of what I found about it on the Internet seems to confirm my belief that it is relevant. I'm restoring it, with a more complete citation to replace the incomplete one you deleted.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am always skeptical of "further reading" entries as they are often just there to advertise someone's book. This book is 7 years old and behind a paywall. The title doesn't strike me as highly relevant, neither does the content from those few pages that I can access for free with the preview function. It looks to be highly academic. If it's such a relevant book then it should be cited through inline citations. My suspicion is that the book author or a friend added it to "further reading" a while ago to achieve more sales. Which parts of the book do you regard as so relevant that it needs to be singled out in this way and given such a high prominence? EMsmile (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021
May I change Nancy O'Neill to Nancy O'Neil. In this scenario, the last name has one 'l' not two. EmmaleeN30 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per source, Nancy O’Neill, principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System, says ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BRD trivia
Just in case anyone feels like wasting time discussing this on yet another talk page: I agree with VM that fthis is irrelevant, undue trivia. And as discussed earlier, this story empowers an indefinetly banned harasser, so per DFTT the fewer places it is in, the better. There are dozens of other examples found at List of hoaxes that could be used here instead - and frankly, very few if any should be, since trying to discus reliability using such random examples is quite ORish. This page should be based on academic sources, not trivial news. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Volunteer Marek  19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) You never edited this article before you popped out of nowhere to revert my edit . That suggests you're stalking my edits. Please stop.
 * 2) You keep making false accusations against other editors which have been repeatedly debunked. I know I've posted, said, pointed out this a million times already but let me do it again. Here is the actual WP:COI policy. Read it. Nobody here has an "external relationship" with the subject. Nobody is being paid, works for, is in a relationship with or has any outside connection to this issue. The only connection is that, as you well know, this whole non-issue, faux-hoax, was originated by a now indef banned user as a means of harassing his WIki opponents, and then, for some reason, even after this guy was banned, his on wiki-friends tried to "protect his legacy" by spamming this info into numerous places. There is no COI, and if there is, it's whatever connection these editors have to Icewhiz. Please stop making false attacks on other editors in your edit summaries and false accusations which are unsubstantiated by either facts or policy. This has reached a point where your intransigence has gone way past normal disagreement and into harassment and griefing of other editors.
 * 3) The text itself is UNDUE. Only reason here is because of Wikpedia conflicts between Icewhiz's faction and those he targeted. It is not in any way significant in the big scheme of things.
 * 4) On that note, the text in this particular instance is EVEN WORSE presentation of this issue than in other places where you guys spammed it. It says "Media sources dubbed it...". NO. There was a single source basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz, and then reprinted in several places, more or less as is. That's not "media sources". That's "one editorial based on stuff a guy who was harassing others said".
 * 5) You've violated 3RR (no one else has) and yet you're the one who is accusing others of "edit warring"? How does that work? Again, like with the other points here, you seem to have it backwards.
 * 6) You follow all that up with threats of ArbCom. Really? You think that ArbCom doesn't have better things to do than look at the editors who are still essentially meat puppeting for Icewhiz?
 * 7) Oh and of course you urge others to "discuss"... right after you threaten them with ArbCom. Do you honestly believe that threatening ArbCom is a way to bring about a fruitful discussion? Doubtful. Just like your "it's longstanding" rationale, this "let's discuss" thing just appears to be a stalling/obfuscating tactic. In light of your threats and personal attacks it's difficult to believe that you are actually interested in a meaningful discussion.
 * 8) In light of above it's hard to avoid the impression that your "Happy Thanksgiving" after your tirade of personal attacks just seems like sprinkling some passive-aggressive "ha ha I reverted you and threatened you with ArbCom so you won't revert me back"
 * 9) Start an RfC if you must (sight).
 * 1) Start an RfC if you must (sight).


 * I think a topic ban from everything relating to the Haaretz article cocnerned is due for these 2 users and GizzyCatBella as well or which ever their name was. In fact, this would be a pretty efficient means to enforce the non-negotiable WP:COI rules, I'd guess.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek
 * You’re in violation of the 500/30 restriction. Ever since your recent arrival on Wikipedia you’ve been following certain users and acting disruptive. And now you jump in to edit war and amplify drama. WP:DUCK.  Volunteer Marek   19:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have >500 edits. Also, some decent article work, too. Unlike some others, who name themselves "regulars" for some reason.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol.  Volunteer Marek   19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring over this particular article, potentially adds to the claims that Wikipedia is un-reliable as a source of information. It's like arguing with each other, over whether or not we argue with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The text is longstanding and relevant. Veracity and misinformation on Wikipedia is clearly covered within this article, which the text refers to. That said, editors are free to gain a new consensus to remove it, may I suggest, from an RFC.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t matter whether it’s “longstanding” and whether it’s relevant is debatable. Did it have widespread coverage in sources? No. There was ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor, and a couple sources which reprinted it. That’s not enough coverage to include here. Moreover, the text misrepresents the one source that it relies on. There’s no “media sources reported” in there.  Volunteer Marek   08:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint Can you start RFC, please? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - I was about to say no, but you were polite.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw, here’s the irony of the situation. People are justifying their reverts by saying that this is “longstanding” material, yet the story that’s being added is how an error remained in Wikipedia for long time and no one removed it because it was… “longstanding”.  Volunteer Marek  08:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor", "basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz" - Volunteer Marek is now making allegations not only against (mostly anonymous) fellow editors, but a real life person: Omer Benjakob, the author of this article in Haaretz. The story of which got repeated by many other mainstream sources of various countries. This comes close to the WP:BLP territory. Or does he have reliable sources proving his allegations against Benjakob's integrity? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats enough Miacek. Go start your next sock puppet account.  Volunteer Marek   09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure all your opponents must be either Icewhiz, Miacek or both. The last bunch of edits from this particular banned account don't even show any particular similarity with my editing style.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek
 * Right, because, as you well know, Miacek was indef topic banned from anything related to Poland before he was indef banned from Wikipedia completely. I know YOU think you’ve been sneaky but it’s obvious as hell who you are . Just give it up man. It’s ridiculous. Good luck with your next sock puppet.  Volunteer Marek   10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (I mean, ffs, if you were a new account you wouldn’t know who Miacek is and wouldn’t make sarcastic comments like “VM thinks all his opponents are Icewhiz or Miacek”. Jesus, at least put some effort into hiding the sock puppetry)  Volunteer Marek   10:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I thought it was you who first mentioned the username "Miacek" and even graciously provided a link to his editing history. It would be a bit odd for anyone accused of sock puppetry to not even take a cursory look as to whose sock he is said to be. Besides that, your team's tactics of labelling each and every "new" user account not to your liking of being either Icewhiz or connected with him is notorious, are you gonna say my awareness of this basic fact is indicative of some evil? So could you now finally answer my question: do YOU have reliable sources proving your allegations against Benjakob's integrity?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek
 * Not gonna play your games Miacek. Go get going on that new sock puppet account.  Volunteer Marek   18:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, you either initiate an IP scan for checkusers or whatever it is or you stop these accusations complertely and finally, OK? Stop pestering me with these "sock" accusations. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek
 * Irony doesn't apply unless this story is a hoax too, but what I'm seeing is WP:UNDUE arguments.

 starship .paint  (exalt) 09:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Section reads like an opinion but presented as a fact. Not attributed to a person
The following portion “ What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) but rather begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.”

Reads like a quote or opinion from someone but is presented like a fact. According to whom? HusseinT2000 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)