User:Daltonsatom

Wikipedia is Unreliable
"We're aware that you should not trust Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so that is absolutely correct to do. I'm sorry that you didn't have a good experience. Accounts cannot be deleted for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you intend to never return, you can request a courtesy vanishing which randomizes your account name. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)"Daltonsatom (talk)

Wikimedia trustee Dariusz Jemielniak says:

Tiring out one's opponent is a common strategy among experienced Wikipedians ... I have resorted to it many times.

- Postril, Virginia (November 17, 2014). "Who Killed Wikipedia?". Pacific Standard. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 31, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20190825073705/https://psmag.com/social-justice/killed-wikipedia-93777

how-i-used-lies-about-a-cartoon-to-prove-history-is-meaningless-on-the-internet
How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160527135026/https://geek.com/news/how-i-used-lies-about-a-cartoon-to-prove-history-is-meaningless-on-the-internet-1656188/

Flaws of WP:RS (Reliable Sources)
As requested, an inventory of the flaws in the (Wikipedia's WP:RS) page. I hope you will see that the flaws are deeply rooted, affecting the organization and goal of the page. Not only is this an inadequate guideline for sourcing, it is an inadequate foundation for a guideline. David is correct – this needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

There are three basic flaws of WP:RS page, and they'll recur throughout the below.

The page arbitrarily attempts to rule out subjective judgment in some cases while mandating it in others. The cases where it mandates it are often masked as didactic guidelines that depend on phrases like "reliable X," "common Y," or a mushy definition of fact.

These phrases could be defined in the same way that "reliable source" has been, but such definitions would necessarily run into the same problems of subjectivity. It's turtles all the way down.

The page is, at numerous points, clearly written for a narrow range of topics. When applied to other topics, it ranges from the merely unhelpful to the completely wrong. Sections flatly contradict each other.

Because a Magazine/E-Zine is Considered a Reliable Source by Wikipedia
Information known to be wrong in a "reliable source" is often still used by editors because they want to.

Information is often reinterpreted wrong when transposed from a reliable source into a Wikipedia article

Wikipedia is not very accurate
Rector, L. H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7–22. "The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia’s accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources."

Bait and Switch?
So why doesn't Wikipedia put a big header at the top of each Wikipedia article warning readers that they may be reading erroneous information from the sources people are citing, such as modern magazine articles, where the writer made numerous errors even though the magazine itself is considered reliable? I have seen such cases and the editor I questioned robotically replied that we must use the secondary source even if it is incorrect rather than the primary source which is an official document. They say reporting truth even if the secondary source is wrong is the antithesis of Wikipedia since Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. They don't have to use it if it seems to have wrong information but they do anyway, apparently because they want to, which kind of seems like trolling. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, yet it admits it is not a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. When people think of normal encyclopedias like Britannica or World Book, they assume it is an authoritative source that has been vetted for errors, not something with an 80/20 or 50/50 chance of being right. I have been in situations where I quoted the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language to someone to support an argument and they quoted Wikipedia having a different answer and thought it was better. Again, why isn't there a big warning on the Wikipedia article pages? I was on Wikipedia for a year and a half before I figure out how much misinformation an article written by experienced editors and vetted by an experienced administrator could have. It seems very intellectually dishonest to keep that page I linked above burrowed away and something of a bait and switch to most people. And I have learned this is partially explained, but still not fully, in a page you get to from a link at the very bottom of an article's page in five point text that says "Disclaimers."

The Disclaimer: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY (In fact your chances are about 80%)

Daltonsatom (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest claims by Experienced Editors and Administrators not backed by Off-Wiki proof can be considered personal attacks
Where there is no obvious off-wiki financial, professional, or marketing benefit to the editor or someone close to them (examples) it is usually better to avoid introducing conflict of interest and focus instead on the actual violations of policy (indeed this can be good advice even when there is a conflict of interest). Many editors consider such accusations to be a personal attack and may respond aggressively where they may have otherwise remained calm.

An interest is not a conflict of interest

Talk Page Guidelines Ignored by Administrators
1. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

2. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

3. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are: Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.

However, when I deleted a long monologue full of unproven accusations against a living person in the talk pages, I was told by administrators that since it was on the talk page few people would probably see it, so it was acceptable, and that deleting it made me look like I had a conflict of interest regarding the living person rather than the truth, which is that I was enforcing points (1), (2) and (3) from the Talk Page Guidelines.

It would appear that, rather than trying to help enforce guidelines, administrators make them up as they go along to suit their whims, which is this case is paranoia over corporate interference vs the reality of trolls pushing a negative POV.

General Observation
Wikipedia Expert Editors behavior is: Rules are to control what others do, not what we do.