Wikipedia talk:Objective sources

Comments
Good, common sense essay. I try to follow these guidelines myself. For instance, if I see something sourced to MediaMatters or WorldNetDaily that actually refers to something that was originally published by AP or CNN, I will find the original source, and change the citation to point to it directly. That gets the reader directly to the reliable source, without having to wade through the spin that is usually applied to that source on the less objective sites. - Crockspot 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Crockspot's comments above, and think this is a great topic for an essay. I know I've encountered more than one occasion when a discussion closely resembled the example given within the essay. It's usually related to the use of a source such as John Stewart or Colbert, whose reports may or may not contain 100% truth, but are certainly meant to be comedic. While the facts may well be presented accurately, a CNN article that contains the same facts is more reputable and/or reliable for building encyclopedic articles on major political figures. This essay is very relevant. - auburn pilot   talk  01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. I am particularly troubled by articles dominated by references from one source which fall into the area of questionable resources as it gives the general impression that wikipedia is biased.  I think this could help with the overall view of wikipedia as a valuable resource.  Arzel 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)