Re:Wikipedia is 20
by Acrobatic_Road on Sunday January 10, 2021 @01:22AM
(#25711338)
I don't think its hard to believe. Trust in media is at record lows. Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says via its policy of using "reliable secondary sources", then wouldn't it follow that trust in Wikipedia would follow?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> Since Wikipedia just repeats what the mainstream media says
Citation needed.
Re:Wikipedia is 20
by Acrobatic_Road on Sunday January 10, 2021 @01:44AM
(#25711537)
I mean, anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you. If you restrict your sources to ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT and friends, your article is going to read like a mainstream media story. And as the media gets more and more hysterical that starts to reflect on the quality of their articles.
> anyone who has ever edited wikipedia can tell you
Citation needed. Come on. You're retorting request for data on an anecdote with "other people also have anecdotes"
Re:Wikipedia is 20
by Acrobatic_Road on Sunday January 10, 2021 @02:20AM
(#25711869)
Okay okay. If you want to know how wikipedia feels about different news sources, they have a very nice article about it. It's even color coded. Green is considered reliable. Red is considered unreliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
So for instance, Wikipedia is seriously lacking in its cryptocurrency articles because you can't use coindesk or coin telegraph, even though they provide better coverage than CNBC and Bloomberg.