Wikipedia certainly isn't infallible, and on some topics reading the talk page or comparing how the article reads in other languages can broaden your understanding or completely change it.

But if that disqualifies Wikipedia as a "trusted source", which sources deserve that distinction?

Could you elaborate? I do see the issue about reliability, but I don’t see how this study is related? They added a random selection of cases and provided summaries without intentional bias. Except for a complete set, this is always the case for every database of cases.

Wikipedia has a very clear pro-science and pro-reality bias, and that's a good thing. You would not want news like OAN to be cited on their.

The problem is that the news sources that Wp trusts have gone completely bananas over the past decade.

Citation, please.

IIRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status as it adopted a news tabloid format. Further, they no longer have fact checkers and do not print corrections. Surely that's a disqualification right there.

Though I don't see that specific criteria listed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines

FWIW, here's Wikipedia's roundup of sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

If a news source loses reliability and wiki no longer uses it, how does that support the claim that wiki sources are bad?

Just ask anyone over 40...

I wish those people over 40 hadn't put a US government in place that abolished the fairness doctrine. Then our news sources would probably not be so bananas.

> IRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status

Precisely, it lost its trusted status, but the GP posts that WP trusts publications that have gone bananas. So your example speaks in favor of Wikipedia's reliability.

That is not a citation. It's an appeal to generational bias, and fails miserably.

Please provide an appropriate citation.

You clearly don't edit much of Wikipedia if you think that. Their bias actually toward things that are in the news.

And since the news of today is only interested in the most extreme, that's the facts you'll find on Wikipedia.

Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.

And that bias is much worse than any other, you'll find a ton of information on matters that attract obsessive personalities, and much less on more normal subjects.

> Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.

This reads like something coming from the obsessive side.

I don't have patience to do any of that, and I'm mostly just gave up on editing Wikipedia.

Every once in awhile I go to try to edit something and I'm reminded again how time-consuming it is.

Depends if it's true though, right? Let's not dismiss everything because culture wars.

If it's true there's probably a less controversial source that reported on it. If a controversial source is the only place to report on something, it's probably not true.

And the 'non-controversial' sources post only truth then?

This is really un-critical logic being applied to news consumption.