Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://hachyderm.io/users/molly0xfff/statuses/113761370310888616">Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:32:37 JST</a><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff" title="molly0xfff@hachyderm.io"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/34789-48-20230824095227.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Molly White" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Molly White</a><div><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761360352985289" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>The right’s frequent claims that right-leaning sources and viewpoints are “banned” on Wikipedia are also either misguided or intentionally deceptive.</p><p><a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/Wikipedia" rel="tag">#Wikipedia</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/ElonMusk" rel="tag">#ElonMusk</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpolitics" rel="tag">#USpolitics</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpol" rel="tag">#USpol</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4303146#notice-8412220">In conversation</a><time datetime="2025-01-03T08:32:37+09:00" title="Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:32:37 JST">about a month ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761370310888616" rel="external" title="Sent from hachyderm.io via ActivityPub">hachyderm.io</a></span></span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761370310888616">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831486">Source reliability
A common complaint from Larry Sanger and others on the right has been Wikipedia's supposed “banning” of right-leaning sources. The reality is more complex: Wikipedia’s source reliability guidelines focus on accuracy and editorial practices, not political alignment. For instance, when the Daily Mail was deprecated as a source in 2017, it wasn’t because of its right-wing stance, but because of documented cases where it published false stories without correction, fabricated quotes, and manipulated images.30 Meanwhile, right-leaning publications with stronger fact-checking practices, like The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph, remain widely used across Wikipedia.These nuances often get lost in politically-charged discussions about Wikipedia source reliability. Take the case of Fox News: while its opinion programming is generally considered unreliable due to numerous documented falsehoods, its straight news reporting is often deemed acceptable for topics outside of politics and science. Similarly, while the New York Post is considered unreliable for political coverage due to its tabloid approach and history of fabrications, it’s still sometimes used for entertainment coverage.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/362/879/258/436/original/e4001b7c99b6b6fd.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/362/879/258/436/original/e4001b7c99b6b6fd.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831487">To reduce repetitive conversations about commonly cited sources, Wikipedia maintains a list of “perennial sources” — publications that are frequently used, and whose reliability is a recurring topic of time-consuming discussions about source usability.g The list segments publications from “generally reliable in its areas of expertise” to “generally unreliable” (use is normally not acceptable) or, more rarely, “deprecated” (use is rarely acceptable). However, source reliability is still taken case-by-case on Wikipedia, depending heavily on not just the publisher and its editorial practices, but also the statements a citation is intended to support, and the specifics of the article being cited. There are articles published in “generally reliable” publications that shouldn’t be used as sources on Wikipedia, and there are articles published in “generally unreliable” or even “deprecated” publications that are reasonably used as sources.This controversial page documenting the general view of reliability for some popular publications is anything but the canonical list of “approved” or “banned” sources many of its critics claim it to be. Whether a source is usable on Wikipedia is a case-by-case decision, as the page itself makes clear:What this page is a list of sources whose suitability for most/general purposes has been discussed repeatedly What this page is not a list of pre-approved sources that can be always used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing a list of ba</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/364/104/376/516/original/520d0ff03bf0d01e.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/364/104/376/516/original/520d0ff03bf0d01e.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831488">There also tends to be a common misconception, or perhaps deception, that only right-leaning sources are labeled unreliable, and only left-leaning sources reliable. While there are more unreliable sources on the list that lean far to the right than to the left, this is a product of the “post-truth” willingness on the right to publish falsehoods that are anywhere from reckless to intentionally fabricated. Organizations like One America News Network, Newsmax, and Project Veritas — all of which have repeatedly published false claims — have made their way onto the list thanks to this predilection. This is not an exclusively right-wing phenomenon — I myself found myself embroiled in long discussions several years ago about whether a very liberal website should be described as “fake news” on Wikipedia (and it is, as of writing) — but it’s far more common on the right.A mere glance at the perennial sources list is enough to disprove the suggestion that it slices cleanly along right/left lines. Left-wing publications like CounterPunch, the Daily Kos, and Occupy Democrats are in the “unreliable” list. Both right-leaning publications like National Review and Washington Examiner and the left-leaning Media Matters for America, Rolling Stone, and ThinkProgress are labeled “partisan sources”. And right-leaning outlets like The Telegraph, The Hill, Reason, and the Wall Street Journal have earned spots in the “generally reliable” section.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/367/870/679/866/original/4d4a02efe7785f53.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/367/870/679/866/original/4d4a02efe7785f53.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831489">Claims that Wikipedia systematically excludes right-wing viewpoints also ignore how differing viewpoints are handled on the project. When covering controversial topics, Wikipedia editors are expected to describe significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources — even when those viewpoints are outside the mainstream. For example, Wikipedia's article on climate change includes skeptical positions, but cites them primarily through scientific publications and other reliable coverage rather than through fringe publications or those with poor reputations for fact-checking and scientific rigor. Similarly, articles about electoral fraud claims cite Trump supporters’ perspectives, but through court filings and reliable reporting rather than through sources that have repeatedly published debunked claims. Scratch the surface, and complaints that Wikipedia does not describe these viewpoints at all are often revealed to be complaints that Wikipedia does not adopt these viewpoints as true, or treat widely debunked hypotheses with similar weight as broad scientific consensus.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/369/204/823/193/original/e4ebf58523a7e6f6.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/369/204/823/193/original/e4ebf58523a7e6f6.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:32:37 JST Molly White
in reply to
The right’s frequent claims that right-leaning sources and viewpoints are “banned” on Wikipedia are also either misguided or intentionally deceptive.
#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
In conversationabout a month ago from hachyderm.iopermalink
Attachments

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice