Hoi, as Andy points out, the English WIkipedia has processes for determining source reliability. Those processes address the fact that reliability may change over time as organizations change ownership or management, and so formerly reliable sources may ultimately be deprecated, or vice versa. I'm not really clear on what you're saying is inadequate about those processes.
Benjamin On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 3:01 PM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > A follow up thought. When our community finds suspect sources wanting and > refuse it as a source for references, we devalue the investments made by > moguls and maga. There are valid USAmerican sources and they need as much > as we do, a public. A public that is not lied to because its sources are > not suspect. > Thanks again, > GerardM > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hoi, >> It is not about sources being American. It is about the question if they >> cover the news. When their source is the US government, it is no longer >> acceptable to recognise its information as valid or consider it as one side >> in a story.. The result produced is often baloney, particularly when their >> proprietor has imprinted its staff to produce output that reflects the >> business interests outside of the publication. >> >> Given that resources from for instance Africa are frowned upon, the >> imbalance is glaring. Given that even the notion of considering the quality >> from suspect sources is not taken seriously; it is met by bureaucracy, the >> question will become to what extent Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 15:17, Andy Mabbett via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 08:58, Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > In the past several British papers were no longer considered credible >>> sources. Given the dominiation of USAmerican publications by a USAmerican >>> government that is known for distorting the truth about everything, it is >>> relevant to consider the extent we trust American sources. >>> >>> We won't deprecate American sources simply because they are American, >>> in the same way that we do not deprecate British sources simply >>> because they are British. >>> >>> We already deprecate individual American sources where they are shown >>> to be unreliable, for example: >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261#RfC:_National_Enquirer >>> >>> You—or anyone else—are welcome to raise a similar RfC if you find an >>> American—or any—source which is unsuitable. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GKMJU7PYOU5PJXLJ2INZF5ELINAHFBRW/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/V7GQ3IBLFETZXFGXXGMMW4LVKHO2XQIW/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/A5N53ERCAJA2UQHPOIEW47KRYRFYTK5C/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
