Hoi,
Framing that the English Wikipedia has processes means that it
is irrelevant that its references are copied at a large scale. Given that
the international press provides too many instances with proof
demonstrating that previously robust sources are no longer trustworthy, why
have a local conversation? Democracy is bought and newspapers are bought.
Is there any doubt that the editorial processes of several papers reflect
the interests of their proprietors? If there is, there might be room for a
more global discussion.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 at 00:42, Raymond Leonard via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I think a nuanced example to consider is the New York Post at
> Wikipedia:Reliable
> sources/Perennial sources#New York Post
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post>
> .
>
> Excluding entertainment:
>
>
> There is consensus the *New York Post* is generally unreliable for
> factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New
> York City politics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_politics>.
> A tabloid newspaper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism>,
> editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections,
> including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the *New
> York Post* more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and
> particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police
> Department <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department>.
> A 2024 RfC concluded that the *New York Post* is marginally reliable for
> entertainment coverage; see below.
>
> This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same
> name, that existed from 1801–1942.
> Entertainment:
> There is consensus that the *New York Post
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post>* (nypost.com
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22nypost.com%22>
> [image:
> Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.nypost.com> [image:
> Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=nypost.com>) and
> its sub-publications *Decider
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(website)>* (decider.com
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22decider.com%22>
> [image:
> Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.decider.com>
> [image:
> Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=decider.com>) and
> *Page
> Six <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Six>* are considered to be
> marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews,
> but should not be used for controversial statements related to living
> persons <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>.
>
> The quality of individual newspapers & their reliability of coverage areas
> clearly can vary over time. I think it behooves us to reconsider the
> reliability of a source as it changes.
>
> Peaceray <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray>
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 2:50 PM Benjamin Lees via Wikimedia-l <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/33HIGJX536P3DZ6QD53H5PI6UZPYSYSM/
> 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/AZQZFDR3KIRECXI6Z56LK3Y4TEPUNGUZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
