For me it is one more sign, that our focus on the 0,1% of our articles
with subjects of recent events that is dependent on newspaper sources
should be changed. We have no problem with sources for 99% of our
articles about things like nature reserves or basic Cv of notable
persons . living and historical etc.
I just read an article describing how the Wikipedia's in Estonian and
Latvian language have been invaded by Russian paid editors that rewrite
articles on Russian-Ukraina war etc, and at the same time I notice that
the fork done by Russian government still have 99% of all entries from
Russian Wikipedia (the same as Grokopedia)
My conclusion is that we ought to focus on the 99%, and just have very
basics in recent controversial subjects.
Anders
Den 2026-02-09 kl. 08:41, skrev Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l:
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>
Links
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.nypost.com>
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>
Links
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.decider.com>
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
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/AZQZFDR3KIRECXI6Z56LK3Y4TEPUNGUZ/
To unsubscribe send an email [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/MAAEFPK4LCURTUEPXGULMMUWWD666Z36/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
