Hoi,
Given that the staff for for instance climate (this includes nature
reserves) has been axed in many a publication, this makes it a lot easier
to dismantle your argument.
When paid editors invade our projects, it is a completely different subject.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 at 10:39, Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:
> 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>
>> [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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
_______________________________________________
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/WGJ3VT6VJ4TPG5QBDFDHYX267UFNHVIT/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
