Hoi,
The question to start off with is binary; are what used to be respectable
sources still reliable. There is a wealth of evidence showing that for many
publications this is no longer the case. When we can agree that there is an
issue, it is clear that the reliability of these sources is relevant to the
whole of our movement.
In my initial posting I did not reference the English Wikipedia. It is all
too easy to leave English language sources to the English Wikipedia. We
urge editors of the "other" Wikipedias to translate English Wikipedia
articles. It is well established that there is a bias in the coverage of
the English Wikipedia. It is also well known that sources not in an English
language are often frowned upon. Given that the reliability of many
USAmerican publications is in serious doubt, this is a venue where we can
discuss this issue.
This is not about English Wikipedia, this is about the quality and
reliability of our references.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 at 16:28, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> We do not get to legislate English Wikipedia on this mailing list. While
> it is true that citations are sometimes copied as-is from English Wikipedia
> when translating articles, the place to address your concern is still
> English Wikipedia, and/or the particular Wikipedia community whose citation
> practices you would like to improve.
>
> Even if your ultimate goal is some global decision about (some particular)
> American sources, you would *still* do well to argue for it on-wiki and see
> if you can convince even one community of your stance. A general gesture on
> this mailing list about undue influence on unnamed American news sources
> *cannot* achieve your goal.
>
> A.
> (volunteer capacity)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 9:42 AM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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]
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov <[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/CEMFKVLXUSYCTVYMWZV2KZD54XRR2QFI/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
