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]
