Hoi,
A counter short answer, when articles are created from corrupt sources, is
Wikipedia still credible?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 at 22:03, Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:
> A shorter answer then. If you think a subject is only sourceable from
> corrupt sources, do not create that article.
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2026-02-09 kl. 11:18, skrev Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l:
>
> 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/GWKGGGVCI2ROX4NZH2ELCQCQF4ZUA4F5/
> 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/ORPLWOK6YZEVEV57DTFKD6CNDXSFIRAA/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
