zlacker

>>akolbe+(OP)
I’ve come to see Wikipedia as the enemy in many cases, where its editorial policies, intentionally or not, result in entrenching corrupt establishment political narratives propagated by the White House, State Dept, corporate media, etc.

I remember looking at the vote history where they decided The Greyzone (one of whose journalists was called to testify at the UN on their investigative journalism) wasn’t a “credible source”, the very first vote I checked belonged to a unique username that was used on other sites for an anti-Palestinian think tank academic.

For completely uncontroversial topics it’s fine, for everything else you have to read all the dismissed/shut out outsiders complaining on the talk page to get any real sense of the topic.

Wikipedia has little legitimacy which is the purpose of an encyclopedia, I’ll never donate $1 to it and if it shut down tomorrow I wouldn’t care.

>>user39+vO
A single article by a "reliable source" is enough to include something in a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia can't do primary research. Grayzone sometimes publishes articles by employees of the Russian government. One of those articles wouldn't be sufficiently reliable on its own, so Grayzone isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.

A UN committee is equipped to go beyond simply reciting what secondary sources say. It can conduct it's own research, and carefully compare different secondary sources. So it makes sense for them to want to hear from people that sometimes say interesting things but aren't always reliable.

>>iudqno+gA1
Greyzone isn’t a reliable source because some Wikipedia editors voted they weren’t. I’m pointing out that the motivations of those participating in that are highly questionable to put it charitably.

I don’t know what “employees of the Russian government” you’re talking about (maybe RT articles?) but I’ve watched WaPo and NYT perpetually without criticism or follow up publish White House and State Dept. talking points.