←back to thread

152 points xqcgrek2 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
OsrsNeedsf2P ◴[] No.45043941[source]
I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it.

Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot reference things like git commits or research papers (since they don't provide context and most people can't understand them).

If a Wikipedia article does use one of those sources, delete the paragraph. If you get into an Edit war, you'll win.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

replies(3): >>45044060 #>>45046746 #>>45049559 #
1. jmclnx ◴[] No.45044060[source]
Yes, I am sure what you say is true, but eventually the article(s) in question will be corrected, or tagged in some manner.

But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments.

You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and Trump's multiple Impeachments.

replies(1): >>45044457 #
2. OsrsNeedsf2P ◴[] No.45044457[source]
Even if whitehouse.gov rewrites history, or forces reputable outlets to make "corrections", Wikipedia articles can (and do) reference archives.