body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Unherd post about Sanger re: Authority and quotes throughout the article[edit]

This addition doesn't make any sense; the section is about Wikipedia's academic authority - that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. As I said when I removed it the first time, it's completely out of place for that section. The fact that we quote him there once doesn't make it the place to put every unrelated criticism he makes; squeezing it in there is a complete digression. And while it could notionally be added elsewhere (though certainly not in the section where it was added), we already cite Sanger's opinions repeatedly in the article; it's undue to repeatedly include every thing he says, especially when he's just repeating the same opinion over and over. Finally, of course, the page is glutted with quotes - it makes no sense to remove a bunch of them, cited to far higher-quality sources, while adding a quote of no significance from someone whose opinion is already represented. We need to decide what quotes are included based on WP:DUE weight and WP:RS, which means that clearly an Unherd post doubling down on one person's opinions can't be substituted for a bunch of academic citations. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after reviewing this deletion, I've reverted it for now - my issue is twofold. First, the citations are mostly (though not uniformly) high-quality; there are multiple academic sources in there. I particularly object to the removal of Greenstein, which is a high-quality academic source that also has significant secondary coverage. Second, the removal was one-sided in a way that harmed the neutrality of the section - we cannot remove eg. an academic source with significant secondary coverage, like Greenstein, and leave Scarborough's opinion cited for half a paragraph via Human Events. In particular, we currently have two paragraphs devoted to the opinions of US conservatives (when the breadth of sources covers much more ground) - and removing this paragraph would leave almost the entire section focused on them. That is WP:UNDUE relative to coverage; if we're going to start trimming that section we should begin by condensing those two paragraphs into one and generally reducing the amount of text given to individual quotes, especially from people who lack expertise or relevance. I could agree to removing or condensing quotes and opinions in the article, but it has to be done evenly in accordance with representation in the sources, with a particular focus on removing the ones that are more weakly-sourced and trimming or paraphrasing more "fiery" quotes into neutral summaries for WP:TONE reasons - Greenstein in particular is the sort of source that the section should be focused on, rather than axe-grindy culture-war viewpoints cited to talking heads with no real expertise, which I think is a reasonable description of some other parts of the section. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on information from Slate article "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot""[edit]

The talk:Bigfoot page sent me here to discuss the possibility of including the article "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot" here. The article is an opinion piece that interviews one Wikipedia editor, and discusses the talk page. It also goes into the coverage of cryptids overall on Wikipedia. Thought I'd suggest including it here, and open up for suggestions to anyone interested as to how it could be included, or if it doesn't really fit. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 23, 2024 discussion about edit[edit]

@GreenMeansGoThe first edit(the edit between lines 33 and 40) I can see reverting, but the second edit( the edit after line 40) removes content for no reason. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I reverted back in some stuff I don't agree with once I looked at it" isn't a great start to a conversation. GMGtalk 19:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism in the Telegraph[edit]

Wikipedia should focus on content creation – not social justice campaigns Michael G. Lind (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism in Journal of Spatial Information Science article[edit]

Reading some literature, I stumbled upon the paper "Trustworthy maps" in the peer reviewed Journal of Spatial Information Science. I'm looking into how it could be incorporated, but thought I'd share. Relevant text states:

"There are many maps of coronavirus case or death counts and/or rates. If one does a Google search on “coronavirus map”, the first result is a map from Wikipedia (Figure 1).The dataset underpinning this map also comes from Wikipedia, and is a mashup of source sof highly varied levels of authority and reliability. Wikipedia, moreover, can be edited by anyone, so the data quality can vary depending on who has contributed the edit, their knowledge of reliable sources, and (sometimes) on their politics or other motivations. In fact, when inspecting the edit history for the Wikipedia page whose information is fed into this map, it was not hard to find one such instance (Figure 2). Although any errors or edits made with political or mischievous motivations may be corrected quickly by other editors, anyone inspecting the map at a particular point in time may be looking at unreliable in-formation, meaning that the trustworthiness of the information as well as the information itself varies dynamically. If one accepts that Wikipedia’s data may not be sufficiently trustworthy, where can one find more authoritative, if slightly less timely, data? Figure 3 is a map published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Although it may also suffer from data quality issues such as different data reporting practices in different countries, it only includes cases that meet the WHO case definition, a data quality standard set by the WHO."

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories