Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:42, 27 May 2020

A summary of this article appears in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Study: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate, But Hard to Read - - TechNewsDaily (LiveScience) 01 June 2010

Template:Copied multi

This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable.
	If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.

This topic has been mentioned by a media organization:

Eoin O'Carroll (October 11, 2018). "Why does Wikipedia (mostly) work?". Christian Science Monitor.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Changes to links

Consider changing

"An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[Nottingham University]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" to "An empirical study conducted in 2006 by a [[University of Nottingham]] Business School lecturer in Information Systems" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.207.81 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Possibly balancing

While there is a lot of criticism about hoaxes, Wikipedia is also lately used by Google and Youtube for its ability and reputation to curb hoaxes (with Wikipedia's community's ability to quickly remove them being praised). Potential source:

Cole, Samantha (14 March 2018). "Can Wikipedia Solve YouTube's Conspiracy Theory Problem?". Motherboard.

—Paleo Neonate – 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More related information: here. —Paleo Neonate – 10:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And [1] so likely a bit soon, but related news are expected... —Paleo Neonate – 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding [2] —Paleo Neonate – 23:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More: [3] —Paleo Neonate – 22:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia bias" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia bias. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger and Wikipedia bias

Larry Sanger wrote on wiki bias here (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Worthwhile adding this link to further reading or external links?? --1.152.111.77 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 [[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
 An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Wikipedia bias]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 14#Wikipedia bias|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
+== Larry Sanger and Wikipedia bias ==
+[[Larry Sanger]] wrote on wiki bias here (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/). Worthwhile adding this link to further reading or external links?? --[[Special:Contributions/1.152.111.77|1.152.111.77]] ([[User talk:1.152.111.77|talk]]) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)