Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

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.

Wikipedia U

@EMsmile: What do you know about the book, whose citation you removed from this article:

• Thomas Leitch (2 October 2014), Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age, Johns Hopkins University Press, Wikidata Q108733210?

The title alone seems to make it relevant to me. My brief review of what I found about it on the Internet seems to confirm my belief that it is relevant. I'm restoring it, with a more complete citation to replace the incomplete one you deleted.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi DavidMCEddy, I am always skeptical of "further reading" entries as they are often just there to advertise someone's book. This book is 7 years old and behind a paywall. The title doesn't strike me as highly relevant, neither does the content from those few pages that I can access for free with the preview function. It looks to be highly academic. If it's such a relevant book then it should be cited through inline citations. My suspicion is that the book author or a friend added it to "further reading" a while ago to achieve more sales. Which parts of the book do you regard as so relevant that it needs to be singled out in this way and given such a high prominence? EMsmile (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

May I change Nancy O'Neill to Nancy O'Neil. In this scenario, the last name has one 'l' not two. EmmaleeN30 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per source, Nancy O’Neill, principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System, says ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BRD trivia

Just in case anyone feels like wasting time discussing this on yet another talk page: I agree with VM that fthis is irrelevant, undue trivia. And as discussed earlier, this story empowers an indefinetly banned harasser, so per DFTT the fewer places it is in, the better. There are dozens of other examples found at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes that could be used here instead - and frankly, very few if any should be, since trying to discus reliability using such random examples is quite ORish. This page should be based on academic sources, not trivial news. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich::

1. You never edited this article before you popped out of nowhere to revert my edit [1]. That suggests you're stalking my edits. Please stop.
2. You keep making false accusations against other editors which have been repeatedly debunked. I know I've posted, said, pointed out this a million times already but let me do it again. Here is the actual WP:COI policy. Read it. Nobody here has an "external relationship" with the subject. Nobody is being paid, works for, is in a relationship with or has any outside connection to this issue. The only connection is that, as you well know, this whole non-issue, faux-hoax, was originated by a now indef banned user as a means of harassing his WIki opponents, and then, for some reason, even after this guy was banned, his on wiki-friends tried to "protect his legacy" by spamming this info into numerous places. There is no COI, and if there is, it's whatever connection these editors have to Icewhiz. Please stop making false attacks on other editors in your edit summaries and false accusations which are unsubstantiated by either facts or policy. This has reached a point where your intransigence has gone way past normal disagreement and into harassment and griefing of other editors.
3. The text itself is UNDUE. Only reason here is because of Wikpedia conflicts between Icewhiz's faction and those he targeted. It is not in any way significant in the big scheme of things.
4. On that note, the text in this particular instance is EVEN WORSE presentation of this issue than in other places where you guys spammed it. It says "Media sources dubbed it...". NO. There was a single source basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz, and then reprinted in several places, more or less as is. That's not "media sources". That's "one editorial based on stuff a guy who was harassing others said".
5. You've violated 3RR (no one else has) and yet you're the one who is accusing others of "edit warring"? How does that work? Again, like with the other points here, you seem to have it backwards.
6. You follow all that up with threats of ArbCom. Really? You think that ArbCom doesn't have better things to do than look at the editors who are still essentially meat puppeting for Icewhiz?
7. Oh and of course you urge others to "discuss"... right after you threaten them with ArbCom. Do you honestly believe that threatening ArbCom is a way to bring about a fruitful discussion? Doubtful. Just like your "it's longstanding" rationale, this "let's discuss" thing just appears to be a stalling/obfuscating tactic. In light of your threats and personal attacks it's difficult to believe that you are actually interested in a meaningful discussion.
8. In light of above it's hard to avoid the impression that your "Happy Thanksgiving" after your tirade of personal attacks just seems like sprinkling some passive-aggressive "ha ha I reverted you and threatened you with ArbCom so you won't revert me back"
9. Start an RfC if you must (sight).

Volunteer Marek 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a topic ban from everything relating to the Haaretz article cocnerned is due for these 2 users and GizzyCatBella as well or which ever their name was. In fact, this would be a pretty efficient means to enforce the non-negotiable WP:COI rules, I'd guess.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re in violation of the 500/30 restriction. Ever since your recent arrival on Wikipedia you’ve been following certain users and acting disruptive. And now you jump in to edit war and amplify drama. WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have >500 edits. Also, some decent article work, too. Unlike some others, who name themselves "regulars" for some reason.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Volunteer Marek 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring over this particular article, potentially adds to the claims that Wikipedia is un-reliable as a source of information. It's like arguing with each other, over whether or not we argue with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The text is longstanding and relevant. Veracity and misinformation on Wikipedia is clearly covered within this article, which the text refers to. That said, editors are free to gain a new consensus to remove it, may I suggest, from an RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “longstanding” and whether it’s relevant is debatable. Did it have widespread coverage in sources? No. There was ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor, and a couple sources which reprinted it. That’s not enough coverage to include here. Moreover, the text misrepresents the one source that it relies on. There’s no “media sources reported” in there. Volunteer Marek 08:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Can you start RFC, please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - I was about to say no, but you were polite. starship.paint (exalt) 08:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw, here’s the irony of the situation. People are justifying their reverts by saying that this is “longstanding” material, yet the story that’s being added is how an error remained in Wikipedia for long time and no one removed it because it was… “longstanding”. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor", "basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz" - Volunteer Marek is now making allegations not only against (mostly anonymous) fellow editors, but a real life person: Omer Benjakob, the author of this article in Haaretz. The story of which got repeated by many other mainstream sources of various countries. This comes close to the WP:BLP territory. Or does he have reliable sources proving his allegations against Benjakob's integrity? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats enough Miacek. Go start your next sock puppet account. Volunteer Marek 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all your opponents must be either Icewhiz, Miacek or both. The last bunch of edits from this particular banned account don't even show any particular similarity with my editing style.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, because, as you well know, Miacek was indef topic banned from anything related to Poland before he was indef banned from Wikipedia completely. I know YOU think you’ve been sneaky but it’s obvious as hell who you are [2]. Just give it up man. It’s ridiculous. Good luck with your next sock puppet. Volunteer Marek 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(I mean, ffs, if you were a new account you wouldn’t know who Miacek is and wouldn’t make sarcastic comments like “VM thinks all his opponents are Icewhiz or Miacek”. Jesus, at least put some effort into hiding the sock puppetry) Volunteer Marek 10:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought it was you who first mentioned the username "Miacek" and even graciously provided a link to his editing history. It would be a bit odd for anyone accused of sock puppetry to not even take a cursory look as to whose sock he is said to be. Besides that, your team's tactics of labelling each and every "new" user account not to your liking of being either Icewhiz or connected with him is notorious, are you gonna say my awareness of this basic fact is indicative of some evil?
So could you now finally answer my question: do YOU have reliable sources proving your allegations against Benjakob's integrity?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Irony doesn't apply unless this story is a hoax too, but what I'm seeing is WP:UNDUE arguments. starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory

Should the above text, present in the article Reliability of Wikipedia since October 2019 [3], be removed or kept? The section it is in are Notable incidents, then Other false information. starship.paint (exalt) 08:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep - (1) the content is relevant - this article covers the veracity of Wikipedia + misinformation on Wikipedia, and the content is clearly related to this. (2) The content is verifiable - sources are above. (3) The content is significant - time length of the hoax is clearly raised by sources. (4) In terms of sources, Haaretz is clearly a top Israeli source, then there's the Times of Israel as well, and that story has picked up attention in the United States (cited above), in Germany [4][5], and in Italy [6]. starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not even a hoax (according to the definition of the concept...). Please familiarize yourself better with the context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove -The story is based on the dishonest narrative of a banned Wikipedian then echoed by some other newspapers of various countries. The Wikipedia article was not an intentional hoax. (unlike the above commentator Starship.paint said - quote --> ..length of the hoax is clearly..) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. Until this is discussed in academic sources, what we have here is a news story by an indef-banned editor who duped a journalist into believing him, full of errors, that got nonetheless repeated in a reliable source (and then picked up and reprinted by few other outlets). But when reliable source prints out a bad story, we are under no obligation or common sense requirement to cite it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove — a fairly trivial point wrapped up in a narrative pushed by a banned user. Not exactly a notable reflection of unreliability, unless picked up by scholarly sources. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keeep. This is a prime example of Wikipedia being vulnerable to false content, on account of many factors, its size probably being one of them. The subject lemma is about this situation specifically, the "reliability of Wikipedia", a point driven home time and again across all fields here. And the fact that "this is an old story" is irrelevant. It's well sourced and serves its encyclopaedic purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, who were explicitly mentioned by the source, have been trying to remove it from multiple articles (see edit warring at WP:HOAXLIST[7][8] and ongoing RfC at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp). Haaretz is a reliable newspaper (see here and here), as are the ten+ sources that mentioned the story (not including syndication), and until and unless someone can produce evidence that isn't the case, we are to assume reliability per WP:NEWSORG. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As this is a direct accusation, made by an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The inclusion is being contested by people who have a vested interest in not having this content included anywhere on Wikipedia, as several of them are mentioned by name in the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove This should be moved to List of Wikipedia controversies. The section is way too bloated for a simple 'examples of wikipedia being unreliable'. A couple examples would be sufficient to show that there is content that is unreliable on wikipedia. The content itself is obviously from a reliable source and notable and would rather it stay here then disappear all together. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of “revenge” for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects (Icewhiz, for harassment, doxxing and death threats). There was coverage in one source - which relied on the testimony of that editor (oh, and to boot used hate sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source for its info). It was then reprinted in a couple other sources. Then, after about a week, everyone except certain people on Wikipedia forgot about it. This is a pure example of internal Wikipedia politics determining content rather than policy or actual coverage in sources. The whole thing is UNDUE and badly sourced. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@Starship.paint - please note (polite again) that the 3 references are the same. All revolve around Omer Benjakob's 4 October 2019 Haaretz article - story based on the tale of banned Wikipedian. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - they're based on the Haaretz article, yes, but they aren't duplicates. It's a conscious effort of the CJN and the TOI to feature the content. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

More sources? [9], in Der Spiegel, [10] in Deutschlandfunk Nova, [11] in Il Post. starship.paint (exalt) 09:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the same thing, all revolve around 4 October 2019 Haaretz article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint - yes, in some sense this is “longstanding”, but so what? That’s not a policy based argument. Frankly, all those instances of this controversy, all of them based on this single Icewhiz source, should have been removed immediately after he was indef banned by WMF from all Wikimedia projects. Especially since these got spammed into all these various places either by him, his sock puppets or his meat puppets. This is just cleaning up a mess that should’ve been cleaned up long ago. Volunteer Marek 09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and @Starship.paint @JPxG - It is kind of comical seeing these entries produced all over the place [12] by stale, brand new accounts with 20 edits to their credit [13]. Hey, but that might be just a coincidence. I'm just saying that's entertaining. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - Regarding your edit summary[14]. It is already included in List of Wikipedia controversies here --> [15] where is most likely WP:DUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - That being said - the note there ([16]) should be extended.

It should tell that the story was based on the tale of a banned Wikipedian. The certain controversy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this the Icewhiz thing? This is the goddamn Icewhiz thing, isn't it. jp×g 09:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s the goddamn Icewhiz thing. Volunteer Marek 09:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG - l.o.l. yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And that's probably is a good place for it. It was a controversy. Although it also should be a Haaretz controversy (how a newspaper got tricked by an indef banned editor...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

…because Haaretz should care about whether Icewhiz is indeffed? Does the fact you’ve been desysoped for organized attempts to promote particular views about Eastern Europe, and that the people arguing for the removal of this article were almost all part of those efforts, not affect YOUR credibility??—Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)