|
I know that this is an encyclopedia - not a court, but encyclopedia has to be based on facts - not on speculations. The sentence "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States." might be a disinformation. This claim has to be first proved (as in court) with 1) proving both that there was an interference and 2) that if it was one that its goals were as stated in this sentence. Unless it is proven - this should be clearly presented as a hypothesis - not as a fact. Since it is really not proven, please correct the wording in the beginning of the article. Andra1ex (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No it has to be sourced to people who say they have proven it who are wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Could you please help me to understand it better?
- Does it mean that there are people who are considered "wikipedia reliable sources", and if these people say that some information has been proven by them then it is enough to publish this information? Andra1ex (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reliable sources are not people but outlets. We write whatever the reliable sources say. see WP:RSP. It is not misinformation and will not be removed. Andre🚐 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "We write whatever the reliable sources say" - it completely undermines the credibility. Previously I used only math/CS articles from Wikipedia, and they are pretty good, but yesterday I looked at political articles and they are awful: biased, incorrect, rumors, gossips. I hope it will change, but for now I will recommend everyone to stay away from Wikipedia articles (except of math/CS). Andra1ex (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Nope. WP:RGW Andre🚐 14:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- RS are sources (yes they maybe people, or organizations) that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and thus can be considered reliable for what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "have a reputation... and thus can be considered reliable" - it completely undermines the credibility. Previously I used only math/CS articles from Wikipedia, and they are pretty good, but yesterday I looked at political articles and they are awful: biased, incorrect, rumors, gossips. I hope it will change, but for now I will recommend everyone to stay away from Wikipedia articles (except of math/CS). Andra1ex (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- When the heck did Wikipedia go from ice cold facts to Woke Ideology? They're job isn't to push narratives it's to tell people what happened exactly as it happened or explain the dimensions, locations, attributes, etc etc of our world and the life and things in it. Cut it out please wikipedia and stop locking articles so they can't be adjusted John Scagleone (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andra1ex, you seem to have a strong opinion about what is not true here. (You haven't asserted what you believe to be true.) You must get that opinion from somewhere. What sources have informed your opinions? Please list URLs to articles on this subject from a few them so we can be better informed.
If we don't base our information on published RS, a method you have rejected above for unknown reasons, then what do you think would be a better way to create content here? Are you aware of who creates our content and their political POV? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Saying that a country has interfered in another countries elections is like saying that a person has committed a crime against another person. It is a very serious accusation. It can lead to a war. So, until it it is undeniably proved to the extent when the international community (not just some alliance) agrees with this as a fact, such accusation is very dangerous and impermissible. Hence, unless the goal is to increase the risk of humanity such affirmations have to be explicitly described as hypotheses/theories, but not claimed as facts.
- My opinion is not important and no assertion from my side is necessary, since it is on the authors of the article to base it on facts only. Only the writer has the responsibility to base his text on facts only - the reader is free to base his opinion on whatever he wants (even on fairytales) since the reader is only reading, but not stating anything.
- Lastly, I am not aware of who creates your content and their political POV. It is not needed. Reading an encyclopedia a reader is not looking for a POV (for this there are other resources) - the reader is looking for a collection of facts. If something is not a fact it either does not have a place in an article or needs to be explicitly presented as an opinion. Take a look at a good article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space. This is how an encyclopedia has to look like.
- P.S. Since you were very interested, if you want to hear an assertion - here it is. There is no agreement and no proof that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections in the USA with a goal to help one of the candidates to win the elections. So far there is evidence that there was no collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia (Durham concluded that federal investigators did not have any actual evidence of collusion between Trump's 2016 campaign), and there is no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections in any other way (not via colluding with the Trump's 2016 campaign). 24.228.151.249 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sorry, no. We say reliable sources say and they say that Russian agents did interfere, Trump campaign officials welcomed that interference and even communicated with Russian agents and with Wikileaks on multiple occasions. Andre🚐 00:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "We say reliable sources say and they say that..." are you serios? I can answer that "I say reliable sources do not say that...". I hope you war joking when you wrote that sentence. Andra1ex (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- look up if any charges were filed for this. Because if someone did do this they would have obviously been charged. Innocent until proven guilty I believe is he motto. So since nowhere exists with any of this being proven then it's obviously not true. John Scagleone (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Not only were they charged but convicted of several crimes. Andre🚐 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a fact that multiple people were tried and convicted for their participation in the interference. All but the Russians and Trump's allies are convinced of this. They deny it.
It is also a fact that Dutch intelligence hacked into Russian systems and a video system from 2014-2016. They were able to record keystrokes and identify each hacker. They monitored the Russian activity and watched as they hacked into the White House, State Department, and Democratic National Committee. Hacking can be analyzed from both ends, and the above is the hacking end. The other end is the analysis of the results of that hacking, and that showed the Russians stole documents, and through the cutouts DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, leaked them to WikiLeaks.
I suggest you read the article. It is based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors. Myriad editors of all persuasions have worked together to produce this article, so it isn't one person's work or POV. It's based on teamwork. When you have examined its content and checked what the sources say, then you will be informed enough to criticize it. Until then, you are just spouting a rather weird opinion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}