Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Dani Cavallaro: reply to TeenAngels1234 |
|||
Line 2,559:
:Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Wikipedia, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Wikipedia's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Wikipedia to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 (Option 3 for BLP material)''' reviewing the above that's not just bias, that is bad reporting (so bad, there are confused accounts even above), also for much of this topic, we should never use a newspaper for almost anything, and further individual's lives require much more care under WP policy. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' - there are plenty of sources available that publish neutral information on this topic; we can safely avoid one that, per the sources presented already, publishes information obviously intended to advance a particular point of view, and publishes outright conspiracy theories as though they are factual. Furthermore ''The Telegraph'' is not a source of expert opinion on this topic, there's no reason why Wikipedia needs to publish anything that they say about it. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||