FunctionalPhil

Far too many claims supported by irrelevant sources

Upon more careful checking of the sources cited for claims, I've noticed that Wikipedia is riddled with equivocal statements that have irrelevant references cited only as facade of having the customary evidence. The statements themselves are quite clearly written by disingenuous actors with ulterior motives, whether it be academic boosterism for universities, pure political biases, or anything that spurs them towards dishonesty.

Often these sources will seem relevant at a first cursory glance, but it becomes apparent upon merely clicking the hyperlink that they do not substantiate the claim. It may be that some aspect is disproportionately exaggerated beyond reason, that the title suggests relevance but its content is taken out of context, or even that the cited source is of considerable length without any specification as to the location of the evidence with little potential reward for actually reading through the material.

It would be beneficial to curb dissemination of disinformation by subjecting citations to more rigorous standards, not necessarily those of academia, but at least, say, specifications of how the source supports the claim being required. FunctionalPhil (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)