Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

please add something like "Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anybody can vandalize it" 178.42.215.180 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Added explanation and refactored page — Iadmc♫^talk  18:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  typo. my not -> may not 178.42.215.180 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  19:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait - if Wikipedia is not reliable, then what is the point of this project?

Now, I know that vandalism, hoaxes, etc. can be inserted into Wikipedia, and they're not always discovered. I also understand that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia to avoid circular sourcing. But what I mean is that if Wikipedia is not trustworthy in general, why should it even exist? Isn't the whole point that it should be a useful source of information? I suppose you could say that because anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is not reliable by its very nature, but there are many safeguards to keep everything verifiable information. At the very least, even if Wikipedia is not reliable now, we should be working towards making it reliable. I know this may sound a bit negative, but it is a serious question, especially since I've met teachers who say that the Encyclopedia Britannica, despite being another encyclopedia, is more reliable than Wikipedia and can even be cited (even though I've heard that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has claimed that no encyclopedia should be cited in an academic work. I know a discussion here won't change much, but I want to know what people think. Diamond Blizzard talk 17:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

One can certainly discuss the issue of Wikipedia's reliability in general, but this article is specifically about not citing Wikipedia articles in other Wikipedia articles. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is just a catchy title; the article doesn't claim to address the broader issues. Note the "This page in a nutshell" section. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also deeply biased on many topics. However on news regarding established science it's a decent source, but when it comes to even slightly political topics, for example, it becomes from unbalanced and biased to total trash. So it's ok if you need to do a report on the orbit of the moon, but not, for example on certain political figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:D74:8427:934D:2590:76B8 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree actually, but this page is about the policy on citing Wikipedia as a source within other WP articles. Completely different topic. --DB1729 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing a wiki article in another wiki article is, at least in theory, not circular sourcing. If Article A is backed by Source B. then citing A in Article C is simply re-citing B. But of course B itself may be incorrect. The problem is that an amateur encyclopedia such as this simply makes no sense. Real encyclopedias have articles written by experts, and editors to oversee the experts. It is not a perfect system, nothing is, but it is far more reliable than this mess. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Wikipedia is a reliable source. It is true that anyone can post on Wikipedia without the need of approval, but if the source has not been throughly vetted by the community, you can tell it has the risk of not being reliable, if you are talking individually about an article that has not been vetted. In addition, it is not approved to post content that is not true. I, as a member of Wikipedia, have noticed that when editing, it has told me that the content I post must be verified. Whether there are editors of Wikipedia or not, there are good people in Wikipedia who are willing to search the articles and correct them. The Man Who Ran Outside Naked (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article title, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is really much more general than the article's topic, which is only that Wikipedia articles can't be used as citations in other Wikipedia articles. If you can think of a way to make this clearer, feel free to make suggestions. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS "ANYONE CAN EDIT WIKIPEDIA"! WIKIPEDIA IS RELIABLE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE, AND THOSE WHO SAY THAT IT IS UNRELIABLE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ACCOUNT AND BELIEVE STUPID STERIO TYPES! DELETE THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE! 104.172.255.80 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not make edit requests in all caps. This is considered shouting. Since I am not an administrator, I cannot delete this article. I don't know how to continue further so I will let someone else close this edit request. Mstrojny (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This page is about why we don't cite other Wikipedia articles within articles. It's not saying that it's unreliable for everyday use. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Although it is unreliable for everyday use. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a reliable source vs Wikipedia's reliability

I'm confused. If this information page is talking about Wikipedia's invalidity to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, why can't explaining Wikipedia's reliability be on this page? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wei4Green, this page is about the use of Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. For the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole by the general public, see Reliability of Wikipedia. GMG^talk 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Suppose a fact on Wiki page A is verified by reliable source B. If this fact is then to be used on Wiki page C, what difference does it make if you site as its source A or B? A is a Wiki page, B is an idenpendance source, but they both say the same thing. As a stylistic or procedural matter you may prefer B, and that's fine. But if B is reliable, then so is A. Isn't that the whole point of sourcing? 74.104.189.176 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Wikepedia is a reliable source, and this post proves it. The very fact that I CANNOT edit this without permission, and need to submit a request. Also, most of the time when people edit wikipedia, it is to correct it. Thank you, and goodnight. BlueBlockhead (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The title of this article is a logical paradox

If Wikipedia states, that its not reliable, then how does one know if it being not reliable is a reliable information? So it must be reliable then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.44.192 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes...that's what makes the whole concept of Wiki so funny. But this is actually a very telling philosophical issue. For example, if you say that objective reality does not exist, then the non-existence of objective reality cannot be objectively real, meaning objective reality does exist. It is related to the Liar Paradox, where you cannot truthfully say "I am lying." 74.104.189.176 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Some authors of Wikipedia pages are endangering human lives with complete impunity.

Duplicate : Talk:Intravenous sugar solution

I am an expert in one particular area affecting the health of human lives. My attempted edits to false and misleading articles are rejected, even though I have accurate and up-to-date cited references. How can we report pages that blatantly endanger human lives?DextroseIsCornSugar (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion in only one place, at Talk:Intravenous sugar solution#This page, as written, endangers the lives of patients with an IgE-mediated allergy to corn; and should be removed or edited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia has privileges?

In 2014, Nightscream (talk · contribs) added in a edit:

"As indicated by WP:CIRCULAR (which is part of the Verifiability policy, neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)."

Why? Which official policies and guidelines support this? And why Wikipedia has this privilege?Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability/WP:CIRCULAR, the ones explicitly mentioned in the text you quoted above. Nightscream (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: thanks. It really baffles me that this privilege to Wikipedia and sister projects is a policy/guideline. I may even stop editing because of this.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hfnreiwjfd: Why do you call it a "privilege"? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Which WP:USERGENERATED entity non-related to Wikimedia projects is given such privilege stated as policy? I didn't find any. Besides, the community is in WP:COI by exempting its own generated content for being referenced, allowing topics about Wikipedia and sister projects to be covered without reliable sources. See Wikipedia, there paragraphs that mostly cite Wikipedia policies.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, what do you mean by "privilege"? What privilege? Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I mean the exception Wikipedia gives to its user generated content (a policy giving exemption to itself).

"An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should make it clear the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is aware of the potential bias."

Is there exemption explicitly stated like this for an unreliable primary source such as WP:USERGENERATED that is non-related to Wikimedia projects? No, so this is an explicit privilege to Wikipedia and sister projects. If an editor used unreliable sources like this from an entity non related to Wikimedia projects, Wikipedia editors would challenge it saying it is conflicting with Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, and that these sources shouldn't be used.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a privilege. It's a legitimate exception derived from a reason-based rationale. The reason sites with user-generated content like IMDB, Patch Media, Fandom, etc., are not considered reliable is partially because they allow essentially anyone to edit, but also because they exercise little or no editorial control over their content. But in Wikipedia articles about thsoe sites, it is reasonble to cite policy pages of those websites, archived pages, etc., since they're either not subject to change, or are subject to greater editorial control. Editors monitoring the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are not likely to allow a fundamental change to the language of that policy page without discussion, so it is more reasonable to cite it in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, which it is, for this passage in that article that mentions that rule. Nightscream (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

For Wikipedia to be an acceptable reference and reliable source the editors must be respected members of the scientific world with experience not anonymous individuals. There has to be a fair and democratic appeal process. One-third of Wikipedia has been reported to be edited by one person. Just think about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weixianz (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 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) 21:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The page currently has: "Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education, and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article." As for democracy, Wikipedia is not one, but there is the concept of WP:CONSENSUS that has a page. —PaleoNeonate – 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia

You don't cite to Wikipedia as a source. But you can copy the text and cited sources to other articles. Attribution of the copying is a requirement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)