Fake sources

[collect]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... stionable1


A valiant effort, but most of the sources it lists as likely unreliable are major sources in their field, but the list maker wants folks to object to the wrong sources in the list instead of actually looking at them - 183K worth of "crap sources" if the list were accurate.


Opinions on this sort of project? And did you find any improper sources on the list?

[Randy from Boise]

This is the flipside of source worship — source demonization.

YouTube is "unreliable"?!?!

Well, that all depends, now, does it not? How about an expert TED talk posted to YouTube? Hmmm?

The entire notion of "reliable" and intrinsically "unreliable" sources is nonsense. Some sources are better than others, some are patently terrible, but the key thing is whether the information contained is true or false.

The "best" sources can be wrong. The "worst" sources can contain valuable information.

Bottom line: I pretty much reject the entire notion of such a list as a bureaucratic exercise by information overseers, rather than any sort of meaningful tool for actual content creators.

RfB

[Poetlister]

The entire notion of "reliable" and intrinsically "unreliable" sources is nonsense. Some sources are better than others, some are patently terrible, but the key thing is whether the information contained is true or false.

The point is that Wikipedia will not accept expert opinion. There is no absolute way for a non-expert editor to know for certain what is true and what is false. The next best thing is to say that a source is "reliable" hence it is presumed to be generally accurate, or "unreliable" and so presumed to be generally inaccurate. Of course, this classification is likely to be unreliable without input from experts.

[Randy from Boise]

The entire notion of "reliable" and intrinsically "unreliable" sources is nonsense. Some sources are better than others, some are patently terrible, but the key thing is whether the information contained is true or false.

The point is that Wikipedia will not accept expert opinion. There is no absolute way for a non-expert editor to know for certain what is true and what is false. The next best thing is to say that a source is "reliable" hence it is presumed to be generally accurate, or "unreliable" and so presumed to be generally inaccurate. Of course, this classification is likely to be unreliable without input from experts.

Your fundamental premise is mostly wrong. WP makes use of subject experts all the time, who make decisions about what to include or not include silently. A very small fraction of total content, material generally part of partisan political debate or pseudoscientific POV-pushing, generates disagreement over content and in this case the (more or less bogus) reliability doctrine comes into play to "solve" the matter.

tim

[Poetlister]

This is interesting. Time and again on this site we have commented on how unwelcome experts are, and how teenagers overrule university professors. This is the first time I can recall the opposite claim, other than on medical topics and the good Doc James.

[Randy from Boise]

This is interesting. Time and again on this site we have commented on how unwelcome experts are, and how teenagers overrule university professors. This is the first time I can recall the opposite claim, other than on medical topics and the good Doc James.

A person notices the handful of car crashes, not the millions of uneventful commutes from Point A to Point B.

RfB

[collect]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... stionable1


A valiant effort, but most of the sources it lists as likely unreliable are major sources in their field, but the list maker wants folks to object to the wrong sources in the list instead of actually looking at them - 183K worth of "crap sources" if the list were accurate.


Opinions on this sort of project? And did you find any improper sources on the list?

Over 4300 sources are listed with nearly 28,000 uses on Wikipedia listed -- including every single source on anything remotely "pseudoscientific" including a large number of Wikipedia articles! It also keeps sources which Beall already removed from his list. And it includes every source the person seems to find which has been at RSN.


Should the Wikipedia article on "Fun" be listed as crap an unreliable source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun

[Poetlister]

This is interesting. Time and again on this site we have commented on how unwelcome experts are, and how teenagers overrule university professors. This is the first time I can recall the opposite claim, other than on medical topics and the good Doc James.

A person notices the handful of car crashes, not the millions of uneventful commutes from Point A to Point B.

RfB

Can we have one or two examples of where there has been serious conflict and someone has come along and said "trust me, I'm an expert" and resolved things to everyone's satisfaction?

[collect]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... stionable1


A valiant effort, but most of the sources it lists as likely unreliable are major sources in their field, but the list maker wants folks to object to the wrong sources in the list instead of actually looking at them - 183K worth of "crap sources" if the list were accurate.


Opinions on this sort of project? And did you find any improper sources on the list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... TCH_Launch

Now "officially launched" with apologists saying "but it has a disclaimer!"

[Poetlister]

Basically, to a Wikipedia editor a reliable source is one that agrees with his or her views, and one that doesn't can't be reliable. Ask any Trump supporter or Bernie Sanders supporter about the relative merits of Fox News and the Washington Post, to take just two solid pretty mainstream media.

[Randy from Boise]

This is interesting. Time and again on this site we have commented on how unwelcome experts are, and how teenagers overrule university professors. This is the first time I can recall the opposite claim, other than on medical topics and the good Doc James.

A person notices the handful of car crashes, not the millions of uneventful commutes from Point A to Point B.

RfB

Can we have one or two examples of where there has been serious conflict and someone has come along and said "trust me, I'm an expert" and resolved things to everyone's satisfaction?

Once there is that kind of dispute over content, that is precisely when the line "trust me, I'm an expert" will not fly. That's a car crash.

My point is: subject experts write and their input is tacitly respected hundreds of times for each one of those car crashes. Those are the quiet, uneventful commutes. But we notice the car crashes and wrongly conclude that violent death in a wreck for anyone who drives is inevitable.

RfB

[Vigilant]

This is interesting. Time and again on this site we have commented on how unwelcome experts are, and how teenagers overrule university professors. This is the first time I can recall the opposite claim, other than on medical topics and the good Doc James.

A person notices the handful of car crashes, not the millions of uneventful commutes from Point A to Point B.

RfB

Can we have one or two examples of where there has been serious conflict and someone has come along and said "trust me, I'm an expert" and resolved things to everyone's satisfaction?

Once there is that kind of dispute over content, that is precisely when the line "trust me, I'm an expert" will not fly. That's a car crash.

My point is: subject experts write and their input is tacitly respected hundreds of times for each one of those car crashes. Those are the quiet, uneventful commutes. But we notice the car crashes and wrongly conclude that violent death in a wreck for anyone who drives is inevitable.

RfB

EssJay

[Poetlister]

All sorts of idiots write and what they say is tacitly accepted. You only have to look at the crap articles thread to see loads of examples. There is no privileged position for experts.