This is why in itself Wikipedia cannot be a trusted source but should be treated as purely, an extension of the media. They choose who they can cite and who they cannot.
Wikipedia certainly isn't infallible, and on some topics reading the talk page or comparing how the article reads in other languages can broaden your understanding or completely change it.
But if that disqualifies Wikipedia as a "trusted source", which sources deserve that distinction?
Could you elaborate? I do see the issue about reliability, but I don’t see how this study is related? They added a random selection of cases and provided summaries without intentional bias. Except for a complete set, this is always the case for every database of cases.
IIRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status as it adopted a news tabloid format. Further, they no longer have fact checkers and do not print corrections. Surely that's a disqualification right there.
I wish those people over 40 hadn't put a US government in place that abolished the fairness doctrine. Then our news sources would probably not be so bananas.
> IRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status
Precisely, it lost its trusted status, but the GP posts that WP trusts publications that have gone bananas. So your example speaks in favor of Wikipedia's reliability.
You clearly don't edit much of Wikipedia if you think that. Their bias actually toward things that are in the news.
And since the news of today is only interested in the most extreme, that's the facts you'll find on Wikipedia.
Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.
And that bias is much worse than any other, you'll find a ton of information on matters that attract obsessive personalities, and much less on more normal subjects.
> Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.
This reads like something coming from the obsessive side.
If it's true there's probably a less controversial source that reported on it. If a controversial source is the only place to report on something, it's probably not true.
