Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in Wikipedia.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Study: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate, But Hard to Read - - TechNewsDaily (LiveScience) 01 June 2010
Messer-Kruse on "verifiability, not truth"
Bruckman's Should You Believe Wikipedia?
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1
other history of policies

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia (diff)
Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia (diff)
Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia (diff)
Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia (diff)
Copied Criticism of Wikipedia (oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia (diff)
Copied Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias (oldid, history) → Ideological bias on Wikipedia (diff) on 05:08, 22 May 2018

This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable. If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.

This topic has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Eoin O'Carroll (October 11, 2018). "Why does Wikipedia (mostly) work?". Christian Science Monitor.
Allison Morrow (January 14, 2025). "In a minefield of glitchy AI search and social media, Wikipedia becomes one of the most reliable places on the internet". CNN.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Wiki is biased and removes facts

removing facts from a article that was edited with evidence. Wiki does not like certain facts in their articles . That would be suppression of information. Wiki has became a joke and not a reliable source for information 216.252.7.115 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wiki? It's not an appropriate abbreviation for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a reliable source? Was it related to the article? Did it add anything useful to article? If it was removed, it's probably because the answer to one of those questions was no. Not every little thing needs to be kept. If it doesn't add to the article or isn't from a credible source, it will be removed. The First Spinjitzu Master (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a WP:FORUM contribution, unrelated to improving the article and therefore deletable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Jar'Edo Wens hoax into Reliability of Wikipedia

Fails the WP:SUSTAINED test. The Jar'Edo Wens article got some news coverage in 2015 but has not been referenced by any sources after its deletion. Doesn't seem to have had any long-term notability after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually disagree. I've seen coverage of this in surprising places, from the Computer History Museum I recently visited in San Francisco (Which has a whole display on it, and I had never heard of it before a few weeks ago when I saw it), to international publications like the italian GeoPop to scholarly pubs: 2018 2020 2021 2023. Just because this doesn't have as much traction in super online news sources or "ngram" publications doesn't mean it doesn't have longevity. It's just diffuse. Definitely has longevity as a notable Wikipedia hoax. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI, there should probably be a short notice over at Talk:Jar'Edo Wens hoax about this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the reasoned, uncontested objection with no support and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please change 2004 to 2003? It was changed to 2005 by an IP editor, while reverted it was changed "back" to 2004 instead of 2003. This is the last correct version. Even if 2004 was correct, it shouldn't say "two years", because the project started in 2001. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]