In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.
Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia’s editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.
I like it that Wikipedia is now an authority on trustworthy citation sources.
It isn’t, Wikipedia is about as trustworthy as any other random source.
That’s not what they said.
What isn’t what who said?
What you said isn’t what they said
Quality contribution
I would argue otherwise.
Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.
I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it’s rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.
So you know there is wrong information on wikipedia, but you still trust it as a primary source? That says a lot about you.
Trust but verify my dude.
What you’re saying is that you don’t trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.
Trust but verify my dude.
You have a weird definition of trust.
Healthier than trusting nothing or no one
Worse than getting information from multiple sources.
Can you offer any alternatives? Or are there simply no trustworthy sites?
The problem with wikipedia is that people expect it to be neutral but on many topics it is far from that. It’s probably better to find a biased source where you know and account for the bias. Any “conservative” or “progressive” source where you know the bias is more reliable, at least you know which way they are leaning on all topics. And never trust a single source anyway.
Yet Wikipedia still rates the israeli propaganda think tank ADL as a reliable source. Very interesting website.
even a source which is generally reliable can have its reliability questioned in any context. and a source that is generally unreliable for some reason or another can be considered reliable in some context.
Wikipedia is awful for information on geopolitics or any subjective history. People think that they are reading “objective information” but in reality they are reading propaganda
They’ve been doing this for more than 13 years: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.
Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in “Zionist editing” for Wikipedia, the online reference site.
Take the page on Israel, for a start: “The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria,” said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.
Wikipedia is aweful for anything controversial, of which geopolitics is merely a good example.
Probably fine for basic stuff like geology or the Napoleonic Wars or whatever.
you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.
A great example is how Wikipedia uses Zionist lies is the 6 day war started by israel. It is stated as a “premptive strike” on Egypt.
On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes
In reality everyone including israeli PM’s acknowledges that israel started that there was no threat. Factually stating it pre-emptive is a straight up lie. It is a highly controversial statement at best.
Try removing the word “pre-emtptive” from that article and let me know how it goes.
isn’t it accurate to say it’s preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.
Pre-emptive means that you are striking before being struck. Because there is a direct attack coming
If there is no attack coming it is not pre-emptive.
Unprovoked is an entirely different word which would fit. Try replacing it.
if the source says preemptive, that’s going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.
