Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article feedback tool

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)

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

: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)

: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)

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)

:Actually disagree. I've seen coverage of this in surprising places, from the [https://computerhistory.org/exhibits/make-software/ 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 [https://www.geopop.it/la-bufala-piu-longeva-di-wikipedia-e-rimasta-online-per-quasi-10-anni-la-storia-di-jaredo-wens/ GeoPop] to scholarly pubs: [https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3233391.3233540 2018] [https://commons.case.edu/staffworks/18/ 2020] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667096821000458 2021] [https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08576 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)

: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)

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

{{edit semi-protected|Reliability of Wikipedia|answered=yes}}

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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&oldid=1177630137 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)

: {{Done}}. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

After my recent run-in trying to fix factual errors on NTFS where "kilobyte", "megabyte", etc. are incorrectly used to refer to powers of 1024 instead of 1000, I recently came across articles such as [https://www.randynissen.net/uploads/9/3/2/2/9322219/messer-kruse_chronicle.pdf this one] and [https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/20/218162/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/ this one]. A major problem with Wikipedia seems to be that Wiki's core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are too strict and end up being an appeal to popularity more than anything useful, as it only propagate the most popular viewpoints, without regard to whether they are correct or not.

It also seems that certain articles and policies, such as MOS:COMPUNITS, are basically "owned" by a select few users (in this case User:Locke Cole). To me, this whole issue with situations like these is that Wiki comes across as extremely hypocritical and contradictory, since it will state that a particular way of doing things is factually incorrect in one article yet enforce that factually wrong convention in one of its policies. This is the best example I can think of for an issue on Wikipedia that is not fixed and has no sign of ever being fixed, because (1) the majority of sources are incorrect, and (2) certain users are so detached from reality that they will actively vote in favour of things that are destructive or against things that are clearly beneficial. It gives off the impression that Wiki requires users to shut down all notion of common sense and other basic defences, all in the name of being "verifiable" just for the sake of being "verifiable".

As a result, I firmly stand by the belief that Wiki has become "all verifiability, no truth". 208.114.63.4 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)