|
|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
2372 days ago
|
|
|
The first article is a paid promotion piece, which WP won't accept as an RS. The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS. I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either. |
|
|
The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/sil...
* https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/
Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion.