[rnd0]

Clearly people care very deeply about sources and evidence -and they're attacking things (wikipedia, various gov websites) which can be used as objective sources.

If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.

[93po]

Here's the root of the problem though: wikipedia isn't an objective source by its very nature. Wikipedia requires mainstream established news sources for a lot of articles that aren't academic in nature, and especially for articles about people. You cannot include information that isn't supported by corporate news articles, which means corporate news is now the arbiter of truth, and corporate news lies all the time about everything.

Wikipedia is, and always has been, the encyclopedia of the elite and billionaire narrative, and especially the left-wing narrative, which dominates nearly all corporate news groups. I say this as a far left person myself.

[sterlind]

corporate news rarely lies outright. libel is illegal. articles will spin and speculate, emphasize and elide, omit and opine, but that's not lying, it's spin, and a careful reading can extract the facts of the matter.

yes, you have to cite reliable sources on Wikipedia. yes, this means AP is considered more reliable than someone's Substack. you can, however, cite NPR or PBS, the BBC or the Guardian. if two reliable sources differ, you cite both and describe the conflict.

how do you know that "corporate" news lies all the time about everything? who told you that? why do you trust them? why should I trust them?

[93po]

if you characterize something with such incredible bias, and do so knowing that the resulting impression and information someone will leave with does not match objective facts in reality, then that is dishonest and to me, equivalent to outright lying. this mischaracterization is in basically every single political article, including literally the top story on cnn dot com right now