[Arm-netbook] Wikipedia policy change, list might care about

[Jean Flamelle]

Uh, not especially short, but I suppose short enough if I parse out
the bit related to an admin essentially lists all the policies that
would need adapted if anyone agreed with me and says that's too much
change this doesn't have a snowballs chance, I will block you from
editing wikipedia if you say any more about this after I close,
collapse, and archive your proposal so no one else sees this
monstrosity ever. Here it is:

Wikipedia guidelines call Wikipedia a tertiary source.

I dispute that claim.

Tertiary sources don't rely only on reliable sources.

Secondary sources rarely ever have any oversight. (besides economic)

Typically, tertiary sources like most encyclopedias have strict over-sight.

Wikipedia mostly cites tertiary sources, including meta-studies as
well as academic reviews.

Overall Wikipedia mostly only accepts tertiary sources, including news
which cites other news.

Secondary sources necessarily interpret information, generating
helpfully extreme bias.

NPOV means neutral-POV not mythical "no-POV", so neutral-POV can't
exist without POV.

The more extreme and diverse the biases tertiary sources absorb, the
more reliable the information.

Wikipedia should not discourage secondary sources from generating extreme bias.

Instead wikipedia should encourage extreme bias from secondary sources
and encourage tertiary sources to absorb that bias.

Then, wikipedians should combine and weigh tertiary sources against
each other to decide what information achieves a minimum standard.

Wikipedians should do this by checking primary and secondary sources
to ensure the tertiary perspective accounts for all said by them.

Wikipedia should change policy to allow unreliable sources only to
make up for gaps in the accounts made by tertiary sources.

Gaps should include:

    explained contradictions, in behavior or moral positions;
    unaccounted details (about events) supported substantially by
primary sources, or;
    unaccounted novel justifications or novel moral positions
supported substantially by secondary source.

Eaterjolly (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

        Reply: Editors already WP:IAR, when including biased secondary
and primary sources. Often when an obviously notable view doesn't get
covered by any neutral sources, so wikipedians erroneously categorize
that as WP:SELFSOURCE. Since wikipedia gets hailed as the only
necessary tertiary source, tertiary sources often mascaraed as
secondary sources while getting called meta-news as well as wilfully
lacking oversight because they push the issue of scrutiny onto
textbook authors, academics, or wikipedia.

            First, I propose that details from platformed primary
sources (having a significant audience) not accounted for by the
journalism of any secondary or tertiary sources, get officially
allowed on wikipedia which already happens by convention under
WP:SELFSOURCE
            Second, I propose notably biased or extremely biased
secondary sources (i.e. the Daily Mail, Breitbart, BuzzFeed) for
POV'es unaccounted for by neutral sources. This also happens by
convention, yet much more contentiously. Often discussions go out into
trial by verbal combat whether the source's articles completely
irrelevant to the topic at hand give reliable information. Obviously
different sources give reliable information on different topics, and
sources which venture outside the narrow scope of their specialty
typically make mistakes while outside that scope. I wouldn't trust
Breitbart to report on gender, nor would I trust Buzzfeed to report on
history, though I might trust Brietbart to report on history and
Buzzfeed to report on gender.

        Consequently I don't think this would change much except focus
discussions more, and open up the possibility to incorporate
multimedia sources in citations. I personally would like to find TED
talks cited on wikipedia. The proposal would result in an official
section in the guidelines which would state primary sources and
secondary source can compensate for gaps in reporting by rigorous
tertiary sources. Again, already the practice. Primary sources should
give information suitable for wikipedia when the source has a platform
(a significant audience), the particular details cited present minimal
POV, the details have not gotten accounted for by tertiary or
secondary sources, and the particular details cited have gotten
corroborated by other platformed primary sources. Biased secondary
sources should give information suitable for wikipedia when the source
has a platform (a significant audience), the opinions cited form a
remarkable POV (non-trivial and unique, in other words), the opinions
haven't gotten accounted for in the reporting by any rigorous tertiary
sources nor can get inferred false by evidence reported thereof, and
the opinions cited have gotten corroborated as believe-able by other
platformed secondary sources. This would also open up citing notable
youtube vloggers for opinions not expressed, investigated, or
otherwise accounted for in any way by mainstream news. This would also
open up youtube news like the Philip DeFranco show for inclusion on
wikipedia as a mostly reliable source.
        I welcome further discussion about this.
        Anyone, please comment!
Eaterjolly (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

-- 
CC0