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)

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:

Welp, I got censored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals....

now you know.

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:27 AM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:

On 09/28/2018 09:23 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:

...

Welp, I got censored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals....

now you know.

Yeah... I thought wikipedia had some decency until they started talking shit about you/your project.

there's a few issues: firstly, anyone who stands up to them is automatically targetted. secondly: the people who set themselves up as admins completely ignore the rule "assume good intent of editors". and thirdly, they have a *really* serious problem in the form of one of the long-standing contributors, JZGuy or someone, whose behaviour is so unbelievably outrageous and hypocritical that it's actually caught the attention of someone who is documenting it in the form of a book. absolutely nobody dares criticise him as they don't want to end up being the target of revenge that they *know* he will enact, as they've witnessed him doing it multiple times over the years.

if you're interested to do so, take a look here http://libre-riscv.org/charter/ - and "apply" that to wikipedia. you'll see that there are multiple systemic law violations. jean's censorship (even after the apology) is a clear violation of at least three systemic laws.

l.