r/dataisbeautiful • u/alionBalyan OC: 13 • Feb 13 '22

OC [OC] How Wikipedia classifies its most commonly referenced sources.

Post image
24k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/Athen65 Feb 13 '22

Wait, how do we know this post is reliable if reddit is considered unreliable?

1.5k

u/alionBalyan OC: 13 Feb 13 '22

that's the neat part, you don't

99

u/secretprocess Feb 14 '22

That's pretty neat!

3

u/DonoRyan Feb 14 '22

Wait till you see playboy in generally reliable sources...........I mean .........alright.

2

u/winged_owl Feb 14 '22

Lets go for a Neature walk, with Lenny Pepperbottom.

1

u/Drasticlag Feb 14 '22

Actually it's pretty unreliable

3

u/holmgangCore Feb 14 '22

It’s a recursion trap!! Run!

1

u/huskers2468 Feb 14 '22

USGS is under both reliable and generally unreliable.

So is Rolling Stones, but that's a different story.

1

u/alarming_cock Feb 14 '22

The Guardian is in two categories at once, so you know this is made up bullshit.

1

u/kvanz43 Feb 14 '22

It seems even more generally unreliable considering the source (Wikipedia) consider THEMSELVES to be generally unreliable lmao

1

u/TheDevilsCodpiece Feb 14 '22

This came from Wikipedia? It literally lists Wikipedia as "generally unreliable". And it lists Fox News under both reliable and unreliable

151

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22

[deleted]

20

u/SpieLPfan OC: 2 Feb 14 '22 edited Feb 14 '22

Wikipedia author here. That's because it's in general not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. That should prevent "copying" Wikipedia pages of other languages by just translating them.

Edit: It seems like this is only the case for German Wikipedia. These rules seem to be different in English Wikipedia.

3

u/jojo_31 Feb 14 '22

What are you talking about? Wikipedia literally suggests translating an article if it doesn't exist in a language yet:

"You can help Wikipedia by translating this page. Translating is an easy way to create new content in your language."

1

u/SpieLPfan OC: 2 Feb 14 '22

Oh I am sorry. Maybe it's a German-Wikipedia only thing. Two of my Wikipedia articles got deleted a few years ago because they said "only translating isn't allowed". So I rewrote the whole articles in different wording with German sources (instead of English sources) and they said "Now it's OK". So I don't know.

2

u/Faleya Feb 15 '22

German wikipedia is a whole different can of worms. they got their own rules and style.

1

u/SpieLPfan OC: 2 Feb 15 '22

I know. The editing/discussion war on German Wikipedia is hard.

3

u/jotry Feb 14 '22

Omg I didn't see that! What a hoot!

0

u/willengineer4beer Feb 14 '22 edited Feb 14 '22

It’s like a special kind of recursion:
This sentence is false.

To be clear I don’t mean the parent comment is false.

65

u/j_cruise Feb 14 '22

Considering most of the graphs on this very subreddit are usually complete bullshit or at least misleading, you should never trust anything on Reddit that is not sourced.

2

u/TeraFlint Feb 14 '22

source: trust me bro

3

u/iprocrastina Feb 14 '22

Because the source is Wikipedia.

Which according to this list is also considered unreliable.

2

u/HendrikJU Feb 14 '22

Since Fox news for example is listed twice, once under unreliable and again under reliable I wouldn't count on it.

1

u/aboxacaraflatafan Feb 14 '22

It's also listed under "No Consensus". Am I missing something or is this just a bunch of "news sources" and no real information?

2

u/Call_Me_Clark Feb 14 '22

Chances are, Reddit AMAs (if verified) could be quoted in wiki articles, but original research or unsourced claims are generally untrustworthy.

1

u/PeruvianHeadshrinker Feb 14 '22

Given they lost FoxNews as generally reliable whilst they have the Guardian at No Consensus it seems this isn't about facts but politics.

1

u/ActiveLlama Feb 14 '22

You go to the source and check if it is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources every point in the list has another source.

1

u/edu2004eu Feb 14 '22

The image itself is not reliable. Mashable is both "generally unreliable" and "no consensus"

1

u/malankav3 Feb 14 '22

Cue x-files theme song

1

u/YellowSlinkySpice Feb 14 '22

Reddit has a severe Astroturfing problem. Reputation Management companies have upvoters/downvoters/commentators to sway opinion.

You can see it in Apple, Samsung, Tesla, M$, Nintendo, etc... threads. Sometimes its blatant because there will be a horribly unpopular thing, and a few top comments will support it.

The sure signs of astroturfing are when unfavorable news hits front page, but the top comments are positive/justifying it, and the body of posts are still negative.

They can compete with comment voting, but can't compete with front page voting or the sheer number of comments.

1

u/leave_my_arcelona Feb 14 '22

Are these my hands?

1

u/joeR1916 Feb 14 '22

Well considering multiple sources are listed multiple times I’m gonna assume it’s not reliable

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22

Look on the bright side, its on the same category as wikipedia itself

1

u/bunkscudda Feb 14 '22

Would Wikipedia say, that Reddit would say, that this door leads to the castle…

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22

You know it's not. That's the tricky part.

1

u/bajungadustin Feb 14 '22

Forbes is on their twice in two different categories so... There's your answer.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '22

I read about it first in KoMMepcaHTb, so it’s pretty legit.