Jump to content

Wikipedia:How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No fringe advocacy

Wikipedia does not cater to "lunatic charlatans"[1] by permitting them to misuse the encyclopedia for the forbidden advocacy of fringe theories.

This essay is primarily about Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, Pro-Fringe editors, and how getting them to leave Wikipedia directly increases Wikipedia's credibility.

Research by Steinsson shows the perceived credibility, trustworthiness, and reliability of Wikipedia improves when Wikipedia assumes a fact-checking and Anti-Fringe editorial stance.[5][9] Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to accurately report the facts and opinions found in reliable sources (RS), and to make clear the difference between the facts and opinions found in its sources. Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual, false, or unproven. Lending any credence to falsehoods, fringe theories, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damages Wikipedia's credibility. Conversely, when Pro-Fringe editors leave Wikipedia, it becomes more trustworthy.[13]

The recipe for increased credibility is simple: be anti-fringe, be factual and call things by their right names, and confidently oppose pro-fringe editors.

This requires discerning and opposing pro-fringe editors. They insidiously subvert our core content policies and damage Wikipedia's credibility. Topic bans can be used to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. If that wouldn't or hasn't worked, more comprehensive preventative action should be taken without hesitation or delay.

Research with social media[14][15][16][17] shows that "conservatives share more falsehoods and low-quality information online" than liberals, and are more likely to get suspended than liberals.[18] Wikipedia has backing in this research for their stance against those PF editors who depend on unreliable sources. This explains why right-wing editors tend to get blocked more often. They are simply undermining our RS policy's requirements. This also explains why our content is perceived has having a left-wing bias. This is a demonstration of the truth of Paul Krugman's statement that "the facts have a well-known center-left bias".[19][20][21]

Research of credibility factors

[edit]

The following research by political scientist Sverrir Steinsson, published in the American Political Science Review, lays out some facts about Wikipedia's credibility:

A qualitative content analysis shows that Wikipedia transformed from a dubious source of information in its early years to an increasingly reliable one over time. Process tracing shows that early outcomes of disputes over rule interpretations in different corners of the encyclopedia demobilized certain types of editors (while mobilizing others) and strengthened certain understandings of Wikipedia’s ambiguous rules (while weakening others). Over time, Wikipedians who supported fringe content departed or were ousted. Thus, population loss led to highly consequential institutional change. (bold added)[22]

— Sverrir Steinsson, American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press (2023)

Here's a good analysis of Steinsson's work by ShahBano Ijaz:

Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience. (bold added)[23]

— Syeda ShahBano Ijaz, Political Science Now (2023)

The authors researched and classified editors here into Anti-Fringe (AF) and Pro-Fringe (PF) groups, studied their contribution histories, disputes, blocks and bans, ANI and ArbCom proceedings, the election of different types of Administrators, controversial articles, policies and guidelines, and the evolution of those PAG.

To classify editors into the Anti-Fringe camp (AF) and the Pro-Fringe camp (PF), the paper uses a variety of data sources: the viewpoints expressed by editors on the article talk pages themselves, the views expressed by editors brought up for sanctioning on the Administrators’ noticeboard or the “Requests for Enforcement” page before the Arbitration Committee, and lists of editors brought up in arbitration committee rulings.[22]

They described how the NPOV policy has improved a lot, much to Larry Sanger's chagrin:

Furthermore, the founders of Wikipedia have not intervened to cause new interpretations of the guidelines among the userbase. Sanger, who crafted the core NPOV rule, has condemned the interpretations of the guideline that emerged over time.[22]

They also discovered that as soon as Pro-Fringe editors left Wikipedia, either because they gave up or were blocked, the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia immediately improved. No more nonsense or treating of fringe and pseudoscientific claims as just another POV. Now they are called by their right names, and Pro-Fringe editors hate that.

Recipe for increased credibility

[edit]

That research by Steinsson lays out some facts that can be summarized in a simple recipe for quickly increasing Wikipedia's credibility: be anti-fringe, be factual and call things by their right names, and confidently oppose pro-fringe editors.

1. Be anti-fringe

[edit]

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans",[1] nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that pro-fringe believers don't like some of our articles shows that we must be doing something right.

Because Wikipedia has a bias towards use of reliable sources that is rooted in an actual policy, fringe POV pushers should have a hard time here. While it should not be difficult to include facts about proven reality, it should be difficult to make fringe points of view appear to be true. If pro-fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and they shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for defenders of proven reality. Advocacy of nonsensical opinions and beliefs is forbidden here, while advocacy of proven reality is expected. The POV pushing may look the same, but it's allowable to have a bias for reality, but not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias.

Our guideline on fringe theories requires that we avoid a false balance when it states:

"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."

Editors must avoid a false balance because not all points of view are equal. In any controversy, when one side is true, the other side will usually be wrong:

When dealing with evidence for claims, and especially claims for fringe subjects, scientists and skeptics follow the basic principles of science and scientific skepticism, and editors should use the same principles in their editing. These involve critical thinking and are a fundamental part of the scientific method. The scientific reliance on evidence and reproducibility is paralleled by, and perfectly aligned with, the editorial needs and demands found in our reliable sources and verifiability policies. When editors use these policies properly, they are applying the scientific method. The following notable quotes touch on these matters:

  • "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." — Isaac Asimov, The Roving Mind (1983)
  • "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." — Bertrand Russell[29]

Both in the real world and here at Wikipedia, the fringe point of view must produce very strong evidence (good sources) if it can ever be accepted as legitimate and true. Those who are so far out of left field as to not understand reality, or to consider nonsense to be true, should have a hard time here, and they do because they lack good sources.

To make up for the lack, they often use original research and poor sources, and then dare to demand that they be treated in a special manner[1][30] not recognized by our policies and guidelines. Such attempts have been soundly ridiculed and rejected here,[1] and such editors often end up blocked and/or banned.

2. Be factual and call things by their right names

[edit]
Wikipedia is nobody's fool. We do not suffer fools gladly, so pro-fringe editors are unwelcome here.

The research describes how a better understanding of the NPOV policy by Anti-Fringe editors led to "calling things by their right name":

Editors who were anti-conspiracy theories, anti-pseudoscience, and liberal (the AF camp) pushed understandings of NPOV that took a firm anti-conspiracy-theory and anti-pseudoscience stance. Thus, they argued for reliance on strong sources (such as studies and highly reputable mainstream news outlets), nonuse of lower-quality sources (such as partisan outlets and disreputable outlets), stating claims from strong sources in Wikipedia’s own voice (rather than attributing them as a source’s opinion), firmly stating that minority views are fringe, and stating that falsehoods are falsehoods.[22]

The lesson to learn is that Wikipedia gains credibility by being correct and factual, and by rejecting false information. We must have a reputation for fact-checking and leave no confusion as to what is true or false. We must always side with facts and reliable sources of information. Readers should not be forced to figure it out. What RS consider to be true or false should be obvious to them.

Did you think that Wikipedia never takes sides? When there is a disagreement between reliable sources, that is true. We explain the points of view and give them coverage according to their due weight. But when dealing with a disagreement between reliable and unreliable sources, we side with RS. Unreliable sources have no weight here. They are always "undue", and the only way we document their views is when RS mention them. Then we use the RS and give the content the framing found in the RS. Falsehoods are framed as what they are. They are not simply stated, as is. No, they are labeled as falsehoods. When we can call out the false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, we can certainly do it with other topics. He is not the only purveyor of falsehoods we must identify at Wikipedia.

Facts and opinions are not the same, and facts must win. Lies, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories should be called out by name in the text. We must use the labels used by RS. We must not be afraid to say falsehood, lie, liar, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theory when good sources justify doing so. We expect the truth, and any deviation should be labeled as such. If reliable sources use those words, it is not a violation of the NPOV policy to do the same and use those words in the text. When in doubt, just attribute it.

"Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement." User:JzG, November 2019, on Talk:Craniosacral therapy.

On Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" or that we do not use biased words from the sources if they are true. It is editors, not sources or words, who must be neutral. We must neutrally and faithfully document biased words and biased sources without neutralizing or censoring their words or meaning. When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally. We must not make facts sound like opinions or opinions sound like facts. We follow the scientific method. If reliable sources discover that they have made mistakes, we will update our content accordingly. Many of Wikipedia's rules follow the scientific method and the rules of logic.

A contentious term or value-laden label like "conspiracy theorist" can and should be used to describe someone for whom RS apply this label consistently without meaningful rebuttal. We should call a spade a spade and note that plain understanding of RS takes precedence over avoiding giving offense to the subject's sensibilities. BLP is not a protection from any negative information. A public figure must be described as they are understood by reliable sources.

3. Pro-fringe editors should be opposed

[edit]

The researchers studied the block logs and topic bans of individual Pro-Fringe (PF) editors. They also used their contribution histories and Xtools to study their withdrawals, retirements, and reductions in contributions. They found that:

Each shift in policy further weakened the position of PF in editing disputes and made the editing experience less rewarding for those editors because they ended up on the losing end of content disputes. Over time, PF editors responded in three ways:

  1. Fight back: By increasingly editing against consensus and in violation of new interpretations of Wikipedia policy. These editors were subsequently banned.
  2. Withdraw: By leaving Wikipedia or reducing their contributions.
  3. Acquiesce: By gradually adapting to the new interpretations of Wikipedia policy.

Article-by-article evidence substantiates these patterns, with prominent PF editors getting banned, retiring, or adjusting to new interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines.[22]

The lesson to learn is that Pro-Fringe editors should be met with topic bans and blocks until they drop their fringe agendas, leave, or are banned. Wikipedia must not accommodate or allow pro-fringe editors to dilute our content by using bad sources and wishy-washy wording. We are brave enough to call a spade a spade. Firmly taking that position will freeze out disruptive editors and allow mainstream editors to edit without so much distraction from pro-fringe editors who advocate nonsense and seek to undermine our reliably-sourced content. Their loss is a net positive for the project, so the sooner their activiities are stopped, the better.

Wikipedia is allied with the facts and is clearly on their side. Wikipedia doesn't know what is true until reliable sources say so. All our content is based on reliable sources, so they tell us what is true and factual. Our requirement to use reliable sources makes sense, and, of course, we side with our own RS policy.

Therefore, we reject editors who do not side with RS. Research shows pro-fringe editors damage Wikipedia's credibility. Their ability to disrupt should be hampered. If they don't have the necessary competency to vet sources,[31] they should stick to uncontroversial topics, maybe only minor edits, or leave.

Their influence must be curtailed, often with blocks or bans. On the other hand, when possible, it's better to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing by using topic bans. WikiGnomes are always welcome, and even pro-fringe editors can do such good work.

Editors' defense of RS policy

[edit]

Wikipedia's editors seek to follow the site's policy about reliable sources, so they oppose the addition of content from unreliable sources. Research with social media[14][15][16][18][17] shows a clear conservative partisan bias includes a reliance on such unreliable sources. That research found a tendency to suspend conservatives more than liberals and delete content added by conservatives more than content added by liberals because:

conservatives share more falsehoods and low-quality information online even when you let groups of Republicans define what counts as false or low-quality... It found that accounts that shared pro-Trump hashtags were both more likely to post links to low-quality sites — including those purveying falsehoods about the election — and more likely to end up suspended than those that shared pro-Biden hashtags.[18]

Editors need to decide whether they side with those who use poor sources or with the RS policy and those editors who support it and who reject those poor sources.

RS policy represents a "barrier to entry" for Pro-Fringe editors

[edit]

It is a daily occurrence that clearly right-wing editors and visitors complain about the "left-wing bias"[32] here and mistakenly conclude that our choice of sources is because of the personal bias of editors and not because most right-wing sources are unreliable. Some editors are aware of an article at The Critic[32] and actually believe its mistaken premises (about NPOV). That's sad.

One editor resorted to accusing other editors of creating "barriers of entry" as a means to "own the topic" and "control the narrative",[33] rather than recognizing that their own favorite sources were so extreme that they were not reliable enough for Wikipedia to use.

Does Wikipedia have "barriers to entry?" Yes, we do have them. They are called RS, and source reliability is judged by accuracy, not by any particular bias, be it left or right.

As is always the case with politically relevant facts (IOW not all facts) and how sources relate to them, there are sources that agree with those in power, and sources that do not. This is a factor in what's known as "disinformation laundering": "The U.S. media ecosystem features several spheres that partially overlap and constantly interact with each other... The mainstream media... The conspiratorial media... and Disclosers."[34]

Currently, with few exceptions, the right-wing media has become (especially since Trump) so extreme that it is the described "conspiratorial media",[34] with some extreme left-wing sources also in that group. At some other time in history, the roles might be reversed. It all depends on which narratives, true or false, are favorable to those in power. Trump and the GOP have clearly chosen disinformation and conspiracy theories to stoke Trump's base, and Trump often gets those narratives from sources like Fox News, The Daily Caller, Breitbart, RT, Sputnik, and Russian intelligence efforts to plant propaganda and fake news, which he then repeats. He literally "launders" that disinformation.

Conclusions:

  1. Yes, Wikipedia does have policies that are "barriers to entry", and we should be thankful for them, not criticize and undermine them.
  2. When people buy into Trump's misuse of the term "fake news" (when he falsely asserts that the "news media are fake news"), they follow him down a rabbit hole that excludes RS, so they cannot self-correct. He allows no crack for the light to get in ("Anthem"). Being a die-hard Trump supporter has serious consequences here. This extreme media bubble of falsehood does not exist on the left, as left-wingers tend to use a much wider variety of sources,[35] so they discover errors and self-correct fairly quickly.

Some opinions are more important than others

[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines require us to give points of view their proper WP:DUE weight. That means that opinions that are from noted experts, or which are closely aligned with neutral and factual analysis at a high level of authoritativeness and prominence, should take precedence over lesser, more fringe or novel perspectives, with the most fringe perspectives afforded the least weight, or none at all.

"The liberal bias of facts"

[edit]

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has described this:

  • "On the Liberal Bias of Facts"[20]
  • "The Facts Have A Well-Known Center-Left Bias"[19]
  • "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias"[21]

The Signpost: Wikipedia's "credibility transformation"

[edit]

From: The Signpost, 5 June 2023: Wikipedia's "credibility transformation", by Jonatan Svensson Glad, Smallbones and Andreas Kolbe

In the midst of the ChatGPT era and growing concerns over fake news, the media's spotlight shines this week on Wikipedia's trustworthiness as the go-to source for separating fact from fiction. As attention intensifies, explore the platform's evolving credibility and its crucial role in the battle against misinformation.

Discover the captivating tale of English Wikipedia's credibility makeover in an intriguing APSR article by Sverrir Steinsson, summarized on Political Science Now. Wikipedia's shift from hosting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories to becoming a myth-busting powerhouse is unveiled. Through internal battles, changing policy interpretations, and editor exoduses, Wikipedia has emerged as a trusted source of factual information. It's a fascinating journey that proves even the wildest institutions can reinvent themselves for the better.

By conducting an extensive analysis of a diverse range of Wikipedia articles spanning topics such as climate, health, gender, and sexuality, Steinsson provides insights into the notable shifts in content and language that occurred over time. The transformation of English Wikipedia from hosting fringe beliefs to actively debunking myths was a gradual yet significant process. For instance, the evolution of our Homeopathy article gradually transitioned from describing the subject as a "controversial system of alternative medicine" to categorizing it unequivocally as a pseudoscience.

Steinsson examines Wikipedia's governance structure, saying that the underlying power struggles and editorial debates that shaped the platform's trajectory; as editors with anti-fringe perspectives gained influence and contributors holding pro-fringe viewpoints gradually departed, a new interpretation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View guideline emerged, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy rather than a wide array of viewpoints, and ultimately enhancing the credibility of Wikipedia. For Steinsson, this change occurred gradually through internal processes, including the resolution of early disputes, the departure of certain editors, and the evolution of rule interpretations. Driven by a combination of compulsory power, where dissenters were sanctioned, and productive power, which delegitimized certain rule interpretations, this pattern of change may have broader implications, and can potentially explain similar transformations in other institutions and contexts (such as political movements and parties).

The article challenges the notion that external events or changes in external sources were the primary drivers of this transformation. Instead, it points to the internal reinterpretation of institutional norms as the driving force behind Wikipedia's evolution. In an era dominated by social media and online engagement, the case of Wikipedia serves as a testament to the potential for dynamic digital platforms to adapt and improve. The narrative unravels the interplay between internal conflicts, evolving policy interpretations, and the reshaping of editorial landscapes, providing a thought-provoking exploration of institutional malleability.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:

    Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

  2. ^ Okoli, Chitu; Mehdi, Mohamad; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (8 July 2014). "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (12). Wiley: 2381–2403. doi:10.1002/asi.23162. ISSN 2330-1635.
  3. ^ Jullien, Nicolas (2012). "What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)". HAL Open Science. ffhal-00857208f: 86. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  4. ^ Smith, Denise A. (18 February 2020). "Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review". PLOS ONE. 15 (2). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0228786. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1528786S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 32069322.
  5. ^ Several systematic and narrative reviews in the scholarly literature have described Wikipedia's credibility among scholars and experts and connected it to our robust content policies, including our medical sources guideline and other policies which appropriately restrict fringe content.[2][3][4]
  6. ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  7. ^ Cooke, Richard (17 February 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  8. ^ Steinwehr, Uta; Bushuev, Mikhail (14 January 2021). "Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it?". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  9. ^ Several highly trustworthy news sources extoll the reliability of Wikipedia, and connect it to our robust content policies, including our anti-pseudoscience guideline and other related policies.[6][7][8]
  10. ^ Harrison, Stephen (5 April 2023). "Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" to Review Polish-Jewish History During WWII". Slate. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  11. ^ Silva, Marco (November 19, 2021). "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC News. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
  12. ^ Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  13. ^ Several well-publicized incidents over the years have highlighted what happens when our anti-fringe theories and other content guidelines fail to live up to their stated goals.[10][11][12]
  14. ^ a b Mosleh, Mohsen; Yang, Qi; Zaman, Tauhid; Pennycook, Gordon; Rand, David G. (October 2, 2024). "Differences in misinformation sharing can lead to politically asymmetric sanctions". Nature. 634 (8034). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 609–616. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07942-8. ISSN 0028-0836.
  15. ^ a b Macdonald, Maggie; Brown, Megan A. (August 29, 2022). "Republicans are increasingly sharing misinformation, research finds". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
  16. ^ a b Fox, Maggie (June 2, 2021). "Conservatives more likely to believe false news, new study finds". CNN. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
  17. ^ a b MIT Sloan School of Management (October 2, 2024). "Study: Conservative users' misinformation sharing drives higher suspension rates, not platform bias". Phys.org. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
  18. ^ a b c Oremus, Will (October 3, 2024). "Why conservatives get suspended more than liberals on social media". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 20, 2024.
  19. ^ a b Krugman, Paul (May 9, 2016). "The Facts Have A Well-Known Center-Left Bias". The New York Times. Retrieved September 15, 2018.
  20. ^ a b Krugman, Paul (April 18, 2014). "On the Liberal Bias of Facts". The New York Times. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  21. ^ a b Krugman, Paul (December 8, 2017). "Opinion - Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". The New York Times. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  22. ^ a b c d e Steinsson, Sverrir (March 9, 2023). "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet". American Political Science Review. 118. Cambridge University Press: 235–251. doi:10.1017/s0003055423000138. ISSN 0003-0554.
  23. ^ ShahBano Ijaz, Syeda (May 29, 2023). "How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia's Credibility". Political Science Now. Retrieved June 20, 2023.
  24. ^ Carl Sagan (writer/host) (December 14, 1980). "Encyclopaedia Galactica". Cosmos. Episode 12. 01:24 minutes in. PBS.
  25. ^ While Carl Sagan's version is likely the most popular, Marcello Truzzi had preceded him by a couple years in 1978:

    * "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." — Marcello Truzzi, "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification," Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

    * "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, December 13, 1987, p. 3

  26. ^ Quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes
  27. ^ Christopher Hitchens, "Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.", Slate, October 20, 2003.
  28. ^ Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) p.150. Twelve Books, New York.
  29. ^ Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (1927). Watts, London.
  30. ^ Hall, Harriet (September 2015), "Evidence: "It Worked for My Aunt Tillie" is Not Enough", Skeptic, Volume 20, Number 3, retrieved November 22, 2015

    Quote: "Science-based medicine has one rigorous standard of evidence, the kind [used for pharmaceuticals] .... CAM has a double standard. They gladly accept a lower standard of evidence for treatments they believe in. However, I suspect they would reject a pharmaceutical if it were approved for marketing on the kind of evidence they accept for CAM."

  31. ^ "Guides: Determine Credibility (Evaluating): Ask CRAAP Questions". Illinois State University. September 29, 2015. Retrieved June 20, 2023.
  32. ^ a b Tezuka, Shuichi; Ashtear, Linda A (October 22, 2020). "The left-wing bias of Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia's neutral point of view truly dead?". The Critic. Retrieved October 24, 2024.
  33. ^ diff of editor later blocked
  34. ^ a b Toucas, Boris (August 31, 2017). "Exploring the Information-Laundering Ecosystem: The Russian Case". CSIS. Retrieved October 24, 2024.
  35. ^ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Political Polarization & Media Habits". Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 24, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:How_to_increase_Wikipedia%27s_credibility&oldid=1253810158"