This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Reliability of Wikipedia:  ·  history ·  watch ·  refresh · Updated 2019-10-25 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Merge Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage with Reliability of Wikipedia#Coverage. Expand : Should there be something on Wikipedia assessment of itself - e.g. the assessment scheme, WikiProjects, featured articles, peer review etc? Find references where called for Add more recent examples Other : Discuss changing the subject of the article to something a bit broader (e.g. quality of Wikipedia, quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia, evaluation of Wikipedia, assessment of Wikipedia, appraisal of Wikipedia, perspectives on Wikipedia, reception of Wikipedia etc) (reliability being a more narrow subject, see Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article name). Discuss overlap with criticism of Wikipedia and clarify the scope of the two articles. Priority 4

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Study: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate, But Hard to Read - - TechNewsDaily ( LiveScience) 01 June 2010 Messer-Kruse on "verifiability, not truth" Bruckman's Should You Believe Wikipedia? https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1 other history of policies

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Criticism of Wikipedia ( oldid, history) → Reliability of Wikipedia ( diff) Copied Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias ( oldid, history) → Ideological bias on Wikipedia ( diff) on 05:08, 22 May 2018

This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable. If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This topic has been mentioned by a media organization: Eoin O'Carroll (October 11, 2018). "Why does Wikipedia (mostly) work?". Christian Science Monitor.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I made a draft about this same topic (yet it cannot become an article since this one exists,) but I figured I would post it here if anyone wants to look at it and possibly add the information into this article, since my draft is a lost cause at this point. I just want to contribute into this article, since my own cannot be published. It has some pretty important points, in my opinion.

~

Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site by AriLovesTacos ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Ari. I see the above draft has been moved to User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site. Feel free to be bold and update any article you think you can improve. That's how Wikipedia was written. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

113.160.204.217 (
talk) 
01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
reply

Please be more specific about what you would like us to change. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Just my two cents, but the first image seems more decorative than anything. At any rate, might as well put the WP home page, a random diff has no specific link with our reliability. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed, except to say the image in question isn't even decorative! The second image does have that quality in addition to being an appropriate illustration for the article. I say dump the Klee-Irwin.gif (or move it elsewhere in the article if it has some redeeming quality that escapes me) and let the South American coati/Brazilian aardvark lead. Cheers! Captainllama ( talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll go on with it, then, if it's not just me. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Have either of you actually read it? It doesn't seem so. It is a very extreme example of the removal of damaging facts, replacing them with PR fluff. I will return it; you didn't even put the coati at the top. Johnbod ( talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

An image is supposed to illustrate, not to be read. We might as well replace articles by screenshots of them. And even if we really want an image instead of text pointing out some of the interesting changes, we could at least take a more recent diff, where you actually see easily the changes and you don't have to fish through four paragraphs of text to see the point. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply