AI-generated content and other unfavorable practices have put longtime staple CNET on Wikipedia's blacklisted sources
tomshardware.com
In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.
Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia's editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.
You are viewing a single comment
It isn't, Wikipedia is about as trustworthy as any other random source.
I would argue otherwise.
Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.
I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it's rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.
So you know there is wrong information on wikipedia, but you still trust it as a primary source? That says a lot about you.
Trust but verify my dude.
What you're saying is that you don't trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.
You have a weird definition of trust.
Healthier than trusting nothing or no one
Worse than getting information from multiple sources.
I've yet to see a wiki article without a shit ton of sources listed clearly at the bottom.
What do you think the "verify" part of "Trust but verify" means? Lol
Not a primary source. Also, every Wikipedia page posts the primary sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is just a compendium, it's not a peer reviewed journal. Use some brain matter before it rots my dude.
It’s not considered a primary source. Nobody said it is. But it’s a good starting point for further research in most topics.
This would be seriously useful, what are the impeccable primary sources?
That's not what they said.
What isn't what who said?
What you said isn’t what they said
Quality contribution
Thank you!
Can you offer any alternatives? Or are there simply no trustworthy sites?
The problem with wikipedia is that people expect it to be neutral but on many topics it is far from that. It's probably better to find a biased source where you know and account for the bias. Any "conservative" or "progressive" source where you know the bias is more reliable, at least you know which way they are leaning on all topics. And never trust a single source anyway.
I always thought the advantage with Wikipedia is that you can find sources for the info right there on their site. If there's any doubt about the info on their site, it's easy enough to vet the sources. I wouldn't trust nearly any site without being able to at least do that anyway. At least in this case you can see where the info is coming from, and it's not just "trust me bro"