I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. But in fact it virtually never happens, yet it's a prerequisite for the claim "it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing" -- if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source--and if there isn't then you're making your claim up out of whole cloth. (Which in fact is usually the case for people who make these sorts of claims.)
P.S.
> No it isn't.
Of course it is. As others have pointed out, "the news media" is diverse, and includes FN, NewsMax, OANN, etc.
> One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience)
The reasons for not allowing reports of personal experience are obvious to any remotely intellectually honest person.
Unsurprisingly there's a lot of bad faith in the responses here ... my quota for responding to such dreck is exhausted.
> I trust it a lot more than its critics, especially if they say nonsense like "If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you ..." -- when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong.
While i generally agree, and most of the critics of Wikipedia seem to be mad that Wikipedia doesn't take their pet conspiracy theory seriously, which, well, good.
However, i still think systemic bias is something to be seriously considered. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that aims to summarize reputable knowledge ("verifiability not truth"). As such there is a significant risk of systemic biases being reflected in Wikipedia.
But i think that's ok. Wikipedia can't be all things. It is not scientists/ acedemics. It is not in the business of creating new knowledge, just summarizing it. Its someone elses job to create it
> However, i still think systemic bias is something to be seriously considered.
I've seriously considered it. It helps to have been an active editor who understands how the place works and has seen the push and pull that prevents such systemic biases ... of course, there is a systemic "bias" toward veridical claims, which is as it should be. That doesn't mean that everything there is true, but there is an active process that tends to eliminate what isn't--sort of like science. But at WP there are numerous adversarial ideological cadres who have to at least play-act at good faith in order to achieve consensus, which results in a lot truth being stated in quite muted qualified ways. It's not perfect but it's hard to come up with a way to do better.
> when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong.
No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favour of.
> But in fact it virtually never happens,
If it sometimes happens, and if you can take the inside view of a particular topics, then you can determine if it is one such instance.
> if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source
Your source may not be considered valid by wikipedia, for reasons that are fundamental to wikipedia as an institution, but incidental to an individual trying to determine the truth. One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) which are not covered or referenced by "reliable" (wikipedia term of art) secondary sources.
P.S.
> No it isn't.
Of course it is. As others have pointed out, "the news media" is diverse, and includes FN, NewsMax, OANN, etc.
> One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience)
The reasons for not allowing reports of personal experience are obvious to any remotely intellectually honest person.
Unsurprisingly there's a lot of bad faith in the responses here ... my quota for responding to such dreck is exhausted.