I am talking about cases where 99% of people ignore the topic and potentially 1 person writes on it in a biased way. Diversity doesn't matter if everyone ignores it.
In my experience just look up any niche community you are a part of that has a controversies section. You'll be able to see inaccuracies due to these articles being written by people outside of the community. Sometimes inconsequential drama will be the only thing the article is about since otherwise your community is not noteworthy enough. It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be.
Of course they didn't provide an example, they just waved their hands.
If someone does encounter an example, they are free to correct it by adding sourced material or by removing unsourced material (preferably after a notice on the talk page).
And they say "It's a shame since it can hurt the communities reputation due to how highly ranked wikipedia pages can be" after saying that this happens because 99% of people pay no attention to the topic.
>If someone does encounter an example, they are free to correct it by adding sourced material or by removing unsourced material (preferably after a notice on the talk page).
How can I correct it if it is sourced, but not true? Since I'm a primary source, I can't simply say it's untrue and remove it, even if I provide evidence. It's my understanding that I would need to wait for a reliable secondary source to write that it's not true. And since it is unlikely for someone to write about a dead community, such a valid article may never be written.
