 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia gains credibility by being anti-fringe, factual, calling things by their right names, and resolutely opposing fringe editors. A dominance of anti-fringe editors causes pro-fringe editors to leave, and their loss is a benefit to the project and directly boosts its credibility. |
Research shows that Wikipedia gains credibility by being an active fact-checker and anti-fringe.[4][8] Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to report facts as found in reliable sources (RS). Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual and what is false or unproven. Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damage Wikipedia's credibility, and when fringe editors leave Wikipedia it becomes more trustworthy.[12]
The recipe for increased credibility is simple: be anti-fringe; be factual and call things by their right names; and firmly oppose fringe editors.
This knowledge should result in a mentality shift toward actively opposing fringe editors who push nonsense. They insidiously undermine our RS policy and damage Wikipedia's credibility, so they don't belong here. When possible, it's better to use topic bans to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. If they won't do that, other sanctions should be applied boldly, without hesitation or delay.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786. ISSN 1932-6203.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ 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.[1][2][3]
- ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
- ^ Cooke, Richard (17 February 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
- ^ Steinwehr, Uta; Bushuev, Mikhail (14 January 2021). "Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it?". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
- ^ 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.[5][6][7]
- ^ Harrison, Stephen (5 April 2023). "Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" to Review Polish-Jewish History During WWII". Slate. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
- ^ Silva, Marco (November 19, 2021). "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC News. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.[9][10][11]