 | 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: In this personal essay, you will find three lists of sources to use and avoid, together with other resources and my opinions. I also deal with why a subset of Trump-supporters are confused about which sources are reliable. They use unreliable sources, and their "Trump bias" and "Trump POV" are against RS and for unreliable sources, thus demonstrating their lack of the competence needed to edit American political subjects. They should stick to gnomish edits and non-controversial topics. |
Sometimes wading through the process of teaching how to vet sources is simply too difficult a process, sometimes taking years, so I'm just going to provide lists of reliable and dubious sources. Yes, this is the lazy way, but generally it's safer to just use or avoid them. Note that word "generally", as even the best sources can make mistakes. Various resources with charts and tools to aid in evaluating sources are included.
Why is it even necessary to do this? Because in our post-truth political era, a strong ideological and cultural conflict over truth and facts is creating confusion in society and a subset of editors, and in the United States that confusion is largely created by Donald Trump,[1] and this confusion most strongly affects his supporters. Editors must not be confused about what is true and factual, because any confusion affects their editing and discussions, and we don't need that disruption.
Let me nail these facts firmly on the front door of Wikipedia:
- There are such things as verifiable, reality-based, facts.
- Trump's "alternative facts" are not reality-based facts; they are falsehoods.[2]
- The mainstream media are not fake news; they are working hard to report the news accurately and don't allow spin to get in the way of the facts.
- The "news" sources favored by Trump are invariably unreliable, inaccurately spin and distort the facts, and some are worthy of being called fake news because they only spout what's favorable to Trump, even though it's often false. He likes them because the truth hurts, and it interferes with his agenda.
- When Trump says "fake news", he doesn't mean "news that is untrue";[3] he means news which is negative and unfavorable to himself, even though it's true.[4][5]
No editor here should doubt any of those facts. Period. Only fringe editors doubt them.[6] Facts are facts, lies are lies, and opinions are not facts.
Moreover, even though "the facts have a well-known center-left bias",[7][8][9] that does not mean that reliably sourced facts are always the same as left-wing bias or opinion; they just happen to often reside on the same piece of real estate. That means the left is a safer place to reside if you're interested in facts and truth. 
By contrast, it is Trump's falsehoods[10][11][12] which are examples of right-wing political bias and opinions that are not reality-based or reliably sourced. Trump is not a reality-based person,[13] and neither are a subset of editors here who have a strong pro-Trump bias, at least not when it comes to our political articles.
Sourcing may seem a mundane matter, but the situation I mention above, and more fully describe below, is of vital importance to Wikipedia, because the basis of our editing is under sustained attack by Trump. His attacks are two-fold: he attacks the reliable sources (RS) we use by attacking the professional mainstream media, and he supports and uses unreliable sources. This post-truth Trumpian age often pits a subset of fringe editors,[6] those with a strong Trump bias, directly against Wikipedia's understanding of RS. They do not believe our reliably sourced articles, but try to twist and whitewash them to favor Trump, regardless of what RS say. They follow their leader by (1) believing his falsehoods, (2) distrusting reliable sources, (3) using dubious sources, (4) believing conspiracy theories, and (5) consuming fake news and false stories. This causes them to be incompetent for editing political articles. This situation disrupts the editing and discussions on political articles, and administrators and mainstream editors must be aware of what's going on and why. Fortunately, good sources and fact checkers frequently debunk errors and misinformation, and good editors use those sources and fact checkers.
- ^ Leonhardt, David (June 10, 2018). "Opinion - Trump Tries to Destroy the West". The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Blake_1/22/2017was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Lind_5/9/2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Gendreau_2/25/2017was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Cillizza_5/9/2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Fringe_editorswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Krugman_5/9/2016was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Krugman_4/18/2014was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Krugman_12/8/2017was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Kessler_Rizzo_Kelly_9/13/2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
NYT_Editorial_Board_9/7/2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Prentice_2/10/2017was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Elving, Rob (July 25, 2018). "Opinion: Why 'Fact Checking' and 'Reality Check' Do Not Apply to Trump". NPR. Retrieved September 14, 2018.