Wikipedia:How to increase Wikipedia's credibility

No fringe advocacy

Wikipedia does not cater to "lunatic charlatans"[1] by permitting them to misuse the encyclopedia for the forbidden advocacy of fringe theories.

This essay is primarily about Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, Pro-Fringe editors, and how getting them to leave Wikipedia directly increases Wikipedia's credibility.

Research by Steinsson shows the perceived credibility, trustworthiness, and reliability of Wikipedia improves when Wikipedia assumes a fact-checking and Anti-Fringe editorial stance.[5][9] Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and always strives to accurately report the facts and opinions found in reliable sources (RS), and to make clear the difference between the facts and opinions found in its sources. Our articles should leave no doubt as to what is factual, false, or unproven. Lending any credence to falsehoods, fringe theories, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories damages Wikipedia's credibility. Conversely, when Pro-Fringe editors leave Wikipedia, it becomes more trustworthy.[13]

The recipe for increased credibility is simple: be anti-fringe, be factual and call things by their right names, and confidently oppose pro-fringe editors.

This requires discerning and opposing pro-fringe editors. They insidiously subvert our core content policies and damage Wikipedia's credibility. Topic bans can be used to redirect their energies toward more constructive ways of editing. If that wouldn't or hasn't worked, more comprehensive preventative action should be taken without hesitation or delay.

Research with social media[14][15][16][17] shows that "conservatives share more falsehoods and low-quality information online" than liberals, and are more likely to get suspended than liberals.[18] Wikipedia has backing in this research for their stance against those PF editors who depend on unreliable sources. This explains why right-wing editors tend to get blocked more often. They are simply undermining our RS policy's requirements. This also explains why our content is perceived has having a left-wing bias. This is a demonstration of the truth of Paul Krugman's statement that "the facts have a well-known center-left bias".[19][20][21]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference lunatic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1528786S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 32069322.
  5. ^ 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.[2][3][4]
  6. ^ "Wikipedia is 20, and its reputation has never been higher". The Economist. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  7. ^ Cooke, Richard (17 February 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  8. ^ Steinwehr, Uta; Bushuev, Mikhail (14 January 2021). "Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it?". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  9. ^ 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.[6][7][8]
  10. ^ Harrison, Stephen (5 April 2023). "Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" to Review Polish-Jewish History During WWII". Slate. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  11. ^ Silva, Marco (November 19, 2021). "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC News. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ 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.[10][11][12]
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mosleh_et_al_10//2/2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference McDonald_Brown_8/29/2022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fox_6/2/2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference MIT_10/2/2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Oremus_10/3/2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Krugman_5/9/2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Krugman_4/18/2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Krugman_12/8/2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).