Want a place where you can gain a full understanding of any topic, from any perspective? Then Wikipedia is not the place for you.
The editors who can’t seem to prevent the California GOP from being listed as Nazis on their platform have decided that Breitbart can’t be used as a source or reference. One editor wrote, “I think that Breitbart is not a reliable source. It’s my view that we should not source anything to Breitbart other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Breitbart on the articles related to Breitbart and its people.”
In a post announcing the change, Wikipedia administrator Fish+Karate, (whose fondness for ichthyology and martial arts make this admin very trustworthy indeed) noted that “There is a very clear consensus here that yes, Breitbart should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail.”
In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an “unreliable source” based on the “reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.” An admin known as Hillbillyholiday proposed the change in January, 2017. The site made it a rule February of that same year.
An article posted on Wikipedia writes that Breitbart “may be useful for discussing opinions, but should never be used to support negative claims about people.” That seems oddly specific for an outlet that is considered taboo.
Google and YouTube have partnered with Wikipedia to provide information and answers. YouTube has used Wikipedia to disprove climate change disputes on its platform. A site that removes conservative voices from its references is being used for tech companies to promote what they see as the truth. This, along with the fact that admins Hillbillyholiday and Fish+Karate are determining what is true and what is false, is troubling to say the least.
