Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01/Disinformation report

Discuss this story

Could someone clarify what is meant by 'fact-checking process'? I ask, because I can think of nothing in Wikipedia editorial practice that either mandates such a thing, or even approximates it - it least as the term is normally used. Content certainly isn't normally 'fact-checked' before it is published, and in as much as it ever gets checked at all, it is generally only as a result of an individual choosing to do so, generally after noticing an issue. The general disclaimer sums this up nicely: Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate, or reliable information, and I really don't think we should be claiming otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia and fact-checking, to which I contributed greatly. I would be happy to say all this in my own voice as an opinion piece, but there are lots of accurate ways to communicate that Wikipedia does much more fact checking than any other media organization. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to check the 22 references given in the article Blue Rasberry linked for you. If you are going to blather on about fact checking, you should do some for yourself. (more below after dinner!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources states that "Wikipedia does much more fact checking than any other media organization"? Not that it really matters, since it isn't how much you do, but how effective the process is that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BR said an "opinion piece" ie. an original research essay that is not governed by Wikipedia rules and regulations ie. the real world. Until you see the essay, you'll either have to believe or not believe BR that such an opinion could convincingly be made. Given BR's stated experience and expertise in this area, and other tangential information from various academic studies (some cited in this issue of Signpost) I'm generally inclined to give BR the benefit of the doubt. I did see the National Geographic Magazine fact checking operation once and it was impressive, at least 20 years ago, and I suspect NYT is also very good, among others. -- GreenC 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bluerasberry is loosely using the term "fact checking" to mean "verifiability" when he says Wikipedia editors use several fact-checking processes. It doesn't mean that the verifiability has actually been carried out 100% of the time, i.e. verifiable≠verified. A word or two could be changed for more technical correctness, Wikipedia editors ~~use several fact-checking processes~~ enable verification and fact-checking with several processes, but I don't think that is particularly readable or necessary. In fact the more I think about it, I think the original is more correct: editors include all editors who ever improve the article, not just the first editor(s) who create an imcompletely fact-checked article. Surely that larger set of editors use several fact-checking processes. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At some point "we" (not just Wikipedia) need people on the ground going to organizations and looking at their fact checking departments and grading them on metrics. It would be voluntary. Sort of like the seafood and forestry seals of approval, those who have it will have greater currency. -- GreenC 16:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]