Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

So I'm curious about why there is a screenshot of Earth's page as it seems to not contribute anything to the section it's in (Quality of Writing). If it does have a purpose (e.g., it shows poor writing quality) that should be specified in the picture description, otherwise it should just be removed. I'd remove it but I don't want to in case there actually is some use for the photo that isn't apparent to me. Everredwinter (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding these edits, does WP:ABOUTSELF apply here? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It can certainly be argued that ABOUTSELF applies in this instance. It seems to fit with the criteria outlined in this section of WP:V. Also, Wikipedia has declared that it is not a reliable source, which is linked to in the now restored version (see WP:RES). I can see no justification for removing this first sentence along with this link. I think it is important that this be said right up front. In any case, the edit cannot be changed without further discussion leading to a consensus. I will also add, I don't think that this first sentence should have been removed without first establishing consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, it's difficult to get a "wikipedia says" about anything, given how large and diverse the editor base is. If there isn't yet a simple test to determine whether something can be a "wikipedia says", I would suggest any projectspace page with a banner that says anything along the lines of "this is community consensus". Specifically, points 2 and 4 of aboutself may not be met here. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect. It is indeed difficult to get a "wikipedia editors say" about anything (but we can report the results of RfCs and polls with attribution) but Wikipedia:List of policies is unambiguously what "Wikipedia says". For example, the following is a true statement: "Wikipedia does not tolerate inappropriate adult–child relationships. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate for inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children or expressing support for known pedophile advocacy groups), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely." See Wikipedia:Child protection That's what Wikipedia says. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we are in disagreement here, because policies are community consensus. The source used for the statement in this article, however, is not a policy. WP:CONLEVEL, though I'm sure you're aware. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why RetroCosmos is using CONLEVEL as an argument. We are talking about the applicability of ABOUTSELF for this article, which includes gauging what is appropriate source usage. By introducing CONLEVEL, they are not on point. That is a different topic and it does not seem relevant to this discussion. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, ABOUTSELF is policy. It is part of WP:V which is policy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some policies are subject to community consensus. See WP:CONEXCEPT. If everyone on the English Wikipedia went crazy and an RfC with 100% participation was 100% in favor of Wikipedia tolerating inappropriate adult–child relationships, Arbcom would step in an overrule that consensus. If Arbcom went crazy too, the WMF would step in with an office action and overrule Arbcom. And yes, whether this particular source is or is not allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF is a question to be decided by consensus. I am just pointing out that some things are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

So we are on the same page, then? Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Guy, I see no need to address the insertion of CONLEVEL into this discussion. As far as I am concerned it is a red herring (see what I wrote above). I don't see a need to endlessly argue if irrelevant topics are going to be introduced. There comes a time when a certain editor should agree or walk away. Either of these actions is acceptable. Unless there is something else to introduce that is relevant. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Point well taken. Sometimes I need to let incorrect statements ("policies are community consensus") stand instead of correcting them. See [ https://xkcd.com/386/ ]. Thanks for the reminder. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Haha! Good one. I have certainly done the same during my time here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems that Guy Macon has provided an excellent example to illustrate the point. If this were a martial arts match, I believe Macon has delivered a devastating knockout punch. And the staff are urgently bringing out the smelling salts now. imho. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going back to the WP:ABOUTSELF for a minute. I misspoke when I said, "Wikipedia says it is not a reliable source about itself" (or something to that effect). It is obviously some editor or, hopefully, some group of editors, that has said this about Wikipedia. There is no agreed upon entity, or known entity, called "Wikipedia" that can speak for itself. Yet, there seems to be wide agreement among editors that Wikipedia is, indeed, not a reliable source. So, moving on...

Above it was said that perhaps points #2 and #4 in the ABOUTSELF criteria may not be met — regarding WP:RES or WP:WINARS as a source in this situation. Or rather, that is what I understand was said. For #2, where or how is this involving third parties? All I see is the statement that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In other words, stating Wikipedia is not a reliable source doesn't effect any other parties. Unless there is something that I am not seeing.

For #4, I don't doubt the authenticity of this statement. I can't speak for others, but from my experience, this is common knowledge. Also, I am unable to see it any other way — Wikipedia is not a reliable source. How can it be characterized as a reliable source? I don't think it can. Also, I hope I didn't shut anybody down from commenting any further. I'm still not sure of the relevance of bringing CONLEVEL into the discussion. I didn't mean to take a hard stance, although I probably did. Hopefully, Guy Macon provided a sufficient answer. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a level of consensus at which something becomes a "Wikipedia says", and maybe this is the case here where a how-to guide is at that level of consensus, but it does say it reflects varying levels of consensus. It would not be reasonable for me to write an essay and proclaim that as a "Wikipedia says". Personally, I would not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, but my argument isn't really about that. For #2: to me as an individual, other editors on Wikipedia are third parties. And I would assume it to be the same for everyone else, sockpuppets notwithstanding. So I cannot say that they do or do not think Wikipedia is a reliable source. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• WP:UGC is most certainly a Wikipedia guideline, and specifically lists Wikipedia as an example of user-generated content. Any Wikipedia guideline or policy may properly be referred to as "Wikipedia says". Thus the phrase "Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational" is allowed.

WP:ABOUTSELF is the Wikipedia policy that tells you that Wikipedia is a reliable source on what Wikipedia says. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Guy! I was going around in circles on this. I was trying to find or remember, where is, the guideline or policy that says - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There it is, in WP:UGC. So, I agree that any "Wikipedia guideline or policy may properly be referred to as 'Wikipedia says'". Once this is made clear, then the sentence, which was removed and then restored, and which began this discussion, is valid, from my point of view. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll buy that, but the sentence should probably be changed to reflect UGC instead of the how-to guide. The crux of my argument, including CONLEVEL, was whether a how-to guide which is neither a P nor G could properly be called a "Wikipedia says". Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, and I agree. The sentence probably needs to be changed to show its connection to UGC rather than a how-to-guide. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)