"Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 88 times

"Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:43 am

The "Corbett Report" is a conspiracy oriented YT channel. A friend told me about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX0fcjS75zE

They have a point: there is NO mention of Yeakey anywhere on English Wikipedia. All I could find is this passing note in the archives of the OKC bombing article's talkpage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Okla ... nce_Yeakey

Also no mention of him in the conspiracy-theories article or its history (an article that was repeatedly deleted and battled over).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_ ... y_theories

The paranoid rantings are paranoid. Esp. the comments for the video--featuring the usual antisemitic comments and similar. Yet they make a point: WP is routinely coughed up by Google as "truth", and people accept it as such. Yet it is NOT totally reliable.

Guess what: this guy mentions that "Swiss Propaganda Research" article, and also the infamous Philip Cross.

I'd tell this guy about the book wiki, just to get his dander up, but I doubt he cares. Made up his mind already.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: "Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Post by Abd » Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:26 pm

OMG! Something we think is important is not mentioned on Wikipedia. THEREFORE conspiracy!

But wait: has anyone proposed reliably sourced fact for the article? Was it removed and the editor banned with no improper behavior? Were there revert wars with factional resolution?

WTH is Terrance Yeakey. Okay, another wiki article. A NY Times article on the (alleged) suicide.

Corbett's blog links to web sites with material, but the sites are dead. However, this is up: http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-02/s ... s-painting.

Wikipedia is not the problem. There are conspiracies, conspiracies happen. Very large-scale conspiracies involving many people who know the truth and it never comes out, very unusual. Evidence may appear very strong and still be misleading. Etc.

Yeakey's death certainly appears highly suspicious. Allegedly shoots himself but no weapon found? Is that true? (It's possible. Some gangsta finding the body may make off with the gun. Or not. Risky thing to do!)

But Wikipedia is not designed as a place where investigating reporting would be published. It's a tertiary source, relying on "reliable secondary sources," and if there are no such sources, or they are very few, information is not going to be on Wikipedia. It's also not going to be in my local phone book. Wikipedia is what it is and it is not what it is not.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190908112 ... yeakey.htm is certainly convincing -- if all the facts alleged are true and there are no alternate explanations. I could write a book about the implications of all this. We need organizations we can trust. How can they be created? This is a problem that has occupied me for more than thirty years.

(Or, if such organizations exist, how do we verify and insure this, and how do we support and protect them?)

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Sucks Fanatic
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: "Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:34 pm

Abd wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:26 pm
Wikipedia is not the problem. There are, happen. Very large-scale conspiracies involving many people who know the truth and it never comes out, very unusual. Evidence may appear very strong and still be misleading. Etc.
Woeps!
"Evidence may appear very strong and still be misleading. Etc"

Conspiracies never come out BECAUSE the evidences are strong Abd, not because the conspiracy theory was wrong.
If the evidences are strong, a organisation interfere, so it LOOKS conspiracies don't come out. And indeed in practice never come out.
They never come out because a organisation put their brakes on before they drive into the ravine.

So, your conclusion is absolute right, but it is not a prove the conspiracy theory or the evidence sucks.

it has nothing to do with misleading as you claim. And not any proof there is nothing wrong with wikipedia because there is, we all know that.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: "Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:44 pm

Abd wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:26 pm
Yeakey's death certainly appears highly suspicious. Allegedly shoots himself but no weapon found? Is that true? (It's possible. Some gangsta finding the body may make off with the gun. Or not. Risky thing to do!)
Whatever--the least they could do is mention his existence in a note somewhere. Most of the Google-able mentions today are on assorted forums and blogs with axe-grinding (Zero Hedge, Corbett, 9/11 conspiracy blogs etc) but there is the NYT item and some local media reports for "reliable sources".

https://oklahoman.com/article/2540083/f ... kills-self
https://oklahoman.com/article/2539203/o ... -cherished
https://oklahoman.com/article/2693925/r ... ith-stress
https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/case ... id=2957299

Still a photo of him on Commons.....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... eakey.webp
#BbbGate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: "Is Wikipedia Reliable?" lol

Post by Abd » Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:04 pm

I think the Oklahoma Gazette story would be enough for a mention in the Oklahoma bombing conspiracy theory page. But this was my point: I saw no evidence that any editor attempted to create an appropriate and properly sourced mention. Sure, we can say that this is a notable fact (that there is suspicion about Yeakey's death -- and what happened to the freaking gun?), but all this means is that Wikipedia is incomplete. Utterly unsurprising.

I see there is a draft article in process. Has some poor sources. Maybe for a see-also, but anything like that can distract reviewers. There is an image on the bullet trajectory allegedly for Yeakey's head wound, supplied by the article author as own work. That isn't going to fly, it would be OR. And if it is the work of someone else, then it is copyvio.

It's so hard to find good help.

Ug. The photo of Yeakey is also his "own work." That is a likely lie or merely clueless-incompetent.

Post Reply