O yes it can on most things. While it limits what can be cited to its list of "reliable sources"--thus making it difficult to cover topics that don't have a lot of "reliable sources" covering them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) on factual things--sports scores, geographical information, awards won-- Wikipedia is ok. In this case--who is a Substack writer--the inclusion of each person listed was verified against them having a Substack newsletter--like "Racket News" for Matt Taibbi or "Public" for Michael Shellenberger.
Now, on a topic that might have different articles written about it (take the "Twitter Files") there are editing struggles that may not result in an objective article. That is, since few "reliable sources" wrote about the "Twitter Files" It has been difficult to have them presented in an accurate way.
I still think W. won't allow any citations from the web. Bizarre. There are now 88 in the category...so your idea is good--maybe it will change the rules. SO MANY great writers on Substack.
Is Wikipedia to be trusted. There have been comments to the contrary. My apology I cannot site any source. Hopefully another reader can.
O yes it can on most things. While it limits what can be cited to its list of "reliable sources"--thus making it difficult to cover topics that don't have a lot of "reliable sources" covering them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) on factual things--sports scores, geographical information, awards won-- Wikipedia is ok. In this case--who is a Substack writer--the inclusion of each person listed was verified against them having a Substack newsletter--like "Racket News" for Matt Taibbi or "Public" for Michael Shellenberger.
Now, on a topic that might have different articles written about it (take the "Twitter Files") there are editing struggles that may not result in an objective article. That is, since few "reliable sources" wrote about the "Twitter Files" It has been difficult to have them presented in an accurate way.
With their inclusion in Wikipedia, maybe now these can be considered тАЬreliable sources.тАЭ Matt sure AF is reliable.
I still think W. won't allow any citations from the web. Bizarre. There are now 88 in the category...so your idea is good--maybe it will change the rules. SO MANY great writers on Substack.
No, they have been taken over by the thought police, just like nearly every popular thing on the internet.
Loon up the Wiki for RFK Jr. and decide for yourself. I use Wikipedia for dates, family relationships, state capitals, where born, etc.
On mundane topics, perhaps. But on anything related to politics, foreign policy, global events, etc., absolutely not!