[pveierland]

I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewers. Wikipedia is able to cover many topics that are less contested in a slower and more tempered manner, as the content does not need to be marketable or immediately available. As an example, for STEM topics I'd trust Wikipedia far more than any news media.

[charcircuit]

>as the content does not need to be marketable

For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.

[greggoB]

I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.

[almosthere]

A wikipedia article has to attribute a source, and their sources are biased af.

[SanjayMehta]

Wikipedia does not accept primary sources. News media are acceptable to them so if they are sensationalist, then it follows that Wikipedia is sensationalist. Having said that, Wikipedia bans outlets which don't follow the former's world view, which then reinforces its lack of credibility in non-STEM topics.