[BoingBoomTschak]

BuzzFeed, Salon and PinkNews being used as reliable sources should be everything you need to know about WP.

Or read some of the more critical viewpoints against the Wikipedia editor bureaucracy (that shields itself with a laughable "Anybody can edit Wikipedia! We don't exist! Don't look at the man behind the curtain") like https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

Small aside, it's a fun coincidence I (finally!) saw Brazil for the first time a week ago...

[thiht]

Again, can you find articles using some of these "unreliable" sources (I don’t know Salon or PinkNews, and I know that BuzzFeed News actually had pretty good articles back then) to promote biased content?

Just looking at the front page of PinkNews, the content appears sourced and factual. A media being oriented (LGBT in this case) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s biased or lying. Taking this article as an example[1], I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used as a Wikipedia source.

[1]: https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/01/16/trump-eliminates-rape...

[BoingBoomTschak]

Completely biased in language, which matters because the bias can and will be added verbatim to Wikipedia articles

The bias is that: how do you handle the fact that any man could claim to be a woman and be housed with women? Especially when the issue is compounded by those numbers on rape they're reporting? Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees? Be realistic and have a more balanced view of the matter.

I think the "bias blindness" of WP is a weapon selectively applied to one side and should be removed in favour of sources that at least pretend neutrality. The problem is obviously that you almost have no source left, then; at least in the political/ideological domain.