> it's tough to defend when their policies allow factually incorrect content to remain just because it appears on a third-party source that the editors consider reliable.

I feel this is the kind of discussion that would really benefit from a number of concrete examples.

▲

AuthAuth a day ago | parent | next [-]

An obvious one is events using Middleeasteye as a source.

▲

mellosouls a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I feel like that is the kind of response that is an example that could be used for "sealioning" on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

▲

bawolff a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity

You really believe that applies here?

Its hard to say its relentless when not a single piece of evidence has been given so far.

Its hard to say its tangential when it speaks to the original poster's thesis.

▲

mellosouls a day ago | parent [-]

I don't know it applies; but given the many times Wikipedias problems (esp politically biased gatekeepers) have been pointed out, followed by innocent-sounding requests for examples, followed by long back and forth time and energy sapping arguments with dismissals and refutations rather than thanks and acknowledgement of the problems, my instinctive reaction is suspicion towards people implying this is their first time hearing Wikipedia is extremely flawed wrt source material and editorial power.

	▲	akamaka a day ago \| parent [-]
		This entire thread is filled with people saying Wikipedia is doomed due to whatever minor problem personally bothers them, in this case apparently coverage of recent events quoting news organizations. Nobody is actually showing us why the problem they choose to highlight is significant enough to torpedo Wikipedia altogether (or even that is a more important problem than all the others mentioned). Also, nobody here is starting a long argument to waste people’s time. They’re simply saying “your one paragraph proclamation is completely unconvincing”.

▲

the_af a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> I feel like that is the kind of response that is an example that could be used for "sealioning" on Wikipedia.

Not at all. Mainly because this is asking for the first line of examples, not repeatedly bogging down the conversation with constant requests for additional evidence.

Also it matters because in this kind of vague remarks that Wikipedia is unreliable, or that articles are wrong, almost always the people claiming this fail to provide specific examples, instead relying on some general feeling of frustration and shared belief that it must be true. But if they provided a specific example of a factually incorrect article, maybe other people would disagree. Or if they provided an example of ideological bias, maybe it would turn out the complainer is in the minority in believing that was biased. And if it turned out that this were controversial topics that most encyclopedic articles struggle with in some form, maybe it isn't a problem with Wikipedia. So examples matter!

▲

mellosouls 18 hours ago | parent [-]

See my other response for why engagement is usually pointless in cases like this.

	▲	the_af 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I find "sealioning" a deeply unsatisfying excuse for not providing a single example.