2026-01-02 17:34 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz 2026-01-02 20:25
Yeah I was reading about the editing guidelines and they have a principle that surprised me at first: Verifiability, not truth. Basically, you could edit an article with information you know is true (like your bedrooms or fireplaces), but truth is not the criteria that edits get tested upon. It must be verifiable by a source. Pretty cool that you didn’t just give up and actually got the local newspaper to interview you! That’s awesome!
-
@NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2026-01-02 21:06
That is hilarious. At that point if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
-
@SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2026-01-03 09:22
that published article is a primary source. It’s not a primary source, that’s the whole point. It’s a secondary source, which takes information from the primary source and publishes it with some degree of verification. The whole ‘no primary sources’ thing is simple if one considers that Trump and Musk are the primary sources on their own doings.