Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
[Previously, at WEJB/NSU:
“Editor Laments: Anonymous Ideological Thugs Rule Wikipedia Now”;
“What is Wrong with Wikipedia?”; and
“‘Wikipedia on Race’: My American Renaissance Exposé.”]
Circa September 8, 2015
You only have to look at something controversial like, to pick an entirely random example, the gamergate controversy page. The narrative was decided fairly early on, and anything that contradicts it is rejected as violating NPOV [neutral point of view] or being an unreliable source, despite those same sources being considered reliable throughout the rest of Wikipedia, and the entire article being a violation of NPOV, to begin with. Once articles start citing the Wikipedia page as evidence for one side of the story, they're added as sources, and are used to reinforce the narrative. Since they're “reliable sources,” what they say must be true, and so therefore it is.
That is just one example. You could pick any remotely controversial idea and find an article that follows the same pattern, creating entire narratives and “facts” out of nothing but circular references between Wikipedia and lazy media outlets who can't research past Wiki and Google.
Wikipedia’s rule against using primary sources and “original research” means that it can never be reliable on anything, no matter how innocuous. Once a “reliable source” has been found for a statement made on the page, it becomes verified truth, and never mind what reality says.