Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Alt-tech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconBlogging (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputing: Websites Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites.
WikiProject iconInternet Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alt-tech article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWLArchives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days 

X (Twitter)

[edit]

Why isn't X on the list yet? Have you all been living under a rock? LittleFriendUwU (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a good source link to put it in there? Wikipedia runs on citations. 165.23.203.13 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the work and found some citations, so I've added it. 165.23.203.13 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way. It is not enough to find some citations from journalists. Just because one or two journalists wrote articles and made statements doesn't mean that we now have an **established fact** that we can present as such in a WP article.
No matter the topic or the opinion, you will always find a citation for it and **also a citation for the opposite**. What a WP article needs in order to present something as fact is a general concensus among society and/or science. ʘχ (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) corrected spelling ʘχ (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not kind of how it works? The verifiability policy is just that contentious material needs to be cited to a reliable source, and news articles can be that. If we needed enough sources to establish a definite global consensus for everything, I can't imagine we'd ever get much done. Though in this case we'd probably want more than just a couple articles from the same outlet: surprising or "exceptional" claims do demand a higher bar for sourcing. twotwos (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is how it works. I have added an additional source anyway. The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism appears to be reliable and has obvious topic expertise. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to dispute a fact reported in a RS, you at minimum need sourcing in a source as reliable stating the opposite. Simply stating Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. and deleting won't fly. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the inclusion of X on this list problematic. It is a case of "one of these is not like the others" and to assert otherwise, I find irresponsible. Bgregz (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]