This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
The user, who lacking knowledge, is attempting to remove a source added to the article. This is an "extra" reference (even if it's fine, it is not included because many references support this claim), and I'm fine with it being removed, but I need to explain the reliability of the source and intend to open edit war as I'm a Wikipedia general. In fact, this source is not solely dedicated to Baidu; the original reference link is from CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) [a highly reliable source], which is now defunct and only exists in Baidu's web archive tool, similar to Archive.org (Way Back Machine). It's not of critical importance, just an explanation. If you want to refuse my explanation, you can oppose my claim here, but don’t revert without knowledge. If you continue do so, I will report you at ANI. My wiki age is older than your life. Thanks. 78.82.67.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Contrawwftw: come here badass! So tell me, the source is how unreliable? Normally, I don't want to argue with LGTV or low-level editors of Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience spans over 12 years, and I am considered a respected editor through my account. 188.148.77.45 (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as @Amigao mentioned in their edit summaries, Baidu Baike is not considered a reliable source/archive because it "it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking" (see WP:BAIDUBAIKE for the full explanation and links to the original discussions on its reliability). It's not about the page you're citing specifically but rather the site itself is not considered reliable by Wikipedians, it's not allowed to be cited on any Wikipedia page. Another version/archive of the original source should be found if possible and if not then it's still not advisable to use Baidu Baike as an archive link.
I'm not going to get further involved in this as I only came across this using Wikiloop because the edit got flagged due to the use of swear words in the edit summary. I will let others with more knowledge on the subject handle this edit war.
Also as a side note, it would be better if you either use a consistent IP or create a Wikipedia account so that you're more easily identifiable because so far I've seen you use upwards of 3 IPs and the only indication that it's the same person is the single issue you're dedicated to. This will also benefit you if you intend to be editing Wikipedia long-term Contrawwftw (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an experienced editor, I already know that Baidu is not a reliable source, even though dogs and children understand that it is not reliable. My point is not a Baidu link; instead, I am showing an archive version of a CASS source. 90.232.214.213 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be foolish; the source http://literature.cssn.cn/xslwqwsjk/ymqwxyj/201112/t20111209_4414153.shtml is dead, but it can be recovered via an archive snapshot from Baidu's archive. This source is not from Baidu; I've explained this many times. Why don't you understand? If you have a brain, you should be able to comprehend this 90.232.214.213 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
