How appropriate for a wikipedia citation, considering that wikipedia itself is built upon the fake and gay REPUTABLE/RELIABLE qualifier, which should have never become a thing. A claim is either true or not and needs to stand on its own merits, whether it comes from Alex Jones or the WHO.
They should probably ban secondary or tertiary sources from being cited in community notes in the first place.
The original post and that absolute non-sequitur aside, I find it interesting the way this part of the note is phrased:
Makes it sound less about evidence and more like no “valid” source would dare to say anything so positive about anything Hitler did even if it’s true.
How appropriate for a wikipedia citation, considering that wikipedia itself is built upon the fake and gay REPUTABLE/RELIABLE qualifier, which should have never become a thing. A claim is either true or not and needs to stand on its own merits, whether it comes from Alex Jones or the WHO.
They should probably ban secondary or tertiary sources from being cited in community notes in the first place.