Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#11

Post by cooper12 »

repolfx wrote: post #6
pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

That depends a lot on the topic. I've seen articles on Wikipedia that were ridiculously wrong and couldn't be corrected for some byzantine reasons. For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes. I certainly wouldn't accept Wikipedia as correct on any topic that gets caught up in the culture wars. Unfortunately, W…

> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes.

The language in the article [0] regarding pyramid schemes clearly notes that this is a concern raised by "various journalists, economists, and the central Bank of Estonia". An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and summarizes other sources. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia itself defines pyramid schemes.

> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest

Sure.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyram...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#12

Post by barry-cotter »

pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

> For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct.

Only for things that aren’t politically fraught enough for one person, anywhere on the internet to decide to camp on the article. Look at what you get if you look up “Cultural Marxism”.

It redirects to the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory article, with the subheading “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory”. This when there was an excellent article on the academic movement of that name.

Very introductory reddit thread on the history of the academic movement

https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8q8p6n/cult...

Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology

https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-...

Talk page for the Cultural Marxism Wikipedia article, which now redirects to Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#13

Post by saagarjha »

danpalmer wrote: post #8
arthev wrote: post #4

A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.

I get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.

Many teachers accept other secondary sources, though. News article that summarizes a scientific paper? Ok. Wikipedia article citing that paper? Not ok. My impression of this has been a mix of misinformation (anyone can edit it, it must be wrong!), and the fact that it’s just too easy: it really doesn’t make students “work for” their information, so it completely throws off their schedule because everyone has quick access to a reasonably high-quality source.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#14

Post by aplummer »

repolfx wrote: post #6
pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

That depends a lot on the topic. I've seen articles on Wikipedia that were ridiculously wrong and couldn't be corrected for some byzantine reasons. For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes. I certainly wouldn't accept Wikipedia as correct on any topic that gets caught up in the culture wars. Unfortunately, W…

> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well.

I agree that many mainstream outlets have a slant, however this is a frankly ridiculous equivocation between legitimate news organisations with bias reportage and a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies.

Please provide evidence of the many false stories you refer to, because they just don’t exist.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#15

Post by hannob »

roenxi wrote: post #7
pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

As is sometimes said in management theory "it was a great measure until it was made a target". Wikipedia is a good reference for what is and isn't likely to be factually accurate, but if it is going to be _the_ standard then it will quickly be corrupted by people pushing a non-factual agenda. Also, Breitbart being loose with the facts isn't something that the social media platforms want to get involved in. If we coun…

> As is sometimes said in management theory "it was a great measure until it was made a target".

Wikipedia already is a target. It has been a target of distortion almost as long as it exists. It handles these exceptionally well. Not perfect, but given how attractive Wikipedia manipulation is and how easy you'd think it is it's incredible how well it fights it off.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#16

Post by chki »

danpalmer wrote: post #8
arthev wrote: post #4

A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.

I get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.

I don't think schools ban Wikipedia because it's a secondary source. Because then they would also have to ban most textbooks.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#17

Post by cooper12 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #12
pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

> For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Only for things that aren’t politically fraught enough for one person, anywhere on the internet to decide to camp on the article. Look at what you get if you look up “Cultural Marxism”. It redirects to the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory article, with the subheading “Cultural Marxism Cons…

The cultural marxism article being deleted was far from the result of "one person". There was a deletion discussion [0] with input from multiple users, as well as a deletion review. [1] In fact, the discussion was closed by three independent and uninvolved admins. Additionally, the contents of the article were merged, so it's not as if any mention of the topic fell off the face of the earth. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for standalone [2] and what they entail, as well as the criteria for reliable sources. [3] Lastly, the Wikipedia article explains quite clearly that the so-called "academic movement" you're advocating is a term that was later co-opted by conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia is not for fringe theories. [4]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#18

Post by billysielu »

danpalmer wrote: post #8
arthev wrote: post #4

A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.

I get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.

Why wouldn't you want a student seeking a secondary (or more) source? Just blindly believe what the teacher says and don't question it? That education system is failing that student.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#19

Post by JohnStrangeII »

I'm astonished they accepted Breitbart in the first place. When I first heard about it, I checked it out and literally the first discussion in their comment section was about how to most efficiently gas the maximum number of jews in the US. I'm not kidding.

Breitbart is not the only problem of people who read it, many of them are mentally ill (schizophrenia) or they were raised in a way that makes it almost impossible to discern facts from fiction. Before you argue about that, I can guarantee you that I would - and in fact do - say the same about similar radical left-wing "news sites".

One problem at Wikipedia is that there is generally not enough vetting of the citation sources.

To be fair, that's not entirely their fault, because especially in the US there is a vast network of fake science and news sites powered by lobbyists, and it takes a substantial amount of effort to discern these from reputable sources. I've seen some interesting network analysis of the lobby sites of the US oil industry, and have to say that I wouldn't have been able to easily recognize their think-tanks and science information sites as fake. They're well-disguised and you have to look at interconnections, board members, and funding sources to find out who is really behind them. For example, some of them looked like legitimate sources about green energy technologies, but were in reality designed to poison the climate change debate and further the interests of oil concerns.

Conclusion: Don't focus too much on Breitbart, there are plenty of other seemingly legitimate associations, news sites, institutes and think tanks whose primary purpose is to bullshit people, and they are funded from the left and right.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#20

Post by pavlov »

ta_egdhs wrote: post #5
pavlov wrote: post #3

For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia. With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputat…

that doesn't solve the problem it just offloads it. wikipedia could collapse under the weight of being the internets authority of epistemology.

That weight has been on Wikipedia's shoulders ever since Google started presenting it as the #1 result on most "established topic" searches.
Post reply on HN