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

21–30 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#21

Post by [deleted] »

saagarjha wrote: post #13
danpalmer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#22

Post by pawelmurias »

hannob wrote: post #15
roenxi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The underlying Wikipedia politics are horrible. Tons of crazy people fight each other using rule lawyering and other tricks.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#23

Post by tomohawk »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #19

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 impossibl…

You're making an extraordinary claim here. Care to provide a link backing it up? If not, this is just a slur.

You're implying that people who go to breitbart are mentally ill. Maybe they need help? Should be committed to an institution for their views? That worked out so well in the Soviet Union...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#24

Post by gajjanag »

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…

A funny thing I have noticed about Wikipedia is that although citing Wikipedia itself in an academic paper is still not a good idea generally speaking, the references provided in a Wikipedia article are usually far more relevant than the ones provided in a typical IEEE paper.

It was a shock for me to discover that the "literature review" of an IEEE paper I was reading was essentially useless compared to the one provided by Wikipedia on the same topic. When combined with the fact that the IEEE paper was behind a paywall and the Wikipedia article was accessed within seconds using a search engine, I now know better how to do a literature review...

Why is this the case? Part of what I have noticed about IEEE is that at least 20% of the references provided are simply added at reviewer's insistence to boost their favorite author's citation count (possibly themselves), regardless of what it has to say about the topic at hand. I don't really know how much of this extends to non-IEEE venues. What I can say is that the mathematics papers I have read provide much better references.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#25

Post by atoav »

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.

I think this could be about efficiency. If it is codified that Breitbart is not a credible source (which is not a irrational idea), you don't need to have daily discussions about Breitbarts credibility.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#26

Post by tomohawk »

This is a shame, as it is important to be informed from a diversity of sources. Closing yourself off to sources that do not actively support your positions is unhealthy. It can lead to a kind of political fixation that rationalizes labeling people who you do not agree with as "wrong" or worse. Digging into the links behind this 'article' reveals a labyrinth of lefty sites making dogmatic claims with little or no corroboration.

If you are into news and being informed, leaving off sites like breitbart from regular perusal is a mistake. They often bring up facts and perspectives considered unimportant by other outlets. Even infowars has its uses, if for nothing else other than entertainment value.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#28

Post by detaro »

billysielu wrote: post #18
danpalmer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not what "secondary source" means.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#29

Post by mjrpes »

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…

Breitbart is no worse than NY Times or WaPo? I gather you have doubts about climate change also.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#30

Post by HissingMachine »

Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source.

First, if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. If Wikipedia has lower standards than that, then it doesn't really matter whom they choose as a source of information, it still rises the question of validity of the claim if there is only one corroborating source.

Second, this ban seems to assume a position that Breitbart can't be a valid source even if they use outside sources corroborating their claim, and that just goes against journalistic principles in general. But then again, Wikipedia has to my knowledge never claimed to work on journalistic principles, they do have guidelines in place that anyone can verify, but outright banning a source has a negative impact on their validity even if it is for a good reason.

Refusing to use Breitbart as only source is reasonable and valid in my opinion, but accepting any other source as valid enough to be used as a single source raises the same problem, news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact. So if they really wanted to make a statement, they would flag articles that need more sources and get more sources even if one of them is Breitbart. But positioning yourself as arbitrator of truth and banning sources, even bad ones really doesn't build confidence, instead it just erodes it.

I like that Wikipedia's visual style is black and white, but I'd like it's content principles to be a gradient.

Post reply on HN