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

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#31

Post by acdha »

tomohawk wrote: post #26

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 corr…

That’s like saying you’re depriving yourself of a diversity of sources by not reading the National Enquirer regularly. Unless you’re studying propaganda, the only thing reading Breitbart gives you is a chance to be mislead.

If you want right-wing perspectives, the WSJ or The Economist would be far more deserving of your attention.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#33

Post by rlpb »

HissingMachine wrote: post #30

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 cor…

> First, if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact.

Based on this criterion, are there any credible news organizations left?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#34

Post by DanBC »

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…

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

Not even Wikipedia claims this, which is why they tell users to never quote Wikipedia but to go to the sources (which all articles are supposed to have) and quote those instead.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#35

Post by billysielu »

detaro wrote: post #28
billysielu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for clarifying that. Of course, nothing in a classroom is a primary source.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#36

Post by foolzcrow »

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…

CNN said it was illegal for Americans to read about Hillary's crimes in the Wikipedia. Your Russia scam failed now your rape scam failed too. Keep taking L's we love it.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#37

Post by InitialLastName »

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.

Given that you apparently didn't learn the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, I'd say the education system failed you.

A primary source is one that "creates" the information of history, e.g. a letter, journal entry, official announcement, or original research. A secondary source (nominally) synthesizes and summarizes primary sources into a coherent narrative.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#38

Post by billysielu »

InitialLastName wrote: post #37
billysielu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given that you apparently didn't learn the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, I'd say the education system failed you. A primary source is one that "creates" the information of history, e.g. a letter, journal entry, official announcement, or original research. A secondary source (nominally) synthesizes and summarizes primary sources into a coherent narrative.

I did learn the difference, over 20 years ago, and today is the first time it's come up since. No need to be rude.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#39

Post by wffurr »

tomohawk wrote: post #26

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 corr…

"Entertainment value" is about the only thing Breitbart could have going for it, if you find that kind of thing entertaining.

It has no place on Wikipedia.

Also, why put "article" in scare quotes? Its pretty unambiguously an "article". That's not a good way to try to deligitimize the OP, if that's what you're going for. You should have stuck to your point about being open-minded, though I would add the "but don't let your brains fall out" postscript.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#40

Post by billysielu »

rlpb wrote: post #33
HissingMachine wrote: post #30

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 cor…

> First, if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. Based on this criterion, are there any credible news organizations left?

They can just put a quote in a headline and people will click on it. Whether the truth was spoken is irrelevant to their bottom line.
Post reply on HN