Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#71

Post by cyphar » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

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".

And in economics this is called the Lucas critique[1] (any economic policy which targets a particular metric eventually results in the metric being gamed and thus no longer being a useful metric -- even if the public does not do this maliciously).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#72

Post by ceejayoz » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

billysielu wrote: post #49

ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're saying that, you still haven't had the definition of "primary source" sufficiently clarified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source > In the study of history as an academic discipline, a Primary Source (also called an original source or evidence) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serve…

At my school (UK) we had 2 main sources - the teacher, and the textbook. Niether were primary. Students used the internet a lot, and Encarta (lol), and were constantly getting grief from teachers for doing so.

Your textbooks are highly likely to have contained excerpts from primary sources.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#73

Post by matt4077 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

pawelmurias wrote: post #22

hannob wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Isn't "rule lawyering" just "lawyering", and its re-emergence in this (as professed above) rather successful community possibly an argument for its effectiveness in making complex social communities work?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#74

Post by cyphar » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

ndnxhs wrote: post #63

rlpb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Its fairly easy to find 3 sources for any story because most articles are just reworded from other articles.

"unrelated" is the key word here (though I agree that copy-paste "journalism" is a fairly serious problem).

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#75

Post by sago » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

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

[citation needed]

Checked the entire edit history of the article with wiki blame. The phrase 'Pyramid scheme' I could find has been added four times. The first two referred to a specific bitcoin-based third-party scam, which was removed in 2012 when the scam was old news. The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement. It was added removed and added again in short order.

> CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense

That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted.

It is striking how much we live in an era of fear, uncertainty and doubt over truth. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence.

Saying something I don't like, is not the same as saying something false. Though our inherent cognitive biases would love us to believe that, and our toxic politics often demands we claim so.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#76

Post by YouOkOrNot » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

imh wrote: post #69

YouOkOrNot wrote: post #65

Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad. I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffP…

It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.

That's beside the point, Breitbart shouldn't be banned.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#77

Post by tim333 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:38 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #47

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…

>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. I am not from US so I have no bias in this case, do you mean that I should check sites that I consider to be garbage because they sometimes may br…

I sometimes glance at Breitbart although I'd be more of a NYT guy politically. It can be useful as an indication what the 40% or so that support Trump are thinking.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#78

Post by blahblahthrow » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

vnorilo wrote: post #70

blahblahthrow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the national culture of America? Would nationalists deport all the people of European ancestry and give the land back to it's original inhabitants? What culture is preserved by stopping people moving between Mexico and Texas, which are pretty culturally similar and until recently were the same country? I don't there's a narrow line, I think there's no line and they're just branding to try and save face.

I should clarify that I'm from Finland, which gained independence from Russia in a clearly nationalist context. Not to belittle the troubling consequent alignment with Germany in WW2 which we tend to try to explain with "we didn't know Hitler was so evil" and the existential threat by Stalin. Regardless, national pride can take several forms. You could learn folk song and dance. Or you can wield torches in a skinhead…

It feels like you're moving the goal posts - "celebrating national pride" is something you can do without banning people from your country or marginalizing them. Nationalism seems fundamentally opposed to multicultural society - it's not about people electing to do folk song and dance, and multiculturalism doesn't prohibit celebrating culture.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#79

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

blahblahthrow wrote: post #67

vnorilo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am firmly in the open borders camp, I'm willing to consider nationalist arguments. I can see why people see value in national sovereignity or cultural preservation. I agree there's a very thin line separating it from racist drivel. That is where I draw the line - nationalist: can debate, nativist: not worth my time.

What is the national culture of America? Would nationalists deport all the people of European ancestry and give the land back to it's original inhabitants? What culture is preserved by stopping people moving between Mexico and Texas, which are pretty culturally similar and until recently were the same country? I don't there's a narrow line, I think there's no line and they're just branding to try and save face.

> Would nationalists deport all the people of European ancestry and give the land back to it's original inhabitants?

You are obviously trolling, but I'll answer you anyway. Nationalism (especially in the US where the two overlap much less than in other places) refers to citizenship rather than ethnicity. Nobody is suggesting deporting US-born ethnic Africans.

So why have borders? It's so you can have programs that help the local poor. Any kind of welfare/medicine/UBI type program has to have some kind of filter on it or the poor of six continents would sign up and bankrupt the programs, so that filter is citizenship. The same applies to local wages. Allow local companies to hire foreign workers and wages equalize, which for US workers means they go down. And the culture of the US depends on having a middle class.

> What is the national culture of America?

Are you honestly asserting that it doesn't have one? The culture in Silicon Valley is exactly the same as the one in Beijing? The one in Alabama is identical to Russia?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#80

Post by koboll » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

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.

This is totally wrong. Wikipedia has always been received with skepticism because it's "the site where anyone can write anything", and it's never managed to shake that reputation.