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

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#91

Post by forapurpose »

wpietri wrote: post #83
koboll wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's a common complaint, but in practice people generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. It's the 9th-most viewed site in the world [1], and it's not like people go there for the rich multimedia experience. Surveys show a relatively high level of general-audience trust. [2] And for good reason; one of the best places to find criticism of Wikipedia is Wikipedia. [3] [1] https://moz.com/top500 […

> people generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. It's the 9th-most viewed site in the world

That assumes people are interested in factual accuracy, and I don't think that's the case. Tabloid newspapers and celebrity gossip draw many readers too. Recent events should make clear that priorities are elsewhere.

It's a matter of degree, of course. If I'm writing something professionally or if something serious depends on it, I'm not depending on Wikipedia. If I'm trying to find the name of that recording by that musician that's on the tip of my tongue - sure, why not.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#92

Post by WilliamEdward »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #59
tomohawk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, many of them are mentally ill, which is pretty obvious if you would actually care to check out their comments on Breitbart, which I have done. I stand by my word, everything I've said about Breitbart is true, whether you like it or not. You can downvote me as much as you want, fact is that Breitbart is a hate speech site that also happens to copy & pastes news from other sources in order to disguise their real p…

Ok, but where is your source that they have schizophrenia?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#93

Post by ummonk »

tomohawk wrote: post #64
wffurr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Vice is generally in the same category as Breitbart, only on the left. The 'article' cites such sources as splinternews to back up its various unsupported claims an innuendo.

Yeah that's the irony here. Vice is definitely the left-liberal version of Breitbart. Both have lots of edginess and questionable articles, but also put out some articles with very valuable original reporting.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#94

Post by forapurpose »

gajjanag wrote: post #24
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 provi…

> the references provided in a Wikipedia article are usually far more relevant than the ones provided in a typical IEEE paper

IME, speaking of academic research in general, often an almost completely different body of knowledge is cited by each. One is high-quality academic research, the other is general 'Internet knowledge', for lack of a better word. The latter often completely misses the boat.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#95

Post by ummonk »

vnorilo wrote: post #61
blahblahthrow wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the value of a less extreme nationalist press, except to espouse the same values but make them more palatable to moderates and lead them down the slippery slope to extremism? For better or worse the "ideal" world of nationalists would be a massive, traumatic revision of the current state of affairs, aimed at ethnic minorities and vulnerable people for benefit of white people. It seems like an inherently extrem…

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.

It's ridiculous how strongly people object to the idea of preserving national culture or being nativist, when so many of them turn around and focus so heavily on cultural preservation and nativism when talking about gentrification and housing policy on a local level.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#96

Post by whatshisface »

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.

It sounds like the thick morass of crazy people fighting each other over random things might actually act as armor against sane people who think they can slip in and do their dark business in unopposed silence.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#97

Post by forapurpose »

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 ... because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well.

I have no idea where the parent gets this (no source is provided), but more generally this is a talking point, throughout history, of liars and propagandists; it's a way of excusing and normalizing their behavior. Propagandists in particular want to neutralize or paralyze, not persuade, their targets - it's easy to see how destroying all trusted institutions would do that.

In the end, it's like someone telling you, after they just lied to your face for the nth time, 'everybody lies!'.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#98

Post by ummonk »

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.

There are some clear cultural differences that America has with pretty much any other nation in the world.

The most notable is our very expansive definition of free speech, which has broad popular support and is found almost nowhere else in the world. American culture also exhibits a relatively high support for economic freedom and avoiding government largesse. Additionally, we have a strong liking of suburbs (as typified by the proverbial "white picket fence").

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#100

Post by e40 »

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN