101–110 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Sure.
> EU Cracks: Juncker Says Brexit Deal Close
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncke...
It's certainly not the EU who are cracking under Brexit, Theresa May's government is.
> Danish Minister Rejects EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-...
The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote.
They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities.
And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands.
The less said about the comments, the better.
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…
Breitbart can hardly be called a news site, it's more like a hard-right opinion blog. Their posts have been shown time and time again to be incredibly biased, using dogwhistle hard-right (even fascist) terms and referring to "muslim hordes", "rapefugees" and the like. It doesn't meet any kind of standard for objective or even semi-objective journalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... Title: "Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Breitbart can hardly be called a news site, it's more like a hard-right opinion blog. Their posts have been shown time and time again to be incredibly biased, using dogwhistle hard-right (even fascist) terms and referring to "muslim hordes", "rapefugees" and the like. It doesn't meet any kind of standard for objective or even semi-objective journalism.
Not the place to continue this discussion but chasing up just one reference I find an opinion piece by Milo Yannopolis evidently upset (I wonder why?) by the poll revealing that at that time 52% of British Muslims would like his sexual preferences to be illegal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... Title: "Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds"
Elderly people in the UK have a surprisingly hostile outlook on black and homosexual people, at least around where I grew up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
Well stated. The problem that the blanket ban on one source introduces is that it becomes a divisive issue. The source and faction that subscribes then believes Wikipedia has lost its objectivity (even if it is trying to maintain the truth). The faction then just starts saying Wikipedia is biased and discounts it as a credible source that speaks the truth universally. To be clear I am not saying that the non-truth sh…
It's basically impossible to have a discussion on the internet about the merit something a strongly right leaning media outlet says (well it's possible, but the discussion won't be very civil). Anything factual Breitbart reports will be reported elsewhere because that's how media works, if one outlet covers it others will too. In light of that there's not much to be lost by banning Breitbart as a source. What you gain is that it gives the monkeys that edit pages one less reason to fling poo at each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sci-Hub is pretty amazing for any paper that has been out for as long as most sources on Wikipedia have been, so in truth you can almost always read them in full.
Never finds the stuff I search :/
It’s a direct proxy to university databases - it should have almost everything.
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.
> 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 he…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY
> The one in Alabama is identical to Russia?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-than-democrat-shir...