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

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#121

Post by 13415 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #95

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.

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.

That's because the people who argue most fervently for "national culture" are at the same time often strongly opposed to contemporary culture (arts, poetry, classical music, etc.) and don't produce anything of cultural value themselves, whereas the people who actually advance the culture of their country tend to be indifferent or fairly cosmopolitan (as a tendency, of course there are exceptions).

Most people in the political center are able to recognize the cognitive dissonance of these self-proclaimed "nativists" and object to their hypocrisy.

Gentrification, on the other hand, is a real-world problem for anyone who lives in a big city and has nothing to do with local culture or nativism. People can literally no longer pay their rents.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#122

Post by malvosenior » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #120

malvosenior wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that because of all of the biased media reports about it? That's literally what it's about (as is the topic of this thread). Social media, new media and old media being politicized, cliquish and dishonest. That Vox and Gawker are viewed as more reputable than Breitbart gets to the very heart of what Gamergate was about (IMO).

At its surface I will take Vox reporting over what Breitbart puts out there. Much of the Breitbart stories I have read operated on FUD by taking the very smallest bit of information and conflating it into something far worse than what it is. Gakwer & Vox are not without their flaws, especially Gawker. Gamergate is the perfect example of how media & reporting can be twisted into whatever narrative people want to make.…

I agree that Breitbart is trash, but I disagree that Vox and Gawker are any better. The issue is that everyone is allowed to say that Breitbart is trash, Wikipedia can ban it... But while many people know that Vox and Gawker are also trash, there are many institutions and platforms that will prop them up as reputable (such as Wikipedia).

That double standard spurred a lot of Gamergate's energy. Putting "ethics in journalism" in quotes says a lot, the whole thing was nothing but media meta-commentary (ethics in journalism).

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#123

Post by pavlov » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #85

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…

> perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." I'm already tired of the media treating me as an idiot. But when a channel of communication (like a social media site) starts to insert its own comments into the information, well, that's really many ste…

You're always free to use some other site. The unfortunate fact is that a large group of people who seek their news on Twitter and Facebook have zero media literacy. IMHO the big social media sites need to recognize that and start contributing to fixing the problem.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#124

Post by repolfx » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

sago wrote: post #75

repolfx wrote: post #6

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…

> 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, a…

Sorry, I was mis-remembering, Wikipedia claimed it was a ponzi scheme. The rest still applies.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0

I'd note that this:

The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement

doesn't make any difference to my opinion. Who cares if they're economists? Either something meets a definition or it doesn't.

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.

I would be fascinated to see who claimed this and how reliable their fact checking is. Because yes, literally anyone can call themselves a fact checker and then announce their views to be 'fact'. I've noticed more than once some person or site claiming to be a 'fact checker' and then engaging in very dodgy behaviour. The ones that try to give 5 star ratings to claims seem most susceptible to this. Anything beyond a binary yes/no is too tempting for people to insert their own opinions and views. BBC "reality check" is notorious for this.

And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence.

Quit with the ad hominem. My post wasn't a scientific article - it was reporting my own experience with fact checking various different outlets. But fine, I'll raise the bar.

If you really believe that these cable news outlets are more honest than average, then please go read Greenwald for a while and explain how they keep publishing false stories by their own admission, that are always false in support of the same narrative.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-...

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-pe...

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-...

This one has a very good collection of juxtaposed stories

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly...

I read lots of news sites from across the spectrum. Perhaps it helps that I'm not American so a lot of what happens there is merely interesting, rather than something threatening urgent impact on my own life. There is very little difference between them all. New York Times is not better than Fox News is not worse than CNN, and so on. The journalists at all these places feel strongly that it's OK to mislead people if it's in support of the 'right' cause.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#125

Post by acdha » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

vnorilo wrote: post #43

acdha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Economist considers itself center-right, and is classically liberal (free trade, individual liberty). Breitbart caters to nativist sensibility, and while there might be a thoughtful, reasonable standard-bearer for nationalism, I haven't seen one. Perhaps such a publication would act as a pressure valve and reduce the prominence of the nativist garbage rags? Likely I'm too optimistic.

I was thinking less of the flavor and more the credibility as journalism. Even most people who disagree with the WSJ editorial positions would agree that they don’t just print bald-faced lies.

I’m not sure what that’s look like for nativism since so much of that movement has been based on mistruths but it’s definitely not Breitbart.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#126

Post by enriquto » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #123

enriquto wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." I'm already tired of the media treating me as an idiot. But when a channel of communication (like a social media site) starts to insert its own comments into the information, well, that's really many ste…

You're always free to use some other site. The unfortunate fact is that a large group of people who seek their news on Twitter and Facebook have zero media literacy. IMHO the big social media sites need to recognize that and start contributing to fixing the problem.

Thus you are proposing that the most literate people (i.e., those that would be offended by such ridiculous handholding) leave Twitter and Facebook? Do you think this would contribute to "fix the problem"?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#127

Post by repolfx » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #14

repolfx wrote: post #6

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…

> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. I agree that many mainstream outlets have a slant, however this is a frankly ridiculous equivocation between legitimate news organisations with bias reportage and a hack conspiracy website that among o…

Go read the set of stories published in the west about Russian hacking. Every story collapses when examined. Again, I cited Greenwald above, he was written about this extensively.

The only reason you believe the outlets you named are "legitimate organisations with bias" vs "hack conspiracy websites" is you haven't picked up yet on the conspiracy theories being peddled by those so-called legitimate organisations.

Another example beyond Russian hacking: it's common for such legitimate outlets to claim there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women, which is why . It's literally a conspiracy theory. They report on it as if it was fact, and lie to push the conspiracy forward.

To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo. So many articles claiming he said women aren't biologically suited for programming, even though he stressed in his memo he was not saying that and was talking about general interest across populations. I stopped keeping track of which outlets were lying about the memo's contents after I realised they virtually all were.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#128

Post by TarpitCarnivore » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #122

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At its surface I will take Vox reporting over what Breitbart puts out there. Much of the Breitbart stories I have read operated on FUD by taking the very smallest bit of information and conflating it into something far worse than what it is. Gakwer & Vox are not without their flaws, especially Gawker. Gamergate is the perfect example of how media & reporting can be twisted into whatever narrative people want to make.…

I agree that Breitbart is trash, but I disagree that Vox and Gawker are any better. The issue is that everyone is allowed to say that Breitbart is trash, Wikipedia can ban it... But while many people know that Vox and Gawker are also trash, there are many institutions and platforms that will prop them up as reputable (such as Wikipedia). That double standard spurred a lot of Gamergate's energy. Putting "ethics in jou…

Well I did fully acknowledge that Vox & Gawker are not without their problems. And if we break down Gawker to be ALL of Gawker a big problem of trust their is their Kinja contribution system, but some writers within the smaller groups (Kotaku, Gizmodo) have done good reporting. Wikipedia stated the reason they removed Brietbart was due to its "unreliability". That means they did take the time to explore BB as a source to validate the claims. If Vox and the entire Gawker network were "unreliable" I'm sure they would do the same.

I put it in quotes because it was a statement the GG latched on to to claim as their whole reasoning. However countless doxing & harassement attempts, specifically towards some women, prove otherwise. Again, one of their big tent pole arguments was that gaming press (which in reality is relatively young) had a mailing list they all communicated on. Which is just ludicrous to use as "collusion" b/c it assumes all press operates in a black box with no communciation.

There is a double standard in press reporting, but it is not some thing that is exclusive to gaming. There's a clip of Rooster Teeth slamming another press outlet for their review of Fallout while all three of them (Rooster Teeth) are decked out in Fallout gear. I can assure many more YT personalities are getting free gifts from companies to promote & review, but not disclosing as such. There is a new practice now of seeding games to these personalities early to help drum up hype around games. This is precisely the ethics situation you claim, but that's if you assume YT should be considered press (it's not). Someone who was contributing to IGN just got ratted out for plagarizing and IGN, after investigating, removed every piece of their content. By GG standards of IGN they're some unethical place and would have never done this. So yeah, GG in itself is a double standard and completely unreliable in their message.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#129

Post by danShumway » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #123

enriquto wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." I'm already tired of the media treating me as an idiot. But when a channel of communication (like a social media site) starts to insert its own comments into the information, well, that's really many ste…

You're always free to use some other site. The unfortunate fact is that a large group of people who seek their news on Twitter and Facebook have zero media literacy. IMHO the big social media sites need to recognize that and start contributing to fixing the problem.

But this does the opposite. If you want people not to blindly trust whatever they see on Twitter, you can't solve that problem by putting a Twitter badge on articles that say, "this is/isn't trustworthy".

That just encourages people to be even less thoughtful: "I don't have to check the source, Twitter would tell me if it was bad."

Media literacy is a serious problem, and it has to be solved through education and evolving cultural norms. Proposals like this reinforce the toxic norm that all you need to do to fact-check is make a list of good and bad web sites.

Sometimes making someone's life easier in the short-term can have the side-effect of making their life harder in the long-term.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#130

Post by User23 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

sago wrote: post #75

repolfx wrote: post #6

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…

> 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, a…

The self evident primary purpose of the various news platforms is not to inform, but rather to persuade. Persuading persons to buy things is their primary source of revenue. They also routinely work with public relations firms. Finally the editors and other staff all have their own views and like most persons most of them must like the idea of persuading others to agree with them. The on-air behavior of news anchors on election night in 2016 completely destroyed the fiction of their impartiality. Had the election gone the other way we would have seen an equally crass display of triumphalism. I don’t see how any intellectually honest person can fail to believe, regardless of views, that the various news sources are all biased, because it’s observably true.