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

161–170 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#161

Post by lolc »

mythrwy wrote: post #140
mythrwy wrote: post #87

If sources which occasionally play lose with facts or spin are to be banned from Wikipedia some mainstream news outlets should probably go as well. Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.

Really curious about the downvotes (which I don't care about the votes, just what it means). Do they mean "Breitbart is much much less credible than all other news outlets (except maybe Infowars) so they deserve this!" Or do they mean, "Yes, but leftism is the correct point of view, they told me so in college, so they deserve this block!" Or do they mean "We've been trying really hard to resurrect major media as a le…

In your original post:

> Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.

Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia's credibility from that reek.

In my opinion, anything touching Breitbart reeks. Wikipedia is doing well to have settled the matter and gotten rid of that reek. At some point you don't discuss the finer points of shit anymore. You close the lid. As they did with a host of other publications.

Just one stinking example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#162

Post by ohhellno »

liftbigweights wrote: post #157
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…

> Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source. It has nothing to do with how wikipedia works rather than the pressure being put on it by monied interests and the news organizations. What is happening to wikipedia is what happened to google, reddit, youtube, twitter, etc. It's the elite media ( particular nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, et al ) trying to muscle out everyone els…

Upvote

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#163

Post by ohhellno »

mjrpes wrote: post #29
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…

Breitbart is no worse than NY Times or WaPo? I gather you have doubts about climate change also.

Source please

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#164

Post by ohhellno »

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…

Many HN posters are mentally ill, too.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#165

Post by ohhellno »

13415 wrote: post #115
WilliamEdward wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unfortunately many conspiracy theorists suffer from schizophrenia, a tendency to believe in conspiracies is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia, and the Breitbart site comments section is full of conspiracy theories - or at least used to be (see below). Note that I said "many" not "all" in the original post, and that was based on checking their comment section in 2016. Since then I haven't checked whether they have…

Multiple personalities?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#166

Post by ohhellno »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #148
tomohawk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that is the case, can you please point out the hate-mongering present on Vice? Because Breitbart is full of it.

Russia, Russia, Russia!

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#168

Post by mythrwy »

lolc wrote: post #161
mythrwy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really curious about the downvotes (which I don't care about the votes, just what it means). Do they mean "Breitbart is much much less credible than all other news outlets (except maybe Infowars) so they deserve this!" Or do they mean, "Yes, but leftism is the correct point of view, they told me so in college, so they deserve this block!" Or do they mean "We've been trying really hard to resurrect major media as a le…

In your original post: > Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility. Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia…

"Go dig" and "general conclusions" don't make any sense in this case. The evidence for the conclusion is there.

The point, as stated in my original post, is that "fake news" type reporting isn't confined to right leaning publications. One doesn't need to dig much to determine that. Yet one view source is banned, the other is not. This isn't "assumption" or accusation, it's how it appears to be.

What I really hear you saying, (and I think reality comes out a bit further down in your post), is "I don't like Breitbart!".

And, emotionally not liking something is a good reason as any to downvote so that is fine. Thanks for the explanation.

But just to re-iterate, I don't care for Breitbart either. Nor CNN. I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#169

Post by lolc »

writepub wrote: post #159
lolc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was blissfully unaware. For a fleeting moment your post made me wonder whether I should consider the ban problematic. Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. And I'll live on as before.

> Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries view news. First, they classify (a.k.a. anoint) sources as kosher & credible, and then blanket ban the others. Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. You can see this pattern in China, Russia, Iran, ... and HN, Wikipedia, .…

I don't feel I need to be protected from Breitbart so much as left alone by those who would read that rag. Call it arrogance, but I have better uses for my time than meeting people who afford credibility to Breitbart News.

> Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech.

And what would that argument be? That I should be exposed to Breitbart so I "can see the other side"? Thank you very much. The world is not divided into two sides where we should go see the other. The world is full of shit. And there is no point to dwell on it.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#170

Post by lolc »

mythrwy wrote: post #168
lolc wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your original post: > Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility. Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia…

"Go dig" and "general conclusions" don't make any sense in this case. The evidence for the conclusion is there. The point, as stated in my original post, is that "fake news" type reporting isn't confined to right leaning publications. One doesn't need to dig much to determine that. Yet one view source is banned, the other is not. This isn't "assumption" or accusation, it's how it appears to be. What I really hear you…

Are you comparing CNN to Breitbart? And by what standards?

> I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.

Impossible. What gave you the idea?

Post reply on HN