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

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#171

Post by CM30 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #128

malvosenior wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sourc…

Just going to say that quite a few GamerGate forums covered the IGN story, praised IGN for getting rid of the guy and basically slammed the hell out of Filip Miucin for copying other people's work.

https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miuci...

The idea that they're quiet on actual ethics issues while making a mountain out of a molehill on localisation ones is false.

As for collusion, well it's questionable whether it occurred, but at least a bit suspicious that many sites suddenly turned out their audience mid controversy. Imagine if someone else did that. Like, an agency dev called their clients morons online, or a retail worker said their customers were malicious/trolls/sociopaths to their face. Would they still have a job?

Probably not. But that happened, it shouldn't have happened, and it's being justified somehow.

It's also worth pointing out that quite a few smaller sites and YouTube channels with GamerGate... tendencies or neutrality are actually pretty damn reliable, and that most aren't exactly Breitbart or fake news esque. Stuff like Techraptor or Niche Gamer or what not isn't exactly unreliable. Stuff like SidAlpha's YouTube channel isn't unreliable.

The issue is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is very much tilted in the large corporation/academia direction and misses the point in what reliability actually is. This isn't the 60s/70s/80s/whenever when being reliable only meant being a full time employee for a major newspaper or television network or publishing your work in an academic context. Many smaller blogs and creators (even under pseudonyms or anonymity) have equally good or better records now, and standards should change to accomodate that.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#172

Post by forapurpose » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

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…

> if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact

If Wikipedia then uses that news organization as a source, isn't it in effect using the same standard?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#173

Post by malvosenior » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #154

writepub wrote: post #151

Hope the average HN reader is aware that Breitbart is banned on HN, as a submission source.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, Breitbart was the only place to release all of the court documents from the Damore case.

Interesting enough, because of that, those documents are not cited on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#174

Post by manicdee » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

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…

When the signal to noise ratio is so low, and the time cost of continually reviewing references and arguing with the right wing article brigadiers is so high, banning the troublesome source is a simple way of ensuring the available editor time is spent constructively.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#175

Post by scarejunba » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

qbaqbaqba wrote: post #153

scarejunba wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If some group of people think Wikipedia is bullshit, they're going to miss out on the most accessible repository of human knowledge that Man has ever compiled. That's their own problem. They will fall behind others.

Should we care more about accessibility or reliability? If Wikipedia is the source of knowledge for you, you may have a problem.

It's both, of course. Never before has something so comprehensive and accurate ever been compiled.

You can condescend all you want. It is unparalleled as a first part of call regarding anything. People easily understand that reading about The West Bank on Wikipedia is a different exercise from reading about Charlotte Brontë and act accordingly.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#176

Post by rubyfan » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

pattrn wrote: post #149

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it that way. This is probably just a pragmatic move to keep Wikipedia users and contributors from getting their panties in a knot. 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 me…

Many conservatives consider CNN as left wing and disreputable as many liberals consider Breitbart. Your same reasoning would also apply to Wikipedia banning CNN. Would you consider that a pragmatic move? If not, then for what reasons would they differ?

I’m not sure if this deserves the downvotes or not. I get the point that right leaning and left leaning people look at these sources differently. I imagine there are differences with respect to their publishing standards and that is perhaps what is attracting the downvotes.

I get the point though, the partisan divide makes it such that any programmatic banning of a source comes across looking partisan. I think this is why Twitter and others took so long to ban some publishers.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#177

Post by wpietri » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #91

wpietri wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someth…

Yes, exactly. Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information. Sometimes you dig deeper. Which is fine, that's what Wikipedia wants people to do.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#178

Post by TarpitCarnivore » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 12:20 AM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #171

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sourc…

Just going to say that quite a few GamerGate forums covered the IGN story, praised IGN for getting rid of the guy and basically slammed the hell out of Filip Miucin for copying other people's work. https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miuci... The idea that they're quiet on actual ethics issues while making a mountain out of a molehill on localisation ones is false. As for collusion, well it's quest…

For clarification, I was intending to say GG took down IGN over the story. I was noting an outlet that was targeted initially in GG was IGN, but IGN showed they do in fact have "ethics".

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#179

Post by mythrwy » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 12:54 AM UTC

lolc wrote: post #170

mythrwy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

You are saying you think it's ok for Wikipedia to have a political bias or you are saying you don't think this indicates they have one?

If it's the first I guess we have to just disagree and that's it and I'm really sad you feel that way and wish you would reconsider your stance. If it's the second, there are arguments to be made.

My concern isn't your political views or distaste for the slant of some publication. I understand that, I don't like grossly biased publications either. My concern is the danger of a politically motivated group of people removing a publication from being cited in a very large crowd-sourced knowledge base because some people don't like the slant.

Whatever happened to principal before preference? Did that all go away and now we just try to bulldoze our way around everything at any cost because we think our subjective opinions are "right"? Can't folks see how not only futile but self defeating this is? Smart folks at that. WTF? is all I can really say. It's a big world with lots of opposing visions and views. And people have a right to these, even when we believe differently, and a good knowledge base will try to remain objective.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#180

Post by leereeves » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 1:20 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #102

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…

> 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 HuffPo article. 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 E…

What's your source for the 500 refugees per year? I saw different:

> The country registered 3,500 asylum seekers in 2017, according to the ministry, the lowest number since 2008.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-...

As for the rest of your nitpicking, I'm sure you're aware we could do the same with the headlines from any media source. I once saw CNN publish essentially the same story with two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"