191–200 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
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…
As long as Think Progress doesn't make it through either!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.
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…
Really, it isn't that complex. Most people learn this in kindergarten, if not before.
Every heard of the "boy who cried wolf"? At no time does anyone suggest if the boy turned up with the wolf's head under his arm you would disbelieve him. But later when telling people "I believe there is a wolf now" you don't say it's because "the boy told me [again]", instead you hold up the head.
Well, it's the same for Breitbart. Saying "it's true because Breitbart said it's true" is just going to get you tarnished with Breitbart's reputation, but handing out Breitbart's citation might just do the trick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Does Breitbart even publicly retract or correct stories at all?
More relevant: can you identify any examples of Breitbart content that is, and remains, factually incorrect?
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…
a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies
Actually, Breitbart was one of few media that pointed out that it didn't matter where Obama was born, as his natural-born citizenship was automatically conveyed from his mother. "Birther" arguments were a fabrication of "mainstream" media.
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.
Mexico and Texas, which are pretty culturally similar and until recently were the same country
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.
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…
Are you saying that if Wikipedia bans Breitbart, they should ban CNN too? And on what basis? What would be the standard they should use?
I agree that the polarization observed in US politics is a dangerous trend. But I think that Wikipedia is navigating this well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme > Wikipedia claimed it was a ponzi scheme. The rest still applies. It was added to a list of Ponzi schemes with the qualification "Bitcoin has been called a Ponzi scheme" and a citation to an article on April 11, 2013. It was deleted on May 7 that year, in the very next edit to touch it. Your characterisation seems to me tendentious in the extreme.…
As you can see, people were arguing with some editor who kept sitting on the page. It was an on-going problem that lasted a long time.
I wish I didn't have to keep repeatedly backing this claim up. OK, I mixed up pyramid and ponzi scheme, but the original point is sound (and "economists agree" isn't a valid argument given that plenty of economists also disagree, and being an economist doesn't automatically make someone right anyway). Sigh.
Nothing I said referred to any personal quality of you or anyone else
I'm not sure how to interpret "gaslighting the evidence". From what I understand "gaslighting" is an insulting verb that means an activity someone is engaged in, to deliberately confuse other people. That's not at all my intent.
As for your last paragraph, that's what this entire thread is about. Look at how media outlets consistently get certain subjects factually wrong, again and again and as Greenwald puts it "always wrong in the same direction". These aren't random mistakes caused by simple carelessness. They keep happening because journalists want them to happen - if they didn't the mistakes wouldn't be so correlated, or so consistent, or so frequently replicated across so many outlets, and they'd put in place more robust systems to stop them.