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

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#211

Post by orf »

leereeves wrote: post #210
orf wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the zero examples you gave prove what exactly?

Now you're just being argumentative. I gave one example of a misleading headline. Just try being equally critical of, say, CNN headlines and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

I'm merely nitpicking. "i once saw X trust me ok" is not an example, it's an anecdote.

If you want to put out the point that these shoddy half articles I found on Breitbart are actually representative of CNNs reporting and the industry as a whole then I suggest you do exactly what I did: go to their frontpage and find two completely misleading headlines with borderline xenophobic, utterly misleading content that are there right now.

Of course, this will be super easy right because CNN is the same as Breitbart, right?

Something in me thinks this will be the last I hear from you. It's been nice discussing this with you.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#212

Post by leereeves »

orf wrote: post #211
leereeves wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're just being argumentative. I gave one example of a misleading headline. Just try being equally critical of, say, CNN headlines and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

I'm merely nitpicking. "i once saw X trust me ok" is not an example, it's an anecdote. If you want to put out the point that these shoddy half articles I found on Breitbart are actually representative of CNNs reporting and the industry as a whole then I suggest you do exactly what I did: go to their frontpage and find two completely misleading headlines with borderline xenophobic, utterly misleading content that are…

The actual headlines of the articles don't count as an example? They're easy to look up. You'll see that CNN published the same facts with two contradictory headlines, coincidentally changing their position to disagree with Trump.

I'd like to see what Breitbart publishes that's worth a ban.

Please feel free to provide ban worthy examples if you like, instead of a couple of minor mistakes of the kind every news organization makes in their headlines.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#213

Post by orf »

leereeves wrote: post #212
orf wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm merely nitpicking. "i once saw X trust me ok" is not an example, it's an anecdote. If you want to put out the point that these shoddy half articles I found on Breitbart are actually representative of CNNs reporting and the industry as a whole then I suggest you do exactly what I did: go to their frontpage and find two completely misleading headlines with borderline xenophobic, utterly misleading content that are…

The actual headlines of the articles don't count as an example? They're easy to look up. You'll see that CNN published the same facts with two contradictory headlines, coincidentally changing their position to disagree with Trump. I'd like to see what Breitbart publishes that's worth a ban. Please feel free to provide ban worthy examples if you like, instead of a couple of minor mistakes of the kind every news organi…

Again, no examples. Why?

I feel like your conviction that breitbart is as good as any other news source (or as bad, whatever way you look at it) is not grounded in reality if you call those minor mistskes.

Not only is the headline misleading but the contents as well, designed to stoke certain people and confirm their biases.

From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are stopping accepting all the thousands and millions EU immigrants flooding into their borders because they do not contribute.

Not one bit of that is true.

Find me something on CNN as patently false and misleading as that, on their front page right now please. Thanks!

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#214

Post by leereeves »

orf wrote: post #213
leereeves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual headlines of the articles don't count as an example? They're easy to look up. You'll see that CNN published the same facts with two contradictory headlines, coincidentally changing their position to disagree with Trump. I'd like to see what Breitbart publishes that's worth a ban. Please feel free to provide ban worthy examples if you like, instead of a couple of minor mistakes of the kind every news organi…

Again, no examples. Why? I feel like your conviction that breitbart is as good as any other news source (or as bad, whatever way you look at it) is not grounded in reality if you call those minor mistskes. Not only is the headline misleading but the contents as well, designed to stoke certain people and confirm their biases. From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are…

What's patently false and misleading here is your characterization of the article.

> From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are stopping accepting all the thousands and millions EU immigrants flooding into their borders because they do not contribute.

Nowhere in that article did Breitbart say millions of EU immigrants are flooding into Denmark.

And if I give a charitable interpretation to your nitpick that Breitbart altered the quote, removing women from "do not contribute", it could apply to the headline, but not the article. Breitbart quoted the full statement in the second paragraph.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#215

Post by mythrwy »

lolc wrote: post #199
mythrwy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree with the narrow meaning you give to the term "political". Political is anything related to how we organize our government. From my understanding what you mean is "partisan". You're implying that Wikipedia is partisan to "left-leaning" news sources. And you mention CNN. 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…

You may be right. I have only visited Breitbart a few times, the actual "reporting" seemed to be reasonably accurate (although certainly overlaid with bias). I'm just concerned is all.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#216

Post by wpietri »

forapurpose wrote: post #193
wpietri wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.

Most of the time the behavior is binary. People go in search of an answer. They find one, accept it, and then stop looking. I agree that there are sometimes more complex behaviors in relation to information, which is why I said "generally".

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#217

Post by forapurpose »

wpietri wrote: post #216
forapurpose wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even you generally accept Wikipedia as a source of factual information That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.

Most of the time the behavior is binary. People go in search of an answer. They find one, accept it, and then stop looking. I agree that there are sometimes more complex behaviors in relation to information, which is why I said "generally".

> Most of the time the behavior is binary

I'm not sure I agree, but it would be interesting to study. I think people assign a trust value to almost any information they encounter. For example, I would guess that you assign a 'trust value' to this comment based on where it is (HN), who wrote it (a commenter that you likely don't know), how it's written (the sophistication of the English and the argument), the emotion (sarcastic? angry? humorous? all caps? calm and reasoned? etc.), etc.

On the other hand, for some things I agree that I don't care much about the trust value because I don't care much about the accuracy, such as 'who sang that song I can't get out of my head'. Which means we have to draw a distinction between trust and caring about trust.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#218

Post by masonic »

lolc wrote: post #152
pattrn wrote: post #149

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?

Here's an example from just today:

"This article has been updated to indicate that the 1,500 people who were errantly registered included non-citizens, but that did not mean all 1,500 were non-citizens."

[0] https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/08/californ...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#219

Post by lolc »

masonic wrote: post #218
lolc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Breitbart even publicly retract or correct stories at all?

Here's an example from just today: "This article has been updated to indicate that the 1,500 people who were errantly registered included non-citizens, but that did not mean all 1,500 were non-citizens." [0] https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/08/californ...

Thanks. Still looking for a retraction. But those are notoriously hard to find. Everybody likes to report on the retractions of others, but not on their own.
Post reply on HN