Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a ‘Reliable’ Source

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–9 of 9 posts

Re: Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a ‘Reliable’ Source

#5

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

It is interesting, but in truth, the same today could be said of MSNBC, CNN, or BBC. Pretending they do not have an agenda or bias is hurting the conversation.

Now, going beyond reflexive valuation of how Fox is or isn't a reliable source the question, one has to remember that Wiki is edited by volunteer editors. There is a hierarchy in place, but those changes reflect individual biases rather than institutional biases.

After that is understood, we can start talking about Fox and theirs 'reliability' status.

Re: Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a ‘Reliable’ Source

#6

Post by Ijumfs »

scroogeydop wrote: post #3
Ijumfs wrote: post #2

Didn't read the article but I'm guessing the "why" is double standards applied by far lefty Wikipedians.

Fox is propaganda. Get over it.

All news is propaganda. That's its function. Billionaires own media outlets so they can brainwash the people dumb enough to still believe the media. Whether they are right or left informs your opinion about if that's good or not. Fox bad, MSNBC and Vice, good.

Re: Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a ‘Reliable’ Source

#9

Post by galkk »

To;dr - the article is doesn’t give many examples (see quotes below), but has the link to Wikipedia debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not....

> Anticipating there might be some pushback at the removal, the editor offered a simple explanation: “Fox News is not enough …”

> In an aggressive move that is anything but sitting back, a panel of Wikipedia administrators in July declared that Fox News would no longer be considered “generally reliable” in its reporting on politics and science, and in those areas “should be used with caution to verify contentious claims.” (Fox News articles on other topics were unaffected.) There simply were too many examples of misleading, inaccurate, and slanted reporting about science and politics for Wikipedia to pass on Fox News articles as part of a broader search for the truth.

> In Vilenski’s mind, the question didn’t require much heavy thinking: “We don’t have to assume that Fox is acting in good or bad faith—we simply need to assess if we can trust the information being provided. In this case, a lot of users suggested using our policies that it couldn’t be trusted enough to be ‘reliable’ for these two topics.”

> The administrators made clear that they weren’t implementing policy on their own, but summarizing what the community believed as reflected in a monthlong debate that involved roughly 100 editors

Post reply on HN