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

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#181

Post by orf » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #180

orf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

In the article I linked.

> However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say no to take 500 quota refugees through the UN system, as it did before.

These are the quota refugees. The ones the article is lambasting. Asylum seekers are different, technically a superset of refugees I guess.

I'm glad you saw two contradictory headlines once (to nitpick: way down != down), I'm not sure how that refutes any of the many things wrong with the two articles I described above, found within 5 clicks on their website frontpage.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#182

Post by tzs » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 1:46 AM 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…

> [...] news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact

The difference is that when news orgs on the top half of this chart [1] are wrong, even the ones that are quite partisan either left or right, it is almost always the case that they thought they were right when the published. The are wrong by accident.

When orgs along the bottom, whether they be far left like AlterNet or far right like Breitbart, are wrong it is often they case that they know they are wrong before they publish, but since their purpose is not news but rather pushing their partisan agenda, they consider that a feature, not a bug.

[1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#183

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

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.

Please don't make a thread like this even worse by tossing in even more political flamebait.

"Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#184

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

awt wrote: post #106

mjrpes wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ever read Kuhn? [edit: down voters are Kuhn haters or what? Downvotes are so totally useless.]

It was correctly downvoted, since the comment was unsubstantive on a divisive topic.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#185

Post by ummonk » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #142

ummonk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some clear cultural differences that America has with pretty much any other nation in the world. The most notable is our very expansive definition of free speech, which has broad popular support and is found almost nowhere else in the world. American culture also exhibits a relatively high support for economic freedom and avoiding government largesse. Additionally, we have a strong liking of suburbs (as typ…

American culture has high support for other people avoiding government largesse. Nobody wants to give up their own subsidies, on the right or the left.

There is certainly some truth to what you say but it's not a universal rule. E.g. plenty of people refuse to sign up for welfare or unemployment benefits that they would qualify for, and we still have a bunch of states boneheadedly refusing to expand medicaid even though the expansion is almost fully paid for by the federal government.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#186

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

billysielu wrote: post #101

ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your textbooks are highly likely to have contained excerpts from primary sources.

thank god you know more about my education than I do.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#187

Post by exolymph » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:46 AM 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.

having worked in journalism, hahahhahhahhahahhhahhahahaha

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#188

Post by exolymph » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #3

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!

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#189

Post by 8bitsrule » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

Wikipedia, these days is remarkably accurate.

But much more significant than that, it's a compelling demonstration of what a large, committed community can do, together. With a vision for creating value, without a need for satisfying shareholders in anything but reason and adequately-competent, wide-ranging content.

In my view it is becoming one of the wonders of the modern world. Without a sugar daddy.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#190

Post by pattrn » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 4:03 AM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #176

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?

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 i…

Programmatic banning of sources takes power away from editors to determine legitimacy. It censors the conversation that would have otherwise taken place. Wikipedia cannot claim impartiality once it picks and chooses sources at an organizational level. Due to having little interest in keeping up to date with Wikipedia's ban list, I certainly will no longer see it as impartial from this point onward.

I'm not concerned about the downvotes when I don't see a clear reason for them. As far as I can tell, I raised a legitimate point. I'm assuming that it's legitimate because none of the downvoters commented to explain why they disagreed with my point.

(I shouldn't have to say this, since it neither aids nor harms my arguments, but I don't read Breitbart.)