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

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#51

Post by colejohnson66 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #34

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…

> Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Not even Wikipedia claims this, which is why they tell users to never quote Wikipedia but to go to the sources (which all articles are supposed to have) and quote those instead.

Except for those times what is cited is a scientific journal behind a paywall. You can’t really quote those unless you pay up.

Then there’s the whole “WikiGate” (terrible name, but whatever) where Elsevier gave free accounts to Wikipedia editors[1]. That doesn’t help.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/wikigate-raises-ques...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#52

Post by solarkraft » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:45 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #13

danpalmer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.

Many teachers accept other secondary sources, though. News article that summarizes a scientific paper? Ok. Wikipedia article citing that paper? Not ok. My impression of this has been a mix of misinformation (anyone can edit it, it must be wrong!), and the fact that it’s just too easy: it really doesn’t make students “work for” their information, so it completely throws off their schedule because everyone has quick ac…

It really is mostly FUD. Wikipedia tends to be quite accurate (on somewhat popular topics, anyway) precisely BECAUSE there are multiple people reviewing articles.

I'd argue that its strength is exactly being a secondary source, instead of just alledging facts someone has already taken the time to value multiple sources. Additionally the talk page often adds extra depth.

Instead of blindly hyping against Wikipedia, it should be taught to use it well (and not depend on it too much).

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#53

Post by HBlix » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:48 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #51

DanBC wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Not even Wikipedia claims this, which is why they tell users to never quote Wikipedia but to go to the sources (which all articles are supposed to have) and quote those instead.

Except for those times what is cited is a scientific journal behind a paywall. You can’t really quote those unless you pay up. Then there’s the whole “WikiGate” (terrible name, but whatever) where Elsevier gave free accounts to Wikipedia editors[1]. That doesn’t help. [1]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/wikigate-raises-ques...

Sci-Hub is pretty amazing for any paper that has been out for as long as most sources on Wikipedia have been, so in truth you can almost always read them in full.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#54

Post by barry-cotter » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #48

barry-cotter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Only for things that aren’t politically fraught enough for one person, anywhere on the internet to decide to camp on the article. Look at what you get if you look up “Cultural Marxism”. It redirects to the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory article, with the subheading “Cultural Marxism Cons…

That's because Cultural Marxism isn't part of any serious scientific publication, it's just a non-sense term used by some far right members.

As you might have noticed if you had clicked on either the reddit thread or the amazon link that’s not so.

Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology was published in 1981. It’s been cited 40 times. That’s not a seminal work but it’s not marginal either. Cultural Marxism was a self-description before it was ever used as a slur.

Product Description A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture has the following review

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Marx...

... If this collection is long and complicated, that is because Marxist theory has a long and complicated history: no simple summary or static model will suffice for a genuinely dialectical theory, one that works with the essential concepts of contradiction between the emergent and the persistent, mediation, and overdetermination. ...

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#55

Post by rubyfan » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:53 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…

Well stated. The problem that the blanket ban on one source introduces is that it becomes a divisive issue. The source and faction that subscribes then believes Wikipedia has lost its objectivity (even if it is trying to maintain the truth). The faction then just starts saying Wikipedia is biased and discounts it as a credible source that speaks the truth universally. To be clear I am not saying that the non-truth should be considered in Wikipedia - I am saying that I like what the parent suggests. Wikipedia should look for a more broad application of standards for sources, as the parent suggests flagging universally around citations not meeting standard, etc.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#56

Post by blahblahthrow » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

vnorilo wrote: post #43

acdha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like saying you’re depriving yourself of a diversity of sources by not reading the National Enquirer regularly. Unless you’re studying propaganda, the only thing reading Breitbart gives you is a chance to be mislead. If you want right-wing perspectives, the WSJ or The Economist would be far more deserving of your attention.

The Economist considers itself center-right, and is classically liberal (free trade, individual liberty). Breitbart caters to nativist sensibility, and while there might be a thoughtful, reasonable standard-bearer for nationalism, I haven't seen one. Perhaps such a publication would act as a pressure valve and reduce the prominence of the nativist garbage rags? Likely I'm too optimistic.

What's the value of a less extreme nationalist press, except to espouse the same values but make them more palatable to moderates and lead them down the slippery slope to extremism? For better or worse the "ideal" world of nationalists would be a massive, traumatic revision of the current state of affairs, aimed at ethnic minorities and vulnerable people for benefit of white people. It seems like an inherently extreme and racist philosophy.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#57

Post by blahblahthrow » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:01 PM UTC

dmitrygr wrote: post #46

Unpopular opinion: Sometimes Breitbart does have useful info. They were the only ones who had the full leak of the Google all-hands that was definitely newsworthy, for example. Discard that and you missed some useful info. You canot just color publications as "good" and "not". This sort of maximalism (seeing the world in black and white) is rarely good long term. Almost everything in the world has a use.

> almost everything in the world has a use

Do you routinely read far-left news sources like Current Affairs and Jacobin to make sure you're getting the full picture?

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#58

Post by avs733 » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:01 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #34

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…

> Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Not even Wikipedia claims this, which is why they tell users to never quote Wikipedia but to go to the sources (which all articles are supposed to have) and quote those instead.

That's not a "Wikipedia" thing though...that's standard practice with any encyclopedia.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#59

Post by JohnStrangeII » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #23

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #19

I'm astonished they accepted Breitbart in the first place. When I first heard about it, I checked it out and literally the first discussion in their comment section was about how to most efficiently gas the maximum number of jews in the US. I'm not kidding. Breitbart is not the only problem of people who read it, many of them are mentally ill (schizophrenia) or they were raised in a way that makes it almost impossibl…

You're making an extraordinary claim here. Care to provide a link backing it up? If not, this is just a slur. You're implying that people who go to breitbart are mentally ill. Maybe they need help? Should be committed to an institution for their views? That worked out so well in the Soviet Union...

Yes, many of them are mentally ill, which is pretty obvious if you would actually care to check out their comments on Breitbart, which I have done.

I stand by my word, everything I've said about Breitbart is true, whether you like it or not. You can downvote me as much as you want, fact is that Breitbart is a hate speech site that also happens to copy & pastes news from other sources in order to disguise their real purpose. Anyone who thinks there could be a "news site" with a more right wing bias than Fox News is seriously deluded, because the primary goal of news reporting is not to politically influence the public towards radical anti-democratic world views and create chaos.

Just to make this clear, I'm not a US citizen and couldn't care less about Breitbart's fake news if Bannon hadn't recently announced that he wants to invest money to focus his propaganda efforts on the EU with the goal of disrupting the European Union and instigate chaos in Europe. There is no need to write indirect slurs about Breitbart, the truth suffices to discredit this site.

But if you want a real slur, no problem. Yes, the people who run Breitbart are absolutely despicable scum.

Would you read an ISIS "news site" to get your "news"? If the answer is no, then you also shouldn't read utter crap like Beitbart.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#60

Post by ndnxhs » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:03 PM UTC

HBlix wrote: post #53

colejohnson66 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for those times what is cited is a scientific journal behind a paywall. You can’t really quote those unless you pay up. Then there’s the whole “WikiGate” (terrible name, but whatever) where Elsevier gave free accounts to Wikipedia editors[1]. That doesn’t help. [1]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/wikigate-raises-ques...

Sci-Hub is pretty amazing for any paper that has been out for as long as most sources on Wikipedia have been, so in truth you can almost always read them in full.

Never finds the stuff I search :/