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

61–70 of 219 posts

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#61

Post by vnorilo »

blahblahthrow wrote: post #56
vnorilo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extrem…

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.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#62

Post by blahblahthrow »

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…

It seems unhelpful to write off Breitbart readers as unaware of reality. They may be uncritical readers of the news, and they may have deplorable beliefs, but many sane, rational people believe terrible things. Or they're willing to associate with people who believe terrible things to further their own agenda, and be complicit in those terrible things.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#63

Post by ndnxhs »

rlpb wrote: post #33
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…

> First, if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. Based on this criterion, are there any credible news organizations left?

Its fairly easy to find 3 sources for any story because most articles are just reworded from other articles.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#64

Post by tomohawk »

wffurr wrote: post #39
tomohawk wrote: post #26

This is a shame, as it is important to be informed from a diversity of sources. Closing yourself off to sources that do not actively support your positions is unhealthy. It can lead to a kind of political fixation that rationalizes labeling people who you do not agree with as "wrong" or worse. Digging into the links behind this 'article' reveals a labyrinth of lefty sites making dogmatic claims with little or no corr…

"Entertainment value" is about the only thing Breitbart could have going for it, if you find that kind of thing entertaining. It has no place on Wikipedia. Also, why put "article" in scare quotes? Its pretty unambiguously an "article". That's not a good way to try to deligitimize the OP, if that's what you're going for. You should have stuck to your point about being open-minded, though I would add the "but don't let…

Vice is generally in the same category as Breitbart, only on the left.

The 'article' cites such sources as splinternews to back up its various unsupported claims an innuendo.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#65

Post by YouOkOrNot »

Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad.

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.

What is the case is that very often Breitbart reports on things more mainstream sites refuse to report on. It's real diversity of perspective like this that's actually valuable in a free society.

But Breitbart doesn't tow the ideological line, so it gets banned.

When we ban websites like Breitbart we lose sources that examine sides of issues that often go unexamined, or issues that get ignored altogether.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#66

Post by sharkvszombie »

repolfx wrote: post #6
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…

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…

Only conservative outlets? Did you read the article? It says they banned OccupyDemocrats for similar reasons. They aren't just banning right wing news.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#67

Post by blahblahthrow »

vnorilo wrote: post #61
blahblahthrow wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extrem…

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.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#68

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

The problem seems to be that on many platforms, advocating something like enforcing existing immigration law gets you downvoted and shouted down as though you were advocating gassing the Jews. It seems to be even less tolerated than more extremist comments, because actual-Nazi comments get publicized as "look how terrible The Other Side is" whereas a more reasoned right-wing position might actually convince people.

For example, the top level comment in this thread has been flagged to death even though its gist is that people should look for news from multiple perspectives.

And when you have that kind of populist sentiment attacking anything that questions the party line, reasoned counterargument gets mushed into the same outlets that carry extremist conspiracy theories because they're the only ones not being cowed. Which naturally leads to the kind of polarization we've been seeing lately where both sides move away from the middle.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#69

Post by imh »

YouOkOrNot wrote: post #65

Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad. 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 HuffP…

It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.

Re: Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

#70

Post by vnorilo »

blahblahthrow wrote: post #67
vnorilo wrote: post #61

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.

I should clarify that I'm from Finland, which gained independence from Russia in a clearly nationalist context. Not to belittle the troubling consequent alignment with Germany in WW2 which we tend to try to explain with "we didn't know Hitler was so evil" and the existential threat by Stalin. Regardless, national pride can take several forms. You could learn folk song and dance. Or you can wield torches in a skinhead march. I'd very much like to reclaim the concept from the latter.
Post reply on HN