8 ms·

The article in the dupe thread suggested that this would combat "fake news," but I dunno about that. I get the impression that people who digest biased/question

The article in the dupe thread suggested that this would combat "fake news," but I dunno about that. I get the impression that people who digest biased/questionable sources do it to express tribal affiliation more than some genuine need to be informed. Hell, many people share articles without even reading them; they're primarily concerned with what the headline in their feed says about their character rather than the world at large. I'm not sure if having (another) "evidence based" outlet is going to be of any use to your cranky uncle. I think the real promise lies in Wikitribune potentially going toe-to-toe with "real news" like CNN or the Washington Post. These outlets also don't always get the facts straight and can't be said to have a diehard following. If a superior option presents itself, readers will follow.

michaelbuckbee 10y ago
I tried to track down some of the crazy news stories that were being shared broadly on Facebook and much of what I found was that they were algorithmically generated titles slapped onto the same URL and the actual "story" was copied bits from other semi-related stories. You'd find really salacious headlines: "Hillary Clinton Murder Victim Speaks" and the actual story would be about her fundraising. They were arbitraging the cost of buying a FB ad (to drive traffic and start the viral loop) against how many ads they could run on the site.
backpropaganda 10y ago
Wikitribune IS going to go toe-to-toe against CNN and WP. It's proposing a new news model where you pay for news by donations.
- jim-jim-jim 10y ago
  That's my impression as well. I was responding to an article title that has since been marked duplicate.
- gotothedoctor 10y ago
  Wikitribune's professed goal to raise enough money to pay 10 print journalists. That seems like a big stretch?
- memmcgee 10y ago
  If online news could subsist on donations alone then it would in the form of subscriptions.
tmalsburg2 10y ago
Yeah, some people may not care about it and go on to consume questionable but ideological aligned news. However, this is for the people who do care about reliable and transparent news. For these people Wikitribune promises to do a great deal to combat fake news because at this time all they can do it to choose between different flavors of fake news.
- backpropaganda 10y ago
  I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased news. A true solution has to fix both, the latter being more important imo.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - te_chris 10y ago
    There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.
    - ckastner 10y ago
      How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
      - fictioncircle 10y ago
        97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
benchaney 10y ago
I agree that this won't help everyone, but I don't think it matters. Anyone who wants to stick their head on the sand will always be able to, I don't really see any way around that. I do think it is important for people seeking out accurate an unbiased information be able to do so effectively. This is becoming increasingly difficult.
- jim-jim-jim 10y ago
  I agree with you and I'm looking forward to checking this out if/when it launches. I was only taking issue with the title of the original article, which suggested this was a direct countermeasure to "fake news" rather than an attempt at better news. I think Jimbo is more concerned about bridging a divide between journalists and audience (hence his mention of comments sections) than he is about drowning out some fly-by-night spam mills.
- smsm42 10y ago
  The danger here is not people who will stick their heads in sand. It's people who would not allow opinions different from their own to exist. So called "fact-checkers" were subverted by partisan propaganda in mere months. This effort vulnerable to the same too. If it uses fully egalitarian participation model, a determined, vocal and ruthless clique would be able to enforce their view with relative ease, by just a) investing more time than others, thus gaining standing in the project and clout to use against opponents and b) just by shouting down the opponents and scaring them off - most people wouldn't care enough to resist an organized clique on some semi-obscure project. If it uses some kind of "expert panel", it can be attacked by activists, demanding to eject people who hold controversial opinions, or make their life hard until they leave. It can also be selected to be biased from the get go - many academic disciplines and professions have a lot of biases. If in some fields majority of experts hold some opinions, they would also tend to select for agreement with them, thus enforcing the groupthink and completely denying representation to alternative opinion. Any centralized system would be vulnerable to this. Any single "source of truth" can be subverted.
  - comex 10y ago
    > It's people who would not allow opinions different from their own to exist. So called "fact-checkers" were subverted by partisan propaganda in mere months. Months since when, exactly? Most popular fact checkers existed long before the "fake news" meme brought them to newfound attention.
tmat 10y ago
CNN gives no facts.. just agenda driven propaganda.. Wapo too.. of all the news sites you pick those two?
- Angostura 10y ago
  So - top story on CNN right now is http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/asia/north-korea-artillery-drill/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/asia/north-korea-artillery... No facts there? Top story on WashPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-confident-of-averting-shutdown-as-trump-shows-flexibility-on-wall https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-confide... Fact free?
- jim-jim-jim 10y ago
  I'm not particularly fond of either, which is why I presented them as examples of why we need better journalism :) To me both organizations embody a mediocre beltway mentality that isn't beholden to any one party or caucus. It's a thought process that props up lobbyists and thinktank lickspittles as overnight "experts" on whatever country we're thinking about bombing next. They're the kind of rags that will call Kissinger "a statesman" in his obituary. They present heated debated nestled snugly within the Overton Window to mask a neoliberal consensus. Not a fan at all.
  - tmat 10y ago
    ah gotcha ya were on the same page lol..
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tmat 10y ago
CNN gives no facts.. just agenda driven propaganda.. Wapo too.. of all the news sites you pick those two?

michaelbuckbee 10y ago

I tried to track down some of the crazy news stories that were being shared broadly on Facebook and much of what I found was that they were algorithmically generated titles slapped onto the same URL and the actual "story" was copied bits from other semi-related stories. You'd find really salacious headlines: "Hillary Clinton Murder Victim Speaks" and the actual story would be about her fundraising. They were arbitraging the cost of buying a FB ad (to drive traffic and start the viral loop) against how many ads they could run on the site.

backpropaganda 10y ago

Wikitribune IS going to go toe-to-toe against CNN and WP. It's proposing a new news model where you pay for news by donations.

jim-jim-jim 10y ago
That's my impression as well. I was responding to an article title that has since been marked duplicate.
gotothedoctor 10y ago
Wikitribune's professed goal to raise enough money to pay 10 print journalists. That seems like a big stretch?
memmcgee 10y ago
If online news could subsist on donations alone then it would in the form of subscriptions.

tmalsburg2 10y ago

Yeah, some people may not care about it and go on to consume questionable but ideological aligned news. However, this is for the people who do care about reliable and transparent news. For these people Wikitribune promises to do a great deal to combat fake news because at this time all they can do it to choose between different flavors of fake news.

backpropaganda 10y ago
I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased news. A true solution has to fix both, the latter being more important imo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- te_chris 10y ago
  There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.
  - ckastner 10y ago
    How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
    - fictioncircle 10y ago
      97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

benchaney 10y ago

I agree that this won't help everyone, but I don't think it matters. Anyone who wants to stick their head on the sand will always be able to, I don't really see any way around that. I do think it is important for people seeking out accurate an unbiased information be able to do so effectively. This is becoming increasingly difficult.

jim-jim-jim 10y ago
I agree with you and I'm looking forward to checking this out if/when it launches. I was only taking issue with the title of the original article, which suggested this was a direct countermeasure to "fake news" rather than an attempt at better news. I think Jimbo is more concerned about bridging a divide between journalists and audience (hence his mention of comments sections) than he is about drowning out some fly-by-night spam mills.
smsm42 10y ago
The danger here is not people who will stick their heads in sand. It's people who would not allow opinions different from their own to exist. So called "fact-checkers" were subverted by partisan propaganda in mere months. This effort vulnerable to the same too. If it uses fully egalitarian participation model, a determined, vocal and ruthless clique would be able to enforce their view with relative ease, by just a) investing more time than others, thus gaining standing in the project and clout to use against opponents and b) just by shouting down the opponents and scaring them off - most people wouldn't care enough to resist an organized clique on some semi-obscure project. If it uses some kind of "expert panel", it can be attacked by activists, demanding to eject people who hold controversial opinions, or make their life hard until they leave. It can also be selected to be biased from the get go - many academic disciplines and professions have a lot of biases. If in some fields majority of experts hold some opinions, they would also tend to select for agreement with them, thus enforcing the groupthink and completely denying representation to alternative opinion. Any centralized system would be vulnerable to this. Any single "source of truth" can be subverted.
- comex 10y ago
  > It's people who would not allow opinions different from their own to exist. So called "fact-checkers" were subverted by partisan propaganda in mere months. Months since when, exactly? Most popular fact checkers existed long before the "fake news" meme brought them to newfound attention.

tmat 10y ago

CNN gives no facts.. just agenda driven propaganda.. Wapo too.. of all the news sites you pick those two?

Angostura 10y ago
So - top story on CNN right now is http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/asia/north-korea-artillery-drill/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/asia/north-korea-artillery... No facts there? Top story on WashPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-confident-of-averting-shutdown-as-trump-shows-flexibility-on-wall https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-confide... Fact free?
jim-jim-jim 10y ago
I'm not particularly fond of either, which is why I presented them as examples of why we need better journalism :) To me both organizations embody a mediocre beltway mentality that isn't beholden to any one party or caucus. It's a thought process that props up lobbyists and thinktank lickspittles as overnight "experts" on whatever country we're thinking about bombing next. They're the kind of rags that will call Kissinger "a statesman" in his obituary. They present heated debated nestled snugly within the Overton Window to mask a neoliberal consensus. Not a fan at all.
- tmat 10y ago
  ah gotcha ya were on the same page lol..

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tmat 10y ago

CNN gives no facts.. just agenda driven propaganda.. Wapo too.. of all the news sites you pick those two?