4 ms·

An interesting take on a very difficult task... https://theoutline.com/post/2435/wikitribune-is-already-biased https://theoutline.com/post/2435/wikitribune-is-

by edf13 9y ago

An interesting take on a very difficult task... https://theoutline.com/post/2435/wikitribune-is-already-biased https://theoutline.com/post/2435/wikitribune-is-already-bias... Something we all would like to work - but I'm not sure it's easily possible to be neutral.

lumisota 9y ago
arguably, neutrality is an impossible task. where there is any editing or selection involved (be it by a person, or by an algorithm), neutrality disappears.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Reaching the speed of light is also technically impossible, that doesn't mean you stop trying. Being eternally vigilant aware of your bias and actively working to counteract it, rather than blithely pretending your policies prevent it, is the way to go. This requires merciless introspection and constant self-reevaluation, so it's no wonder that most organizations don't bother. Few are that self-aware. That said, I don't have high hopes for this. Wikipedia's insistence that only academia and mainstream media coverage are sufficient sources for articles all but ensure a predictable bias on any ideologically charged topic. Same people, same kinda project, same biases. They've not stated any reason why this will be different.
  - mkstowegnv 9y ago
    You ask your readers to believe that academia, the mainstream media and Wikipedia all have the same bias. An alternative hypothesis is that A) all three have albeit imperfect self correction mechanisms and are on average as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come, and B) it is not their bias but rather yours that is responsible for your claim. At the very least it seems disingenuous to abstain from naming the bias you claim all three have.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-win... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... (and others - I can find very little that actually challenges the belief) * The mainstream media has a left-leaning, status quo, (and as used in Wikipedia) American bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.1ec1ff06056f* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/... http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/* http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist... Given that Wikipedia has, as enforced policy, that mainstream media and academic sources trump all else, it logically must share the same bias as its sources. This is even acknowledged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias It's not like I'm making some accusation of conspiracy or malfeasance here, so there's no need to interpret it as an attack. This is simply the way the site and its user base operates given its current policies. If the media is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. If the Academic community is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. The reason I speak of these disparate groups as wholes is that, on Wikipedia, consensus determines what an article says, what gets relegated to a "criticism" section, and what can't be said at all. (Arguably, the biases of the editors will win over the actual state of the sources, but this is just my read on the policy) This is one of the downsides of acting as a tertiary source alone: you're only as good as your secondaries and primaries I then extend this inference out to this new project. It has the same people at the helm, will likely attract the same group of editors, and so it will share the same problems as Wikipedia proper.
      - yesenadam 9y ago
        A small point.. What is called "left-leaning" in the U.S. looks right-leaning to most of the world. [source?] Supporting one (the less far-right one) of the two main business parties gets you called "left-leaning". Supporting health care apparently gets you called a communist! That seemed everyday opinion in the U.S. - it seemed absolute appalling idiocy to the world looking on. Up there with "freedom fries" etc. "The centre" I guess then falls somewhere halfway between a primetime news anchor and their right wing thinktank guest.
- edf13 9y ago
  I am interested to see where we go with ai/algorithmic approaches to news though... the bias brought here will be interesting to see.
  - danso 9y ago
    Aren't algorithms the primary paradigm for news as disseminated through Twitter and Facebook?
zbentley 9y ago
From parent's link: > There is no such thing as an objective highlight. So by that logic, all documentation of anything is subjective, since it necessarily omits some details that someone, somewhere might consider relevant. That seems like a bottomless rabbit-hole and a means of avoiding debate. Are there any better standards for evaluating bias instead?

by edf13 9y ago

lumisota 9y ago

arguably, neutrality is an impossible task. where there is any editing or selection involved (be it by a person, or by an algorithm), neutrality disappears.

Karunamon 9y ago
Reaching the speed of light is also technically impossible, that doesn't mean you stop trying. Being eternally vigilant aware of your bias and actively working to counteract it, rather than blithely pretending your policies prevent it, is the way to go. This requires merciless introspection and constant self-reevaluation, so it's no wonder that most organizations don't bother. Few are that self-aware. That said, I don't have high hopes for this. Wikipedia's insistence that only academia and mainstream media coverage are sufficient sources for articles all but ensure a predictable bias on any ideologically charged topic. Same people, same kinda project, same biases. They've not stated any reason why this will be different.
- mkstowegnv 9y ago
  You ask your readers to believe that academia, the mainstream media and Wikipedia all have the same bias. An alternative hypothesis is that A) all three have albeit imperfect self correction mechanisms and are on average as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come, and B) it is not their bias but rather yours that is responsible for your claim. At the very least it seems disingenuous to abstain from naming the bias you claim all three have.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-win... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... (and others - I can find very little that actually challenges the belief) * The mainstream media has a left-leaning, status quo, (and as used in Wikipedia) American bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.1ec1ff06056f* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/... http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/* http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist... Given that Wikipedia has, as enforced policy, that mainstream media and academic sources trump all else, it logically must share the same bias as its sources. This is even acknowledged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias It's not like I'm making some accusation of conspiracy or malfeasance here, so there's no need to interpret it as an attack. This is simply the way the site and its user base operates given its current policies. If the media is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. If the Academic community is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. The reason I speak of these disparate groups as wholes is that, on Wikipedia, consensus determines what an article says, what gets relegated to a "criticism" section, and what can't be said at all. (Arguably, the biases of the editors will win over the actual state of the sources, but this is just my read on the policy) This is one of the downsides of acting as a tertiary source alone: you're only as good as your secondaries and primaries I then extend this inference out to this new project. It has the same people at the helm, will likely attract the same group of editors, and so it will share the same problems as Wikipedia proper.
    - yesenadam 9y ago
      A small point.. What is called "left-leaning" in the U.S. looks right-leaning to most of the world. [source?] Supporting one (the less far-right one) of the two main business parties gets you called "left-leaning". Supporting health care apparently gets you called a communist! That seemed everyday opinion in the U.S. - it seemed absolute appalling idiocy to the world looking on. Up there with "freedom fries" etc. "The centre" I guess then falls somewhere halfway between a primetime news anchor and their right wing thinktank guest.
edf13 9y ago
I am interested to see where we go with ai/algorithmic approaches to news though... the bias brought here will be interesting to see.
- danso 9y ago
  Aren't algorithms the primary paradigm for news as disseminated through Twitter and Facebook?

zbentley 9y ago

From parent's link: > There is no such thing as an objective highlight. So by that logic, all documentation of anything is subjective, since it necessarily omits some details that someone, somewhere might consider relevant. That seems like a bottomless rabbit-hole and a means of avoiding debate. Are there any better standards for evaluating bias instead?