16 ms·

Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts

218 points by aceperry 8y ago

YouOkOrNot 8y ago
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.
- imh 8y ago
  It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.
  - YouOkOrNot 8y ago
    That's beside the point, Breitbart shouldn't be banned.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- e40 8y ago
  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. Whataboutism isn't a good argument.
- orf 8y ago
  > 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-juncker-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 EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-rejects-eu-migrant-quotas-claiming-too-few-contribute/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-... The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-danmark-tager-ikke-imod-kvoteflygtninge-i-aar/ https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote. They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities. And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands. The less said about the comments, the better.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    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-un-quota-refugees-in-2018 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 two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"
    - orf 8y ago
      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.
grey-sunshine 8y ago
I wish it banned Vice.
pavlov 8y ago
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 reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." That would let Facebook and Twitter off the hook from having to make these calls themselves, and would provide readers with valuable context.
- ta_egdhs 8y ago
  that doesn't solve the problem it just offloads it. wikipedia could collapse under the weight of being the internets authority of epistemology.
  - pavlov 8y ago
    That weight has been on Wikipedia's shoulders ever since Google started presenting it as the #1 result on most "established topic" searches.
  - atoav 8y ago
    I think this could be about efficiency. If it is codified that Breitbart is not a credible source (which is not a irrational idea), you don't need to have daily discussions about Breitbarts credibility.
- repolfx 8y ago
  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, Wikipedia is by its nature very easy to manipulate for small very intense groups who believe they're on a holy mission to cleanse the internet of "bad people". This change being a case in point. I read all kinds of news sources, from the Washington Post to CNN to the Daily Mail to Breitbart. I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense, they publish stories that collapse all the time. Yet Wikipedia isn't banning CNN, only conservative outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart. Isn't that strange?
arthev 8y ago
A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.
- danpalmer 8y ago
  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.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    Unfortunately, most teachers don't understand this, and they tell the kids that Wikipedia is normally wrong about everything. At least, that was my experience.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    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 access to a reasonably high-quality source.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      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).
billysielu 8y ago
Wikipedia = The Ministry of Truth
- billysielu 8y ago
  love the down votes, keep them coming, your bias is showing.
JohnStrangeII 8y ago
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 impossible to discern facts from fiction. Before you argue about that, I can guarantee you that I would - and in fact do - say the same about similar radical left-wing "news sites". One problem at Wikipedia is that there is generally not enough vetting of the citation sources. To be fair, that's not entirely their fault, because especially in the US there is a vast network of fake science and news sites powered by lobbyists, and it takes a substantial amount of effort to discern these from reputable sources. I've seen some interesting network analysis of the lobby sites of the US oil industry, and have to say that I wouldn't have been able to easily recognize their think-tanks and science information sites as fake. They're well-disguised and you have to look at interconnections, board members, and funding sources to find out who is really behind them. For example, some of them looked like legitimate sources about green energy technologies, but were in reality designed to poison the climate change debate and further the interests of oil concerns. Conclusion: Don't focus too much on Breitbart, there are plenty of other seemingly legitimate associations, news sites, institutes and think tanks whose primary purpose is to bullshit people, and they are funded from the left and right.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  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...
  - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
    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.
tomohawk 8y ago
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 corroboration. If you are into news and being informed, leaving off sites like breitbart from regular perusal is a mistake. They often bring up facts and perspectives considered unimportant by other outlets. Even infowars has its uses, if for nothing else other than entertainment value.
- acdha 8y ago
  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.
  - vnorilo 8y ago
    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.
    - blahblahthrow 8y ago
      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.
HissingMachine 8y ago
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 corroborating source. Second, this ban seems to assume a position that Breitbart can't be a valid source even if they use outside sources corroborating their claim, and that just goes against journalistic principles in general. But then again, Wikipedia has to my knowledge never claimed to work on journalistic principles, they do have guidelines in place that anyone can verify, but outright banning a source has a negative impact on their validity even if it is for a good reason. Refusing to use Breitbart as only source is reasonable and valid in my opinion, but accepting any other source as valid enough to be used as a single source raises the same problem, news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact. So if they really wanted to make a statement, they would flag articles that need more sources and get more sources even if one of them is Breitbart. But positioning yourself as arbitrator of truth and banning sources, even bad ones really doesn't build confidence, instead it just erodes it. I like that Wikipedia's visual style is black and white, but I'd like it's content principles to be a gradient.
- rlpb 8y ago
  > 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?
  - billysielu 8y ago
    They can just put a quote in a headline and people will click on it. Whether the truth was spoken is irrelevant to their bottom line.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    Its fairly easy to find 3 sources for any story because most articles are just reworded from other articles.
foolzcrow 8y ago
This is why you're called fake news. We don't trust you and your company of traitors..
billysielu 8y ago
I know that I am right, because all the credible facts support me. By definition, any facts contrary to what I believe are not credible. Therefore, all the credible facts support me. Therefore, I am right.
dmitrygr 8y ago
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.
- blahblahthrow 8y ago
  > 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?
  - dmitrygr 8y ago
    Yes I do. And also foreign news to get a non-usa-centric view.
  - wemdyjreichert 8y ago
    I'll second this. I read stuff like Jacobin as well as Breitbart.
pfschell 8y ago
This says far more about the credibility of wikipedia’s editors than it says about Breitbart.
mythrwy 8y ago
If sources which occasionally play lose with facts or spin are to be banned from Wikipedia some mainstream news outlets should probably go as well. Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.
- mythrwy 8y ago
  Really curious about the downvotes (which I don't care about the votes, just what it means). Do they mean "Breitbart is much much less credible than all other news outlets (except maybe Infowars) so they deserve this!" Or do they mean, "Yes, but leftism is the correct point of view, they told me so in college, so they deserve this block!" Or do they mean "We've been trying really hard to resurrect major media as a legitimate source for believable propaganda and don't like your insinuation there!" Or something else I haven't thought of? Because from where I sit, Breitbart, the grand total of 3 times I visited it seemed a bit extreme and one sided, but in reporting not any further from what one might consider "accurate" than many biased mainstream news outlets (comments section excluded, that was indeed a circus). Did I miss something? Not really a person of strong political persuasions but big tech shoving brave new world down everyone's throats isn't really my thing either. Plus I doubt it will work. I guess I prefer the dumb pipes model but once people are involved that goes out the window? Any way to tone that down?
  - lolc 8y ago
    In your original post: > Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility. Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia's credibility from that reek. In my opinion, anything touching Breitbart reeks. Wikipedia is doing well to have settled the matter and gotten rid of that reek. At some point you don't discuss the finer points of shit anymore. You close the lid. As they did with a host of other publications. Just one stinking example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of_Muslim_mob_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of...
beshrkayali 8y ago
This is very bad.
malvosenior 8y ago
That's funny. Wikipedia allows Gawker and Vox posts to be used as sources on articles that directly involve Gawker and Vox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref-Hathaway_151-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref... That whole entry is compiled of highly questionable sources. Seems like a massive double standard.
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  Gamergate's entire "mission" is highly questionable.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    Do you think that because of all of the biased media reports about it? That's literally what it's about (as is the topic of this thread). Social media, new media and old media being politicized, cliquish and dishonest. That Vox and Gawker are viewed as more reputable than Breitbart gets to the very heart of what Gamergate was about (IMO).
    - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
      At its surface I will take Vox reporting over what Breitbart puts out there. Much of the Breitbart stories I have read operated on FUD by taking the very smallest bit of information and conflating it into something far worse than what it is. Gakwer & Vox are not without their flaws, especially Gawker. Gamergate is the perfect example of how media & reporting can be twisted into whatever narrative people want to make. The fact that it evolved into what it did is all the proof you need. If it was ever about "ethics in journalism" they would have never championed YouTuber's and people with 0 track record of journalism. Not to mention they continue to prop up people with known histories of questionable behavior (Cheon, Moriarity). The very fact that much of their 'theory' was based in journalist talking to each other is laughable.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
justtopost 8y ago
Can Vice be next?
writepub 8y ago
Hope the average HN reader is aware that Breitbart is banned on HN, as a submission source.
- lolc 8y ago
  I was blissfully unaware. For a fleeting moment your post made me wonder whether I should consider the ban problematic. Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. And I'll live on as before.
  - writepub 8y ago
    > Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries view news. First, they classify (a.k.a. anoint) sources as kosher & credible, and then blanket ban the others. Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. You can see this pattern in China, Russia, Iran, ... and HN, Wikipedia, ... Of course, HN is a private company who is free under US speech laws to pick and choose sources it deems kosher. But it's ironic that HN considers it's audience immature enough to "protect" it from the triggers of opposing viewpoints, of Breitbart & ilk.
    - lolc 8y ago
      I don't feel I need to be protected from Breitbart so much as left alone by those who would read that rag. Call it arrogance, but I have better uses for my time than meeting people who afford credibility to Breitbart News. > Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. And what would that argument be? That I should be exposed to Breitbart so I "can see the other side"? Thank you very much. The world is not divided into two sides where we should go see the other. The world is full of shit. And there is no point to dwell on it.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. To the best of my knowledge, Breitbart was the only place to release all of the court documents from the Damore case. Interesting enough, because of that, those documents are not cited on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
ohhellno 8y ago
The replies and downvotes in this article just prove the point that silicon valley is a wasteland of leftism. So done with SFO companies and HN.
8bitsrule 8y ago
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.

218 points by aceperry 8y ago

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.

imh 8y ago
It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.
- YouOkOrNot 8y ago
  That's beside the point, Breitbart shouldn't be banned.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
e40 8y ago
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. Whataboutism isn't a good argument.
orf 8y ago
> 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-juncker-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 EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-rejects-eu-migrant-quotas-claiming-too-few-contribute/ https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-... The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-danmark-tager-ikke-imod-kvoteflygtninge-i-aar/ https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote. They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities. And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands. The less said about the comments, the better.
- leereeves 8y ago
  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-un-quota-refugees-in-2018 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 two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"
  - orf 8y ago
    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.

grey-sunshine 8y ago

I wish it banned Vice.

pavlov 8y ago

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 reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." That would let Facebook and Twitter off the hook from having to make these calls themselves, and would provide readers with valuable context.

ta_egdhs 8y ago
that doesn't solve the problem it just offloads it. wikipedia could collapse under the weight of being the internets authority of epistemology.
- pavlov 8y ago
  That weight has been on Wikipedia's shoulders ever since Google started presenting it as the #1 result on most "established topic" searches.
- atoav 8y ago
  I think this could be about efficiency. If it is codified that Breitbart is not a credible source (which is not a irrational idea), you don't need to have daily discussions about Breitbarts credibility.
repolfx 8y ago
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, Wikipedia is by its nature very easy to manipulate for small very intense groups who believe they're on a holy mission to cleanse the internet of "bad people". This change being a case in point. I read all kinds of news sources, from the Washington Post to CNN to the Daily Mail to Breitbart. I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense, they publish stories that collapse all the time. Yet Wikipedia isn't banning CNN, only conservative outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart. Isn't that strange?

arthev 8y ago

A web site banned as a source for facts from schools the world over now bans a web site as a a source of its banned facts.

danpalmer 8y ago
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.
- jstanley 8y ago
  Unfortunately, most teachers don't understand this, and they tell the kids that Wikipedia is normally wrong about everything. At least, that was my experience.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  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 access to a reasonably high-quality source.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    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).

billysielu 8y ago

Wikipedia = The Ministry of Truth

billysielu 8y ago
love the down votes, keep them coming, your bias is showing.

JohnStrangeII 8y ago

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 impossible to discern facts from fiction. Before you argue about that, I can guarantee you that I would - and in fact do - say the same about similar radical left-wing "news sites". One problem at Wikipedia is that there is generally not enough vetting of the citation sources. To be fair, that's not entirely their fault, because especially in the US there is a vast network of fake science and news sites powered by lobbyists, and it takes a substantial amount of effort to discern these from reputable sources. I've seen some interesting network analysis of the lobby sites of the US oil industry, and have to say that I wouldn't have been able to easily recognize their think-tanks and science information sites as fake. They're well-disguised and you have to look at interconnections, board members, and funding sources to find out who is really behind them. For example, some of them looked like legitimate sources about green energy technologies, but were in reality designed to poison the climate change debate and further the interests of oil concerns. Conclusion: Don't focus too much on Breitbart, there are plenty of other seemingly legitimate associations, news sites, institutes and think tanks whose primary purpose is to bullshit people, and they are funded from the left and right.

tomohawk 8y ago
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...
- JohnStrangeII 8y ago
  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.

tomohawk 8y ago

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 corroboration. If you are into news and being informed, leaving off sites like breitbart from regular perusal is a mistake. They often bring up facts and perspectives considered unimportant by other outlets. Even infowars has its uses, if for nothing else other than entertainment value.

acdha 8y ago
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.
- vnorilo 8y ago
  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.
  - blahblahthrow 8y ago
    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.

HissingMachine 8y ago

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 corroborating source. Second, this ban seems to assume a position that Breitbart can't be a valid source even if they use outside sources corroborating their claim, and that just goes against journalistic principles in general. But then again, Wikipedia has to my knowledge never claimed to work on journalistic principles, they do have guidelines in place that anyone can verify, but outright banning a source has a negative impact on their validity even if it is for a good reason. Refusing to use Breitbart as only source is reasonable and valid in my opinion, but accepting any other source as valid enough to be used as a single source raises the same problem, news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact. So if they really wanted to make a statement, they would flag articles that need more sources and get more sources even if one of them is Breitbart. But positioning yourself as arbitrator of truth and banning sources, even bad ones really doesn't build confidence, instead it just erodes it. I like that Wikipedia's visual style is black and white, but I'd like it's content principles to be a gradient.

rlpb 8y ago
> 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?
- billysielu 8y ago
  They can just put a quote in a headline and people will click on it. Whether the truth was spoken is irrelevant to their bottom line.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Its fairly easy to find 3 sources for any story because most articles are just reworded from other articles.

foolzcrow 8y ago

This is why you're called fake news. We don't trust you and your company of traitors..

billysielu 8y ago

I know that I am right, because all the credible facts support me. By definition, any facts contrary to what I believe are not credible. Therefore, all the credible facts support me. Therefore, I am right.

dmitrygr 8y ago

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.

blahblahthrow 8y ago
> 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?
- dmitrygr 8y ago
  Yes I do. And also foreign news to get a non-usa-centric view.
- wemdyjreichert 8y ago
  I'll second this. I read stuff like Jacobin as well as Breitbart.

pfschell 8y ago

This says far more about the credibility of wikipedia’s editors than it says about Breitbart.

mythrwy 8y ago

If sources which occasionally play lose with facts or spin are to be banned from Wikipedia some mainstream news outlets should probably go as well. Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.

mythrwy 8y ago
Really curious about the downvotes (which I don't care about the votes, just what it means). Do they mean "Breitbart is much much less credible than all other news outlets (except maybe Infowars) so they deserve this!" Or do they mean, "Yes, but leftism is the correct point of view, they told me so in college, so they deserve this block!" Or do they mean "We've been trying really hard to resurrect major media as a legitimate source for believable propaganda and don't like your insinuation there!" Or something else I haven't thought of? Because from where I sit, Breitbart, the grand total of 3 times I visited it seemed a bit extreme and one sided, but in reporting not any further from what one might consider "accurate" than many biased mainstream news outlets (comments section excluded, that was indeed a circus). Did I miss something? Not really a person of strong political persuasions but big tech shoving brave new world down everyone's throats isn't really my thing either. Plus I doubt it will work. I guess I prefer the dumb pipes model but once people are involved that goes out the window? Any way to tone that down?
- lolc 8y ago
  In your original post: > Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility. Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia's credibility from that reek. In my opinion, anything touching Breitbart reeks. Wikipedia is doing well to have settled the matter and gotten rid of that reek. At some point you don't discuss the finer points of shit anymore. You close the lid. As they did with a host of other publications. Just one stinking example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of_Muslim_mob_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of...

beshrkayali 8y ago

This is very bad.

malvosenior 8y ago

That's funny. Wikipedia allows Gawker and Vox posts to be used as sources on articles that directly involve Gawker and Vox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref-Hathaway_151-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref... That whole entry is compiled of highly questionable sources. Seems like a massive double standard.

TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
Gamergate's entire "mission" is highly questionable.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Do you think that because of all of the biased media reports about it? That's literally what it's about (as is the topic of this thread). Social media, new media and old media being politicized, cliquish and dishonest. That Vox and Gawker are viewed as more reputable than Breitbart gets to the very heart of what Gamergate was about (IMO).
  - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
    At its surface I will take Vox reporting over what Breitbart puts out there. Much of the Breitbart stories I have read operated on FUD by taking the very smallest bit of information and conflating it into something far worse than what it is. Gakwer & Vox are not without their flaws, especially Gawker. Gamergate is the perfect example of how media & reporting can be twisted into whatever narrative people want to make. The fact that it evolved into what it did is all the proof you need. If it was ever about "ethics in journalism" they would have never championed YouTuber's and people with 0 track record of journalism. Not to mention they continue to prop up people with known histories of questionable behavior (Cheon, Moriarity). The very fact that much of their 'theory' was based in journalist talking to each other is laughable.
    - malvosenior 8y ago

justtopost 8y ago

Can Vice be next?

writepub 8y ago

Hope the average HN reader is aware that Breitbart is banned on HN, as a submission source.

lolc 8y ago
I was blissfully unaware. For a fleeting moment your post made me wonder whether I should consider the ban problematic. Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. And I'll live on as before.
- writepub 8y ago
  > Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries view news. First, they classify (a.k.a. anoint) sources as kosher & credible, and then blanket ban the others. Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. You can see this pattern in China, Russia, Iran, ... and HN, Wikipedia, ... Of course, HN is a private company who is free under US speech laws to pick and choose sources it deems kosher. But it's ironic that HN considers it's audience immature enough to "protect" it from the triggers of opposing viewpoints, of Breitbart & ilk.
  - lolc 8y ago
    I don't feel I need to be protected from Breitbart so much as left alone by those who would read that rag. Call it arrogance, but I have better uses for my time than meeting people who afford credibility to Breitbart News. > Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. And what would that argument be? That I should be exposed to Breitbart so I "can see the other side"? Thank you very much. The world is not divided into two sides where we should go see the other. The world is full of shit. And there is no point to dwell on it.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. To the best of my knowledge, Breitbart was the only place to release all of the court documents from the Damore case. Interesting enough, because of that, those documents are not cited on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

ohhellno 8y ago

The replies and downvotes in this article just prove the point that silicon valley is a wasteland of leftism. So done with SFO companies and HN.

8bitsrule 8y ago

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.