5 ms·

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 thre

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.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    "unrelated" is the key word here (though I agree that copy-paste "journalism" is a fairly serious problem).
rubyfan 8y ago
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.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I don't see it that way. This is probably just a pragmatic move to keep Wikipedia users and contributors from getting their panties in a knot. It's basically impossible to have a discussion on the internet about the merit something a strongly right leaning media outlet says (well it's possible, but the discussion won't be very civil). Anything factual Breitbart reports will be reported elsewhere because that's how media works, if one outlet covers it others will too. In light of that there's not much to be lost by banning Breitbart as a source. What you gain is that it gives the monkeys that edit pages one less reason to fling poo at each other.
  - pattrn 8y ago
    Many conservatives consider CNN as left wing and disreputable as many liberals consider Breitbart. Your same reasoning would also apply to Wikipedia banning CNN. Would you consider that a pragmatic move? If not, then for what reasons would they differ?
    - lolc 8y ago
      Does Breitbart even publicly retract or correct stories at all?
      - masonic 8y ago
        I've seen it a couple of times. More relevant: can you identify any examples of Breitbart content that is, and remains, factually incorrect?
liftbigweights 8y ago
> Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source. It has nothing to do with how wikipedia works rather than the pressure being put on it by monied interests and the news organizations. What is happening to wikipedia is what happened to google, reddit, youtube, twitter, etc. It's the elite media ( particular nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, et al ) trying to muscle out everyone else. In the long run, this isn't going to hurt breitbart or any of the right leaning news sources. Right leaning people are going to find it one way or another. It's going to hurt vox, theverge, huffingtonpost, buzzfeed and the billions of left leading fringe news sources as the big boys get special treatment. I'm certain that breitbart is going to be around 10 years from now. I'm not sure about vox and company. And also in the long run, it's going to make people distrust the nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, etc even more. But I don't think they care. Que sera sera. People really underestimate how much external money pressure is being put on tech companies like wikipedia to serve as propaganda outlets. It's not even tech, even the ACLU is feeling the pressure. The only thing mere mortals can do is see out things play.
- ohhellno 8y ago
  Upvote
forapurpose 8y ago
> if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact If Wikipedia then uses that news organization as a source, isn't it in effect using the same standard?
manicdee 8y ago
When the signal to noise ratio is so low, and the time cost of continually reviewing references and arguing with the right wing article brigadiers is so high, banning the troublesome source is a simple way of ensuring the available editor time is spent constructively.
tzs 8y ago
> [...] news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact The difference is that when news orgs on the top half of this chart [1] are wrong, even the ones that are quite partisan either left or right, it is almost always the case that they thought they were right when the published. The are wrong by accident. When orgs along the bottom, whether they be far left like AlterNet or far right like Breitbart, are wrong it is often they case that they know they are wrong before they publish, but since their purpose is not news but rather pushing their partisan agenda, they consider that a feature, not a bug. [1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
exolymph 8y ago
> if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. having worked in journalism, hahahhahhahhahahhhahhahahaha
- repolfx 8y ago
  Yes that claim is wrong, here's CNN admitting they ran a story that was totally false and aren't going to do anything about it, because it met their standard of two sources: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-... Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email, while also making clear that CNN did not ever even see the email, but only had sources describe its purported contents. As Greenwald points out, in this particular case it's implausible that those two sources could have been independent because the mistake was about mis-reading the date on an email in a way that happened to be politically convenient: All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question — one that CNN refuses to address: How did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN? So either the OP is wrong about what credible news organisations do, or CNN is not credible (see my arguments below to that end), or both. I wonder how much of the commentary about NYT/CNN/etc being "credible" and Breitbart being "not credible" is based on misunderstandings of how journalism works?
rstuart4133 8y ago
> 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 Really, it isn't that complex. Most people learn this in kindergarten, if not before. Every heard of the "boy who cried wolf"? At no time does anyone suggest if the boy turned up with the wolf's head under his arm you would disbelieve him. But later when telling people "I believe there is a wolf now" you don't say it's because "the boy told me [again]", instead you hold up the head. Well, it's the same for Breitbart. Saying "it's true because Breitbart said it's true" is just going to get you tarnished with Breitbart's reputation, but handing out Breitbart's citation might just do the trick.

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.
- cyphar 8y ago
  "unrelated" is the key word here (though I agree that copy-paste "journalism" is a fairly serious problem).

rubyfan 8y ago

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.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I don't see it that way. This is probably just a pragmatic move to keep Wikipedia users and contributors from getting their panties in a knot. It's basically impossible to have a discussion on the internet about the merit something a strongly right leaning media outlet says (well it's possible, but the discussion won't be very civil). Anything factual Breitbart reports will be reported elsewhere because that's how media works, if one outlet covers it others will too. In light of that there's not much to be lost by banning Breitbart as a source. What you gain is that it gives the monkeys that edit pages one less reason to fling poo at each other.
- pattrn 8y ago
  Many conservatives consider CNN as left wing and disreputable as many liberals consider Breitbart. Your same reasoning would also apply to Wikipedia banning CNN. Would you consider that a pragmatic move? If not, then for what reasons would they differ?
  - lolc 8y ago
    Does Breitbart even publicly retract or correct stories at all?
    - masonic 8y ago
      I've seen it a couple of times. More relevant: can you identify any examples of Breitbart content that is, and remains, factually incorrect?

liftbigweights 8y ago

> Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source. It has nothing to do with how wikipedia works rather than the pressure being put on it by monied interests and the news organizations. What is happening to wikipedia is what happened to google, reddit, youtube, twitter, etc. It's the elite media ( particular nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, et al ) trying to muscle out everyone else. In the long run, this isn't going to hurt breitbart or any of the right leaning news sources. Right leaning people are going to find it one way or another. It's going to hurt vox, theverge, huffingtonpost, buzzfeed and the billions of left leading fringe news sources as the big boys get special treatment. I'm certain that breitbart is going to be around 10 years from now. I'm not sure about vox and company. And also in the long run, it's going to make people distrust the nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, etc even more. But I don't think they care. Que sera sera. People really underestimate how much external money pressure is being put on tech companies like wikipedia to serve as propaganda outlets. It's not even tech, even the ACLU is feeling the pressure. The only thing mere mortals can do is see out things play.

ohhellno 8y ago
Upvote

forapurpose 8y ago

> if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact If Wikipedia then uses that news organization as a source, isn't it in effect using the same standard?

manicdee 8y ago

When the signal to noise ratio is so low, and the time cost of continually reviewing references and arguing with the right wing article brigadiers is so high, banning the troublesome source is a simple way of ensuring the available editor time is spent constructively.

tzs 8y ago

> [...] news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact The difference is that when news orgs on the top half of this chart [1] are wrong, even the ones that are quite partisan either left or right, it is almost always the case that they thought they were right when the published. The are wrong by accident. When orgs along the bottom, whether they be far left like AlterNet or far right like Breitbart, are wrong it is often they case that they know they are wrong before they publish, but since their purpose is not news but rather pushing their partisan agenda, they consider that a feature, not a bug. [1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

exolymph 8y ago

> if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. having worked in journalism, hahahhahhahhahahhhahhahahaha

repolfx 8y ago
Yes that claim is wrong, here's CNN admitting they ran a story that was totally false and aren't going to do anything about it, because it met their standard of two sources: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-... Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email, while also making clear that CNN did not ever even see the email, but only had sources describe its purported contents. As Greenwald points out, in this particular case it's implausible that those two sources could have been independent because the mistake was about mis-reading the date on an email in a way that happened to be politically convenient: All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question — one that CNN refuses to address: How did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN? So either the OP is wrong about what credible news organisations do, or CNN is not credible (see my arguments below to that end), or both. I wonder how much of the commentary about NYT/CNN/etc being "credible" and Breitbart being "not credible" is based on misunderstandings of how journalism works?

rstuart4133 8y ago

> 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 Really, it isn't that complex. Most people learn this in kindergarten, if not before. Every heard of the "boy who cried wolf"? At no time does anyone suggest if the boy turned up with the wolf's head under his arm you would disbelieve him. But later when telling people "I believe there is a wolf now" you don't say it's because "the boy told me [again]", instead you hold up the head. Well, it's the same for Breitbart. Saying "it's true because Breitbart said it's true" is just going to get you tarnished with Breitbart's reputation, but handing out Breitbart's citation might just do the trick.