4 ms·

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

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...
- mythrwy 8y ago
  "Go dig" and "general conclusions" don't make any sense in this case. The evidence for the conclusion is there. The point, as stated in my original post, is that "fake news" type reporting isn't confined to right leaning publications. One doesn't need to dig much to determine that. Yet one view source is banned, the other is not. This isn't "assumption" or accusation, it's how it appears to be. What I really hear you saying, (and I think reality comes out a bit further down in your post), is "I don't like Breitbart!". And, emotionally not liking something is a good reason as any to downvote so that is fine. Thanks for the explanation. But just to re-iterate, I don't care for Breitbart either. Nor CNN. I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.
  - lolc 8y ago
    Are you comparing CNN to Breitbart? And by what standards? > I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though. Impossible. What gave you the idea?
    - mythrwy 8y ago
      You are saying you think it's ok for Wikipedia to have a political bias or you are saying you don't think this indicates they have one? If it's the first I guess we have to just disagree and that's it and I'm really sad you feel that way and wish you would reconsider your stance. If it's the second, there are arguments to be made. My concern isn't your political views or distaste for the slant of some publication. I understand that, I don't like grossly biased publications either. My concern is the danger of a politically motivated group of people removing a publication from being cited in a very large crowd-sourced knowledge base because some people don't like the slant. Whatever happened to principal before preference? Did that all go away and now we just try to bulldoze our way around everything at any cost because we think our subjective opinions are "right"? Can't folks see how not only futile but self defeating this is? Smart folks at that. WTF? is all I can really say. It's a big world with lots of opposing visions and views. And people have a right to these, even when we believe differently, and a good knowledge base will try to remain objective.
      - lolc 8y ago
        I disagree with the narrow meaning you give to the term "political". Political is anything related to how we organize our government. From my understanding what you mean is "partisan". You're implying that Wikipedia is partisan to "left-leaning" news sources. And you mention CNN. Are you saying that if Wikipedia bans Breitbart, they should ban CNN too? And on what basis? What would be the standard they should use? I agree that the polarization observed in US politics is a dangerous trend. But I think that Wikipedia is navigating this well.
        mythrwy 8y ago
        You may be right. I have only visited Breitbart a few times, the actual "reporting" seemed to be reasonably accurate (although certainly overlaid with bias). I'm just concerned is all.

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...

mythrwy 8y ago
"Go dig" and "general conclusions" don't make any sense in this case. The evidence for the conclusion is there. The point, as stated in my original post, is that "fake news" type reporting isn't confined to right leaning publications. One doesn't need to dig much to determine that. Yet one view source is banned, the other is not. This isn't "assumption" or accusation, it's how it appears to be. What I really hear you saying, (and I think reality comes out a bit further down in your post), is "I don't like Breitbart!". And, emotionally not liking something is a good reason as any to downvote so that is fine. Thanks for the explanation. But just to re-iterate, I don't care for Breitbart either. Nor CNN. I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.
- lolc 8y ago
  Are you comparing CNN to Breitbart? And by what standards? > I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though. Impossible. What gave you the idea?
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    You are saying you think it's ok for Wikipedia to have a political bias or you are saying you don't think this indicates they have one? If it's the first I guess we have to just disagree and that's it and I'm really sad you feel that way and wish you would reconsider your stance. If it's the second, there are arguments to be made. My concern isn't your political views or distaste for the slant of some publication. I understand that, I don't like grossly biased publications either. My concern is the danger of a politically motivated group of people removing a publication from being cited in a very large crowd-sourced knowledge base because some people don't like the slant. Whatever happened to principal before preference? Did that all go away and now we just try to bulldoze our way around everything at any cost because we think our subjective opinions are "right"? Can't folks see how not only futile but self defeating this is? Smart folks at that. WTF? is all I can really say. It's a big world with lots of opposing visions and views. And people have a right to these, even when we believe differently, and a good knowledge base will try to remain objective.
    - lolc 8y ago
      I disagree with the narrow meaning you give to the term "political". Political is anything related to how we organize our government. From my understanding what you mean is "partisan". You're implying that Wikipedia is partisan to "left-leaning" news sources. And you mention CNN. Are you saying that if Wikipedia bans Breitbart, they should ban CNN too? And on what basis? What would be the standard they should use? I agree that the polarization observed in US politics is a dangerous trend. But I think that Wikipedia is navigating this well.
      - mythrwy 8y ago
        You may be right. I have only visited Breitbart a few times, the actual "reporting" seemed to be reasonably accurate (although certainly overlaid with bias). I'm just concerned is all.