3 ms·

I’m not sure if this deserves the downvotes or not. I get the point that right leaning and left leaning people look at these sources differently. I imagine ther

I’m not sure if this deserves the downvotes or not. I get the point that right leaning and left leaning people look at these sources differently. I imagine there are differences with respect to their publishing standards and that is perhaps what is attracting the downvotes. I get the point though, the partisan divide makes it such that any programmatic banning of a source comes across looking partisan. I think this is why Twitter and others took so long to ban some publishers.

pattrn 8y ago
Programmatic banning of sources takes power away from editors to determine legitimacy. It censors the conversation that would have otherwise taken place. Wikipedia cannot claim impartiality once it picks and chooses sources at an organizational level. Due to having little interest in keeping up to date with Wikipedia's ban list, I certainly will no longer see it as impartial from this point onward. I'm not concerned about the downvotes when I don't see a clear reason for them. As far as I can tell, I raised a legitimate point. I'm assuming that it's legitimate because none of the downvoters commented to explain why they disagreed with my point. (I shouldn't have to say this, since it neither aids nor harms my arguments, but I don't read Breitbart.)