4 ms·

> some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not

> some articles may seem to have a slant in emphasis The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Moreover, editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue.

civilized 5y ago
> The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Yes, but as I said, Wikipedia is much less bad in this respect than any other source. If I have the sources, at least I can do my own digging. With most other sources I have to assume there is information contrary to the slant that is being swept under the rug, and I won't immediately know where to find that information. > editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue. Sometimes there is good reason to do this. Some sources are more credible than others. If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists.
- actuator 5y ago
  > Some sources are more credible than others. I am not saying we should trust DailyMail more than BBC. My issue is with sources where the lines are more blurry. Say, they will not publish outright misinformation but they will definitely have a editorial stance which colours their coverage. > If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists Agreed. But how do we rank which sources are better than the other. Sure, remove ones which publish outright misinformation but after that how do you rank them. The source will be discussed in WP:NEWSORG boards, the people weighing in on the discussion will be established editors of the site. They will more likely tend to rate sources which fit their echo chambers better higher than others. The same sources will get more weightage in Wikipedia articles. When argued against, Wikipedia editors will cite it is trusted more. It is a self fulfilling loop. This is why my original question was, is any user curated platform doomed to reach this state.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    If you have genuine issues with any part of the existing rating in WP:RSP, it's entirely appropriate to raise that on the talk page. "I think this source should be ranked higher/lower than it currently is, and here's evidence" is a valid concern. Wikipedians are well aware that verifiability standards may reinforce biases in article coverage, and some have even proposed (though not very seriously) that doing away with verifiability altogether may be better than the alternative of being left with a systemically biased encyclopedia.
    - actuator 5y ago
      I have tried making an effort for this in the past but it didn't work as there was no opposition but there wasn't much support as well. Also, I am not sure how we can verifiably prove that the editorial stance of one source is either day pro or against something, so it should be rated higher or lower, and if equal whose tone do we go with. As wiki editorialisation of news events is not preferred, you will have to go with existing editorialisation in media
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        "Some support but no opposition" qualifies as consensus, at least provisionally. So you should be WP:BOLD and just edit the policy page directly. People might be upset and revert you, but you won't be in the wrong because you did after all seek consensus on talk, and they didn't object.
        davidgerard 5y ago
        editors trying this on WP:RSP get reverted in short order
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Even after arguing for the change on the appropriate talk/noticeboard pages and getting qualified support and zero opposition? I'm not sure this has ever been tried properly, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

civilized 5y ago

> The editorial slant which sets the tone of the article also colours the thoughts of the reader, it is not just dissemination or omission of facts. Yes, but as I said, Wikipedia is much less bad in this respect than any other source. If I have the sources, at least I can do my own digging. With most other sources I have to assume there is information contrary to the slant that is being swept under the rug, and I won't immediately know where to find that information. > editors do tend to give more weightage to some sources than the other if they are reporting on the same issue. Sometimes there is good reason to do this. Some sources are more credible than others. If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists.

actuator 5y ago
> Some sources are more credible than others. I am not saying we should trust DailyMail more than BBC. My issue is with sources where the lines are more blurry. Say, they will not publish outright misinformation but they will definitely have a editorial stance which colours their coverage. > If editors didn't exercise judgment in selection of sources, Wikipedia would just be a disinformation playground dominated by the most energetic propagandists Agreed. But how do we rank which sources are better than the other. Sure, remove ones which publish outright misinformation but after that how do you rank them. The source will be discussed in WP:NEWSORG boards, the people weighing in on the discussion will be established editors of the site. They will more likely tend to rate sources which fit their echo chambers better higher than others. The same sources will get more weightage in Wikipedia articles. When argued against, Wikipedia editors will cite it is trusted more. It is a self fulfilling loop. This is why my original question was, is any user curated platform doomed to reach this state.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  If you have genuine issues with any part of the existing rating in WP:RSP, it's entirely appropriate to raise that on the talk page. "I think this source should be ranked higher/lower than it currently is, and here's evidence" is a valid concern. Wikipedians are well aware that verifiability standards may reinforce biases in article coverage, and some have even proposed (though not very seriously) that doing away with verifiability altogether may be better than the alternative of being left with a systemically biased encyclopedia.
  - actuator 5y ago
    I have tried making an effort for this in the past but it didn't work as there was no opposition but there wasn't much support as well. Also, I am not sure how we can verifiably prove that the editorial stance of one source is either day pro or against something, so it should be rated higher or lower, and if equal whose tone do we go with. As wiki editorialisation of news events is not preferred, you will have to go with existing editorialisation in media
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      "Some support but no opposition" qualifies as consensus, at least provisionally. So you should be WP:BOLD and just edit the policy page directly. People might be upset and revert you, but you won't be in the wrong because you did after all seek consensus on talk, and they didn't object.
      - davidgerard 5y ago
        editors trying this on WP:RSP get reverted in short order
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Even after arguing for the change on the appropriate talk/noticeboard pages and getting qualified support and zero opposition? I'm not sure this has ever been tried properly, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work.