3 ms·

> With all claims backed by citations of course, should anyone make unfounded accusations of bias. Note that citations don't make bias impossible or claims tru

> With all claims backed by citations of course, should anyone make unfounded accusations of bias. Note that citations don't make bias impossible or claims true, they just make it easier to decide whether to trust information. E.g. If I cite the BBC in my statement and you trust the BBC you're more likely to trust my statement. A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources (and particularly a lot of the ones the wikipedian collective thinks of as reliable) are grossly misleading or lying, so they won't be very convinced by, say, a Vogue citation.

civilized 4y ago
We aren't talking about a situation where we disagree about which third parties are trustworthy, e.g. I am citing the BBC which you distrust. My claim is that Orlowski attacks Wikipedia because its content is sometimes disagreeable to him politically, and I have supported that claim with citations from Wikipedia which are direct links to Orlowski's own opinion columns. Your point, while valid enough in general, is a red herring in this case.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Fair enough. I like getting the opportunity to soap box too much to pass it up.
  - civilized 4y ago
    This comment made me cackle. High-five :)
denton-scratch 4y ago
> A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources are grossly misleading or lying Not just right-wingers. With few exceptions, Wikipedia "reliable sources" are mostly mainstream media, which most lefties regard as locked-down, neo-liberal propaganda cannons.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  "the mainstream media" is a right-wing dogwhistle; their own media outlets is mainstream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_C...
  - concordDance 4y ago
    It's also a term used by non-right wing people to mean, well, media that is mainstream as opposed to some small time youtuber.
  - RockRobotRock 4y ago
    Hahaha, no, it really isn't. Please stop muddying the waters with this bullshit

civilized 4y ago

We aren't talking about a situation where we disagree about which third parties are trustworthy, e.g. I am citing the BBC which you distrust. My claim is that Orlowski attacks Wikipedia because its content is sometimes disagreeable to him politically, and I have supported that claim with citations from Wikipedia which are direct links to Orlowski's own opinion columns. Your point, while valid enough in general, is a red herring in this case.

concordDance 4y ago
Fair enough. I like getting the opportunity to soap box too much to pass it up.
- civilized 4y ago
  This comment made me cackle. High-five :)

denton-scratch 4y ago

> A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources are grossly misleading or lying Not just right-wingers. With few exceptions, Wikipedia "reliable sources" are mostly mainstream media, which most lefties regard as locked-down, neo-liberal propaganda cannons.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
"the mainstream media" is a right-wing dogwhistle; their own media outlets is mainstream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_C...
- concordDance 4y ago
  It's also a term used by non-right wing people to mean, well, media that is mainstream as opposed to some small time youtuber.
- RockRobotRock 4y ago
  Hahaha, no, it really isn't. Please stop muddying the waters with this bullshit