4 ms·

I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewer

I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewers. Wikipedia is able to cover many topics that are less contested in a slower and more tempered manner, as the content does not need to be marketable or immediately available. As an example, for STEM topics I'd trust Wikipedia far more than any news media.

charcircuit 10mo ago
>as the content does not need to be marketable For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.
- greggoB 10mo ago
  I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    My original comment is about cases where only biased secondary sources exist due to the story not being notable enough to be picked up by other authors. What appears to you as moving the target is clarifying that the situation the replies commented won't happen in the situation I am referring to.
    - greggoB 10mo ago
      Thanks for clarifying. So one can surely imagine cases where the only references are sensationalised/biased new media reporting. However: 1) Isn't this confined to a pretty small proportion of articles, given the breadth of topics Wikipdia covers expands well outside the purview of news media? E.g. any basic physics or math articles, like Electromagnetism or Linear Algebra - a lot of the sources for these seem to be textbooks. 2) Can we not assume any editorial leeway on the part of contributors to try and contextualise such sensationalism/bias? No examples are coming to mind now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen qualifiers in articles at least hinting that the cited source could be potentially problematic.
SanjayMehta 10mo ago
Wikipedia does not accept primary sources. News media are acceptable to them so if they are sensationalist, then it follows that Wikipedia is sensationalist. Having said that, Wikipedia bans outlets which don't follow the former's world view, which then reinforces its lack of credibility in non-STEM topics.
almosthere 10mo ago
A wikipedia article has to attribute a source, and their sources are biased af.

charcircuit 10mo ago

>as the content does not need to be marketable For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.

greggoB 10mo ago
I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  My original comment is about cases where only biased secondary sources exist due to the story not being notable enough to be picked up by other authors. What appears to you as moving the target is clarifying that the situation the replies commented won't happen in the situation I am referring to.
  - greggoB 10mo ago
    Thanks for clarifying. So one can surely imagine cases where the only references are sensationalised/biased new media reporting. However: 1) Isn't this confined to a pretty small proportion of articles, given the breadth of topics Wikipdia covers expands well outside the purview of news media? E.g. any basic physics or math articles, like Electromagnetism or Linear Algebra - a lot of the sources for these seem to be textbooks. 2) Can we not assume any editorial leeway on the part of contributors to try and contextualise such sensationalism/bias? No examples are coming to mind now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen qualifiers in articles at least hinting that the cited source could be potentially problematic.

SanjayMehta 10mo ago

Wikipedia does not accept primary sources. News media are acceptable to them so if they are sensationalist, then it follows that Wikipedia is sensationalist. Having said that, Wikipedia bans outlets which don't follow the former's world view, which then reinforces its lack of credibility in non-STEM topics.

almosthere 10mo ago

A wikipedia article has to attribute a source, and their sources are biased af.