Breitbin

[Dysklyver]

Also, Gamaliel thinks that not only should Breitbart be banned, but anyone who uses it should also be. I might just add an appropriate Breitbart reference just to spite this stupidity.

Hmm... I don't mean to make excuses for him, but Mr. Gamaliel lives in Florida, and it's really hot down there, with very few ice storms. Also, it's really flat, too... So maybe the whole concept of a "slippery slope" is just completely foreign to him.

He must have at least heard of a childrens play-park, with you know "slides".

"slippery slope" is for sure though, package it however they like, this is censorship.

[Poetlister]

*'''Support''' banning Breitbart and anyone who tries to use it as a source. This should have been done at the same time as the ''Daily Mail'' ban.

Does he think that anyone who cites the Daily Mail should be banned too?

[Bezdomni]

Mother Jones?

(Don't get me started on Kevin Drum.)

[Midsize Jake]

I don't think Mother Jones is anywhere near left-wing enough to be a fair analogue to Breitbart - for that you'd probably have to at least go with Monthly Review Online, and that still wouldn't be quite fair because quite a bit of what MR Online publishes is actually true. Maybe something like SolidNet.org would work - that's pretty much straight-up Communist, apparently.

[Paul Bedson]

I think it's mad that Wikipedia exclude Breitbart as a reliable source, yet allow screaming, rabid, radical left rags like Huffington Post pass.

It's so bad and not neutral.

[Dysklyver]

Yeah but the Huff huff huffity huff ton of post is considered borderline unreliable and doesn't count towards notability.

[Midsize Jake]

I think it's mad that Wikipedia exclude Breitbart as a reliable source, yet allow screaming, rabid, radical left rags like Huffington Post pass.

You're kidding, right?

Sorry, but it's just hard to tell without the physical cues you'd have in a real-world conversation - that's why we have a "Sarcasm Alert" emoji. But I guess some people don't like to use them because they think it diminishes the joke.

[Poetlister]

Some people might really believe total nonsense. For example, after former Chief Rabbi of Britain Jonathan Sacks criticised Jeremy Corbyn, a blogger called Aaron Bastani called Sacks a "right-wing ultra-nationalist". That would be funny if it weren't such a sharp reminder of how unpleasant many of Corbyn's supporters are.

[Bezdomni]

I think it's mad that Wikipedia exclude Breitbart as a reliable source, yet allow screaming, rabid, radical left rags like Huffington Post pass.

You're kidding, right?

Sorry, but it's just hard to tell without the physical cues you'd have in a real-world conversation - that's why we have a "Sarcasm Alert" emoji. But I guess some people don't like to use them because they think it diminishes the joke.

I think it may have been to remind us that the HufflePuff Express Post (see attached data) was co-founded by one Mr. Breitbart. I could be wrong.

[Paul Bedson]

HufflePuff Express Post (see attached data) .

OMG! Is that how infected and biased it is now? Fantastic! If Wikipedia just want to limit their audience to the radical left like that and totally ignore right wing opinions altogether, then Everipedia can take the mainstream, all too easily.

No-one wants to read that hard-left, ultra-neo-liberal rubbish anymore.

I guess if you make a system that allows 50 neo-libtard editors out of 10s of thousands take control of what sources are allowed, you end up with neo-libtard-pedia after all!

[Dysklyver]

You have heard of metapedia, right?

[Ming]

Paul, not to put to fine a point on it, but if Huff Post is your idea of "hard left", you are either a right wing nutcase, or are woefully ill-read.

Well, or a troll.

[Poetlister]

I think it may have been to remind us that the HufflePuff Express Post (see attached data) was co-founded by one Mr. Breitbart. I could be wrong.

Don't assume that Mr. Breitbart's views were those of the present website. He was no friend of the left wing, but it wasn't until Steve Bannon took over that Breitbart went ballistic.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, or a troll.

One more post like that and he's outta here.

How often do I have to tell people not to treat us like idiots? Are we dealing with psychopaths here? Do I have to put some sort of banner on top of every page? What does it take, FFS?

[Paul Bedson]

psychopaths

I prefer sociopaths myself.

[Kingsindian]

I created this thread to discuss coverage of Wikipedia on Breitbart (and the converse). It's aim was not to support or oppose Breitbart or diss right wingers or insult "libtards". Though I recognize that such things are inevitable in small doses.

If people are going to use this thread to simply discuss politics, I would rather prefer that the thread be just locked. Hopefully, things have not yet reached that point where people on a Wikipedia criticism site all forget about Wikipedia.

[Kingsindian]

A large portion of Huffington Post consists of user-generated content (basically: blog posts); these are not considered to be "reliable" for Wikipedia. Their news content (written by paid journalists) is usually considered "reliable" (depends on what it's about).

Btw, Arianna Huffington doesn't own the Huffington Post anymore, AOL (now Verizon) does. Andrew Breitbart was indeed a partner in the initial stages, as was Buzzfeed founder Jonah Peretti (Breitbart was also involved in starting Buzzfeed). Indeed, Breitbart had been an intern for Arianna Huffington (back when she was a right-winger).

[Midsize Jake]

I don't think we should lock the thread, since Breitbart actually does carry some valid criticism of Wikipedia, notwithstanding the fact that its overall ultra-right-wing slant makes it frustratingly easy to dismiss those criticisms. There's no point in pretending they don't exist or that they aren't influencing people.

The real question is whether or not to delete these posts above in which we speculate on what news site(s) will be banned next. Maybe it was my fault that we got on this subject, since I made the "slippery slope" comment. So I apologize for that.

Also, if we delete the absurd comments above by Mr. Bedson, then we won't have an easy way to prove, via linking, the cavernous depths of his (no doubt propaganda-induced) psychosis in case similar incidents occur in the future that force us to take more decisive action. So there's the convenience factor to consider.

So... I'm going to leave everything in place, for now. But all our members should remember, between the moment a post is finished and the moment they click "submit," to ask themselves: Does this post clearly demonstrate my utter contempt for the other members of this website, and my barely-suppressed belief that their brains are, in fact, made of moldy cheese? If so, please reconsider your intentions and maybe find another thread to post in that allows you to exercise more self-restraint.

[Jim]

I created this thread to discuss coverage of Wikipedia on Breitbart (and the converse).

Oopsies...

then:

[Johnny Au]

Btw, Arianna Huffington doesn't own the Huffington Post anymore, AOL (now Verizon) does.

Yet, Verizon has millions of customers with many different political affiliations to the point that it would lead to significant backlash if it were to support either major political party.

[Cla68]

Partisan blogs like Huff Post, Breitbart, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Caller will likely constitute a significant portion of mass media in the future. So, if WP decides to ban them they're just making it harder to build the 'pedia. Those blogs sometimes break some big stories. Wasn't it BuzzFeed that revealed the existence of the Trump dossier?

[Kumioko]

Partisan blogs like Huff Post, Breitbart, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Caller will likely constitute a significant portion of mass media in the future. So, if WP decides to ban them they're just making it harder to build the 'pedia. Those blogs sometimes break some big stories. Wasn't it BuzzFeed that revealed the existence of the Trump dossier?

I basically agree. At least in America these days news is less about telling people the truth and more about spinning the story to be interesting to the viewer. In other words, they are more entertainment programs than news programs. That goes for print media types like the ones you mentioned and the live shows like MSNBC and Fox News. Some are better than others, but they are all fighting for the same audience for the most part.

[Ming]

Partisan blogs like Huff Post, Breitbart, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Caller will likely constitute a significant portion of mass media in the future. So, if WP decides to ban them they're just making it harder to build the 'pedia. Those blogs sometimes break some big stories. Wasn't it BuzzFeed that revealed the existence of the Trump dossier?

In the longer historical picture, they are really primary sources; that's how real historians treat them.

[Poetlister]

Partisan blogs like Huff Post, Breitbart, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Caller will likely constitute a significant portion of mass media in the future. So, if WP decides to ban them they're just making it harder to build the 'pedia. Those blogs sometimes break some big stories. Wasn't it BuzzFeed that revealed the existence of the Trump dossier?

In the longer historical picture, they are really primary sources; that's how real historians treat them.

If WP took seriously the idea that it is not a newspaper, it would not rely so much on these sites. Anyway, surely nearly anything significant will eventually turn up in undoubtedly serious (if still probably biased) newspapers like the Times or the New York Times.

[Ming]

It was looking over the summer as though NOTNEWS was making some headway, but that trend seems to have been reversed.

[Randy from Boise]

Partisan blogs like Huff Post, Breitbart, BuzzFeed, and the Daily Caller will likely constitute a significant portion of mass media in the future. So, if WP decides to ban them they're just making it harder to build the 'pedia. Those blogs sometimes break some big stories. Wasn't it BuzzFeed that revealed the existence of the Trump dossier?

In the longer historical picture, they are really primary sources; that's how real historians treat them.

Correct.

But the obsession with "we use secondary sources only" is misplaced. There's nothing wrong with using primary sources, as long as they are used properly.

RfB

[Kingsindian]

Tim's point about Wikipedia's obsession with "secondary sources" is correct, and I have the same view. Use primary sources, but sparingly.

However, in actuality, many of the newspaper sources are secondary sources -- they are some reporter's interpretation or summary of some document or incident. The primary source in this case would be the actual document itself. At least this is the interpretation which Wikipedia uses to justify using newspapers as sources. To take an example (already quoted above in my RfC vote).

In the Charlie Gard case, an internal email by the hospital was read in court (and was thus part of the public record). That court transcript is the primary source. The email said: "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist who has recommended a three month trial of nucleosides."

As I read the email (and as the judge read it, and the hospital maintains was its intention), the email is not blaming the parents. It is simply saying that the rather desperate (and ultimately futile) attempts to find alternatives has indeed led to a possibility worth exploring (but was ultimately judged as not in the baby's interests by the doctors).

However, when the quote is abbreviated (simply saying "spanner in the works"), it looks like the hospital is blaming the parents. The judge contributed to this confusion by wrongly paraphrasing the email as saying "Parents are the spanner in the works" -- you can find this mangled quote in the Wikipedia article itself, citing a "reliable source". You can find countless pieces on the internet repeating this confusion. So, in this case, the "reliable" judge is wrong on the quote, while The Daily Mail is right (because it used the court transcript, or that it had a reporter covering the proceedings, or that it had the actual email itself -- one of the family's PR agents actually wrote articles on this matter for the Daily Mail).

Needless to say, I think the overall Daily Mail spin on the matter is wrong, while the judge's judgement is right (his judgement was upheld by an appellate court and the European court).

The lesson is that finding the truth is not easy or mechanical.

[Kumioko]

I would argue that Wikipedia is obsessed with secondary sources when it fits their POV and they ignore it when it doesn't. here is what I mean. There are a lot of articles about places that solely rely on data from the Census, which is a primary source. They don't seem to have a problem with that. Same thing with many of the military articles, especially biographies, articles about stuff in the Smithsonian or other GLAM institutions collections, same with political articles, same with National register of historic places, etc.

Articles on Wikipedia are widely based on sole, original sources when it's convenient but then when a group of deletionist's get together and decide that some topic area needs to be "cleaned up" they take over the topic and start driving off the people who have been building up the topic. Recently we saw that on the German biographies of Iron Cross recipients, before that it was other things and at some point we'll see that again in some other topic.

[Randy from Boise]

I would argue that Wikipedia is obsessed with secondary sources when it fits their POV and they ignore it when it doesn't. here is what I mean. There are a lot of articles about places that solely rely on data from the Census, which is a primary source. They don't seem to have a problem with that. Same thing with many of the military articles, especially biographies, articles about stuff in the Smithsonian or other GLAM institutions collections, same with political articles, same with National register of historic places, etc.

Articles on Wikipedia are widely based on sole, original sources when it's convenient but then when a group of deletionist's get together and decide that some topic area needs to be "cleaned up" they take over the topic and start driving off the people who have been building up the topic. Recently we saw that on the German biographies of Iron Cross recipients, before that it was other things and at some point we'll see that again in some other topic.

I agree that the entire "reliable secondary sources" mantra is generally only applied to controversial topics in order to maintain a house point-of-view.

In practice, I've never been called on the carpet over using primary sources. No doubt the biggest reason for this is because I very, very seldom become involved with editing about controversial contemporary topics. Having a left-of-center political perspective also is undoubtedly of some help, since the number of right wing political warriors in a position to throw weight is small. Nor do I push POV — my philosophy is that the availability of a truthful depiction of reality is inherently progressive; present the facts and let the chips fall where they may, there is no need to cheat or spin.

RfB

[Poetlister]

There's nothing wrong with using primary sources, as long as they are used properly.

RfB

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of editors who don't use them properly, due to either incompetence or deliberate attempts to manipulate for POV purposes.

[Kingsindian]

Sure, but there is no shortage of editors who twist secondary sources too. Or, as is more common, use some secondary sources (whose interpretation they like), and discard or disqualify others (whose interpretations they don't). This practice is very common in the Israel-Palestine area, because so much is written on every aspect that it is child's play to find a "reliable source" that one likes (or can quote selectively). There is usually not even a pretence of trying to look at a representative sample of sources and/or summarizing them fairly.

[Paul Bedson]

Sure, but there is no shortage of editors who twist secondary sources too. Or, as is more common, use some secondary sources (whose interpretation they like), and discard or disqualify others (whose interpretations they don't). This practice is very common in the Israel-Palestine area, because so much is written on every aspect that it is child's play to find a "reliable source" that one likes (or can quote selectively). There is usually not even a pretence of trying to look at a representative sample of sources and/or summarizing them fairly.

Don't dare go near the Russia-Ukraine area either, to see what horrors lurk there in terms of neutrality bias.

[Poetlister]

Sure, but there is no shortage of editors who twist secondary sources too. Or, as is more common, use some secondary sources (whose interpretation they like), and discard or disqualify others (whose interpretations they don't). This practice is very common in the Israel-Palestine area, because so much is written on every aspect that it is child's play to find a "reliable source" that one likes (or can quote selectively). There is usually not even a pretence of trying to look at a representative sample of sources and/or summarizing them fairly.

Don't dare go near the Russia-Ukraine area either, to see what horrors lurk there in terms of neutrality bias.

Indeed, any area that becomes controversial is liable to have such nonsense.

[Cla68]

Speaking of Breitbart, they recently broke the story of the leaked Google "TGIF" all-hands meeting video in which executives and many employees openly lamented Hillary Clinton's election loss and discussed using their company's influence to try harder to influence the political process. I suspect the video was leaked to Breitbart by James Damore's legal team. In response, Google has reportedly just made all archived videos of past TGIF meetings password-protected.

Anyway, that's a fairly major story, but it's barely been commented on by any other secondary sources except Fox News. So, this is a case in which Breitbart might be needed as a source for a paragraph on it in the Google article.

[Ming]

Anyway, that's a fairly major story, but it's barely been commented on by any other secondary sources except Fox News. So, this is a case in which Breitbart might be needed as a source for a paragraph on it in the Google article.

Well, they wouldn't, because there's this Business Insider piece which places that incident inside a larger picture of leaks, without the rightist spin: at one point they flat out say, of Trump's campaign manager's claim, "The video actually showed nothing like that[.]"

[Cla68]

Anyway, that's a fairly major story, but it's barely been commented on by any other secondary sources except Fox News. So, this is a case in which Breitbart might be needed as a source for a paragraph on it in the Google article.

Well, they wouldn't, because there's this Business Insider piece which places that incident inside a larger picture of leaks, without the rightist spin: at one point they flat out say, of Trump's campaign manager's claim, "The video actually showed nothing like that[.]"

So, basically, Business Insider published an editorialized rebuttal of Breitbart's original reporting? This illustrates that "objective" reporting in mass media is now few and far between.

[Poetlister]

So, basically, Business Insider published an editorialized rebuttal of Breitbart's original reporting? This illustrates that "objective" reporting in mass media is now few and far between.

I'm not clear what this means. Is pointing out that Breitbart is talking nonsense not "objective" reporting?

[Ming]

Anyway, that's a fairly major story, but it's barely been commented on by any other secondary sources except Fox News. So, this is a case in which Breitbart might be needed as a source for a paragraph on it in the Google article.

Well, they wouldn't, because there's this Business Insider piece which places that incident inside a larger picture of leaks, without the rightist spin: at one point they flat out say, of Trump's campaign manager's claim, "The video actually showed nothing like that[.]"

So, basically, Business Insider published an editorialized rebuttal of Breitbart's original reporting? This illustrates that "objective" reporting in mass media is now few and far between.

Ming doesn't know where one gets "editorialized" beyond the BI reporter relating that Trump's guy mischaracterized the video; Ming really doesn't think that the reporter doesn't get to speak for himself as far as the content of the video.

[Cla68]

So, basically, Business Insider published an editorialized rebuttal of Breitbart's original reporting? This illustrates that "objective" reporting in mass media is now few and far between.

I'm not clear what this means. Is pointing out that Breitbart is talking nonsense not "objective" reporting?

Yes, this is the same discussion we constantly have with WP's POV problems. When you make a definitive statement in the "voice" of your publication, then it's editorializing. I watched the Google video, all one hour of it, and one can interpret one of their executives saying (I'm paraphrasing), "We here at Google recognize the benefits of globalism and need to work to ensure that we educate our customers on its benefits" in a number of different ways. Obviously, the author of that Business Insider column was interpreting the event with his/her own bias, and the editor let it go.

[Ming]

Back at the beginning of the Trump administration, if not even earlier, someone at the Atlantic observed that the flagrant lying of Trump and various of his supporters and rightist sources was presenting a problem for mainstream reporting because not actually pointing out the lies was tending to cast these statements as at least debatable or possibly even true. By that point they had nailed their colors to the mast, but then, as a news analysis journal, nobody would expect them to make even the pretense of studied neutrality. But to take a first-day-in-office example, Trump's bragging about the crowds at his inauguration made non-partisanship difficult to impossible: the truth could be pointed out, or not, and either way one became a Trump attacker, or complicit in passing on the untruth. Most MSM reporting went with side-by-side pictures exposing the claim as untrue rather than let the remark pass unchallenged or relying upon opposing sources to rebut Trump-- sources which, after all, advocacy sources such as Breitbart had told people to dismiss as biased.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia editors have had Breitbart News formally listed as an unreliable source, meaning it can not be cited for factual claims. Editors have responded by purging citations to Breitbart News throughout the online encyclopedia, a move no doubt designed in part to hurt Breitbart’s search engine results ranking. Discussion of the blacklisting saw overwhelming numbers of left-wing politically-motivated editors supporting the ban, citing the example of a similar ban on the Daily Mail imposed early last year.

Breitbart (obviously)

Someone should tell Breitbart that this will not hurt its search engine ranking!

[Midsize Jake]

Someone should tell Breitbart that this will not hurt its search engine ranking!

Well, he did link to that SEOworks article that says Google might not be respecting the "nofollow" tag consistently, or at all in some cases. That in turn links to this article in Moz.com (no relation to Morrissey, apparently), though frankly I'm not buying in to most of what that one says, at least for a site like Breitbart which already has a loyal reader-base.

The basic argument seems to be that links from allegedly "trusted" or otherwise-unbiased sites like WP get people "into the habit" of reading the destination site as part of their general-purpose information silo. That's the thing Breitbart really depends on, but it's dubious as to whether or not Wikipedia links are actually growing their readership via the silo effect at this point. (Maybe for younger people who are only now beginning to silo themselves, I guess.)

[Poetlister]

Echoing media outlets covering President Trump’s controversial July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and the resulting impeachment inquiry by Congressional Democrats, the intro to Wikipedia’s article on the controversy focuses solely on Trump supposedly demanding an “investigation” into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Both the media and Wikipedia have ignored or minimized that President Trump’s biggest concern was Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election helping spark the discredited “Russiagate” investigation.

Breitbart

So this is "the usual left-wing bias" of Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Five years ago Wikipedia got sucked into the controversy over GamerGate, the anti-corruption movement in gaming. The narrative found on Wikipedia, like many others about GamerGate, is a lie. ... Wikipedia’s treatment of GamerGate foreshadows the site’s treatment of many political issues during the Donald Trump presidency.

breitbart

As ever, Breitbart has its own perspective.

[Poetlister]

"Wikipedia’s Bias Against #GamerGate Revisited"

oneangrygamer.net

[Randy from Boise]

One side-benefit of clicking over to Crazy Town to read TDA's article... I finally get to see what the addled Conspiracy-Consumer-in-Chief Donald Trump is nattering about with his recent "War on Thanksgiving" fever dream...

Kaepernick Blasts ‘US Government’ for Stealing from ‘Indigenous People’ at ‘Unthanksgiving Day’ Ceremony

link

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

Randy/Tim/Carrite (T-C-L) (the hero with 1000 faces),

You have criticized Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate so often and your sense of fairness is so well established that I am surprised by your reaction.

Is TDA wrong about Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (T-H-L)?

(I have not read this Breitbart piece.)

[Beeblebrox]

Five years ago Wikipedia got sucked into the controversy over GamerGate, the anti-corruption movement in gaming. neckbearded trollstorm.

FTFY

[tarantino]

Randy/Tim/Carrite (T-C-L) (the hero with 1000 faces),
Is TDA wrong about Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (T-H-L)?

Tim has to lose his bet before he opines.

[Midsize Jake]

Is TDA wrong about Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (T-H-L)?

That's just a matter of perspective. If you're a right-winger, you're naturally going to be terribly upset and bitter over the fact that the other Wikipedians insisted that only mainstream-media sources could be used in the article, and that all those sources stated explicitly that the whole thing was a harassment campaign disguised as a critique of gaming journalism. Whereas if you're not, then yes, you're likely to conclude that Mr. TDA is wrong.