this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
172 points (94.8% liked)

BestOfLemmy

7236 readers
1 users here now

Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
172
Media Bias / Fact Check bot declares itself as unreliable (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What does it say? I blocked that stupid bot ages ago.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They added a line to the bot that includes Wikipedia’s stance on a source. And Wikipedia doesn’t consider MBFC to be reliable, so the bot reports that.

If you scroll below that, MBFC rates themselves as maximally reliable, which I’m sure is based off of a rigorous and completely neutral assessment.

Edit: although, reading the links in question they don’t seem to correspond to what the bot is saying. Perhaps this is some sort of mistake in how it was coded.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not a mistake, just confusing UX. The text in question comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBFC

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It doesn’t though. Or at least, I didn’t see anything resembling that on that page. If you can find it, let me know. It’s possible I missed it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The text comes from this table.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks, it seems to me like it should link here rather than to the main article.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

sorry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MBFC. that's what i get for attempting type a link out on mobile

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The post links both The Guardian and MBFC. The bot has picked up both links and posted the following (verbatim):

Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-ukraine-lloyd-austin
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.

MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.

Good stuff.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Hahahah, so it's becoming self aware about how shit it is.