BestOfLemmy

7236 readers

1 users here now

Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[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] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm trying to summarize the wiki reasoning/what's in the wiki page about mbfc criticisms

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Got it, that does make sense. You should know, though, that Wikipedia on the content side is a different thing from Wikipedia on the talk page side.

People can have nice things to say about a source in their Wikipedia page about the source, on the content side, while there’s still a consensus on the talk page side that the source is unreliable and shouldn’t be used for sourcing claims about other matters on other Wikipedia pages. The big table that I and someone else linked to are good summaries of the consensus on the talk page side, which is what’s most relevant here.

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

A 2018 year-in-review and prospective on fact-checking from the Poynter Institute (which develops PolitiFact[27]) noted a proliferation of credibility score projects, including Media/Bias Fact Check, writing that "While these projects are, in theory, a good addition to the efforts combating misinformation, they have the potential to misfire," and stating that "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[6] Also in 2018, a writer in the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as "an armchair media analysis"[28] and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".[29] A study published in Scientific Reports wrote: "While [Media Bias/Fact Check's] credibility is sometimes questioned, it has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth for e.g. media bias classifiers, fake news studies, and automatic fact-checking systems."[19]

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

Yes! You have successfully found the content page. If only someone had kindly explained to you that there's a whole other side of Wikipedia which is more relevant to this discussion. It would have been nice for you to be able to have a whole patient explanation about how it all works.

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

Fuck off back to reddit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes! That is an extremely productive attitude when someone tries to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and then when you seem to miss the point, gets a little more pointed about it in hopes that you will pick it up and realize that you missed something, and learn a useful nugget of information relevant to our current discussion.

It seems you're happy with how much you already know, in life, because you are committed to not learning anything else beyond your present level of achievement. Congratulations! I hope this approach serves you well, and I look forward to seeing how much and how far you can get with it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Treating others like a child and being a pedantic asshole will usually get you that response.

It's amazing how many words you use to also say nothing

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

Actually: I changed my mind. I'm going to give this a real response.

I didn't treat you like a child. I explained what was going on, and you seem to have a mentality where someone who's explaining something to you that you don't know is "treating you like a child" or "being a pedantic asshole."

That's entirely on you. Most people, once they reach adulthood, are able to listen to something even if they don't already know it, able to learn from the world. I was a little bit snarky talking to you initially, but then I felt bad when I realized you just didn't know how Wikipedia worked, and were operating on some bad assumptions, but what you were thinking made actually perfect logical sense. Go back and read my "Got it, that does make sense" message. I read your message, I got where you were coming from, and like I said, I realized you just didn't know something, and I tried to help you understand it.

You have to let go of that mentality where someone who's telling you something you didn't already know is offensive, and you have to try to seize the upper hand and try to explain something back to them, or decide they're being a jerk or something or it needs to be a hostile interaction. That's going to make it impossible for you to learn. It also makes a lot of interactions more stressful than they need to be.

I realize that this whole message is explaining more stuff to you, which you probably won't react well to. But like I said, that's on you. If you were willing to absorb this, it would help you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes!

I said plenty, you just can't hear it. Oh well. I tried.