Wikipedia bans Breitbart as a source for facts
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
First, if you look how credible news organizations work, they need three confirmations from unrelated sources before calling it a fact. If Wikipedia has lower standards than that, then it doesn't really matter whom they choose as a source of information, it still rises the question of validity of the claim if there is only one corroborating source.
Second, this ban seems to assume a position that Breitbart can't be a valid source even if they use outside sources corroborating their claim, and that just goes against journalistic principles in general. But then again, Wikipedia has to my knowledge never claimed to work on journalistic principles, they do have guidelines in place that anyone can verify, but outright banning a source has a negative impact on their validity even if it is for a good reason.
Refusing to use Breitbart as only source is reasonable and valid in my opinion, but accepting any other source as valid enough to be used as a single source raises the same problem, news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact. So if they really wanted to make a statement, they would flag articles that need more sources and get more sources even if one of them is Breitbart. But positioning yourself as arbitrator of truth and banning sources, even bad ones really doesn't build confidence, instead it just erodes it.
I like that Wikipedia's visual style is black and white, but I'd like it's content principles to be a gradient.
It's basically impossible to have a discussion on the internet about the merit something a strongly right leaning media outlet says (well it's possible, but the discussion won't be very civil). Anything factual Breitbart reports will be reported elsewhere because that's how media works, if one outlet covers it others will too. In light of that there's not much to be lost by banning Breitbart as a source. What you gain is that it gives the monkeys that edit pages one less reason to fling poo at each other.
"This article has been updated to indicate that the 1,500 people who were errantly registered included non-citizens, but that did not mean all 1,500 were non-citizens."
[0] https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/08/californ...
More relevant: can you identify any examples of Breitbart content that is, and remains, factually incorrect?
This is useful because your citatation is a good example of misleading commentary that tries to make Breitbart look worse than it actually is (again, do not mistake this argument for claiming it's actually super reliable). The story described on that page isn't false and the fact checks contradict themselves or end up agreeing.
Wikipedia is writing about a story headlined "Revealed: 1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve". It states "the story was later shown to be false". This seems pretty categorical. The story was false, entirely false, and nothing but false. The citation for this statement is citation 189, a story in TheLocal.de
So let's read this takedown. Wiki says:
St. Reinold's Church is neither the oldest church in Germany nor was the church set on fire.
But the article Wikipedia cites says:
St. Reinold is not Germany's oldest church - that would be the Cathedral of Trier - and a small fire had started on some netting on scaffolding around the church, not the roof, due to one firework.
Wikipedia states St Reinold is the oldest church in Dortmund, Germany. So the claim of falsity here hinges on a dispute over whether churches are the same thing as cathedrals, or maybe there is an older church somewhere else in Germany, I was unable to establish that within a few minutes.
However it makes no actual difference to the story, is the sort of mistake that is easily made, and in fact Breitbart has published a correction at the bottom of the story:
"Correction: This article states St. Reinold’s Church is the oldest in Germany. We are happy to clarify that accolade belongs to the Trier Cathedral. Breitbart News stands by all other substantive facts in this article."
This sort of minor correction occurs frequently across all news organisations, and is not worth labelling a story as entirely false. Let's continue.
The second part of the claim that Breitbart is lying hinges on a dispute over whether the fire was on the roof of the church, or whether it was on some scaffolding around the church. This again does not seem very important, especially as scaffolding typically reaches the roof.
The third part of the claim is this:
video footage from the scene does not show a "mob", and no policemen were targeted
but again, citation 189 contradicts Wikipedia. It says:
The original report by the local news site from that night describes how some individuals did start launching fireworks from within the crowd towards police, who told them to stop but were ignored.
So local non-Breitbart news sources reported that policemen were targeted and I suppose, whether you describe a crowd of 1000 people deliberately launching fireworks at police as a "mob" is dependent more on your viewpoint than facts - any crowd can be described that way and Breitbart makes no claim to be neutral. However they were just re-reporting what local German news itself claimed here.
Final inspection. One of the stories central claims is that a group of men unfurled the flag of the "Free Syrian Army", which Breitbart describes as a group of "al-Queda and ISIS collaborators". The video is included in the Breitbart story so you can check this claim for yourself. It's actually kind of hard to see because the man unfurling the flag is facing away from the camera and we only get to see small parts of it, but it does look somewhat like the FSA flag, and again, TheLocal.de (the primary citation for the claim "the story is false") does not disagree with what happened. Instead they describe it like this: "In fact, the video shows a man holding a flag widely flown by those opposing the current government." - this is not a refutation. The FSA did indeed oppose the Syrian government. Breitbart's claim that they're "ISIS and al-Qaeda" collaborators relies on another story I won't bother to fact check, but I note nobody is disputing that claim specifically.
As fact checks go this is one of the weaker ones I've seen. Most of the claims Breitbart made came from local German press to begin with, and the claims that the story is "false" turn out to be quibbles over trivial details that Breitbart itself happily corrected because they were irrelevant to the story. The other claims are all things that those disputing them actually agree with, they just have a preferred spin.
Do you have other stories you believe demonstrates this problem better? I'm sure they have published entirely false stories because it's such a common thing. But this case doesn't seem to be one of those times.
Their reporting constructs from disparate events a mob that fought police and attacked a church while shouting "Allahu Akhbar". The source they themselves refer to (Ruhr Nachrichten) is very clear on how events cannot be connected in that way.
https://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/Nachrichten/Dortmund/Breitbar...
I get the point though, the partisan divide makes it such that any programmatic banning of a source comes across looking partisan. I think this is why Twitter and others took so long to ban some publishers.
I'm not concerned about the downvotes when I don't see a clear reason for them. As far as I can tell, I raised a legitimate point. I'm assuming that it's legitimate because none of the downvoters commented to explain why they disagreed with my point.
(I shouldn't have to say this, since it neither aids nor harms my arguments, but I don't read Breitbart.)
That's their own problem. They will fall behind others.
If Wikipedia is the source of knowledge for you, you may have a problem.
You can condescend all you want. It is unparalleled as a first part of call regarding anything. People easily understand that reading about The West Bank on Wikipedia is a different exercise from reading about Charlotte Brontë and act accordingly.
The difference is that when news orgs on the top half of this chart [1] are wrong, even the ones that are quite partisan either left or right, it is almost always the case that they thought they were right when the published. The are wrong by accident.
When orgs along the bottom, whether they be far left like AlterNet or far right like Breitbart, are wrong it is often they case that they know they are wrong before they publish, but since their purpose is not news but rather pushing their partisan agenda, they consider that a feature, not a bug.
Based on this criterion, are there any credible news organizations left?
having worked in journalism, hahahhahhahhahahhhahhahahaha
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-...
Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email, while also making clear that CNN did not ever even see the email, but only had sources describe its purported contents.
As Greenwald points out, in this particular case it's implausible that those two sources could have been independent because the mistake was about mis-reading the date on an email in a way that happened to be politically convenient:
All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question — one that CNN refuses to address: How did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN?
So either the OP is wrong about what credible news organisations do, or CNN is not credible (see my arguments below to that end), or both.
I wonder how much of the commentary about NYT/CNN/etc being "credible" and Breitbart being "not credible" is based on misunderstandings of how journalism works?
It has nothing to do with how wikipedia works rather than the pressure being put on it by monied interests and the news organizations.
What is happening to wikipedia is what happened to google, reddit, youtube, twitter, etc.
It's the elite media ( particular nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, et al ) trying to muscle out everyone else.
In the long run, this isn't going to hurt breitbart or any of the right leaning news sources. Right leaning people are going to find it one way or another. It's going to hurt vox, theverge, huffingtonpost, buzzfeed and the billions of left leading fringe news sources as the big boys get special treatment. I'm certain that breitbart is going to be around 10 years from now. I'm not sure about vox and company.
And also in the long run, it's going to make people distrust the nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, etc even more. But I don't think they care. Que sera sera.
People really underestimate how much external money pressure is being put on tech companies like wikipedia to serve as propaganda outlets. It's not even tech, even the ACLU is feeling the pressure. The only thing mere mortals can do is see out things play.
If Wikipedia then uses that news organization as a source, isn't it in effect using the same standard?
Really, it isn't that complex. Most people learn this in kindergarten, if not before.
Every heard of the "boy who cried wolf"? At no time does anyone suggest if the boy turned up with the wolf's head under his arm you would disbelieve him. But later when telling people "I believe there is a wolf now" you don't say it's because "the boy told me [again]", instead you hold up the head.
Well, it's the same for Breitbart. Saying "it's true because Breitbart said it's true" is just going to get you tarnished with Breitbart's reputation, but handing out Breitbart's citation might just do the trick.
With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source."
That would let Facebook and Twitter off the hook from having to make these calls themselves, and would provide readers with valuable context.
Wikipedia is a good reference for what is and isn't likely to be factually accurate, but if it is going to be _the_ standard then it will quickly be corrupted by people pushing a non-factual agenda.
Also, Breitbart being loose with the facts isn't something that the social media platforms want to get involved in. If we count twitter as a publishing platform similar to Breitbart, twitter will spread much more misinformation (arguably in a more damaging way, flash mobs are scarier than anything a print media style organisation can do). You may as well prefix every single tweet with "Wikipedia doesn't accept this tweet as a valid source".
Wikipedia already is a target. It has been a target of distortion almost as long as it exists. It handles these exceptionally well. Not perfect, but given how attractive Wikipedia manipulation is and how easy you'd think it is it's incredible how well it fights it off.
For all of their faults (and there are many), Wikipedia, StackOverflow, and to a much smaller extent even Hackernews all tend to be kind of good at what they do, petty rules notwithstanding.
Although, Reddit exists too, so maybe I'm just cherry-picking examples. I don't want to fall into the same trap that people did with excusing people like Linus.
"I find it incredibly hard to believe that [Editor 2] is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block [...]" -Editor 1
"Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor." -Editor 2
"I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. [...] As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off." -Editor 1
I usually think better of editing Wikipedia for fear of being drawn into something like this. Even the most seemingly innocuous, well-cited edits can end up getting you into trouble with someone.
I think Wikipedia is a wonderful achievement, but it often isn't pretty behind the scenes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
I think you misunderstood the parent. The management theory quote is talking about the thing you measure (e.g. factory output quantity) as a proxy for success becoming what is aimed for (e.g. make as many as possible without regard for quality, worker treatment, maintanence, etc.).
Point being, as you said, wikipedia will become a focus point, with everyone pushing their agenda to the 'source of truth' even more than they do now.
And in economics this is called the Lucas critique[1] (any economic policy which targets a particular metric eventually results in the metric being gamed and thus no longer being a useful metric -- even if the public does not do this maliciously).
I'm also not a fan of using Wikipedia's criteria for valid sources on social media sites becuase it's not really an accurate measure. It's very much biased in favour of well resourced outlets at the expense of niche or freelance ones, despite what others in the field consider credible. For example, if you're looking for information about the next Pokemon game, what do you consider a reliable source? Something like Serebii.net, or something like Kotaku?
In the gaming field and media, the former is more reliable since they've built up a reputation in their field as an accurate source for information, whereas the latter isn't terrible, but is mostly reposted stories with less vigorous fact checking none the less. On Wikipedia however, they think the latter is more accurate, since it uses paid writers with a more professional layout and real name identification front and centre, which distorts the coverage a bit.
I basically commented a bit more about this in my article here:
https://artplusmarketing.com/trust-is-what-makes-a-source-re...
Not even Wikipedia claims this, which is why they tell users to never quote Wikipedia but to go to the sources (which all articles are supposed to have) and quote those instead.
Then there’s the whole “WikiGate” (terrible name, but whatever) where Elsevier gave free accounts to Wikipedia editors[1]. That doesn’t help.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/wikigate-raises-ques...
It’s a direct proxy to university databases - it should have almost everything.
I'm already tired of the media treating me as an idiot. But when a channel of communication (like a social media site) starts to insert its own comments into the information, well, that's really many steps beyond treating me like an idiot. Completely unacceptable.
That just encourages people to be even less thoughtful: "I don't have to check the source, Twitter would tell me if it was bad."
Media literacy is a serious problem, and it has to be solved through education and evolving cultural norms. Proposals like this reinforce the toxic norm that all you need to do to fact-check is make a list of good and bad web sites.
Sometimes making someone's life easier in the short-term can have the side-effect of making their life harder in the long-term.
wikipedia could collapse under the weight of being the internets authority of epistemology.
It was a shock for me to discover that the "literature review" of an IEEE paper I was reading was essentially useless compared to the one provided by Wikipedia on the same topic. When combined with the fact that the IEEE paper was behind a paywall and the Wikipedia article was accessed within seconds using a search engine, I now know better how to do a literature review...
Why is this the case? Part of what I have noticed about IEEE is that at least 20% of the references provided are simply added at reviewer's insistence to boost their favorite author's citation count (possibly themselves), regardless of what it has to say about the topic at hand. I don't really know how much of this extends to non-IEEE venues. What I can say is that the mathematics papers I have read provide much better references.
IME, speaking of academic research in general, often an almost completely different body of knowledge is cited by each. One is high-quality academic research, the other is general 'Internet knowledge', for lack of a better word. The latter often completely misses the boat.
That says nothing about wikipedia, and only indicates that you've stumbled on a poorly written paper.
This is totally wrong. Wikipedia has always been received with skepticism because it's "the site where anyone can write anything", and it's never managed to shake that reputation.
[2] https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/09/more-british-people-tru...
That assumes people are interested in factual accuracy, and I don't think that's the case. Tabloid newspapers and celebrity gossip draw many readers too. Recent events should make clear that priorities are elsewhere.
It's a matter of degree, of course. If I'm writing something professionally or if something serious depends on it, I'm not depending on Wikipedia. If I'm trying to find the name of that recording by that musician that's on the tip of my tongue - sure, why not.
That reduces it to a binary choice: Accept or not accept. A point of my comment is that the choice is not binary.
I'm not sure I agree, but it would be interesting to study. I think people assign a trust value to almost any information they encounter. For example, I would guess that you assign a 'trust value' to this comment based on where it is (HN), who wrote it (a commenter that you likely don't know), how it's written (the sophistication of the English and the argument), the emotion (sarcastic? angry? humorous? all caps? calm and reasoned? etc.), etc.
On the other hand, for some things I agree that I don't care much about the trust value because I don't care much about the accuracy, such as 'who sang that song I can't get out of my head'. Which means we have to draw a distinction between trust and caring about trust.
Yes, Wikipedia: the poster child for factual, accurate, unbiased, trusted information.
I've used Wikipedia for a decade and a half and I love it, but every single time I hear someone mention it, or I mention it myself, be it in an academic context or not, it is always met with a negative comment implying that it is not a "legitimate" source for anything - although most will admit it's a fantastic starting resource.
I also wonder whether you would be as gung-ho about this idea if Wikipedia started flagging articles from sources such as HuffPo, DemocracyNow, the various Gawker offshoots, and "anonymous sources".
I certainly wouldn't accept Wikipedia as correct on any topic that gets caught up in the culture wars. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is by its nature very easy to manipulate for small very intense groups who believe they're on a holy mission to cleanse the internet of "bad people".
This change being a case in point. I read all kinds of news sources, from the Washington Post to CNN to the Daily Mail to Breitbart. I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense, they publish stories that collapse all the time. Yet Wikipedia isn't banning CNN, only conservative outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart. Isn't that strange?
[citation needed]
Checked the entire edit history of the article with wiki blame. The phrase 'Pyramid scheme' I could find has been added four times. The first two referred to a specific bitcoin-based third-party scam, which was removed in 2012 when the scam was old news. The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement. It was added removed and added again in short order.
> CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense
That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted.
It is striking how much we live in an era of fear, uncertainty and doubt over truth. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence.
Saying something I don't like, is not the same as saying something false. Though our inherent cognitive biases would love us to believe that, and our toxic politics often demands we claim so.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0
I'd note that this:
The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement
doesn't make any difference to my opinion. Who cares if they're economists? Either something meets a definition or it doesn't.
That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted.
I would be fascinated to see who claimed this and how reliable their fact checking is. Because yes, literally anyone can call themselves a fact checker and then announce their views to be 'fact'. I've noticed more than once some person or site claiming to be a 'fact checker' and then engaging in very dodgy behaviour. The ones that try to give 5 star ratings to claims seem most susceptible to this. Anything beyond a binary yes/no is too tempting for people to insert their own opinions and views. BBC "reality check" is notorious for this.
And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence.
Quit with the ad hominem. My post wasn't a scientific article - it was reporting my own experience with fact checking various different outlets. But fine, I'll raise the bar.
If you really believe that these cable news outlets are more honest than average, then please go read Greenwald for a while and explain how they keep publishing false stories by their own admission, that are always false in support of the same narrative.
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-...
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-pe...
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-...
This one has a very good collection of juxtaposed stories
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly...
I read lots of news sites from across the spectrum. Perhaps it helps that I'm not American so a lot of what happens there is merely interesting, rather than something threatening urgent impact on my own life. There is very little difference between them all. New York Times is not better than Fox News is not worse than CNN, and so on. The journalists at all these places feel strongly that it's OK to mislead people if it's in support of the 'right' cause.
> Wikipedia claimed it was a ponzi scheme. The rest still applies.
It was added to a list of Ponzi schemes with the qualification "Bitcoin has been called a Ponzi scheme" and a citation to an article on April 11, 2013. It was deleted on May 7 that year, in the very next edit to touch it.
Your characterisation seems to me tendentious in the extreme.
> Who cares if they're economists?
Anyone who understands that knowledge is not syntactic, and that expertise trumps word lawyering.
> Quit with the ad hominem.
I apologise if you felt it was so. Nothing I said referred to any personal quality of you or anyone else. It was intended as purely an attack on the argument you made. The opposite of ad hominem.
> The journalists at all these places feel strongly that it's OK to mislead people if it's in support of the 'right' cause.
[citation needed]
As you can see, people were arguing with some editor who kept sitting on the page. It was an on-going problem that lasted a long time.
I wish I didn't have to keep repeatedly backing this claim up. OK, I mixed up pyramid and ponzi scheme, but the original point is sound (and "economists agree" isn't a valid argument given that plenty of economists also disagree, and being an economist doesn't automatically make someone right anyway). Sigh.
Nothing I said referred to any personal quality of you or anyone else
I'm not sure how to interpret "gaslighting the evidence". From what I understand "gaslighting" is an insulting verb that means an activity someone is engaged in, to deliberately confuse other people. That's not at all my intent.
As for your last paragraph, that's what this entire thread is about. Look at how media outlets consistently get certain subjects factually wrong, again and again and as Greenwald puts it "always wrong in the same direction". These aren't random mistakes caused by simple carelessness. They keep happening because journalists want them to happen - if they didn't the mistakes wouldn't be so correlated, or so consistent, or so frequently replicated across so many outlets, and they'd put in place more robust systems to stop them.
I agree that many mainstream outlets have a slant, however this is a frankly ridiculous equivocation between legitimate news organisations with bias reportage and a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies.
Please provide evidence of the many false stories you refer to, because they just don’t exist.
a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies
Actually, Breitbart was one of few media that pointed out that it didn't matter where Obama was born, as his natural-born citizenship was automatically conveyed from his mother. "Birther" arguments were a fabrication of "mainstream" media.
The only reason you believe the outlets you named are "legitimate organisations with bias" vs "hack conspiracy websites" is you haven't picked up yet on the conspiracy theories being peddled by those so-called legitimate organisations.
Another example beyond Russian hacking: it's common for such legitimate outlets to claim there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women, which is why <insert any difference here>. It's literally a conspiracy theory. They report on it as if it was fact, and lie to push the conspiracy forward.
To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo. So many articles claiming he said women aren't biologically suited for programming, even though he stressed in his memo he was not saying that and was talking about general interest across populations. I stopped keeping track of which outlets were lying about the memo's contents after I realised they virtually all were.
> there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women > To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo
Picking these two specific things pretty much shows your hand in this matter. You're clearly someone who has made up their mind that women & men are in fact treated equal despite stories, lawsuits, and salary data proving other wise.
However, Wired did a write up[1] on why Damore's memo was clumsy despite trying to use scientific evidence. Mainly in that he cited facts without extrapolating on them and noting the small differences in the numbers. Further, there is a lot of nuiance in all of this and societal studies that get picked apart for gotcha facts is not a great way of using studies. [1] - https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...
It's great somebody discussed that, it was probably biggest complaint I had about Damore's article.
But you have to admit that "flawed methodology in reaching the conclusions" was not really widely cited as biggest issue with Damore's memo.
I have no idea where the parent gets this (no source is provided), but more generally this is a talking point, throughout history, of liars and propagandists; it's a way of excusing and normalizing their behavior. Propagandists in particular want to neutralize or paralyze, not persuade, their targets - it's easy to see how destroying all trusted institutions would do that.
In the end, it's like someone telling you, after they just lied to your face for the nth time, 'everybody lies!'.
"Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
The language in the article [0] regarding pyramid schemes clearly notes that this is a concern raised by "various journalists, economists, and the central Bank of Estonia". An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and summarizes other sources. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia itself defines pyramid schemes.
> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest
Sure.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyram...
Only for things that aren’t politically fraught enough for one person, anywhere on the internet to decide to camp on the article. Look at what you get if you look up “Cultural Marxism”.
It redirects to the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory article, with the subheading “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory”. This when there was an excellent article on the academic movement of that name.
Very introductory reddit thread on the history of the academic movement
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8q8p6n/cult...
Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology
https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-...
Talk page for the Cultural Marxism Wikipedia article, which now redirects to Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories
Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology was published in 1981. It’s been cited 40 times. That’s not a seminal work but it’s not marginal either. Cultural Marxism was a self-description before it was ever used as a slur.
Product Description A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.
Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture has the following review
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Marx...
... If this collection is long and complicated, that is because Marxist theory has a long and complicated history: no simple summary or static model will suffice for a genuinely dialectical theory, one that works with the essential concepts of contradiction between the emergent and the persistent, mediation, and overdetermination. ...
And I'll live on as before.
To the best of my knowledge, Breitbart was the only place to release all of the court documents from the Damore case.
Interesting enough, because of that, those documents are not cited on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
I think that Wikipedia trusts Breitbart enough not to falsify court documents.
Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries view news. First, they classify (a.k.a. anoint) sources as kosher & credible, and then blanket ban the others. Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech.
You can see this pattern in China, Russia, Iran, ... and HN, Wikipedia, ...
Of course, HN is a private company who is free under US speech laws to pick and choose sources it deems kosher. But it's ironic that HN considers it's audience immature enough to "protect" it from the triggers of opposing viewpoints, of Breitbart & ilk.
> Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech.
And what would that argument be? That I should be exposed to Breitbart so I "can see the other side"? Thank you very much. The world is not divided into two sides where we should go see the other. The world is full of shit. And there is no point to dwell on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref...
That whole entry is compiled of highly questionable sources.
Seems like a massive double standard.
That Vox and Gawker are viewed as more reputable than Breitbart gets to the very heart of what Gamergate was about (IMO).
Gamergate is the perfect example of how media & reporting can be twisted into whatever narrative people want to make. The fact that it evolved into what it did is all the proof you need. If it was ever about "ethics in journalism" they would have never championed YouTuber's and people with 0 track record of journalism. Not to mention they continue to prop up people with known histories of questionable behavior (Cheon, Moriarity). The very fact that much of their 'theory' was based in journalist talking to each other is laughable.
That double standard spurred a lot of Gamergate's energy. Putting "ethics in journalism" in quotes says a lot, the whole thing was nothing but media meta-commentary (ethics in journalism).
I put it in quotes because it was a statement the GG latched on to to claim as their whole reasoning. However countless doxing & harassement attempts, specifically towards some women, prove otherwise. Again, one of their big tent pole arguments was that gaming press (which in reality is relatively young) had a mailing list they all communicated on. Which is just ludicrous to use as "collusion" b/c it assumes all press operates in a black box with no communciation.
There is a double standard in press reporting, but it is not some thing that is exclusive to gaming. There's a clip of Rooster Teeth slamming another press outlet for their review of Fallout while all three of them (Rooster Teeth) are decked out in Fallout gear. I can assure many more YT personalities are getting free gifts from companies to promote & review, but not disclosing as such. There is a new practice now of seeding games to these personalities early to help drum up hype around games. This is precisely the ethics situation you claim, but that's if you assume YT should be considered press (it's not). Someone who was contributing to IGN just got ratted out for plagarizing and IGN, after investigating, removed every piece of their content. By GG standards of IGN they're some unethical place and would have never done this. So yeah, GG in itself is a double standard and completely unreliable in their message.
https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miuci...
The idea that they're quiet on actual ethics issues while making a mountain out of a molehill on localisation ones is false.
As for collusion, well it's questionable whether it occurred, but at least a bit suspicious that many sites suddenly turned out their audience mid controversy. Imagine if someone else did that. Like, an agency dev called their clients morons online, or a retail worker said their customers were malicious/trolls/sociopaths to their face. Would they still have a job?
Probably not. But that happened, it shouldn't have happened, and it's being justified somehow.
It's also worth pointing out that quite a few smaller sites and YouTube channels with GamerGate... tendencies or neutrality are actually pretty damn reliable, and that most aren't exactly Breitbart or fake news esque. Stuff like Techraptor or Niche Gamer or what not isn't exactly unreliable. Stuff like SidAlpha's YouTube channel isn't unreliable.
The issue is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is very much tilted in the large corporation/academia direction and misses the point in what reliability actually is. This isn't the 60s/70s/80s/whenever when being reliable only meant being a full time employee for a major newspaper or television network or publishing your work in an academic context. Many smaller blogs and creators (even under pseudonyms or anonymity) have equally good or better records now, and standards should change to accomodate that.
A rundown of the facts, again:
Eron Gjoni publicly claimed that his girlfriend Zoe Quinn, an indie game developer, had cheated on him with a bunch of guys, who he named. Most of these guys were other indie game developers. One of them was a writer for Rock Paper Shotgun, who had once mentioned Quinn's game in a single paragraph of a larger article about indie games, months before he allegedly slept with her by Gjoni's own account.
Some right-wing gamers immediately spun this into a narrative that Rock Paper Shotgun and several other sites they didn't like were corrupt and trading positive coverage of left-wing developers for money and sex. This narrative was wildly successful and wound up drawing in a bunch of people who were legitimately concerned about ethics in games journalism, and somehow didn't grasp the agenda behind it.
Consider Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart reporter who "infiltrated" a game-writer forum, cherry-picked their discussions about how to respond to the harassment campaign, and spun them as sinister censorship. Yiannopoulos is a frequent supporter of literal, self-described Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Leaked_Breit... But many were and are completely taken in by his article--I still see people posting it to justify GamerGate.
But much more significant than that, it's a compelling demonstration of what a large, committed community can do, together. With a vision for creating value, without a need for satisfying shareholders in anything but reason and adequately-competent, wide-ranging content.
In my view it is becoming one of the wonders of the modern world. Without a sugar daddy.
Do you routinely read far-left news sources like Current Affairs and Jacobin to make sure you're getting the full picture?
Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.
Do they mean "Breitbart is much much less credible than all other news outlets (except maybe Infowars) so they deserve this!"
Or do they mean, "Yes, but leftism is the correct point of view, they told me so in college, so they deserve this block!"
Or do they mean "We've been trying really hard to resurrect major media as a legitimate source for believable propaganda and don't like your insinuation there!"
Or something else I haven't thought of?
Because from where I sit, Breitbart, the grand total of 3 times I visited it seemed a bit extreme and one sided, but in reporting not any further from what one might consider "accurate" than many biased mainstream news outlets (comments section excluded, that was indeed a circus).
Did I miss something?
Not really a person of strong political persuasions but big tech shoving brave new world down everyone's throats isn't really my thing either. Plus I doubt it will work. I guess I prefer the dumb pipes model but once people are involved that goes out the window? Any way to tone that down?
> Not a fan of Breitbart, but this reeks of political preference. Wiki should be above this kind of thing but apparently isn't, which speaks to it's own credibility.
Wikipedia editors concluded that Breitbart News is an unreliable source. If this reeks to you, fine. Maybe there is something there. Maybe they did have other motives. Go dig. But don't just draw general conclusions about Wikipedia's credibility from that reek.
In my opinion, anything touching Breitbart reeks. Wikipedia is doing well to have settled the matter and gotten rid of that reek. At some point you don't discuss the finer points of shit anymore. You close the lid. As they did with a host of other publications.
Just one stinking example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News#False_report_of...
The point, as stated in my original post, is that "fake news" type reporting isn't confined to right leaning publications. One doesn't need to dig much to determine that. Yet one view source is banned, the other is not. This isn't "assumption" or accusation, it's how it appears to be.
What I really hear you saying, (and I think reality comes out a bit further down in your post), is "I don't like Breitbart!".
And, emotionally not liking something is a good reason as any to downvote so that is fine. Thanks for the explanation.
But just to re-iterate, I don't care for Breitbart either. Nor CNN. I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.
> I do think Wikipedia should stay out of politics though.
Impossible. What gave you the idea?
If it's the first I guess we have to just disagree and that's it and I'm really sad you feel that way and wish you would reconsider your stance. If it's the second, there are arguments to be made.
My concern isn't your political views or distaste for the slant of some publication. I understand that, I don't like grossly biased publications either. My concern is the danger of a politically motivated group of people removing a publication from being cited in a very large crowd-sourced knowledge base because some people don't like the slant.
Whatever happened to principal before preference? Did that all go away and now we just try to bulldoze our way around everything at any cost because we think our subjective opinions are "right"? Can't folks see how not only futile but self defeating this is? Smart folks at that. WTF? is all I can really say. It's a big world with lots of opposing visions and views. And people have a right to these, even when we believe differently, and a good knowledge base will try to remain objective.
Are you saying that if Wikipedia bans Breitbart, they should ban CNN too? And on what basis? What would be the standard they should use?
I agree that the polarization observed in US politics is a dangerous trend. But I think that Wikipedia is navigating this well.
I challenge everyone who disagrees to look at Breitbart's front page right now and find an article you would consider objectively false or more biased than the average CNN or HuffPo article.
What is the case is that very often Breitbart reports on things more mainstream sites refuse to report on. It's real diversity of perspective like this that's actually valuable in a free society.
But Breitbart doesn't tow the ideological line, so it gets banned.
When we ban websites like Breitbart we lose sources that examine sides of issues that often go unexamined, or issues that get ignored altogether.
Sure.
> EU Cracks: Juncker Says Brexit Deal Close
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/06/eu-blinks-juncke...
It's certainly not the EU who are cracking under Brexit, Theresa May's government is.
> Danish Minister Rejects EU Migrant Quotas Claiming ‘Too Few Contribute’
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/10/07/danish-minister-...
The actual source (https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE10915137/stoejberg-dan...) says it is the UN quotas it is stopping, not the EU ones as suggested in the title. The title is also misleading, "too few women contribute" is the quote.
They only took in 500 refugees a year before that, something the writing definitely does not reflect, and will continue "throw open their borders" to refugees with disabilities.
And hey, lets throw in a nice bit about rape statistics and putting asylum seekers on deserted islands.
The less said about the comments, the better.
> The country registered 3,500 asylum seekers in 2017, according to the ministry, the lowest number since 2008.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20181004/denmark-refuses-to-take-in-...
As for the rest of your nitpicking, I'm sure you're aware we could do the same with the headlines from any media source. I once saw CNN publish essentially the same story with two opposing headlines: "NFL ratings are down again this season. Is it time to panic yet?", then "Trump says NFL ratings are 'way down.' That's not completely true"
> However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say no to take 500 quota refugees through the UN system, as it did before.
These are the quota refugees. The ones the article is lambasting. Asylum seekers are different, technically a superset of refugees I guess.
I'm glad you saw two contradictory headlines once (to nitpick: way down != down), I'm not sure how that refutes any of the many things wrong with the two articles I described above, found within 5 clicks on their website frontpage.
The examples you gave from Breitbart don't come anywhere close to proving that it's worse than other media.
Just try being equally critical of, say, CNN headlines and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
If you want to put out the point that these shoddy half articles I found on Breitbart are actually representative of CNNs reporting and the industry as a whole then I suggest you do exactly what I did: go to their frontpage and find two completely misleading headlines with borderline xenophobic, utterly misleading content that are there right now.
Of course, this will be super easy right because CNN is the same as Breitbart, right?
Something in me thinks this will be the last I hear from you. It's been nice discussing this with you.
I'd like to see what Breitbart publishes that's worth a ban.
Please feel free to provide ban worthy examples if you like, instead of a couple of minor mistakes of the kind every news organization makes in their headlines.
I feel like your conviction that breitbart is as good as any other news source (or as bad, whatever way you look at it) is not grounded in reality if you call those minor mistskes.
Not only is the headline misleading but the contents as well, designed to stoke certain people and confirm their biases.
From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are stopping accepting all the thousands and millions EU immigrants flooding into their borders because they do not contribute.
Not one bit of that is true.
Find me something on CNN as patently false and misleading as that, on their front page right now please. Thanks!
> From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are stopping accepting all the thousands and millions EU immigrants flooding into their borders because they do not contribute.
Nowhere in that article did Breitbart say millions of EU immigrants are flooding into Denmark.
And if I give a charitable interpretation to your nitpick that Breitbart altered the quote, removing women from "do not contribute", it could apply to the headline, but not the article. Breitbart quoted the full statement in the second paragraph.
Breitbart is not the only problem of people who read it, many of them are mentally ill (schizophrenia) or they were raised in a way that makes it almost impossible to discern facts from fiction. Before you argue about that, I can guarantee you that I would - and in fact do - say the same about similar radical left-wing "news sites".
One problem at Wikipedia is that there is generally not enough vetting of the citation sources.
To be fair, that's not entirely their fault, because especially in the US there is a vast network of fake science and news sites powered by lobbyists, and it takes a substantial amount of effort to discern these from reputable sources. I've seen some interesting network analysis of the lobby sites of the US oil industry, and have to say that I wouldn't have been able to easily recognize their think-tanks and science information sites as fake. They're well-disguised and you have to look at interconnections, board members, and funding sources to find out who is really behind them. For example, some of them looked like legitimate sources about green energy technologies, but were in reality designed to poison the climate change debate and further the interests of oil concerns.
Conclusion: Don't focus too much on Breitbart, there are plenty of other seemingly legitimate associations, news sites, institutes and think tanks whose primary purpose is to bullshit people, and they are funded from the left and right.
You're implying that people who go to breitbart are mentally ill. Maybe they need help? Should be committed to an institution for their views? That worked out so well in the Soviet Union...
I stand by my word, everything I've said about Breitbart is true, whether you like it or not. You can downvote me as much as you want, fact is that Breitbart is a hate speech site that also happens to copy & pastes news from other sources in order to disguise their real purpose. Anyone who thinks there could be a "news site" with a more right wing bias than Fox News is seriously deluded, because the primary goal of news reporting is not to politically influence the public towards radical anti-democratic world views and create chaos.
Just to make this clear, I'm not a US citizen and couldn't care less about Breitbart's fake news if Bannon hadn't recently announced that he wants to invest money to focus his propaganda efforts on the EU with the goal of disrupting the European Union and instigate chaos in Europe. There is no need to write indirect slurs about Breitbart, the truth suffices to discredit this site.
But if you want a real slur, no problem. Yes, the people who run Breitbart are absolutely despicable scum.
Would you read an ISIS "news site" to get your "news"? If the answer is no, then you also shouldn't read utter crap like Beitbart.
Note that I said "many" not "all" in the original post, and that was based on checking their comment section in 2016. Since then I haven't checked whether they have moderation now and whether this has changed, as you may imagine I have better things to do.
Note: Same poster as OP, just from a different account.
(Posted from another account, because I changed my machine, but I'm the same as OP.)
I'd argue that its strength is exactly being a secondary source, instead of just alledging facts someone has already taken the time to value multiple sources. Additionally the talk page often adds extra depth.
Instead of blindly hyping against Wikipedia, it should be taught to use it well (and not depend on it too much).
At least, that was my experience.
A primary source is one that "creates" the information of history, e.g. a letter, journal entry, official announcement, or original research. A secondary source (nominally) synthesizes and summarizes primary sources into a coherent narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
> In the study of history as an academic discipline, a Primary Source (also called an original source or evidence) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.
Many, many things in a classroom will be primary sources.
Students used the internet a lot, and Encarta (lol), and were constantly getting grief from teachers for doing so.
Be my guest, but good luck getting anyone to believe it.
edit: I'll just note, additionally, that you stated "nothing in a classroom is a primary source". Even if it were true that yours was an unprecedented aberration, that general statement remains untrue.