Hacker News Reader

Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

> " ... And Wikipedia thought there were no reliable sources at all? Why not?" The reason is that the sources that provide mainstream coverage of conservative points of view, including Fox News, The New York Post, and the (U.K.) Daily Mail—as well as pretty much all of newer conservative news media sources, which are the only outlets doing any reporting on many important stories—have all been added to a list of sources "deprecated" for their coverage of political news. ...

Yes, and they've been deprecated because they kept making stuff up, over and over again. Whether they're right and doing important reporting in any single instance is entirely beside the point, they still can't be trusted to be accurate and that's what matters.

View on HN

The problem here is that this aversion to sources which have been caught making up things is mostly limited to "conservative" sources. While sources like the Daily Mail are considered to be off-limits there is no rule against using the New York Times or the Washington Post, both of whom have been caught making up things. This is what Sanger reacts to, not the mere fact that there are sources which are deemed to be unreliable.

Except the NYT and Wapo have a much better history of correcting mistakes. Comparing Daily Mail and NY Post to other serious news organizations is really an apple to oranges comparison.

It is not, all these publications follow their own ideological agenda. The Daily Mail is a different type of publication - a tabloid, publishing loads of "celebrity" nonsense - than WaPo and NYT which are more comparable to The Times (of London) but when you look at their ideological agenda they are no more radical than the NYT or WaPo. This is the comparison made here.

Have a look at the list of "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia [1] and decide for yourself whether there is an unbalance between the number of green (which translates to "reliable") "progressive" and "conservative" publications.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

And you think the progressive sources don't make things up equally often (at a minimum)?

It's pretty telling that most of this article is "Wikipedia is biased because they don't use enough right-wing sources" and doesn't spend much time defending those actual sources' integrity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com