Hacker News Reader

Comment by LegitShady | Hacker News Reader

practice is how policy is applied, and wikipedia in practice is not the same as wikipedia policy by rote.

Exactly. Policy is implemented by people. Eventually those who put extraordinary amount of time online will takeover editor/moderator positions and win editor wars. Most of those people are definitely not real experts in the field. Because real world experts wouldn't have time / motivation to engage in online fight.

Can you give an example of how you see this changing?

For one thing all media sources should be on equal footing. Let the community decide what is bullshit. It is ridiculous that BBC is considered a reliable source but RT is not. Both have a specific point of view that they promote, reliably, Wikipedia is not supposed to have a point of view. If BBC is allowed but RT is banned then Wikipedia POV will tend toward BBC simply because a contrasting POV is censored. Same would hold for allowing an Israeli newspaper but banning an Iranian one as an unacceptable source. All media outlets should be on equal footing.

Bellingcat and Radio Free Europe are considered reliable sources, while Wikileaks is not...

Bellingcat participated in a covert UK foreign-office funded program with the BBC to "weaken Russian": https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...

Anyone suggesting Bellingcat is more reliable than Wikileaks is regurgitating establishment talking points.

See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...

Bellingcat is obviously an MI6 PR outlet. To believe otherwise is ludicrous. Some stay at home dad who used to sell women's underwear has an independent insight on world class covert activities? Give me a break!

Bellingcat was started by a Something Awful poster/moderator called Brown Moses, you can look at his old posts to see his evolution from discussion board member to journalist by reading his old posts.

FWIW I don’t think it’s an MI6 backed site

RT is state propaganda. Not an accurate equivalence at all.

what do you think BBC is? or CBC? Also state funded 'journalists' who push agendas. You just like their agenda better.

at least US intelligence agencies used to hide behind private news sources until they started hiring the intelligence people outright.

The CBC has a viewpoint, but it is definitely not state propaganda.

No I disagree. They're state propaganda it's just the current journalist profession is so activist left they won't do anything for a right leaning government, but they will sue over a plainly fairly use video before an election to try to create chaos. They're too entrenched in their brand of leftist ideology to be used by the right.

They're a state backed propaganda machine pushing the state's narrative, but resisting any other narrative when the current opposition in power because they've been entirely staffed by activist journalists.

Just as Al Jazeera is Qatari state propaganda, BBC is British state propaganda. You can pull the wool over your eyes and disagree, but they're all state backed narrative machines.

The BBC works directly with the UK Foreign Office to push propaganda to destabilise other countries: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com