Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales is Launching an Online Publication To Fight Fake News (cnn.com) 190
Jimmy Wales, a founder of Wikipedia, is launching a new online publication which will aim to fight fake news by pairing professional journalists with an army of volunteer community contributors. The news site is called Wikitribune. From a report: "We want to make sure that you read fact-based articles that have a real impact in both local and global events," the publication's website states. The site will publish news stories written by professional journalists. But in a page borrowed from Wikipedia, internet users will be able to propose factual corrections and additions. The changes will be reviewed by volunteer fact checkers. Wikitribune says it will be transparent about its sources. It will post the full transcripts of interviews, as well as video and audio, "to the maximum extent possible." The language used will be "factual and neutral."
Remains to be seen (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's anything I've learned about journalism in the last 41 years, it's that everyone puts their own slant on it. Regardless of their politics.
Re: (Score:1)
What do you expect? This is slantdot after all.
Just an overview (Score:2)
o Publishers - slant, selection bias
...it's not like it's showing any signs of getting better, either.
o Advertisers - selection bias on source and slant by rewarding max eyeballs
o Editors - slant, selection bias for stories
o Reporters - slant, selection bias for sources
o Information sources - slant, winners get to write history
o Reader's choice of media - slant, selection bias
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying there isn't fake news out there. I'm not talking about the New York Times favoring their favorite candidate. There is objectively fake news that can be demonstrated by anyone who is capable of examination the story with anything more than a skin deep effort.
For Example:
We got right wing anti-vaxers protecting the cancer causing HPV viruses. They view it a as a form of social moral control put there by God. They even invented a fake, official looking, "American College of Pediatricians" which
Re: (Score:3)
What's "objectively fake" about the "American College of Pediatricians"?
I don't know who or what they are, but it just seems you don't like them and what they're doing. Are they claiming to have medical licenses when they don't?
Further, the HPV vaccine only targets a handful of viruses that may be correlated to higher rates of certain types of cancer. Yet they fucking initially marketed it as cancer vaccine, with an entire ad campaign with young girls skipping rope and chanting "One less, one less! I'm g
Re: (Score:2)
. Then they aggressively tried to force the vaccine on all middle school girls despite the fact that the viruses they protect against aren't generally considered communicable unless you're doing the nasty
Um yeah? It's common and spread by sex. You're therefore much off vaccinating before people start having sex, rather than after they've already caught the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you'll still get HPV if you're having unprotected sex even if vaccinated, you just won't get the handful of strains this vaccine protects against that have been correlated to a mild increase in the risk of developing certain cancers.
This isn't anything like an MMR vaccine. It's not even as justifiable as pushing for everyone to get a flu shot.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "objectively fake" about the "American College of Pediatricians"?
Because the are not pediatricians, asshole.
Further, the HPV vaccine only targets a handful of viruses that may be correlated to higher rates of certain types of cancer.
Yeah, that's exactly what it is supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they have an agenda. So what? Everyone does, including the person I replied to, who was harping on about things being "objectively fake" while showing nothing resembling objectivity. If you don't agree with their agenda, that's fine. But you should be objective about it if you're going to accuse them of being "objectively" anything.
This isn't about whether they're right or wrong, it's about whether they're incorrect or correct. I don't know what they state or claim, so I can't argue about tha
Re: (Score:3)
Is this "Nunews"? (Score:2)
When Wikipedia was proposed, I thought the original intent was that Wikipedia would be the drawing board for Nupedia articles maintained by professional writers. Is there a similar relationship between Wikinews [wikinews.org] and Wikitribune?
RTFA? I closed the CNN tab when an ad started playing audio.
Re: (Score:3)
Not making any excuses for CNN as that's inexcusable.
But I highly recommend having all tabs muted by default.
I use the mutetab extension with the Tab audio muting UI control enabled in chrome.
The AutoMute extension also works well.
Having to unmute tabs is a minor annoyance for me compared to having things start playing in the background i'm not expecting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it is just as doomed as Nupedia too. Apparently this really surprised the Wikinews regulars [wikinews.org] as a sort of strike of lightning out of the dark and that their relationship with Jimmy Wales is dubious at best. Mr. Wales got zero input and feedback from the Wikinews regulars in terms of how to set up the site or how to effectively manage it. That sounds like a colossal waste of time and energy as well as basically shooting himself in the foot right out of the gate as those would likely be the largest
In a related news... (Score:5, Funny)
...the launch of Wikitribune has been dismissed as a fake news by Jimmy Wales itself.
Coordination, not more text (Score:2)
Rather than write yet more material, why not make a way to consolidate links to various topics in a convenient way so that one can read multiple viewpoints? That way I can see what Fox News says about any given topic, but also what NBC says about the same topic. Use the fancy dancy AI, probably with human helpers, to match up articles about given events.
Google News aggregates stories about same subject (Score:2)
What's the difference between what you describe and Google News?
Re: (Score:1)
Crappy interface for finding what you want packaged together nicely and compactly. I don't see any serious attempt to group by a given event. Maybe I missed a magic button somewhere?
Re:Coordination, not more text (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the idea that there are alternate facts and all viewpoints are equally valid needs to die. There really is objective truth and impartial journalism is entirely possible.
To be honest I'm not sure what this new site adds. Sources like the BBC are already very good. Yes, they screw up sometimes, but they fix it and 99% of the time are factually accurate and impartial. We don't really need more than that, what we need is a way to flag up fake news and opinion marketed as news.
Imagine if inaccurate statistics or misrepresentation of sources could be flagged up by wiki-style crowd sourcing. Kinda like what Facebook is doing but with volunteers and public oversight instead of Facebook staff, and for all sites.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
BBC is very left wing. YOU think they are good, because they slant things the way you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Really has a left wing bias, that's all. The BBC gets accused of being left and right wing pretty much equally.
Re:Coordination, not more text (Score:5, Informative)
BBC is very left wing. YOU think they are good, because they slant things the way you like.
No, the BBC is objectively rated as centre right. The problem you have is that you have gone so far to the extreme right, you dont even know what the left is.
In 1951, Winston Churchill won the election as a conservative, however by modern standards he's left of Obama (who isn't left at all).
Now the BBC is a more reliable source of information for several reasons.
1. The BBC checks their facts.
2. When the BBC publishes incorrect facts they issue a correction.
3. The BBC does not rely on cliche's or appeals to fear/emotion.
Now the reason you believe the BBC is biased is because you're not familiar with what real news looks like. Real news is written in a way to present facts, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Mail, et al. are written in a way to present opinions. As you've probably lived all your life hiding and fighting facts that you don't believe in, any source that presents information, especially information in a dispassionate manner would seem very biased to you. This does not make the source biased, rather it makes you an extremist.
Also, when was the last time Fox News issued a correction, they broadcast several "mistakes" per day but never seem to issue a correction.
Re: Coordination, not more text (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
On /. this smug statement almost always gets you a mod point. Sad.
From a common sense point of view, reality has no bias.
Re: (Score:2)
From a common sense point of view, reality has no bias.
But right-wingers see bias whenever someone contradicts them.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the developed world is progressive compared to the USA. The USA right-wing is an isolated curiosity to most of the world. The only comparable nation I can think of would be Australia, because it still has open areas comparable to our mid-west, and thus an independent streak, as in, "We ain't need no pesky national government nosin' around in our business. We do better on our own."
Re: (Score:2)
Literally any first world news source outside of the US is going to appear "left wing biased"
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Ssshhhh. Nobody tell him. He's so cute sitting there in his little safe space. Let's keep him out of the real world, forever.
Stay golden, AC.
Re: Coordination, not more text (Score:2)
The British conservatives are left wing by American standards.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I'm not sure what this new site adds.
I'm interested in what it can subtract. At the moment everyone and their dog needs to publish dozens of news articles to justify their price, be it in terms of ad revenue, or in size of time-slots on a TV channel.
If this Tribune is good enough to stick to the main news for each region, with no pressure or urgency to cover the latest in "weird and wonderful" events, it's an improvement. Sooner or later the other media will stand out as being silly and will lose relevance. A lot like adwords made punch the mo
Re: (Score:1)
If a claim starts gathering eyeballs, you have to address it head on. It's going to happen whether it "should" or not.
That's where a quick-acting debunking service would help. Debunking sites exist, but are usually late to the party. If a given fake article or fake meme pops up, then a debunking service can pop into action to check it out. Stick some ads on the side of the site to pay for it.
Like if you see a
Re: (Score:2)
If a claim starts gathering eyeballs, you have to address it head on. It's going to happen whether it "should" or not.
Too many people want to believe the false narratives, that's why they survive. They greatly prefer the idea that their side is the noble and perfect one, the other side is always self-serving, craven, and evil. That's much more comforting than the notion that both their side and the other side have some real murky greys.
Impartial journalism? (Score:2)
It's certainly possible, but if you can actually show me an instance of it, I'd be quite surprised. I don't recall seeing such a thing. Ever.
There's selection bias, where the story that is told is not the only story, and/or leaves out pertinent details that variously pollute the information transfer to the information consumer. This occurs at the publisher, editorial, reporter and information source levels.
There are errors in collecting information, which can be cha
Re: (Score:3)
To pile on to what you said, I think opinions taken as news are the biggest problem. They aren't technically fake news because they aren't news, but people treat them as though they are. You get most of the talking heads doing exactly this -- spewing their opinions all over 24-hr 'news' networks. It's not that I don't believe opinion has a place in news, but it matters whose opinion is being reported, and how clearly it is indicated
Mahhketing, mahhketing (Score:2)
We don't really need more than that, what we need is a way to flag up fake news and opinion marketed as news.
Or even more prevalent: thinly veiled advertisements and product announcements masquerading as "news".
As long as maximizing revenue is top priority at a "news" organization, journalism will suffer.
Re: (Score:1)
Sources like the BBC are already very good. Yes, they screw up sometimes, but they fix it and 99% of the time are factually accurate and impartial.
citation needed
We don't really need more than that, what we need is a way to flag up fake news and opinion marketed as news.
Ah, the good ol' truth by popular acceptance approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the idea that there are alternate facts and all viewpoints are equally valid needs to die. There really is objective truth and impartial journalism is entirely possible.
Bring forth your Vulcans!! No aspies won't do, can't understand social context to be effective. Rest of the human race is corruptible.
See this for a live example of how to manipulate "real news":
http://www.politico.com/magazi... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because the idea that there are alternate facts and all viewpoints are equally valid needs to die.
Like this one? [twimg.com] How about this one [imgur.com]? Same facts, yet both MSM and yourself feel that only one of the two facts in the screenshots are "real" and the other is simply "fake". There's more, like for example this one [twimg.com]. Or this one [i.redd.it]
If the ideology you spout:
the idea that there are alternate facts and all viewpoints are equally valid needs to die.
gains any weight, the first viewpoint to get abolished by the average person will be yours.
(Those images, btw, are representative of the group who are pushing very strongly to filter 'fake news'. Beware of what you wish for)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it's objectively truthful that Descartes disproved objective facts?
There appears to be a gaping logical flaw in your argument...
Re: (Score:3)
volunteer fact checkers (Score:2, Insightful)
Un huh... They'll have their own little *Ministry of Truth* there?
Difference. (Score:2)
There's a bit of a difference.
MiniTruth in 1984 was supposed to *decide* (i.e.: unilaterally) what is truth and what is not.
They rewrite what is considered thruth : "We have always been at war with East-Asia".
Fact-checking is supposed (in theory) to be about finding the sources of some information :
They try to find where a thing is comming from : Is the number mentioned by a politician pulled-out-of-his-ass ? or is there a real article/sudy/agency reporting these numbers ?
Well, even if "fact-checking" has r
True, but misleading (Score:3)
A leading "fact-check site" regularly uses this bit of dissemblance to describe right-of-center incidents, while left-of-center equivalents seem to get "True" or at least "Mostly true." As with all things, there are exceptions.
They'll do a good job explaining--reluctantly, if we infer from their words--how whatever was said or referenced was, in fact, accurate. Then launch 3 more paragraphs explaining why the facts don't matter because of who said them.
And this was common pre-Trump.
Irony (Score:2)
A leading "fact-check site" regularly uses this bit of dissemblance to describe right-of-center incidents, while left-of-center equivalents seem to get "True" or at least "Mostly true."
It's fun that in a thread where you criticize fact checking and citing sources, you didn't actually mention which site you're talking about (politifacts, I presume ?) nor precise numbers.
(not that I've pointed to litterary / dictonnary sources either).
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever someone start talking about Politifact, I just point to their contradiction of themselves. [twimg.com] For them, the facts depend on if it's someone they like saying them or not. On the sites which rate fact-checking site bias, Politifact is on the slightly left-wing tilt, which is better that some out there, but to pretend their always neutral is easily shown to be false.
Also, what stories, or what angle on stories a news site chooses to cover tends to contain large amounts of bias. So you see CNN presenting
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong thinking is punishable. Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded.
You will find it an effective combination.
Sure (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales is Launching an Online Publication To Fight Anything That Isn't Left-Wing Propaganda
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
Fake news is as much left-wing propaganda as it is right-wing propaganda and just outright attention-seeking. These are some good examples from all over the board: http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/
I think Jimmy will be fine with whatever news ends up on here, as long as you bring your citations, please.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Jimmy will be fine with whatever news ends up on here, as long as you bring your citations, please.
You misspelled "donations".
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The right really needs to deal with this post-truth bullshit. It won't, because it works really well and always has, but it's getting out of hand. Anything that even attempts to be neutral and fact based is dismissed as left wing propaganda.
Science and reason are under attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So I guess PizzaGate was the work of the left-wing propaganda machine ?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's about that pizza shop or kiddies, but it's absolutely certain that something illicit and secret was being referenced in those emails, and they were using codewords to talk about it.
My guess would be that they were setting up clandestine meetings for off the books bullshit ranging from "Let's get Chelsea another huge paycheck for doing nothing." to "You've got that fat bribe ready for me, right?"
Figuring out the codes and shit in the emails will only get you so far. PizzaGate is real in
Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional journalists producing fact-checked, multi-sourced articles with a neutral tone and striving for accuracy ... I thought this was just called journalism? Why do they need amateur community contributors that are guaranteed to be infiltrated and rotten to the core with activists and paid shills?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
" infiltrated and rotten to the core with activists and paid shills? " == Professional journalists.
There I fixed it for you.
Re:Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Real Journalism is dead. Those things you speak of died in the age of headline news and twitter posts of simplistic nature where viral is the new meme.
Must report something before anyone else, who cares if it is accurate or not. Publish or perish. This is the world we live in.
The fact that Hillary and crew were decidedly evil, caught via "hacked" information, that led to her loss isn't news, the "RUSSIANS" are the news. It doesn't matter how evil the bitch is, "RUSSIA" hacked the elections!!!!! People found out how evil she was, and voted for the "lessor" of two evils, and that doesn't matter "RUSSIANS" hacked the elections.
Russia hacking the DNC and Hillary campaigns (no real proof or evidence ever presented, only Dark Shadow Government agencies saying so) is the news!
This is how "fake news" is generated. Alternative facts parroted until they are more important than the actual real news .... Hillary and DNC actually conspired with the News Media to toss Bernie under a bus and rig an election. BUT RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTIONS!!!
Re: (Score:1)
This is how "fake news" is generated. Alternative facts parroted until they are more important than the actual real news .... Hillary and DNC actually conspired with the News Media to toss Bernie under a bus and rig an election. BUT RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTIONS!!!
Yes and it was also Comey's fault for writing a letter to congress about new previously undisclosed emails that were discovered on Huma Abadeen's computer. Comey sabotaged Hillary and handed the election to Trump!
I remember laughing at the 'news' coming from Baghdad Bob, with him having to lie and distort even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Now it seems Baghdad Bob runs our mainstream news organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
If real journalism is dead, then how can we rely on "journalists" us what's fake?
Does nobody see the fundamental flaw here?
Look at the amount of establishment MSM pandering for Hillary Clinton during the election. We're supposed to trust these same journalists to "protect" us and highlight... pro-Clinton news as staged, fake news? Likewise, for any other conflict-of-interest. The MAJORITY of media companies are owned by a few multi-billion dollar corporations. Are we going to take their word on whether or n
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the Media companies is that they have a long string of news that they tried to bury, only to have small blogs, rags, and "fake news" sites actually have the real goods.
The reason they are going after WikiLeaks isn't because of hacking, or classified or whatever information, it is because WikiLeaks basically blew the lid off the collusion to elect Hillary, and got Trump elected instead. Both Rinos and Democrats hate Trump, and want him destroyed, which is why they are shooting the messenger,
Re: (Score:2)
In the best news sources there was always a clear distinction between 'news' and 'opinion'--entirely separate columns and on different pages in a newspaper, clearly marked where opinion reigned. The opinion was typically that of the publisher, editor or respected columnists.
That distinction has changed and even some of the most widely consumed sources mix news and opinion. Even where opinion is not obvious, a news item is often riddled with innuendo.
I have a particular bug up my butt about the use of childr
Re: (Score:2)
Because sometimes 'contributors' such as 'crafoo' have interesting questions or insights to add. That's the idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Professional journalists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father (Score:2)
Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and "became" Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
As long as humans have agendas and perceptions there will continue to be "fake" (from a certain point of view) news. And crowdsourcing the data will only muddle the results not correct them.
we no longer need to use common sense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll trust Jimmy's politics over my own common sense.
Common sense is neither common nor sense.
Personally, I'll take substantiated, fact-checked information over my own "common sense", which is really nothing more than the aggregate of my own biases.
WikiTribune might actually be able to write stories that evolve towards correctness through review, source-checking and debate, as Wikipedia does. I'm not sure that will actually help the "news" situation, though, because it takes too long, and by the time the facts have been found and clarified, everyone has m
So will snopes.com be involved? (Score:3)
Because this sounds like Snopes but for actual journalism.
Will it help? (Score:3)
What do you do when there are people who don't want to read about the truth but rather articles with heavy editorial that they agree with regardless of any bearing on reality? I think that's the real problem we are running into.
Re: (Score:1)
In todays news (Score:1)
Over fifty people are dead or injured after a truck drove into a crowd of people.
An explosion occurred at soccer game which killed and injured dozens of people.
A white cop shoots unarmed black teenager, sparking outrage over institutionalized racism present in law enforcement.
Those who object loudest (Score:2)
for the price of TWO cups of coffee... (Score:1)
Could this work? (Score:2)
The issue with Google, Facebook, MSNBC, CNN, you name it - is that they're heavily using double-standards.
They just decide that if it does not align with their views, you're censored, fake news, etc. This is terrible and in fact an attack to free speech - even thus a company should be able to do whatever it wants, the reality is that today, if your ISP or Google in particular decide to remove your voice from the internet they can, they will, and today, they do.
Wikipedia has been so far rather successful at
Ob (Score:2)
WP:LOL!
At what point does a good intention turn bad? (Score:2)
You just have to wonder at what point does the fight against fake news become the fight against honesty?
Wikipedia covers its legal ass by relying on published elsewhere citations. This is not always insuring honesty and sometime even promoting the continuation of dishonesty. I recall a policy change where any paid editor needs to state being paid and by who, which came up in regards to israeli editors. Only where do you see this editor information on any articles or do you have to research editors per wiki
So it begins... (Score:2)
Soon someone will launch an application to fight fake news fighters... and then a fake news fighter fighter... and a fake news fighter fighter fighter... Mine is bigger than yours!
Well, great... (Score:1)
Enter the Trump budget - and NPR funds are SLASHED!!!
Now NPR is subjected to corporate donations, and, no doubt, will sway their way
Does it make sense to simply have a national budget for NON-partisan Public News?
An agency where the the top priority is actual, factual news and info?!
Re: (Score:1)
I worry about items to suit a certain political ideology being viewed as "fact", with everything else that contests it being dismissed as "fake news". I see this on both sides.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Nothing could go wrong here (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of problems with "fact-based news", the biggest one being identification of actual "facts."
Look at ProPublica as an example. Their MO is generally to take facts and build a giant lie without ever actually lying, technically. I've given them thorough dressings-down for their blatant attacks on the American Red Cross and Amazon, but nobody actually cares because ProPublica has a better hook: take something people trust and convince them that trust has been violated. There are a few good examples here, though.
The familiar American Red Cross attack article on their handling of Haiti claimed ARC lies about the amount of overhead because they hire independent contractors. The reasoning is that ARC keeps 9% of their revenue stream as operating expenses, but their real overhead is around 40% or higher because they hire contractors who also have operating expense--never mind that the contractors are more-efficient than any non-professional, non-expert option, or that the materials have "overhead" because they need to be mined, shipped, and sold. Things aren't magicked into existence, and ARC isn't a vertically-integrated organization with expertise in everything; they generally try to bring the most-efficient solution to a problem, and that means hiring the best contractors they can find, that being the ones who perform at the highest return per cost invested.
ProPublica has repeatedly published ARC internal documents and loudly shouted that ARC is hiding and ignoring serious defects in their organization's handling of major disasters. This one's even simpler: the documents they published were Lesson's Learned documentation. They discussed what problems they had, why they had problems, and any potential methods for avoiding those problems in future disaster scenarios. Many are marked for further review and discussion. The documents ProPublica published are explicitly for the purpose of identifying problems encountered and preventing them in the future, yet they managed to claim ARC is "hiding and ignoring" all of these problems.
Their article on Amazon's "Buy Box" claims they always put Amazon first, even if they're more-expensive. What actually happens is Amazon (almost) always displays the lowest price-plus-shipping option for a particular product by default; and Amazon uses the lowest-price shipping option for that, which is Amazon's Subscribe and Save shipping. You can get free shipping by having $25 of items in your box or having Prime; ProPublica unilaterally applied a non-free shipping option to inflate the total cost. They also nitpicked about Amazon always listing Shipped by Amazon options first in the full list of sellers, even when these aren't the lowest price options; if Amazon didn't do that, they could have instead attacked them for advertising "free shipping" but making it "difficult to find the Amazon-shipped items to actually get it".
Notice the facts. Facts, facts, facts. ARC spent $500 billion, built 6 houses, was going to build 50 but gave up (never mind that the project was determined wasteful and pointless, and people were dying of a cholera epidemic that ARC stopped instead). Amazon shows you their option first and doesn't count shipping in their prices (never mind that free shipping is an option but alternate sellers don't offer it). ProPublica gives facts and tells you what to think about them.
It gets worse.
Jimbo Wales thinks he can fix this sort of un-news. Does he think he can identify and gate out finicky reasoning and spin? Can he identify when facts are missing, or induce others to do so? For that matter, can we identify who has the most-correct and most-complete set of facts, and if they're disclosing them all without ordering them to create an alternate narrative?
It takes some inherent bias to break fake news. I tear down fake articles I understand, and I hit economics pretty hard because I like economics. Fake news isn'
Re: (Score:1)
That could also be an excellent criticism of wikipedia from when it started. If he sets it up so that contributors can throw up [citation needed] on unsourced facts then I think it would be a colossal success. Politicians lie to the news, straight up easily verified lies. I had the CBC change an article about electoral reform by emailing them the wiki link to the Gallagher Index, because the politician was deliberately lying for political gain and they were either too lazy or too self interested to check
Re:Nothing could go wrong here (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
say what? I read wikipedea for the small sometimes subtle yet hilarious inaccuracies...
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously you're a democrat/republican shill who hates facts and reason! Fair and Balanced Fake News Filters for all who love Alternative Facts! ..or something!
Re: (Score:3)
And as always, the first comment on Slashdot is a smug, cynical dismissal of the subject at hand.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The editing of news articles by volunteers in a manner like Wikipedia has already existed for a great many years. It is called Wikinews [wikinews.org].
Of course Jimmy Wales already knew about that site and is obviously dismissive of the ability of that project's volunteers to objectively look at news information and to distinguish between actual news and fake news.
On a practical side, Wikinews is really quite effective in terms of what it does and also has an interesting set of stories that is quite a bit different than
Re: (Score:2)
Are you part of the Illiminati?
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the dyslexic illuminatus have his sheild vaccinated?
He was immunising the escutcheon.
Re:Russians HACKED the US election (Score:4)
... it won't happen until FAKE NEWS is illimanated.
The layers of fake news are wrongly arranged, because they are ill laminated.
Re: (Score:2)
... it won't happen until FAKE NEWS is illimanated.
The layers of fake news are wrongly arranged, because they are ill laminated.
We are Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your ass laminated.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Another Ministry of Truth? (Score:2)
Classical Liberals Would Object (Score:3)
This is an example of how far the Left has strayed from its classical liberal roots.
The very idea that any organization could set itself up to be the arbiter of the Truth in media is anathema to everything a classical liberal believe in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The left is devolving into the idiocy (if not the violence) of the French Revolution.
Re: (Score:1)
Progressivism is antithetical to liberalism.
The left is devolving into the idiocy (if not the violence) of the French Revolution.
More and more people are realizing this. The current Progressive bubble is about to pop just like it did in the early 20th century. I hope the pop is not too violent.
Re: (Score:1)
Modern day liberals were never "classical" liberals (libertarian). The term was co-opted by socialists to move their agenda forward. The modern day liberal has always been about power and control over the population. The internet (and ultimately Free Speech) threatens that. Hence, the freak out, attempts to control, and ultimately violence (see Bezerkley). You plebes are too stupid, and need the friendly liberals in Government and Corporate America tell you what the truth is-- and sanction you if you
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see some sample coverage showing how they would have reported on past notable events.
The Michael Brown incident [wikipedia.org] and the related Ferguson riots [wikipedia.org] would be a good place to start.
The Wikipedia link won't even use the word riots! The URL uses "unrest". LOOOOOOOOL!
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is when they scrub the talk page, too, citing "abuse".
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone was wondering exactly which books this APK is referring to for the Occult / Conspiracy readers ...
Manley Palmer Hall, Secret Teaching of All Ages [amazon.com], or Kindle edition [amazon.com]
Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry [amazon.com]
Since it was originally published in 1871 you can find it on Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org]
Madame Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine [amazon.com]
Annie Besant, The Ancient Wisdom [amazon.com]
Personally, I wouldn't bother with any of these except the Manley's P. Hall which is an excellent co
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the conspiracies out there I can count on one hand which ones are true. This one isn't.
And while I agree awareness is good, focusing on the problem means one isn't focused on potential _solutions._
What you are also forgetting is that things are ALLOWED to be the way they are.
i.e. America gets the government it deserves because people won't fucking do a thing to change it. They will bitch, and complain, and then carry on with their life -- letting the government steal the profits of their labor, and