Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wikipedia The Internet News

Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune is Already Biased (theoutline.com) 164

Earlier this year, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, said he would be launching a neutral news service with "no other agenda than this: the ultimate arbiter of the truth is the facts of reality." On Monday, a pilot version of WikiTribune went live. Adrianne Jeffries of The Outline argues that WikiTribune is already doing things that it said it wouldn't: As of this writing, WikiTribune's homepage featured a hodgepodge of news aggregation. The "editor's choice" module points to a news roundup that includes Paul Manafort's indictment, the Catalonian independence movement. [...] These stories are all sourced to fairly mainstream news outlets, including some that are on Wikipedia's preferred sources list such as CNN and Reuters, and some that are not, such as Politifact and "Spanish media." I admire what Wales is trying to do here. [...] But WikiTribune is bullshit. It's not new -- it is the same kind of news aggregation that exists all over the web. It is not better -- comparable summarizing and linking can be found on many websites, while original reporting of those same stories, often supplemented by linking to other reporting, can be found at CNN, Reuters, The New York Times, and the BBC, which WikiTribune uses as its primary sources. And finally, and most importantly, it is not neutral. The existence of the "Editor's choice" module, which highlights some stories over others, is not neutral; neither is the "Good reads" section, which does the same thing. The Manafort story includes a section, "Highlights from the indictment," which is not neutral -- someone had to decide which parts of the indictment were more significant than others. There is no such thing as an objective highlight. It is true that the wording of the story does not include adjectives, except when it quotes from the indictment ("lavish lifestyle," "false and misleading statements"), but this is standard newswriting, as one would get from the AP or the New York Times.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune is Already Biased

Comments Filter:
  • Asperbergers (Score:1, Flamebait)

    "There is no such thing as an objective highlight."

    Geez. Aspie much?
    • Case not proven (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:22AM (#55463969) Homepage

      "There is no such thing as an objective highlight."

      The article makes a bold assertion that WikiTribune is not objective, but fails to support the assertion with evidence.

      The quote here is an input assumption: the writer starts out with the assumption that any highlights can't be objective, and from that assumption decides that therefore the WikiTribune must be biased.

      That's probably true. But the article doesn't make the case.

      • Re:Case not proven (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:30AM (#55464035) Homepage Journal

        It's a fairly standard attack used on all media. Set an impossibly high standard and berate them for not meeting it.

        People with half a brain look for a more detailed criticism than "humans are involved, so it must be biased" and "they made one mistake, therefore everything they ever did or said is fake news". The goal is to prime people to accept alternative facts.

        • Re:Case not proven (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:38AM (#55464077) Journal

          I'm of the opinion that people who claim to be "unbiased" are not really all the unbiased. Personally, I would accept bias in news if it was up front about it.

          Of course, if you don't see your own bias (because, you've told the lie that you're unbiased so many times), you'll simply reject any notion that you are biased.

          There is no such thing as unbiased news. Even the most evenly written piece has its bias where it was placed in relation to other material; Front page news on Pg 14 below the fold. Which is why everyone SHOULD be getting their news from as many sources as possible, to avoid their own echo chamber.

          • by epine ( 68316 )

            Even the most evenly written piece has its bias where it was placed in relation to other material; Front page news on Pg 14 below the fold.

            So if the layout were performed by random coin flips, by your logic, it would still be biased? By this standard, scaling a photograph from large to medium also commits an act of bias. But then, if a summary is not discernibly different than what it summarizes, it's not a summary, is it?

            Without compression, comprehension a mile wide and an inch deep is all you have left.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              If the layout only uses articles that are slanted then it doesn't matter that you use random coin flips. The photographer decides on the focus of the shot and the photo editor decides how much of it to use based on the layout. This process is inherently biased.

            • Re:Case not proven (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @03:54PM (#55465949) Journal

              Random coin flips, would be "unbiased" politically, yes. However, IMHO the case of putting Page one material on Page 14 is a bias, no matter which way it goes.

              Photo Editing can be biased. https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]

              It all depends on the narrative you're trying to portray.

          • Re:Case not proven (Score:5, Insightful)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:07PM (#55464309) Homepage Journal

            There used to be a solution to this problem. News outlets would post factual information and then a separate opinion piece offering interesting views, often multiple opposing ones.

            What we have now are a few purely factual outlets like the BBC and NHK, and a large number of purely opinion outlets. Notice how the purely factual ones are the ones that are somewhat insulated from commercial considerations.

            So reading as many sources as possible alone is not enough. What you need are some purely factual ones, plus some of the more serious opinion ones to help burst your bubble.

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              The BBC is pretty bad on bias. An article recently had "why does the US have such an opioid problem" and there number one reason according to them was that we don't have UHC. Of course the number two user of opioids is Canada, who uses about 80% of what the US does, and of course the fact that they do have UHC yet still have an opioid problem was conveniently omitted. That is classical political bias right there.

              • by Anonymous Coward

                At the end of the day, BBC writers and editors are mostly British, and writing first and foremost for a British audience. They are instinctively going to highlight things that are different from the British system in whatever they write about.

                Yes that's bias, of a sort. But it's a sort of bias that every writer everywhere has. The mere fact that you choose to read your news in English, rather than the native language of whatever country you're reading about, automatically exposes you to quite a high level o

              • by Anonymous Coward

                Umm what? It is entirely possible that the number one problem accounts for the difference in usage. Did they specifically state that a lack of UHC was the one and only factor? You sound like someone who simply doesn't support UHC and will find "facts" where they don't exist i.e biased.

                • Did they specifically state that a lack of UHC was the one and only factor?

                  It isn't a factor at all, which is the point of pointing to Canada with its UHC having almost as bad Opiate problem as the US which has no UHC, which s/he pointed out, which you conveniently ignored. Which is confirmed by your accusation of "You sound like someone who simply doesn't support UHC" comment. THAT is your bias showing.

                  How about looking at Portugal for how to deal with drug addiction? Why is that never really an option? They have UHC but they don't treat drug addiction like a crime, but rather li

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 )
          Thing is, it's not an impossibly high standard, 30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news* rather than subtly leaving out certain parts of the story again and again and again to advance a chosen agenda, or constantly running rabid "opinion" pieces bordering on batshit-crazy levels of outrage. It's certainly been amplified by the Internet and the 24 hour news cycle. People are tired of this shit, and when the media fails in a huge way -- the prediction of Hillary'
          • Re:Case not proven (Score:5, Informative)

            by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:07PM (#55464299) Journal

            30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news* rather than subtly leaving out certain parts of the story again and again and again to advance a chosen agenda, or constantly running rabid "opinion" pieces bordering on batshit-crazy levels of outrage.

            See Yellow Journalism [wikipedia.org] to understand that's not true at all. In particular, William Randolph Hearst is widely credited with helping to start a war to sell papers [wikipedia.org].

            • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

              30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news* rather than subtly leaving out certain parts of the story again and again and again to advance a chosen agenda, or constantly running rabid "opinion" pieces bordering on batshit-crazy levels of outrage.

              See Yellow Journalism [wikipedia.org] to understand that's not true at all. In particular, William Randolph Hearst is widely credited with helping to start a war to sell papers [wikipedia.org].

              I feel there WAS a golden age of journalism where total objectivity was a prized goal, but the time period is far more narrow than people assume. IE, it was never a "journalism used to be great, and just recently it fell off the rails," journalism was as bad 100 years ago as it was today.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            30+ years ago the newspapers were just as bad, worse even as they hadn't been reigned in by the scandals of recent years. Going back 100 years the media of the day was busy demonizing Jewish immigrants at the behest of their owners.

            I'm not very familiar with US TV from before then, but in the UK you could certainly argue that TV news was much more serious and reliable 30+ years ago, for the reasons you mention and also because there was just far less competition forcing them to use clickbait. But even then

            • "30+ years ago, news organizations mostly stuck with *objectively reporting the news"

              Somehow this ignores the Reagan era. For my childhood and adulthood, spanning more than 40+ years now, all I recall of newspapers is the perfunctory 'objective' reporting mixed in with opinion, bias, and slant. Most major metropolitan newspapers were not merely legendary for their activism, they were unapologetic and celebrated for it.

              At least in the US. My memories of this are clear back to 1971, when my American History t

          • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            the prediction of Hillary's coronation with absolute certainty is a perfect example

            Citation needed. Reporting that she was nominally ahead in polls with a 3% margin of error is not "absolute certainty" in any statistician's book, and your failure to understand polling statistics is your own problem.

          • 30 years ago was 1987. If you honestly believe the media wasn't biased you're nuts. When I was a kid there were nonstop stories about scary, incredibly well armed gangs with the sub-text being that they were mostly black. This was the origin of 'tough on crime' and our private prison system. And don't get me started on the media's coverage of drugs. Go back further and you can find them gearing us up for war after war.

            Yes, with the advent of Fox news and Rupert Murdoch buying up all the local stations th
            • by Anonymous Coward

              It just means they were better at it back then.

              I disagree. The mainstream news was much more heavy-handed back then because they could be. Back then there was barely any widespread media criticism so people were much less aware that there were any other perspectives. If you weren't an expert in a topic, you had no idea when the reporting might be misleading so reporters could be sloppy and barely anyone would notice. Kind of like how watching 'hackers' in the movies make all the computer experts groan with disbelief, but the general population jus

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by jedidiah ( 1196 )

          > It's a fairly standard attack used on all media. Set an impossibly high standard and berate them for not meeting it.

          This is a lame excuse for phoning it in or just plain being a party hack. Your kind of tolerant apathetic nonsense is a big part of the problem. You not only tolerate the nonsense, you make excuses for it.

          You say "summary", I say a selective presentation of the facts designed to fit a pre-set narrative.

          The only answer is to abandon the notion of gatekeepers and seek diverse sources yourse

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            To be clear I'm not tolerating or excusing poor journalism, I'm saying that people who like to alternative facts do so by making people think that all news media are unreliable all the time, and so random blog posts by "ordinary people" and alt-news outlets are just as worthy of their attention.

            They don't even need to ask people to trust the fake news, just being exposed to it regularly is enough.

          • The only answer is to abandon the notion of gatekeepers and seek diverse sources yourself.

            But then to get any "truth" about what's happening in Syria or Somalia or North Korea I would have to visit there myself, since anyone reporting from or about there would also have some sort of bias.

            Personally, I'd rather believe a BBC foreign correspondent than Joe Blogger from the front line on Twitter.

      • The decision to highlight one article over another is subjective.

        Even if an algorithm is making the decision.

        • The decision could be objective, even if you subjectively disagree.
          - An article about how the most recent inauguration crowd was the "biggest ever".
          - An article about how there was an inauguration and some people attended.

          The first is objectively wrong, the 2nd is subjectively boring.

    • There are about 7 billion people in the world, everyone doing something today. The news cannot cover what everyone did or said, so it needs to trim it, to things out of the ordinary. Now this reporting out of the ordinary normally will create a Liberal Bias.
      As the most basic aspect of Liberal vs Conservative (in a world view, not just American) is that Liberals want to change problems they see, Conservatives want to keep things as they are. So the Liberals are generally doing things that create news.

      Lets

  • CNN? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by msauve ( 701917 )
    CNN hasn't been news for a long, long time. It's all editorial punditry about the news, which seems to be the only way they can find to fill a 24 hour channel. (same with Fox and MSNBC, and most others).
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      While that is very often the case, a lot of actual news does come from CNN, even if it's packed in with mindless commentary.
    • I seriously use The Onion as a news source. It's practically my primary news source, so much so that I tried signing up for the print edition only to find they'd canceled it two months prior.

    • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      CNN hasn't been news for a long, long time. It's all editorial punditry about the news, which seems to be the only way they can find to fill a 24 hour channel. (same with Fox and MSNBC, and most others).

      This is the problem with a 24-hour news channel. They don't want people to tune in, get the news, and tune out. They want people to tune in and watch for HOURS. To do that they need hours of content, content that has to be different so people don't just see the same thing for hours. Journalism, including investigative journalism, gets expensive, so they fill time with opinion. It doesn't cost a lot to have some guy give his opinion on the news, or have several people sitting around on couches or around a ta

      • by msauve ( 701917 )
        I miss the likes of Edgar R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, pre-60 Minutes Harry Reasoner, even Huntley and Brinkley, who didn't have the luxury of more than 30 minutes a day. Even written news sucks these days. You'd think CNN, Fox, etc. web "news" could afford to hire a few English majors away from McDonalds to do copy editing, but no, we have to live through really poor spelling, grammar, and a total absence of the 5 Ws [wikipedia.org] so they have time to do stories about Obama not taking selfies anymore.

        Now, get off my lawn
  • >> WikiTribune is Already Biased

    The dog bites man version would have been "WikiTribune is Already Closed". I'm just surprised we're still talking about it now.
  • The Outline's web page design is vile. .
  • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:27AM (#55463997) Homepage Journal

    I always had a double filter: everything I said had to be understood-correct by me, and also complete and correctly represented to the expected concerns of the listening party. I never really learned to lie, and instead had explained people's behavior as a pseudo-mathematical equation balancing their wants and needs, and identified that folks are generally tended to blame themselves for bad outcomes if they understand the likelihood going into it.

    That is to say: if you bullshit people and they don't like how things turn out, they stop liking you; if you're honest with people, they'll tend to do things even if it's understood it will probably turn out bad for them, and then blame themselves when it turns out bad for them and good for you. In the latter case, they're happy to work with you again.

    People fight wars for the simple freedom of choice. I suppose they appreciate being given its full exercise.

    What you really need to do is give people a sense that what they're doing is somehow interesting to them. People are happy to take on hardship for things like philosophical ideals--which is exactly what charity is.

    It's that "complete and correctly represented to the expectations and concerns of the listening party" bit that's key, though.

    You can omit facts. You can omit facts which would raise concern and objection. This is fine so long as you don't omit facts which actually have material effect on the outcome. That someone doesn't understand things well enough to accurately evaluate some omitted facts is immaterial; what matters is that the omitted facts aren't cause for their concern when correctly evaluated.

    There are journalists out there who make a pretty good career out of presenting a lot of factual information, organizing it, and giving an interpretation, while omitting other facts. Their interpretation is incorrect or incomplete: they tell people what to think, and so they tell people the truth and paint a lie.

    That's the real problem: you can lie to people without speaking any untruth.

    Any selection of news will necessarily cultivate certain facts in a certain way, and omit other facts. Just the selection of subject matter creates political bias. The closest you can get to an unbiased news source is to intentionally create an extreme bias: ground everything out to neutral. Take the popular view, the emotion and perspective gaining the most momentum in the media, and pick it apart, factually. Drag it down to the least-concern; cut down all the outrage and the excitement; turn it from the sensational to the mundane.

    The underwear bomber? He had PETN. It requires a bulky, compressive detonator to produce an explosion. I can't recall at the moment, but I believe it has low volume and high crack--it will destroy whatever you use it on, thus put a hole in a plane, but won't create a big explosion--although I may be confusing this with semtex. A block of PETN without an impossible-to-hide detonator will create a light show and a spectacular display of incompetence, nothing more.

    Getting that thing on the plane was never a concern. It's not exactly dangerous.

    In an atmosphere of media panic, these are the facts which strip the bias. This is an extremely-biased analysis; it only modifies the general tone with a counterweight, though. Instead of talking up some opposing point, it counterpoints everything exciting and frightening in the original. It turns the sensational into the mundane.

    That is the injection you need to promote a more-rational media: bring people back down to the ground, where they can think. Put them in a place where they can work out whether to reject your conclusions. Cut away the distortion of emotion. Change the subject from what happened to what to do about it, or how very infrequently this happens.

    Let the media set the stage by showing what people get excited about; then give them a reason to calm down and think.

    Anything else is just putting your views against their views, leaving you free to select what facts to provide and which to leave out of the discussion.

  • Opinion != bias. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:30AM (#55464029)
    Sigh, it seems that a lot of people want to change the meaning of the word bias to "He said something I dont like and I'm butt hurt".

    Having an opinion column in a news publication is not bias, bias in a news publication is deliberately skewing the facts, omitting relevant information, adding falsifications or other means to distort facts to suit your point of view. The point is, its deliberate and hidden al a Fox News, the Daily Mail or Russia Today. Unbiased news is presenting the facts and allowing the audience to make their own inferences.

    Now reputable news organisations have opinion columns, but these are clearly marked as opinion. With many news agencies, the entire theme of the site changes to make it clear they are not presenting facts, but opinions... And there is nothing wrong with having opinion columns as long as they are clearly marked as such. Issues with bias in news start to occur when opinion is dressed up to masquerade as news.

    This article is pretty much non-news, we cant even call it fake news its such a non event. Why, well the magical combination of "Wales", "Wiki" and "Bias" are the perfect thing to drag unwitting eyeballs to this site practically no-one has ever heard of. It was set up last year by some random dude who wanted to make a political blog, claiming to be biased but after about 2 minutes of reading it, it's clearly anti-Trump (and I can say that as someone who thinks Trump is the worst thing to happen to a country, worse than Brexit) and ladies and gents, let me save your eyeballs, the sites layout and colour scheme is atrocious. Its like Geocities for Web 2.0 and its an exclusively mobile setup, so looks even worse on a 24" 4K monitor.
    • Re:Opinion != bias. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:32PM (#55464501)

      Geniune question: is being anti-Trump a biased position? What would he have to do for it to stop being bias, and simply be the reasonable position given the facts?

      Should one have to scrape around for some positive story about Trump, to give an artificial semblance of balance?

      If I write about Hitler gassing children, should I devote equal space to, say, the notion that he was a vegetarian for animal rights reasons, in an attempt at balance?

  • Wales is asking for it if he believes he can create some source of ultimate objective truth. Weâ(TM)ve already got a very elaborate system established for this purpose, and itâ(TM)s called science. It doesnâ(TM)t work via lofty ideals of objectivity, though - it works by âoeevidence or STFUâ. Skepticism, argument, and some adversarial critique are key to culling out the B.S. and locating whatever humble truth remains. Itâ(TM)s a system for distilling usable meaning out of a slo

    • Sweet jesus... that's the last time I ever try posting from the mobile site. Intended formatting below:

      Wales is asking for it if he believes he can create some source of ultimate objective truth. We've already got a very elaborate system established for this purpose, and it's called science. It doesn't work via lofty ideals of objectivity, though - it works by "evidence or STFU". Skepticism, argument, and some adversarial critique are key to culling out the B.S. and locating whatever humble truth remains. It's a system for distilling usable meaning out of a sloppy input of amalgamated subjective human experience.

      So to the extent that Wales tries to reach "truth" by following the same principles of empiricism, skepticism, and open discourse, he might do something useful. More likely, though, this will be yet another news aggregator, but this time run by unaware idealists.

      • Skepticism is now discouraged in education. Consensus is the new thing. To share

        ideas and let the group find the right answer through their combined experiences.

        Given how far astray critical thinking has often taken us, maybe it’s time to embrace the Millennial Generation’s approach and see if it leads to even better results than the preferred methods of older generations.

        New generation critical thinking [sqspcdn.com], by Morley Winograd, Director of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.

        • Skepticism is now discouraged in education. Consensus is the new thing.

          I know a lot of climate change skeptics like to criticize consensus, but consensus isn't antithetical to skepticism, and is actually born out of thorough skepticism. It also has its place in science. In fact, I'd say the "group approach" is very compatible with scientific thinking. Specifically, we have to acknowledge that science can't happen in a vacuum - look at the decline of science in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union for your evidence - the limitations imposed on collaboration with the international c

          • I didn't sat anything about climate change
            • I didn't sat anything about climate change

              Nope, but I don't see anybody except climate change skeptics having a problem with consensus.

              My point is just this: it's true that decision by consensus isn't science, although it's important to acknowledge that the creation of models good enough to gain consensus is to some extent the entire goal of science. If people couldn't have generally agreed on Newton, then they never would have progressed to Maxwell or Einstein. However, science is built to make achieving that goal as hard as possible. You kick the

  • Born to be biased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:40AM (#55464101) Journal

    Transparent bias is always better than lip-service to some mythical notion that journalism is supposed to be totally objective.

    There is no such thing as unbiased news, and news organizations that attempt to portray themselves as such should be most suspect ("Fair and Balanced!")

    Truth is always biased.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Its not that "news" can't be unbiased. Its that a news reporting organization can't be unbiased.

      The first reason it is impossible to be unbiased, even if only the facts are reported, is due to how the stories are presented.

      E.x. Article giving the facts of an abuse against a woman by a man is placed on the front page while abuse against a man by a woman is placed on the back page.

      Or due to lack of resources a story goes unreported.

      These little things create bias. Someone has to decide what gets reported an

  • Anything that has any human input is going to be subjective (aka "biased") in nature. The only goal that's achievable is to make it less biased than others.

  • by Henequencito ( 5138557 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:50AM (#55464181)
    it is well known that jimbo is really good friends with Goma, one of the catalan wiki promoters, which accounts for the hardly neutral treatment of catalonia political crisis on the tribune.
    • by jwales ( 97533 )

      Hi! I actually have no idea why you think that. I had to search in my emails to even find out who "Goma" is.

  • No matter how, you will have to decide to call people freedom fighters and when they are rebels. Or even more subtle, wanting independency or wanting their independency or even not against it.

    Also we now know that there is a difference between facts and opinion. Should opinions be seen as news? When I have one, probably not, when POTUS has one, probably yes. So where is the line?

    So 100% objective and neutral news is not possible. That does not mean you should not try to achieve it, as long as you understand

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:02PM (#55464273)
    reality has a well known liberal bias.
    • I've heard this, but don't understand what he was trying to say. In science, bias is deviation from the truth. In engineering testing, you inject bias into the system to test robustness.
      • the right wing have been complaining about media bias for decades even as the media favors virtually all of their economic policies (tax cuts, the wars which make no mistake are economic, deregulation, unfettered free trade and cheap work visas, etc, etc). Meanwhile those same have tanked the economy for the working class (though the actual elites, the ones making all the money, are doing better than ever). Yeah, the media is a bit left on social issues (gay rights and abortion mostly) but everything else t
  • Too often the standard of evidence in matters of bias boils down to this:

    A circus promises to reform itself, to eliminate the grotesques: the fat woman, the thin man, the midget, the geek, etc.

    Rube Sneergasm promptly visits reformed circus, and later reports back to townies that Barnum is smoking crack: quite obviously, the lion tamer is pudgy and diabetic, one of the acrobats still has a distinctively anorexic pallor, and there was an incriminating pile of rough-hewn chicken heads found in a heap behind th

  • And he supports this claim by providing highlights. Thus proving himself biased, resulting in his being sucked into the Recursion Vortex forever.

    Move along, people, there's nothing to see here.

  • It's fine. Any news aggregator that filters Fox and Breitbart by default is ok by me.

  • A long rant because I feel like it. Got some time to kill. :)

    People really need to get this idea of an allegedly "unbiased news source" out of their head. The news comes from journalists, reporters on the ground with cameras, recording devices and laptops/pencils. They are certainly less biased than "Joe the Plumber", as can be seen from the fact that professional journalists can write for many different journals, but they are certainly only humans with their own thoughts and beliefs. They occasionally ma

  • Include multiple perspectives on every issue. Don't remove them. Leave them there but make it clear that there is controversy on some things. Let people say why they think something is or is not true.

    A lot of the debate that happens under the skin of a wikipedia page is interesting and should be more prominently displayed.

    Here someone might say that would make an "article" very long because instead of just telling one story about an issue it would basically tell all of them from a lot of different perspecti

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Working...