Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source.
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.
Well stated. The problem that the blanket ban on one source introduces is that it becomes a divisive issue. The source and faction that subscribes then believes Wikipedia has lost its objectivity (even if it is trying to maintain the truth). The faction then just starts saying Wikipedia is biased and discounts it as a credible source that speaks the truth universally. To be clear I am not saying that the non-truth should be considered in Wikipedia - I am saying that I like what the parent suggests. Wikipedia should look for a more broad application of standards for sources, as the parent suggests flagging universally around citations not meeting standard, etc.
> [...] news orgs are wrong from time to time, and that is a fact
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.
> Maybe this speaks more about how Wikipedia works than quality of Breitbart as a source.
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.
> 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
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.
When the signal to noise ratio is so low, and the time cost of continually reviewing references and arguing with the right wing article brigadiers is so high, banning the troublesome source is a simple way of ensuring the available editor time is spent constructively.
For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct. Everybody has something they hate about Wikipedia, but the general gist is that they're more or less credible. Alternative encyclopedic efforts are totally fringe and/or money-making scams like Everipedia.
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.
As is sometimes said in management theory "it was a great measure until it was made a target".
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".
Eh, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Many people treat Wikipedia as credible for most topics, but wherever there's a controversy (especially a political one), at least one side of it will probably be skeptical of Wikipedia's coverage of said controversy.
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:
> Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct.
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.
> 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."
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.
A funny thing I have noticed about Wikipedia is that although citing Wikipedia itself in an academic paper is still not a good idea generally speaking, the references provided in a Wikipedia article are usually far more relevant than the ones provided in a typical IEEE paper.
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.
>Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct.
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.
> 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."
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".
That depends a lot on the topic. I've seen articles on Wikipedia that were ridiculously wrong and couldn't be corrected for some byzantine reasons. For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes.
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?
> For all their flaws, Wikipedia is one of the few web information sources that are globally accepted as more or less correct.
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
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.
Unpopular opinion: Sometimes Breitbart does have useful info. They were the only ones who had the full leak of the Google all-hands that was definitely newsworthy, for example. Discard that and you missed some useful info. You canot just color publications as "good" and "not". This sort of maximalism (seeing the world in black and white) is rarely good long term. Almost everything in the world has a use.
If sources which occasionally play lose with facts or spin are to be banned from Wikipedia some mainstream news outlets should probably go as well.
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.
Breitbart is actually quite accurate, I'd say it's no more misleading than any other mainstream publication. I'd wager that most people here don't actually read the website yet hold strong opinions on its reporting, which in itself is sad.
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.
> 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.
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.
>If you are into news and being informed, leaving off sites like breitbart from regular perusal is a mistake. They often bring up facts and perspectives considered unimportant by other outlets. Even infowars has its uses, if for nothing else other than entertainment value.
I am not from US so I have no bias in this case, do you mean that I should check sites that I consider to be garbage because they sometimes may bring some story that other sites won't?
Are you doing this? Do you read garbage articles, do you watch acient allients shows, read about flat earth etc ? Because when I notice that soem news site went in the bad direction(clickbait and other garbage) I will not waste my time to find a diamond in tons of garbage, it is not my fault they have that much garbage
"Entertainment value" is about the only thing Breitbart could have going for it, if you find that kind of thing entertaining.
It has no place on Wikipedia.
Also, why put "article" in scare quotes? Its pretty unambiguously an "article". That's not a good way to try to deligitimize the OP, if that's what you're going for. You should have stuck to your point about being open-minded, though I would add the "but don't let your brains fall out" postscript.
I'm astonished they accepted Breitbart in the first place. When I first heard about it, I checked it out and literally the first discussion in their comment section was about how to most efficiently gas the maximum number of jews in the US. I'm not kidding.
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 making an extraordinary claim here. Care to provide a link backing it up? If not, this is just a slur.
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...
It seems unhelpful to write off Breitbart readers as unaware of reality. They may be uncritical readers of the news, and they may have deplorable beliefs, but many sane, rational people believe terrible things. Or they're willing to associate with people who believe terrible things to further their own agenda, and be complicit in those terrible things.
I get the joke, but it is worth clarifying that schools don’t ban it because it’s unreliable, but because it’s a secondary source. It’s done to teach sourcing discipline.
I'm a college professor and I tell students they shouldn't cite wikipedia because they shouldn't be citing any encyclopedias (except something like a legal encyclopedia or something like that) because they should look for primary sources. However, I tell them to go read wikipedia and look at the sources cited in a wikipedia article.
[+] [-] HissingMachine|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rubyfan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|7 years ago|reply
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.
[1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
[+] [-] rlpb|7 years ago|reply
Based on this criterion, are there any credible news organizations left?
[+] [-] exolymph|7 years ago|reply
having worked in journalism, hahahhahhahhahahhhahhahahaha
[+] [-] liftbigweights|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] forapurpose|7 years ago|reply
If Wikipedia then uses that news organization as a source, isn't it in effect using the same standard?
[+] [-] rstuart4133|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] manicdee|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavlov|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] roenxi|7 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] CM30|7 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] DanBC|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] enriquto|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ta_egdhs|7 years ago|reply
wikipedia could collapse under the weight of being the internets authority of epistemology.
[+] [-] gajjanag|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] koboll|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] coolso|7 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] exolymph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] repolfx|7 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] barry-cotter|7 years ago|reply
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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism
[+] [-] writepub|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#cite_ref...
That whole entry is compiled of highly questionable sources.
Seems like a massive double standard.
[+] [-] TarpitCarnivore|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dmitrygr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mythrwy|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] justtopost|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foolzcrow|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grey-sunshine|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] billysielu|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] YouOkOrNot|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] orf|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] imh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e40|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ohhellno|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] billysielu|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tomohawk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] simion314|7 years ago|reply
I am not from US so I have no bias in this case, do you mean that I should check sites that I consider to be garbage because they sometimes may bring some story that other sites won't? Are you doing this? Do you read garbage articles, do you watch acient allients shows, read about flat earth etc ? Because when I notice that soem news site went in the bad direction(clickbait and other garbage) I will not waste my time to find a diamond in tons of garbage, it is not my fault they have that much garbage
[+] [-] wffurr|7 years ago|reply
It has no place on Wikipedia.
Also, why put "article" in scare quotes? Its pretty unambiguously an "article". That's not a good way to try to deligitimize the OP, if that's what you're going for. You should have stuck to your point about being open-minded, though I would add the "but don't let your brains fall out" postscript.
[+] [-] JohnStrangeII|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tomohawk|7 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] ohhellno|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] foolzcrow|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blahblahthrow|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfschell|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beshrkayali|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arthev|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danpalmer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccalhoun|7 years ago|reply