104

[Suggestion] Disallow the use of sources deprecated by the Wikipedia editing community for unreliability (en.m.wikipedia.org)

submitted 2 days ago by Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23066599

Since 2017, Wikipedia editors have compiled a list of news sources from which articles are highly likely to employ systematic bias, lack professional editing and/or journalistic standards, regularly misrepresent sources, and/or fabricate information.

While its list is by no means a complete list of publications with the aforementioned problems, it has helped make Wikipedia articles more reliable by basing them off of sources covering the same events and information from a less biased point of view.

To make Lemmy news communities better than their Reddit counterparts, I think avoiding links to those sources in favor of more reliable alternatives would be worthwhile.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 2 days ago

For those worried about blocking certain viewpoints, it's important to note that the sources on the list aren't there for the unpopularity of their opinions, but rather the frequent publication of misinformation. For instance, Fox News, despite its frequent bias, is not one of the publications on the list.

As others have noted, the list can essentially be summarized as state-sponsored, tabloid, and extremist media outlets that, intentionally or not, have editing standards that result in misinformation on a regular basis.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Making a mental note to come back here later, as I am busy today and this looks important.

If you are too busy to click through, the list is here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

The list itself looks reasonable. Note that on Wikipedia, this is not a blanket ban on discussion, but links that go to those sources generally get removed.

Sounds like a good idea, but I need more time to process the list. It looks like there are tiers to it, not every source is banned outright.

[-] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

There's the Perennial source list here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Also a searchable notice board. Should probably cross check it against things like ground news and other fact checking websites.

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago

Excellent resource, thank you for linking it directly,

& excellent suggestion.

I request that it be put into some site-wide script,

such that if someone uses one of those sources, the script notifies the would-be-poster/commenter that that is an untrustworthy-source, & to please find a trustworthy-source, instead.

This would be like the beginning of an immune-system for Lemmy.world

_ /\ _

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024

104 points (99.1% liked)

politics

18059 readers

2638 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News