-3 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Where’s the critique coming from? The Wiki seems to have nothing but positive things to say. Might be an error. Ironic.

Scientific studies[23] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[8] with NewsGuard[9] and with BuzzFeed journalists.[10] When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

It’s from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Bias/Fact_Check

There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.

I think the perennial sources list gets a lot more attention than the wiki page for MBFC itself, and probably the standards for judging it reliable are higher.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I read that. My best guess is that this is either an error that hasn’t been updated in light of empirical studies corroborating MBFC’s reliability, or more likely any self-published list gets the “unreliable” sticker automatically.

Also, making claims about “a consensus” without sourcing these claims is mighty suspicious. Disappointed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They’re saying the parts mbfc uses other data from is fine, like the fact checking matching others as they all use the same source. But the rest like bias can’t be trusted as it’s just their own unscientific methods.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Tell me you have no idea how Wikipedia works, without telling me you have no idea.

You’re putting trust in the stuff that doesn’t mean very much, and "best guess"ing that the stuff that is dependable is not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Personally, I’m just extremely irked that they refer to Wikipedia as “Wiki” when 1. that’s not a proper noun 2. WP is right there

(don’t swat my house with a slideshow, matt mullenweg, pretty please)

permalink
report
reply
-2 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Sure, use something that already stands for WordPress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

context matters

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

What does it say? I blocked that stupid bot ages ago.

permalink
report
reply
53 points
*

They added a line to the bot that includes Wikipedia’s stance on a source. And Wikipedia doesn’t consider MBFC to be reliable, so the bot reports that.

If you scroll below that, MBFC rates themselves as maximally reliable, which I’m sure is based off of a rigorous and completely neutral assessment.

Edit: although, reading the links in question they don’t seem to correspond to what the bot is saying. Perhaps this is some sort of mistake in how it was coded.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

It’s not a mistake, just confusing UX. The text in question comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBFC

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

It doesn’t though. Or at least, I didn’t see anything resembling that on that page. If you can find it, let me know. It’s possible I missed it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The post links both The Guardian and MBFC. The bot has picked up both links and posted the following (verbatim):


Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.


MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America


The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-ukraine-lloyd-austin
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.

MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.

Good stuff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Hahahah, so it’s becoming self aware about how shit it is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

It hurt itself in its confusion

permalink
report
reply
10 points

I see this as an absolute win

Next up just make the info glean-friendly

permalink
report
parent
reply

BestOfLemmy

!bestoflemmy@lemmy.world

Create post

Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads

Community stats

  • 509

    Monthly active users

  • 98

    Posts

  • 674

    Comments