Talk:Media Bias/Fact Check

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media Bias/Fact Check article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 360 days

A fact from Media Bias/Fact Check appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that data from Media Bias/Fact Check was used to train an artificial intelligence machine learning algorithm to identify fake news?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Media Bias/Fact Check.

Wikipedia

"It has been used by both single- and cross-platform studies."

What does that mean and why is it worth noting in this article? --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to better explain what this means and give an idea of why it is relevant. MaryMO (AR) (talk)

Removed from lede - SciReports 2020 ref

Chołoniewski, Jan; Sienkiewicz, Julian; Dretnik, Naum; Leban, Gregor; Thelwall, Mike; Hołyst, Janusz A. (2020). "A calibrated measure to compare fluctuations of different entities across timescales". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 20673. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77660-4. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7691371. PMID 33244096.

I'm not sure what to make of this ref, but using it in the lede with a quote seems very problematic.

The quote seemed to me to be a reasonable summation of what I was seeing overall in the article; yes, some people complain about it, but researchers use it in a bunch of ways.

The quote would be fine within the reference, but we should be summarizing in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are using MBFC as a source of information for their study. They briefly describe why they use it, with seven references. I assume that we're using all seven, but haven't checked yet. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chołoniewski is a nice ref to confirm that "Yes, lots of projects use this in a bunch of ways" but most of those references aren't cited in the Wikipedia article. I checked them; they do indicate that various researchers used MBFC's ratings in some way in their research. But I've only cited ones that say something interesting about the MBFC ratings (e.g. that they compared it with another dataset to validate it.) MaryMO (AR) (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic use of "left/right."

Should it be mentioned in the article that the organization's use of directional labels is based on an internal system and not on how these terms are generally used? I think that would be confusing and possibly misleading to a dangerous extent (e.g., by implying that far left and far right are more biased than left/right and center meaning "least biased," rather than left/right being a binary for the purposes of MBFC) since these terms are already a source of great confusion for people.

I'm not sure exactly how to do this without synthesis. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2462:26D6:EA74:20B6 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slash in name

Isn't this supposed to break something? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 23:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]