Talk:Media Bias/Fact Check/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

COI

Do other people think that there is a lot of COI going on with all the Fact check company articles? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. See below. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"something that Media Bias/Fact Check does admit"

I removed this clause because in the referenced page (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/), they do not say that their "method is in no way scientific", but rather they say, "when determining bias, there isn’t any true scientific formula that is 100% objective." It is grossly misleading to suggest that the latter implies the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.250.40 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So why cite Alexandra Kitty’s critique, by these standards?

The concluding sentence of the first paragraph of "Receptions" currently reads:

Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications. <footnote to her book>

The odd thing is... her own Alibris bio describes her as "an artist, author, and educator who specializes in kintsugi and metalworking." Then what, by her own standards, is she doing critiquing him?

Meanwhile, a degree in communications is perfectly appropriate for a career analyzing the media — as any university offering such a degree will indicate. I'm deleting this curious one-person opinion of at most dubious value to readers. – _•Raven  ^.talk 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Kitty has written at least two books critiquing journalism, from a cursory look at her own website and twitter: "When Journalism was a Thing" and "A New Approach to Journalism". In fact her Amazon page shows 5 books, 4 of which are related to journalism. Her opinion to me seems a valuable thing for readers. All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hipal Can I bug you for a second opinion on adding Alexandra Kitty's quote back in. All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:QUOTE, it was probably undue as presented. If we have clearly better references on the same topic, then I don't see why we'd use her works at all. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Kitty here. This passage always amused and fascinated me, and after emailing this organization several times to clarify what qualification some anonymous person named "Raven" had to make judgements about me, I didn't get anywhere. I do see that "Raven" is an online poet of some kind; so it's funny.

But let's get back to censoring this accurate piece of information about me. Anyone who knows how to use Google can see that I do have a Google Panel right here: https://g.co/kgs/J3wsqA

Now, I was a journalist who wrote about journalism for publications such as Presstime, Editor & Publisher, Current, and Quill. I had two newspaper columns, wrote for trade and newsstand magazines, and won the 2004 Arch Award for career achievement, all which can be found online.

I am also the author of several books about journalism:

Don't Believe It!: How lies become news OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism When Journalism was a Thing The Mind Under Siege: Mechanisms of War Propaganda A New Approach to Journalism.

I had four books published in 2020 alone.

In 2022, I have two more journalism-related books:

Loaded Language and the Dilemma of Journalism Therapeutic Journalism: Presenting Information with Emotional Literacy.

My credentials in journalism are beyond solid.

I just also happen to be an educator and artist who wrote the award-winning The Art of Kintsugi, also published in 2020.

So I am not certain why I am being dismissed as some silly little female who doesn't know journalism. That's quite misogynistic and bigoted. I went into journalism for the express purpose of empirically studying journalism.

For the record, I don't care one way or another if I am mentioned on this website, but if you are going to malign me, make sure you do actual research. Basic online searching will show that I have real qualifications in journalism and know how to do it empirically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Kitty (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexandra Kitty: I am the author in question. If Raven can be a poet and be allowed to edit Wikipedia, then I have the right to be a journalist, author and kintsugi artist. Raven made the comment FIRST. I used his own standards to show he had no argument. I have been interviewed and referenced for my work in scholarly journals. I went into journalism to conduct empirical studies on the weaknesses of the profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Kitty (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop removing fact-checking section of Wikipedia

Just because the owner of MBFC criticized the senior editors of the wiki for removing evidence-based content does not mean that you have the right to remove it. Pathetic 37.99.45.254 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No independent references have been provided that demonstrate it's anything other than WP:SOAP at this point. --Hipal (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by that as there is but a quote sourced from the platform owner, but it keeps getting deleted because "no reliable source has been provided". What? The editor who vandalises this section isn't even on the discussion page, I wonder why 37.99.45.191 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please focus on content. Continued edit-warring and personal attacks lead to you being blocked or banned.

WP:IS states Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.

WP:SOAP states Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've requested the article be protected to stop the edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll stop editing as it no longer makes sense. I appreciate your point of view but can't say I agree with it. Thanks 37.99.45.191 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My "point of view" is policy. If you don't agree with policy, you will find attempts to edit Wikipedia frustrating and futile. --Hipal (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article seems too anti-MBFC. There have been many attempts to add relevant information about the objectivity of the site, but they have all been foiled. The reason for this seems to be the MBFC's review of Wikipedia, where they refer to the Wiki as a source of ambiguous factual information, and the Wiki editors do not like this. Unless more editors contribute to this article, it will remain a possible dispute of neutrality and (ongoing) factual accuracy. 37.99.39.96 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. All the criticism leveled at MBFC seems to come from people who have a vested interest in their own organizations rating, or in competing FC companies. Not to mention they all criticize it for the most mundane, nitpicky reasons possible, or they present dubious sources to argue against it, such as the Poynter Institute using Tweets about it as an authoritative source. Vintage Milk (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

what this article really needs is an update. most of the information is from 2018 or earlier. 99.27.106.23 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is now being challenged. Some reasons:

1) Use of Reuters and The Conversation (members of the IFCN network) - removed by editors because it is "undue"

2) Rating from NewsGuard - removed by editors (for the same reasons)

3) Wiki report by MBFC with quotes from the website's owner - deleted, no valid explanation to this day

4) Removal of statement from article that was based on tweet - reverted

5) Use of MBFC by Nature journal - removed

6) "Fact-checking" has been removed from the introduction because fact-checking is "occasional". This does not make sense

7) Regular users who reported editors for impartiality, COI and edit-warring were simply banned

This is enough to raise the question of whether the article is still neutral 37.99.48.14 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful to identify exact references with links. Quotes may be helpful.

Examples of use generally should not be in this article, unless independent references support them somehow. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review identified Media Bias/Fact Check as "an armchair media analysis." Additionally, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in"

Oh the irony of Wikipedia saying this about them. 223.25.58.16 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section is rather pointless

The ONLY source for the one complaint in the Criticism section is a competing organisation in the area of fact checking. It's like including a comment from General Motors in the Chrysler article. I know nothing of the relative merits of either company, but this section doesn't convince me of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be noted that the criticisms are all from 2018 or before. It is 2022 and clearly the website is no longer an amateur operation. There is also highly misleading out of context information on this page. From the page they state Van Zandt admits he is not an expert and that "his methods are not rigorously objective." This quote makes it seem like it is coming from Van Zandt. It is not. It is coming from a book where the author does make that statement, but then goes on to praise MBFC for their value. Why focus on that statement rather than this expert linguist's assertion that MBFC is "crucial" and a "genuine site dedicated to helping readers." It seems the editor of this Wiki is willfully attempting to hurt MBFC, while ignoring their perfect score with Newsguard, etc. This is why Wikipedia is not trusted. Tommythecat69 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note: the quotation "his methods are not rigorously objective" is given in a book and stated to have come from the Solender (2018) article that I have now cited on the page. That article doesn't contain the quotation. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent expansion

I'm having difficulty making sense of some of the edits in the recent expansion, especially this removal of content from the Reception section combined with a major change to the lede. - Hipal (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal: I agree with you that there are problems with recent changes.

• I have problems with the Poynter article on two counts: First this is a direct quote and therefore a copyvio "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." and second, it you follow the links in the quote, one goes to a 404 and the other to a tweet about the Iffy quotient, neither of which seems substantive. It seems to me that what is being quoted is nothing more than an unsupported opinion.
• The Scientific Reports seems to me to be a very effective summary of opinions and therefore suitable to the lede. I would argue that it should be restored.
• I would also argue that the following is highly relevant to the lede and should be restored:

Scientific studies using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017, with NewsGuard and with BuzzFeed journalists.

• Finally, the sentences about the Columbia Journalism Review seem to me to give undue weight to the point of being intentionally misleading. The statements made are from one op ed article, which reflects the views of its author "freelance journalist and researcher Tamar Wilner". They are not any sort of official statement of the Columbia Journalism Review, whch is how they are currently being presented. Further, they should be dated to indicate when they were made, 2018. I suggest returning that edit to the version that was given previously. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and thank you for finding the new refs. I agree that the lede should be changed to properly summarize what we decide to include in the article.

We should look at all the refs more carefully. I'm concerned that some of these references may be poor.

I see in the talk page history that @Thenightaway: made a case for including the Poynter ref, assuming it's the same one.

I don't believe the CJR piece is an op ed. Is it identified as such? --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

* You're right about my use of the term "op-ed" being incorrect, I've struck it for "article" above. I've also put back the two sections of the lede that we've agreed on. I'm going to try to get hold of the Albarracín book, to see the context in which they repeat the Tamar Wilner quote. I still think that implying that her comments represent the views of the Columbia Journalism Review is highly inappropriate. Many thanks, MaryMO (AR) (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

* BTW, do you have any idea of why the talk page history is archived the way it is? There don't seem to be a large number of comments, and they seem to be particularly hard to find. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

References

"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)

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