Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bucolic_frolic

(42,663 posts)
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:07 AM Apr 2017

Wikipedia founder aims to 'fix the news' with collaborative website

Source: Reuters

The new platform, called Wikitribune, will be free to access and carry no advertising, instead relying on its readers to fund it, while the accuracy of news reports will be easily verifiable as source material will be published, Wales said.

"The news is broken, but we've figured out how to fix it," he said in a promotional video posted on the website's homepage.

The online proliferation of fake news, some of it generated for profit and some for political ends, became a major topic of angst and debate in many developed countries during last year's U.S. presidential election.

Wales argued in his video that because people expected to get news for free on the Internet, news sites were reliant on advertising money, which created strong incentives to generate so-called "clickbait", catchy headlines to attract viewers.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-wikitribune-idUSKBN17R11K



The political middle, common sense, Americans, are asserting themselves in
many ways. There is no downside to reality, logic, science, middle-of-the-road
thinking. In fact it's what civilizations rely on.
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wikipedia founder aims to 'fix the news' with collaborative website (Original Post) bucolic_frolic Apr 2017 OP
The concept sounds promising. Girard442 Apr 2017 #1
Plus Russian trolls and bots. Ligyron Apr 2017 #7
Based on the content model, it doesn't sound like it. Massacure Apr 2017 #19
What we need is real unbiased news singed.dude Apr 2017 #2
Like our politicians, we need to keep the money out! Dustlawyer Apr 2017 #8
Exactly. JudyM Apr 2017 #17
Sounds good canetoad Apr 2017 #3
They are going live in 29 days! PearliePoo2 Apr 2017 #4
Yay for WikiTribune! Your paragraph of commentary is spot on, but one counterpoint Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2017 #5
You raise a very good point FakeNoose Apr 2017 #21
I remain skeptical of self-appointed news gate-keepers. Many sources are ridiculed and worse, simply WinkyDink Apr 2017 #6
I remember a conservative once dismissed the Encyclopedia Britannica for having a "liberal bias." tclambert Apr 2017 #10
See, the problem is that KNOWLEDGE has a LIBERAL BIAS! :-) WinkyDink Apr 2017 #16
This is a Wiki, not "self-appointed gate-keepers". It will have multiple check & balances. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2017 #22
How are they gonna keep the trolls from spoiling the news? tclambert Apr 2017 #9
What I predict (I hope I'm wrong, BTW) is that the problem won't be "fake news" as much as Coventina Apr 2017 #15
Thom Hartmann reported on his radio program not fooled Apr 2017 #26
This will get BOMBARDED with trolls. I am not optimistic. n/t Coventina Apr 2017 #11
They have years of experience dealing with the worst trolls can offer. Nitram Apr 2017 #13
That's what I'm thinking. I wonder if they could partner with snopes ... JudyM Apr 2017 #18
If anybody can provide a clearinghouse for distinguishing fake news from real Nitram Apr 2017 #12
Framing it as "fixing the news"... SpicyBoi Apr 2017 #14
Sounds fishy to me.... jazzcat23 Apr 2017 #20
I think you do not know how the Wikipedia model works in practice and why it is so effective. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2017 #23
footnotes on wiki makes it easy to remove the fishy odor! Sunlei Apr 2017 #25
YAY I love Wikipedia and free news :) Sunlei Apr 2017 #24
They'd have to purge all the paid shills first. tenorly Apr 2017 #27
More aggregation jayschool2013 Apr 2017 #28
What source material is he speaking of as "being published" karynnj Apr 2017 #29
How much should we trust Wikipedia? m.summers Jun 2017 #30
The devil is in the details Brother Buzz Jun 2017 #31

Girard442

(6,059 posts)
1. The concept sounds promising.
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:24 AM
Apr 2017

It would be nice to have actual news in the news. Of course, if it gets to the stage where it begins to actually work, it will then have to survive intense attacks by the politicians and the existing media.

Massacure

(7,497 posts)
19. Based on the content model, it doesn't sound like it.
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 10:53 PM
Apr 2017

From the sounds of it, articles will be written by 10 professional journalist as well as a number of volunteers.

singed.dude

(42 posts)
2. What we need is real unbiased news
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:44 AM
Apr 2017

We need news that is:

free from money-driven, profit-oriented bias;

not afraid of covering and discussing any issue, whether it's net-neutrality, the fossil fuel industry, climate change, politics, political candidates that don't fit the corporate mold, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care industry, the military-industrial complex, etc.; and

free from fake news.

Have I missed anything?



JudyM

(29,122 posts)
17. Exactly.
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:46 PM
Apr 2017

And then we just need to fix the election process/voting equipment, and we'll be a good democracy.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,784 posts)
5. Yay for WikiTribune! Your paragraph of commentary is spot on, but one counterpoint
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:54 AM
Apr 2017
The political middle, common sense, Americans, are asserting themselves in
many ways. There is no downside to reality, logic, science, middle-of-the-road
thinking. In fact it's what civilizations rely on.


Thanks! However, ... "middle-of-the-road thinking" can be very limiting. It is what reinforces white male privilege and all the old "norms" that strangle any kind of diversity and, dare we say it, deviancy. LGBTQ, muslims, disabled people, visible minorities, victims of sexual harassment & rape, and many groups and sub-groups know this very well.

It can also be limiting to scientific extension. The Schopenhauer quote is a propos:

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident."

The Copernican / Galilean theory of the Solar System was ridiculed, opposed and then accepted. Same thing for Darwin's theory of natural selection (evolution) and Mendel's theory of genetics. Gradualism in geology went through the same stages and then Catastrophism made a comeback as applied to special circumstances and it in turn went through the same stages. Even Bill Gates thought for years that 64 KB would be good enough for any personal computer, so much so that he hard-wired it into his operating system and ridiculed people who thought they'd need more. He said that no 9,000 line program like Java was going change the way Microsoft did things and now Java in the form of the Android operating system is deployed in more computers than all Microsoft OS's. Middle of the road thinking even led Thomas Watson of IBM to state in the 1940s that there might be a need for only 5 electronic computers in the whole of the USA.

So, in some areas middle of the road thinking is great (like the consensus on Climate Change). Elsewhere, not so great.

FakeNoose

(32,334 posts)
21. You raise a very good point
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 10:10 AM
Apr 2017

...that the point of view of any publication or news outlet reflects that of the owner who is usually a white male. However it sounds like this project will be run by a committee of 10 professional journalists, who are hopefully going to reflect many different points of view. It seems that they'll be looking for "volunteers" who could possibly be college interns or perhaps people with credentials in the news business.

I'm going to keep an open mind and see what they're trying to do. It does seem like a hopeful start. Maybe it will inspire others to try the same thing.


 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
6. I remain skeptical of self-appointed news gate-keepers. Many sources are ridiculed and worse, simply
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 08:43 AM
Apr 2017

because a majority is scornful.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Yeah. Reported by "legitimate" news: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0807.html

EXCEPT:
http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/
"By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media…leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a “deliberate attack” on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or how we had to wait until "The Pentagon Papers" and a trial to learn the truth of our involvement in Vietnam.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon-Papers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Never mind what we'd never have learned if not for the "unnamed source" called "Deep Throat."



tclambert

(11,080 posts)
10. I remember a conservative once dismissed the Encyclopedia Britannica for having a "liberal bias."
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 09:10 AM
Apr 2017

That was about Vietnam, too. I was reminding him that Nixon first used the term "Vietnamization" in 1969 and began reducing the number of US troops there from then on. I cited numerous sources, including two different encyclopedias. He denied it, insisting that the war only ended because Democrats passed a law in 1973 to defund the war. Any evidence, any sources to back that up? No, of course not, just his memory of some propaganda he heard somewhere.

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
9. How are they gonna keep the trolls from spoiling the news?
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 09:02 AM
Apr 2017

I hope they can. Yet I recall how at least twice the supporters of Sarah Palin tried to rewrite history in Wikipedia. The first was the article on Sarah Palin herself. They tried to pump up her resume and edit out anything negative. The second time was when she revealed her massive ignorance of Paul Revere's ride, "Shootin' those guns and ringin' those bells." They tried to rewrite the article on Revere to twist it into something almost supportive of her erroneous assertions.

Coventina

(26,844 posts)
15. What I predict (I hope I'm wrong, BTW) is that the problem won't be "fake news" as much as
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 10:07 AM
Apr 2017

trolls, paid operatives, state-run programs, etc. subtly manipulating content.

I know this still happens on Wikipedia, as people I know have made edits to articles that have never been caught. (Nothing of import, just little things to tweak their friends and such).

I am not optimistic about open-sourcing the news, no matter how "powerful" Wikipedia claims to be.

Remember the Twitter AI that became racist in a few hours?

not fooled

(5,791 posts)
26. Thom Hartmann reported on his radio program
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 11:06 AM
Apr 2017

visiting a RW location in Washington (forget whether it was a "think tank" or other office) and seeing a bank of computers staffed by guys who were editing Wikipedia entries. The result: biased search results and entries re-written to favor RW crackpot ideology.

So, yeah, the pukes, kochbots etc. will be all over this trying to catapult the propaganda.

Still, it's a great idea and sorely needed.

Nitram

(22,663 posts)
13. They have years of experience dealing with the worst trolls can offer.
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 09:57 AM
Apr 2017

Sometimes a troll breaks through, but it is a temporary event that is quickly dealt with.

Nitram

(22,663 posts)
12. If anybody can provide a clearinghouse for distinguishing fake news from real
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 09:56 AM
Apr 2017

...it is Wikipedia. They have done an awesome job providing objective facts on almost everything.

jazzcat23

(176 posts)
20. Sounds fishy to me....
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:23 AM
Apr 2017

"fix the news?" as in re-write it so it sounds 'smooth', or more realistic? No, won't be putting any faith in this venture. Even though it sounds like some kind of solution, it most likely will migrate into something like "state propaganda" in the end. Like what the Chinese are told, the Koreans, etc. by their "state" leaders. Which is propaganda....
You want true news, go to BBC, we will hear what the rest of the world sees and hears. Until trumps gone, there will be very little actual news coming our of our tv's from corporate media. However, if the money factor is removed, there may be a chance. Do you really think that's going to happen?

tenorly

(2,037 posts)
27. They'd have to purge all the paid shills first.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 11:11 AM
Apr 2017

And how do they propose to do that? They're very active, and for the most part have learned how to game Wikipedia.

Lots of alt-right shills too. 'Dalton Castle' is probably the worst.

jayschool2013

(2,309 posts)
28. More aggregation
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:10 PM
Apr 2017

More aggregation/curation of news doesn't mean more resources for the actual reporters who are on the front lines gathering and producing the original material.

How will this allow the NY Times or the Washington Post to produce original news that Wikitribune can then aggregate/curate and post? I hope part of their reader-funded model includes money to those organizations that are actually reporting and not just aggregating.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
29. What source material is he speaking of as "being published"
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:35 PM
Apr 2017

There is already a wealth of primary source material available. Where most people could not easily get a complete transcript of an open government hearing - they are now easily available for anyone to watch. Everything said is then in context.

However -- as many might say -- that is the government speaking in public. We do not know what is said behind closed doors -- though we often get multiple conflicting leaks. Not to mention, what about things that happen in places like Syria. Which accounts there do you give weight to --- RT rarely agrees with the US government -- and Press (Iran's) or the White Helmets have their conflicting accounts as well. Which would Wikitribune publish?

We did all see how completely unbiased they were in 2016! (NOT - in case the sarcasm would be missed)

m.summers

(6 posts)
30. How much should we trust Wikipedia?
Tue Jun 6, 2017, 10:58 AM
Jun 2017

Among 2,000 British adults, 64 per cent trust Wikipedia entries to tell the truth “a great deal” or “a fair amount”; compared to 61 per cent for Auntie.
Unfortunately, we now live in the age of the crowd, when we have more faith in what others think collectively than what we are told by the experts. In fact, the crowd is the new expert. And Wikipedia’s editors or “Wikipedians” as they call themselves are openly critical and politically committed when you touch special interest groups....

Brother Buzz

(36,212 posts)
31. The devil is in the details
Tue Jun 6, 2017, 01:15 PM
Jun 2017

Often, one can glean a ton of information by examining the 'edits' on a hot-button issue (just looking at the number of recent edits is a huge indicator of a spin game in progress). And to their credit, Wikipedia’s editors lock the really hot ones, then clean them up with their committee of 'Blue ribbon' contributes who are committed to the truth by systematically differentiating facts from opinions.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Wikipedia founder aims to...