Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Crossroads (talk | contribs) re |
||
Line 376:
********And then today, you claimed that no one ever addressed those things. '''[[User:Armadillopteryx|Armadillopteryx]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Armadillopteryx|talk]]</sup> 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Od}}Crossroads, no "blatant falsehoods" have been attributed to PinkNews for which they have not issued retractions. There were no falsehoods about Anne Frank, nor Fox News, nor the Disney villains, nor Star Trek: just WP editors who don't know how to read contemporary culture journalism. And, while objecting to the headline and picture of the article, [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/not-fake-news-but-still-awful-for-other-reasons-analysis-of-two-examples-from-the-echo-chambers-this-week/?v=402f03a963ba Ad Fontes Media] evaluated the Fox story itself as {{tq|% Inaccurate sentences: 0 out of 28 sentences (0%) inaccurate /% Misleading Sentences: 0 out of 12 sentences (0%) are misleading}}. That what most of us mean by "highly misleading" journalism, Crossroads: perhaps you could strive to be more accurate in discussing the reliability of sources. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
:Armadillopteryx, no one had addressed the specific points I mentioned. Newimpartial, regarding [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/not-fake-news-but-still-awful-for-other-reasons-analysis-of-two-examples-from-the-echo-chambers-this-week/?v=402f03a963ba Ad Fontes Media], how about not quoting the bit about ''sentences'' out of context of the other aspects? {{tq|Title Issues - Misleading about underlying facts...Misleading about content of article...Misleading content is sensationalist/clickbait...Graphics Issues - Misleading regarding content of article...Misleading content is sensationalist/clickbait...Image is a stock photo not related to a particular fact in the article...Element Issues: Inaccurate regarding underlying facts...Inaccurate in relation to facts stated in article}}. As for Disney villains: {{tq|In the past few decades, Disney fans have seen Governor Ratcliffe and Professor Ratigan—as well as Scar, Jafar and Hades—being portrayed as queer characters.}} This is based on tweets and their own analysis. Yeah, yeah, I know you can say that it's just talking about "queer coding" and that someone with "cultural literacy" will know how to correctly interpret it. It's still incredibly sloppy and ''false'' and in no way deserves a green at RSP. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', one should be able to differentiate between whats opinion or plain clickbait and whats more objective information. Focuses on a niche and fact checks, I'd probably even say Option 1 if it weren't for the BLP issues it could cause. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">[[User:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Tayi Arajakate'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sub></span> 20:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' on statements of fact; '''Option 2''' use caution or attribute when talking about sensitive matters (such as BLP). [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||