Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen

Suche

Beiträge, die mit usPolitics getaggt sind


The right’s frequent claims that right-leaning sources and viewpoints are “banned” on Wikipedia are also either misguided or intentionally deceptive.

#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
Source reliability
A common complaint from Larry Sanger and others on the right has been Wikipedia's supposed “banning” of right-leaning sources. The reality is more complex: Wikipedia’s source reliability guidelines focus on accuracy and editorial practices, not political alignment. For instance, when the Daily Mail was deprecated as a source in 2017, it wasn’t because of its right-wing stance, but because of documented cases where it published false stories without correction, fabricated quotes, and manipulated images.30 Meanwhile, right-leaning publications with stronger fact-checking practices, like The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph, remain widely used across Wikipedia.

These nuances often get lost in politically-charged discussions about Wikipedia source reliability. Take the case of Fox News: while its opinion programming is generally considered unreliable due to numerous documented falsehoods, its straight news reporting is often deemed acceptable for topics outside of politics and science. Similarly, while the New York Post is considered unreliable for political coverage due to its tabloid approach and history of fabrications, it’s still sometimes used for entertainment coverage.
To reduce repetitive conversations about commonly cited sources, Wikipedia maintains a list of “perennial sources” — publications that are frequently used, and whose reliability is a recurring topic of time-consuming discussions about source usability.g The list segments publications from “generally reliable in its areas of expertise” to “generally unreliable” (use is normally not acceptable) or, more rarely, “deprecated” (use is rarely acceptable). However, source reliability is still taken case-by-case on Wikipedia, depending heavily on not just the publisher and its editorial practices, but also the statements a citation is intended to support, and the specifics of the article being cited. There are articles published in “generally reliable” publications that shouldn’t be used as sources on Wikipedia, and there are articles published in “generally unreliable” or even “deprecated” publications that are reasonably used as sources.

This controversial page documenting the general view of reliability for some popular publications is anything but the canonical list of “approved” or “banned” sources many of its critics claim it to be. Whether a source is usable on Wikipedia is a case-by-case decision, as the page itself makes clear:

What this page is a list of sources whose suitability for most/general purposes has been discussed repeatedly What this page is not a list of pre-approved sources that can be always used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing a list of ba
There also tends to be a common misconception, or perhaps deception, that only right-leaning sources are labeled unreliable, and only left-leaning sources reliable. While there are more unreliable sources on the list that lean far to the right than to the left, this is a product of the “post-truth” willingness on the right to publish falsehoods that are anywhere from reckless to intentionally fabricated. Organizations like One America News Network, Newsmax, and Project Veritas — all of which have repeatedly published false claims — have made their way onto the list thanks to this predilection. This is not an exclusively right-wing phenomenon — I myself found myself embroiled in long discussions several years ago about whether a very liberal website should be described as “fake news” on Wikipedia (and it is, as of writing) — but it’s far more common on the right.

A mere glance at the perennial sources list is enough to disprove the suggestion that it slices cleanly along right/left lines. Left-wing publications like CounterPunch, the Daily Kos, and Occupy Democrats are in the “unreliable” list. Both right-leaning publications like National Review and Washington Examiner and the left-leaning Media Matters for America, Rolling Stone, and ThinkProgress are labeled “partisan sources”. And right-leaning outlets like The Telegraph, The Hill, Reason, and the Wall Street Journal have earned spots in the “generally reliable” section.
Claims that Wikipedia systematically excludes right-wing viewpoints also ignore how differing viewpoints are handled on the project. When covering controversial topics, Wikipedia editors are expected to describe significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources — even when those viewpoints are outside the mainstream. For example, Wikipedia's article on climate change includes skeptical positions, but cites them primarily through scientific publications and other reliable coverage rather than through fringe publications or those with poor reputations for fact-checking and scientific rigor. Similarly, articles about electoral fraud claims cite Trump supporters’ perspectives, but through court filings and reliable reporting rather than through sources that have repeatedly published debunked claims. Scratch the surface, and complaints that Wikipedia does not describe these viewpoints at all are often revealed to be complaints that Wikipedia does not adopt these viewpoints as true, or treat widely debunked hypotheses with similar weight as broad scientific consensus.


Attacks on press freedom and free expression have become commonplace, even among the right’s self-described free speech champions. But neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone on the right can control Wikipedia as they wish.

#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
Control
The rise of the MAGA right in the United States has sparked some startling changes in attitudes towards press freedom and freedom of expression. Although many on the right, including Musk,1819 have styled themselves as valiant defenders of free speech, their actions expose them as opposite: only willing to defend speech they find agreeable, while hostile towards and desperate to clamp down on criticism or opposing views. Musk, for example, has directed that “cisgender” be blocklisted on Twitter as a “slur”, and posts by most accounts that contain the word are automatically hidden from view (unlike posts containing the long list of slurs he has apparently deemed acceptable).20 He has brought SLAPP lawsuits against critics, including one dismissed by a federal judge as clearly intended to “punish [the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate] for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. [Twitter] — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”21 He spent $44 billion to acquire Twitter, ostensibly over concerns that conservative voices were being unfairly silenced, but really so that he could be the one to dictate which speech was and was not allowed on the platform.

Similar attacks on speech are becoming only more common throughout the American right, with president-elect Trump’s longstanding hostility to the media escalating at a rapid clip. In recent months, Trump has suggested he wouldn’t mind if reporters were shot,
But neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone on the right can control Wikipedia as they wish. A 2022 tweet from a New York Post reporter, musing about how much Musk would have to spend to buy Wikipedia, was met with a clear rebuke from Jimmy Wales: “Not for sale.”28 The site later echoed the sentiment in its fundraising appeals, nodding at the idea that Musk should just “buy Wikipedia” like he did with Twitter when it reassured potential donors that “there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground.”

Attempts to coerce changes to Wikipedia’s content via the legal system would likely fall flatter than lawsuits Musk and his ilk have threatened or filed against critics, because the Wikimedia Foundation has proven itself remarkably willing to fight back against formidable adversaries. In 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation denied Turkey’s attempts to force the site to alter information about the Turkish government’s support for terrorist organizations. When Turkey blocked Wikipedia access in response, the Foundation took the case to the Turkish supreme court, and access was restored in January 2020 after the court ruled the ban violated human rights to freedom of expression. The Foundation has likewise resisted threats from the United States, refusing to submit to legal threats from the FBI in 2010 after they demanded Wikipedia stop using an image of the FBI seal,29 and in 2015 filing suit against the NSA over its upstream mass surveillance program
This isn't to say Wikipedia is impervious to influence. While obvious vandalism and heavy-handed manipulation attempts typically fail quickly, more subtle influence campaigns can succeed, at least for a time, by working within Wikipedia's rules and social dynamics. Coordinated editing campaigns have sometimes pushed biased content, particularly in areas of the project that attract less attention. Governments have been accused of attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor their interests or spread propaganda, while paid editing firms have manipulated articles about corporations and politicians. But Wikipedia's transparency makes manipulation visible and correctable: every edit is publicly logged, discussed, and reversible. And a decree by a government or billionaire does not ultimately determine what content stays or goes.

While some news outlets and other entities have proven willing to back down in the face of threats and demands from powerful figures (or has lacked the resources to do anything but), Wikipedia has not. This resilience against control helps explain why figures like Musk find Wikipedia so infuriating. They can buy platforms, threaten lawsuits, or pressure advertisers, but they cannot simply purchase or coerce control over Wikipedia.


Musk’s recent Twitter rampage reveals a man with a grudge against Wikipedia, looking for anything to support his position, regardless of whether it’s true. But why have Musk and others on the right chosen Wikipedia as a favorite punching bag?

#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol


Then, Musk amplified an erroneous and months-outdated claim that Bill Clinton had been deleting information about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein from Wikipedia.

#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
Then, in the early hours of December 31, Musk reposted a video from a self-described “Conspiracy Realist/Coincidence analyser” account, “@BGatesIsaPsycho”, which had in turn taken the video from antisemitic conspiracy theoristc and self-described “OSINT journalis[t] exposing globalism” Ian Carroll. “No more donations to Wikipedia until they start being truthful”, Musk added, atop a video where Carroll claimed that “someone deleted all of Bill Clinton’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein from Wikipedia”, suggesting that Clinton himself was behind the edits. This, again, was a complete misrepresentation: the text was moved, not deleted, and not likely by Bill Clinton.d If Carroll had cared to look at the public article editing history, he would have seen that the extremely long biographical article on Clinton was in fact split678 — as overlong articles often are9 — into separate subtopic articles, “Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations” and “Post-presidency of Bill Clinton”, both of which are linked from the primary page. The Epstein-related section was restored to the primary Clinton article by a different editor three weeks later,10 shortly after Carroll published his video but months before Musk reshared it.


Recent tweets by Elon Musk, Libs of Tiktok, Mario Nawfal, and others have claimed that Wikipedia is spending “$50 million for DEI”, misrepresenting Wikipedia’s actual budget and financial statements to claim Wikipedia is now “Wokepedia”.

#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
First was Chaya Raichik, also known as “Libs of TikTok,” who on December 23 screenshotted a pie chart of budget categories from the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2023–2024 annual plan.1 Apparently not bothering to read past the labels, Raichik dashed off a tweet condemning the Foundation for spending $50 million on “diversity, equity, and inclusion”,a the right’s latest bogeyman, and urging her own substantial follower base to “Stop donating to Wokepedia”.2b Musk agreed, amplifying her post with the comment: “Stop donating to Wokepedia until they restore balance to their editing authority.”3

[Image: Pie chart from Wikimedia’s annual plan, breaking down the budget by goal categories: Infrastructure, Equity, Safety & Inclusion, Effectiveness.]
That the “safety & inclusion” link is not purple in this screenshot taken from Raichik’s tweet suggests she didn’t even bother to visit the page to determine what that category encompasses.

a.
“DEI” has been a recent addition to “CRT”, “wokeness”, and other dogwhistles used by conservatives and those further to the right to gesture at, and broadly oppose, racial and gender equality.5455

b.
Rightwingers trying to come up with a slur against Wikipedia should really have considered something that doesn’t so closely overlap with Wookieepedia, a near-homograph that predates the “Wokepedia” coinage by twenty years, which makes me do a double take every time. For those who aren’t familiar,
Two days later, Musk retweeted Mario Nawfal, who had ripped off Raichik’s same post to produce his own, with the bold and all-caps headline “Wikipedia blows $50M on wokeness”. Nawfal added, “That’s $50 million for DEI instead of, you know, improving the actual site. … Sure, inclusion is nice, but maybe they could use some of that money to ensure they’re a reliable source of information first? Just a thought.”4

What Nawfal, Raichik, and Musk either failed to understand or deliberately misrepresented was that these budget categories they’ve dismissed as “DEI” directly support Wikipedia’s reliability. The funding goes to programs to expand coverage of underrepresented topics, recruit editors with expertise in neglected subject areas, develop tools to identify and counter coordinated disinformation campaigns, improve article and source reliability, and protect the project and its editors from attempts to censor or restrict access to Wikipedia content. Far from detracting from Wikipedia’s mission, these programs work to directly address the types of concerns Musk and others raise.5


Inhaltswarnung: uspol, killing, terrorism


Amy Siskind: “Now it makes sense: another billionaire fanboy of Trump bought Time Magazine. The new owner is Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce. He has been pushing Trump forever. This is why people are losing trust in our media. 😡😡”
#Media #MainstreamMedia #CorruptMedia #USPOL #USpolitics #Politics #TimeMagazine #Salesforce


I can't recall ever before feeling this much dread and concern at the turning of the year. This used to be my favorite holiday. I pray that I am completely and totally wrong about what's to come for the US and the world in 2025.

#NYE #BirdFlu #USPolitics


Rounding up migrants. Lists of “friendly” sheriffs. Debating political assassinations. Internal messages reveal one American militia's journey from Jan. 6 through the tumultuous lead-up to the 2024 election.

Our third most-read story this year (published Aug.): https://propub.li/41TEjbE

#News #Journalism #USPolitics #Election2024 #Jan6 #Militia


The South African Fascist has been censoring progressives for years, but NBC has such massive Pro-Regime Bias that it never occurred to them to mention that.

Now that there are right wing victims suddenly it's headline worthy.

#NBC #USPolitics #Elon #Musk #ElonMusk #TheCons #Journalism #Media #ShitMedia #Bias #Clowns #USpolitics #FascistEnablers #GOP #resistance #FascistTakover #ProRegimePropaganda #ProRegimeBias


In the West simply has no one to negotiate with. So, Russia – burn them!
#Western #politics is always #lie and #fraud
Your Conscience


The last of the honest #liberals.

"When asked how #fascism starts, Betrand Russell replied: I'm a fucking Liberal, and it's usually us who open the door and call fascism a "lesser evil" out of the fear we feel for revolution." #Quotes #USPolitics


On Christmas Eve, President Biden @potus signed 50 bills into law, including Paris Hilton's initiative to safeguard teens in residential treatment facilities and a measure ensuring members of Congress lose their pensions if convicted of serious crimes. #uspol #uspolitics #politics https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-signs-50-bills-into-law-on-christmas-eve/


"In dealing with other administrations, Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, had learned to gradually push the envelope and see how far the United States would allow it to go. With Biden, Netanyahu found there was no limit"

Mitchell Plitnick on the rise of the far-right in Israel, enabled by the Biden administration.

#Israel #FarRight #USPolitics
The (Temporary) Triumph of the Israeli Far-Right
https://mitchellplitnick.substack.com/p/the-temporary-triumph-of-the-israeli?triedRedirect=true


Welp. Not that we were holding our breath anyway, but I think we can kiss reasonable egg prices good-bye for the foreseeable future.

I photographed this sign affixed to the egg cooler at the Bellingham, WA Winco grocery store this morning.

You know what? I only eat 1 or two eggs during a normal week, so I think I'll just skip eggs altogether for a while.

By the way, one dozen large, free range eggs cost $4.65 today, about a dollar more than we usually pay. We just returned from California where the cost was between $5 and $7 per dozen.

#BirdFlu #H5N1 #Pandemic #USPol #USPolitics #Eggs #Groceries #Healthcare #PublicHealth
Egg Shortage.
Due to the ongoing impact of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI, AKA Bird Flu) on poultry populations, egg supplies have been affected, leading to higher costs. We are committed to ensuring the safety and quality of our products and appreciate your understanding during this challenging time. 

We will continue to monitor egg costs closely, and as soon as costs come down, we will adjust our prices accordingly to pass those savings back to you. Winco Foods.


The Atlantic printed an article called "How The Media Lost Trust" :-D

ummm... they were untrustworthy :-D

#media #Journalism #uspol #USPolitics


My couisin is so happy that the House GOP released the report of pedophile Matt Gaetz on his birthday. Such a lovely gift. #USPolitics


Join #CODEPINK to watch "The Truth: Lost At Sea" which reveals the Israeli attack on the 2010 Freedom Flotilla. #palestine #gaza #uspolitics #usa

We'll also be joined by the filmmaker, Rifat Audeh, for a discussion of the film!

🗓️ Jan 13 @ 8PM ET

https://codepink.org/missingp113
Missing Peace Monday Documentary Viewing: The Truth: Lost at Sea 1/13

CODEPINK


Extremists took over a New Jersey county’s leadership. Chaos, bigotry and militia groups followed.
#uspol #uspolitics #politics #newjersey

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/12/civil-war.html


Biden signs government funding bill, averting shutdown crisis https://www.byteseu.com/582047/ #America #Politics #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #US #USPolitics #USA #USAPolitics
Biden signs government funding bill, averting shutdown crisis


https://www.europesays.com/1706326/ I wonder what it’s like to get your job taken by an immigrant Donald? #PoliticalHumor #PoliticalHumor #Politics #USPolitics


Despite the chaos and precariousness of post-Assad Syria, one thing seems assured - the country will be broken open to Western economic exploitation, at long last.

Privatizing Syria: US Plans to Sell Off a Nation’s Wealth After Assad https://www.mintpressnews.com/privatizing-syria-us-plans-to-sell-off-a-nations-wealth-after-assad/288843/
#uspolitics #Syria #Biden #democrats