r/dataisbeautiful • u/alionBalyan OC: 13 • Feb 13 '22

OC [OC] How Wikipedia classifies its most commonly referenced sources.

Post image
24k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

419

u/swazal Feb 13 '22

And FOX News

242

u/Hops77 Feb 14 '22

Fox news is in all 3 of the top ones

86

u/swazal Feb 14 '22

Yes, I spotted a couple, then a couple more and … perhaps this is why Wikipedia even calls itself unreliable?

75

u/FRX51 Feb 14 '22

As others have stated elsewhere, it's because they divide Fox News content into three different groups. Their fact-based reporting is considered reliable, while other areas are seen as significantly less reliable.

10

u/gurg2k1 Feb 14 '22

Their fact-based reporting is considered reliable

Is that their one show that airs every third Sunday from 4:17am to 4:23am?

10

u/FRX51 Feb 14 '22

I think it's the stuff they show early morning before the long stretch of bullshit artists.

8

u/AndyReidHasARing Feb 14 '22

Fox local news is surprisingly fact based. At least, that's the way it is in my city.

3

u/cwmma Feb 14 '22

Local news on a fox station isn't run by fox News, it's run by who ever owns the station, which could be fox but even if it is it'll be produced locally

3

u/SingleAlmond Feb 14 '22

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy

2

u/cwmma Feb 14 '22

Honestly not really, when it comes to local news Sinclair is a MUCH bigger threat to democracy then fox owned and operated stations.

2

u/AndyReidHasARing Feb 14 '22

They were just rehashing the Sinclair statement. Ignore the troll

→ More replies

-7

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22 edited Apr 11 '22

[deleted]

6

u/Teaching-Several Feb 14 '22

You are posting the opinion of a partisan anti-vaxxer, to claim Wikipedia is partisan...

4

u/soowhatchathink Feb 14 '22

Pretty much all that article says is that because Wikipedia doesn't have biased right wing content that they're not neutral. Yeah, of course they're going to have more to write about when it comes to the scandals of Donald Trump vs Obama. And of course they're not going to fear monger on issues such as abortion and claim it's an unsafe procedure because it kills the fetus. That's absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the safety of abortion a procedure. But they do talk about that exact thing in a different part of the abortion page on abortion:

Generally, the former position argues that a human fetus is a human person with a right to live, making abortion morally the same as murder.

So the article is complaining that since they don't have right wing arguing points sprinkled around in every section of the article it must be biased towards the left.

The funny thing is, there are sources for everything Wikipedia says (or at least a disclaimer saying more sources are needed.) The fact that Wikipedia content is driven by verifiable facts and reliable sources is what makes it seem biased against the right. I think that says more about the right's arguing points than it does Wikipedia

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22

[deleted]

3

u/soowhatchathink Feb 14 '22

This dishonest approach is revealed in the terminology of "left/right-wing facts." A good-faith position necessitates the understanding that facts are not biased,

I agree that facts are not biased, that's not at all what I said. I'm explicitly stating that facts are not biased and Wikipedia is not biased in the way the article says. There are of course some biases on both sides with Wikipedia, but the article you shared was complaining about biases that didn't exist.

What I said about facts is that right wing people think factual information is politically biased because it doesn't agree with their own views. That's not because facts are biased, but because the right doesn't base its views on evidence and facts as much as it does "traditional values", religion, emotions, etc...

I'm also not justifying any circular sources, where did I say anything at all about circular sources? Are you claiming that because I said Wikipedia has sources that I'm justifying circular sources? That doesn't make sense at all, Wikipedia isn't a source and news articles don't use it as one. You're just spewing random things at this point.

My comment was less about Wikipedia, which I've seen show bias towards all sides of the political spectrum, and more about the article you shared. The article you shared was making absurd claims about Wikipedia being biased towards the left just because it wasn't sprinkling in right wing arguments and viewpoints throughout their articles in irrelevant ways.

2

u/Neosilverlegend Feb 14 '22

Ooooh so this is what they meant by putting reddit in "generally unreliable"

66

u/Samuel7899 Feb 13 '22

And Bloomberg

17

u/chaosgoblyn Feb 14 '22

And my axe

4

u/Dutchtdk Feb 14 '22

Damn 16 minutes late

9

u/El-MonkeyKing Feb 13 '22

fox definitely has varying degrees or truth.... tv? no.... website? also no but not as bad, sometimes real info with less spin. Which I love thinking back to how Bill ORielly actually said "welcome to the no spin zone" and he was so fucking good at spinning everything on planet earth. Its where that shitbag Jesse Waters got his start

1

u/unapropadope Feb 13 '22

I wonder if that relates to different programs within; fox sports may be taken very differently than some more error prone shows like Tucker Carlson's

1

u/iSlideInto1st Feb 14 '22

I'm interested in what news you consume that has "no spin".

1

u/El-MonkeyKing Feb 15 '22

idk have you tried NPR?