Media Bias Fact Check - Automation
Media Bias Fact Check - Automation
Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it's impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.
To this end, we've created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.
As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.
Thanks!
FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team đ
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Very cool. I would also recommend Wikipedia's perennial news list as a source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
-
It will be a little bit difficult to automate fetching that list.
-
It's an interesting suggestion, however, I can see a few potential challenges:
-
The methodology is determined by Wikipedia editors' consensus alone. It's unclear what the ultimate basis for inclusion/exclusion may be, or whether there is a uniform standard applied.
-
The list is far less comprehensive than MBFC and other rating sites.
-
The scope/purpose of the Wikipedia list is very different from ours. Although we are both ultimately interested in factual, verifiable truth, news/current event aggregation is not the same purpose as encyclopedic archiving.
-
The list is sometimes too granular, and sometimes too broad to be useful for live content moderation. For example, some sources are categorized differently based on the type of content, and others are grouped together.
We would want to discuss and navigate these issues prior to incorporating this list into our communities.
-
Atleast the consensus of wikipedians is more open and checkable than a closed door analysis like MBFC
-
I was not aware of that. Can you please share a link to their methodology so I can update my comment?
-
-
It looks like you shared the same information page above. Unfortunately it does not show the methodology on this page.
-
âThis list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.â
Its explained. If you read the body.
Its done by consensus reached on conversations. It links to the sources board.
-
Yes, I'd mentioned that in my original comment that you replied to. Thanks anyway.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Could just hardcode it and let the community voice their opinions on additions/changes
While I think the current method is a great idea, there's already people complaining
-
But then the issue arises what the people complain, the human bias.
Because the user x from instance b accuses the user y from instance a be a bigot because they added SomeRandomNewsPage as biased into there. And it repeats and repeats.
So we chose to use the available option to use MBFC and ground.news for 2 seperate options.
We all know the downside of a human maintained list / service (like MBFC) because you can not remove the human part.
-
-
-