Jump to content

Talk:BitChute: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
cool
RRskaReb (talk | contribs)
→‎Bias?: new section
Line 32: Line 32:
I see no source for the claims made in the article and also you blocked the edit for this page ,with the weird statement "to protect it against vandalism" when in fact You are protecting baseless opinions or claims You made against this network.So You are protecting your lies in fact but You are doing it for a good reason.I remember the old days when Wikipedia was not extrem left political platform. [[Special:Contributions/86.126.133.159|86.126.133.159]] ([[User talk:86.126.133.159|talk]]) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I see no source for the claims made in the article and also you blocked the edit for this page ,with the weird statement "to protect it against vandalism" when in fact You are protecting baseless opinions or claims You made against this network.So You are protecting your lies in fact but You are doing it for a good reason.I remember the old days when Wikipedia was not extrem left political platform. [[Special:Contributions/86.126.133.159|86.126.133.159]] ([[User talk:86.126.133.159|talk]]) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
: The article has 32 sources. You're going to need to be a little more specific. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 15:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
: The article has 32 sources. You're going to need to be a little more specific. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 15:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

== Bias? ==

"The platform also hosts '''misinformation''' related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conspiracy theory video Plandemic has been viewed on BitChute millions of times after having been removed from other platforms for spreading '''medically harmful misinformation'''."

My quotes and my bold above. Wouldn't it be better to include any original sentences that contain those words as quotes directly from the articles to make it clear that those word choices are the opinion of the original writer rather than that of the Wikipedia editor of the article? The way this section is written now clearly shows personal bias in my view. "Conspiracy theory" has the tinge of bias about it as well, though I guess one could make the argument that the producers of Plandemic did indeed propose a theory (actually a hypothesis) dealing with what they maintain is a conspiracy. Pretty obvious that term was included as a means of attacking not only the video's content, but the Bitchute platform itself. [[User:RRskaReb|<span style="background-color: cyan; color: red">RRskaReb</span>]] [[User talk:RRskaReb|talk]] 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:58, 7 January 2023

Media as sources is foul play

You cannot cite journalistic sources in an encyclopedia. Present the factual information, and it will be readily apparent to the reader if something is a conspiracy theory, disinformation, misinformation, extreme, alt, or any of your other characterizations. You don’t cite a news article, you find the primary source. Carpedm333 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that in fact, a huge proportion of this project is supported by "journalistic sources" and this is quite normal. See WP:RS. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the claims?

I see no source for the claims made in the article and also you blocked the edit for this page ,with the weird statement "to protect it against vandalism" when in fact You are protecting baseless opinions or claims You made against this network.So You are protecting your lies in fact but You are doing it for a good reason.I remember the old days when Wikipedia was not extrem left political platform. 86.126.133.159 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 32 sources. You're going to need to be a little more specific. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

"The platform also hosts misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conspiracy theory video Plandemic has been viewed on BitChute millions of times after having been removed from other platforms for spreading medically harmful misinformation."

My quotes and my bold above. Wouldn't it be better to include any original sentences that contain those words as quotes directly from the articles to make it clear that those word choices are the opinion of the original writer rather than that of the Wikipedia editor of the article? The way this section is written now clearly shows personal bias in my view. "Conspiracy theory" has the tinge of bias about it as well, though I guess one could make the argument that the producers of Plandemic did indeed propose a theory (actually a hypothesis) dealing with what they maintain is a conspiracy. Pretty obvious that term was included as a means of attacking not only the video's content, but the Bitchute platform itself. RRskaReb talk 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]