Talk:La Patilla

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on La Patilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries;0/VE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on La Patilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20170416023713/http%3A//www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/VE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222195213/http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/02/11/pol_ava_alberto-federico-rav_11A3421293.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617064636/http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

WMrapids (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: While reviewing WP:VENRS, La Patilla was listed as "generally reliable" by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. However, the members themselves glossed over controversial issues surrounding La Patilla. Its founder and head worked directly for Juan Guaido, though this was ignored. This is controversial because La Patilla would push the false narrative that Maduro troops set fire to aid with tear gas, though The New York Times would later publish detailed information that a protester started the fire with a molotov cocktail. Guaido would continue to say the fire was started by Maduro forces, arguing "That was a point of view of an investigative report by the newspaper."

Users of the project also casually mentioned in passing that La Patilla would republish articles by Breitbart ([1][2][3]), which has been blacklisted per WP:BREITBART. A Google search of site:lapatilla.com AND "Breitbart" can show that La Patilla has done this multiple times, as recently as September 2022, so this is something persistent.

This is concerning, so this is why an RfC has been placed. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela. In 2017 it was the seventh most visited website in the country, and some years before, in 2015 it held the fifth position, only behind YouTube, Amazon, Google and Facebook, which can be interpreted as a sign of its trustworthiness as a source. Founded in 2010, it would be the pioneer of the online outlets that would come in the future, such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, El Estímulo, and so on. The classification was put in place first for a reason.

While discussing his latest appointment, Alberto Federico Ravell's career, the outlet's director, should be remembered: he served as director of Globovisión, one of the main television channels in the country at the moment, for over 15 years, and before that he was also appointed in the 80s as the director for the state-run television channel Venezolana de Televisión, showing his long trajectory as a journalist. When discussing a possible conflict of interest, the issue at hand is editorial independence. As such, La Patilla has actually covered and published news about scandals related to Guaidó, including the allegations of embezzlement of humanitarian aid:[4][5][6][7] Regarding The New York Times investigation, it should be noted that, at the time, many outlets also originally published the aid as being set on fire by Maduro sources. This is reflect in the own's article introduction: The narrative seemed to fit Venezuela’s authoritarian rule (...) Venezuela’s opposition held up the images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America, as evidence of Mr. Maduro’s cruelty. It's the reason why the report was so revealing at the time.

Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed: the first article talks about the currency's devaluation and the second one about demotions and expulsions in the military, both of which are commonplace in Venezuela and not really in dispute. Interestingly, in the case of the first article one of the most salacious statements by Breitbart is removed: "People reduced to eating household pets to survive are generally quite cynical." Both articles also use references deemed reliable by Wikipedia, including Reuters ([8][9]), AFP, Bloomberg, Telegraph and BBC. The third article was retracted by La Patilla, and the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune. All of these three cases are understandable knowing that La Patilla functions mostly as a news aggregator. Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.

News outlets are prone to be just as fallible as humans. We can take Trump's Fake News Awards as an example of this: several reliable sources have been vilified in the past for mistakes, retracted stories or comments made by journalists. With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found. However, the "generally" classification in "generally reliable" exists for a reason, and La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: With you being a member of WikiProject Venezuela, thank you for you quick response.

I will address your statements:

• La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela.
  • Ok. We understand that this may be one of the main outlets, but there are plenty of prominent outlets that have been determined by consensus as being unreliable or needing additional considerations (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, WP:NEWSWEEK). Just because it may be one of the main outlets in Venezuela does not mean that it is accurate.
• Alberto Federico Ravell's career, the outlet's director, should be remembered: he served as director of Globovisión, one of the main television channels in the country at the moment, for over 15 years
  • Yes. And Globovision was pretty anti-government.
• Regarding The New York Times investigation ... "images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America"
  • Ok, but this has nothing to do with reliability. This shows possible yellow journalism through sensational journalism or narrative-building at worse.
• Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed
  • If this is a main Venezuelan outlet, why would they need to republish Breitbart articles about discussing "general facts" about Venezuela?!?
• the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune
  • Yes, La Patilla republished a little-known "World Tribune" outlet that is citing Breitbart, with the "World Tribune" writing "The Venezuelans who were part of the caravans include those convicted of murder and rape, according to Breitbart Texas, which reviewed the report." So, this could be even worse.
• Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.
  • If La Patilla does not know that Breitbart is unreliable, why should we think it's reliable? Few Spanish-language outlets are republishing Breitbart articles...
• With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found.
  • Of course, but they continue to make the same mistakes, like a Venezuelan outlet citing Breitbart for "general facts" about their own country.
• La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed
  • Media pluralism is important, yes, but it does not mean that we should find one side (opposition media) reliable while labeling the other side (the government) unreliable in a way that WP:VENRS does.

Overall, the whole concept of WP:VENRS, though with good intentions, seems concerning. WMrapids (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: After some research, our generally reliable source BBC News has provided some important help. In a recent article from April 2023, BBC lists prominent independent media outlets in Venezuela, stating "Key independent media include Radio Fe y Alegría, Efecto Cocuyo, Unión Radio, El Estímulo, El Pitazo and El Diario", though La Patilla is missing (funny enough, La Patilla is placed all the way at the bottom of the article as a "news website"). So the argument that La Patilla is a "key" pillar of Venezuelan media is lacking here.

BBC would also write in 2019 about La Patilla: "La Patilla ... churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items. It has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as "Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight", published on 27 March." BBC describes La Patilla, comparatively, as "rabidly anti-government". This information, in addition to La Patilla republishing content from questionable entities, such as Breitbart and obscure websites, shows that the website solely exists for political reasons and its main purpose is not to provide reliable information to readers.--WMrapids (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A quick search easily proves my point. The figures that I gave are from its former Alexa's ranking, currently unavailable but quoted by other references. Both the Committee to Protect Journalists and VESinFiltro have referred to La Patilla as the most visited news portal in Venezuela.

I should also point out to the mentions of La Patilla as an independent news outlet:

• "Rights experts 'deeply disturbed' at erosion of media freedom in Venezuela – UN human rights office". UN News. 2016-08-04. - We are deeply disturbed by the recent reports of attacks against journalists and independent media groups, escalating the pressure over the Venezuelan media, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose report includes a order against La Patilla to not publish videos
• Jerreat, Jessica (2019-06-07). "Venezuela's Supreme Court orders La Patilla to pay US$5m in damages to Cabello". Committee to Protect Journalists. Retrieved 2023-06-06. - The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned a decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court, which according to news reports ordered the independent news site La Patilla to pay US$5 million damages to a former vice-president as part of a civil defamation lawsuit.
• "Press Release —Venezuela: HRF Condemns $365 Million Lawsuit Against Independent Media". Human Rights Foundation. 2015-08-19. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And Fox News is "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.". Big whoop. Fox News, WP:INFOWARS and WP:BREITBART are also independent media organizations. So, can you explain to me how popularity and independence relate to reliability? WMrapids (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The very concept of reliability for Wikipedia is independence: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE. I really doubt that the United Nations, the Committee to Protect Journalists or the Human Rights Foundation were thinking about Fox News when describing La Patilla as "independent", much less Breitbart or Infowars. States that WP:GUNREL Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. It has not been snown that this is a characteristic for La Patilla. Even in the cases where Breitbart was cited, I showed the articles that were factually correct, even removing questionable statements from the original sources or retracting the article entirely. Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede that the analogy holds water. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• You are giving the VENRS page more respect than it deserves. It was created at the height of the US regime change operation in Venezuela. It is similar to a talk page where a small group of editors have written down their opinions on some media sources related to Venezuela, often without attempting to justify their opinion. You don’t need to conduct an RfC to override anything written on the VENRS page. The content of the page "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". The main classifying criteria used on the VENRS page appears to be the editors’ opinion of the media outlet's attitude towards the Venezuelan government. Compare that with how sources are assessed at the perennial sources noticeboard.
• Regarding La Patilla, it appears to be a biased right-wing source which ran some flattering articles about Juan Guaidó during the failed US regime change operation to install Guaidó as President. Seventeen La Patilla articles are cited on the Venezuelan presidential crisis page and fifteen on the [Guaidó page. The articles are generally supportive of, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation. One of the articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is among a number of private media outlets in Venezuela which are hostile to Maduro's government. I would suggest attributing any controversial statements that are sourced to this outlet. Burrobert (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Burrobert: So it seems you would support "Option 2: Additional considerations"? If you do support an option, please provide that above. WMrapids (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me think about that and wait for more editors to provide their input. Burrobert (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remind WP:NOTFORUM. WP:VENRS works such as other similar essays, such as WikiProject Korea's list of sources, any other editor can participate when they wish, and its list is complemented by the main discussions in the reliable sources noticeboard, as if often quotes the perennial sources' list. Plenty of the rationale for the listing is also explained in the essay's talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources), and the discussions take place in a similar way that a RfC would. It's only natural that after the start of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, and with its international coverage, that more activity in related articles and among editors would follow, along with interest. Take a look at the pageviews in 2019 of articles such as "Venezuela", "Nicolás Maduro", "Crisis in Venezuela" and "Juan Guaidó". During the same time, several outlets were subject to scrutiny and their RfCs evaluated their reliability, including WP:TELESUR, Venezuelanalysis. The fact that editors have focused on discussing sources individually, specially about a complex topic such as Venezuela, should not be a reason for its dismissal.

La Patilla's potential bias has been acknowledged in its entry, but this discussion is regarding reliability. I don't see in any way how the fact that said protests took places, or that amount or places for that matter, as is quotes Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict, arguably the best source for the topic. Likewise, La Patilla is just quoting pollster Meganálisis. It's also equally important to address the fallacy that media that criticizes the government is pro-opposition. That's what a free press does. Only because The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, all deemed reliable by Wikipedia, repeatedly criticized or questioned Donald Trump, it does not mean that there are pro-Democrats, Trump opponents. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be a false equivalence fallacy right there. The difference between the media situation in the United States and Venezuela is that the government has nearly complete control of the narrative within Venezuela. That is not the case here on Wikipedia. Reading through the catalog of international WP:GREL sources, they also directly cite Venezuelan NGOs and people on the ground. So then, explain why do we need a Venezuelan source that cites the US-based Breitbart to publish "general facts" about Venezuela? This just shows La Patilla's hyper-partisanship and lack of experience. In fact, WP:GREL don't seem to need La Patilla; quick Google searches of site:nytimes.com AND "La Patilla", site:reuters.com AND "La Patilla", site:bbc.com AND "La Patilla", site:Aljazeera.com AND "La Patilla" show less than ten usages of La Patilla as a source in their articles during the site's 12-year existence. And when used as a source, its partisanship is usually attributed. Funny enough, BBC News describes La Patilla as a "satirical website". That hardly brings confidence for the La Patilla's reliability... WMrapids (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The use in said articles do not reflect the reliability of thousands of articles that the outlets has published ever since. I have already provided a rationale regarding the situation. It looks currently more as a red herring, particularly when one of the most controversial articles was later retracted (as an outlet with editorial oversight does), and WP:VENRS already acknowledged the situation, providing the same articles that you are sharing here. A passing mention as a "satirical website", when the article in question is precisely about humor regarding hyperinflation, is not a sample of the website's reliability as a whole either. Unreliability means systematic and persistent issues, which is not the case here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Using Breitbart over a period of years clearly checks the box for "systematic and persistent issues". WMrapids (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)