Talk:Visegrád 24: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 76: Line 76:


Section "Content" should be renamed to "Misinformation" as it describes missinfo examples exclusively. Also that section seems to be disproportionate in comparison to the rest of the article [[User:Saletri|Saletri]] ([[User talk:Saletri|talk]]) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Section "Content" should be renamed to "Misinformation" as it describes missinfo examples exclusively. Also that section seems to be disproportionate in comparison to the rest of the article [[User:Saletri|Saletri]] ([[User talk:Saletri|talk]]) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

:Looks like this was renamed but later reverted. Personally I think Misinformation is not an appropriate title for all of the content that's currently there. Creating a long section called Misinformation, then listing things like "emotionally-charged content", fails NPOV and is just inaccurate. I think a Misinformation section could be reasonable, but only if it was trimmed down.
:"Controversy" might also be a reasonable middle ground, while reasonably characterizing all of the current points there? [[User:XDanielx|XDanielx]] ([[User talk:XDanielx|talk]]) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


== Relationship with Polish government and right-wing elements section ==
== Relationship with Polish government and right-wing elements section ==

Revision as of 05:50, 15 April 2024

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Social media sites aren't reliable references and shouldn't be in references - can you remove those? Thanks.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I made some edits to the page because there was a warning that the content was unverified and biased. it shows as a total change because my browser didn't let me publish, so I had to copy and paste my work through tabs. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penini S (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say this article is highly biased and reliant on sources that are themselves not reliable / unbiased. NPOV etc problems. KenThomas (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, not sure this is a notable article. KenThomas (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my second read-through, this article as-is appears to be relatively or highly biased against V24. It chooses errors or misinformation which do not seem representative of the whole of content shared by V24, to paint what is likely a false and negative light. It also spends an enormous amount of time and copy space, delving into the details of multiple alleged negative incidents -- far more space than a typical Wikipedia article would spend on far more notable outlets.
I won't tag NPOV at this point, but it is warranted. This article should be shortened, become far shorter, and restrict claims to those that come from reliable, non-social-media sources. KenThomas (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance: the article relies on claims made in "Visegrad Insight," a much larger site which is essentially a blog run by a group of individuals, with evidently little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking. This is a highly questionable, non-neutral, non-reliable source. It does not necessarily meet the standard of notability, and does not have a Wikipedia article-- raising the question of why V24 should be covered when it is not (etc).
Many other alleged sources appear to have roughly similar problems with reliability. KenThomas (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing through the edit history, I would say that older versions of the article were more neutral, though also problematic. (Is it a news service, or is it a Twitter account that purports to be a news service?!?). I think however it would be better to try to move back closer to older, more neutral language that is not so accusatory. FWIW V24 does seem to forward mostly accurate information, if with a clear conservative or right-wing slant. I'm not sure how relevant the various controversies about control or misinformation are to a general audience, especially when they come to take up so much space & attention in the article. KenThomas (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view, and reliability

This article has many weasel words, alleged statements, and reads more like a he-said-she-said opinion piece than a Wikipedia article at times. I also found that before I made any edits, there were sentences copied verbatim from its sources, I removed those I noticed but I suspect there are more. This article does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards of reliability in my opinion. LivLovisa (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came across this article through my watchlist and just took a look. It really needs a heck of a lot of work. I may make this my project to try to fix this article up. A lot of opinion stuff and very little citations. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just conducted a TNT on roughly half the article, rewriting it to remove some of the weasel words. Basically the three subsections under the reliability dispute section were not TNTed and need to still be checked. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Doing a note about the COI template. Visegrád 24, the subject of this article, posted on X to have people change the article ([1][2]) and a flood of new accounts have been editing the article. Given this, there is a high-chance one or more editors who have recently edited the article are COI. Page Protection has already been requested. Noting, I saw this article on my watchlist and was alerted off-Wikipedia by a friend to the posts by Visegrád 24, which prompted a look from me. The article was already tagged by other editors with several templates, so I did a brief TNT of about half the article and re-wrote it. But, COI is a high potential here, given the posts. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template removed as page was protected. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2024

"Pallywood" in the section regarding the Israel-Hamas war is misspelled as "Pallyywood". Please fix this. LivLovisa (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: This is a direct quote from the original source, which misspelled Pallywood. I added [sic] to clarify that the typo is from the source. Jamedeus (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Hamas war section

I improved the section on the Israel Hamas war. AFP was noting that crisis actor conspiracy theories were being pushed on social media, it did not refer to Visegrad 24 as a crisis actor.

Pinging @WeatherWriter. Isi96 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oko press as a reliable source.are you joking?

i request to delete immediately all info based on oko press. oko press is a extreme far left wing media. it is propagandist of far left powers in Poland and never can be treated as reliable source for anything. it was founded as described on their own page by Agora(far left propagandist) and "private person" in order to attack PIS government. Jarek19800 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are we meant to believe they’re unreliable bc you said so? 2603:7081:3201:159B:4864:2835:6496:B007 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarek19800 Stop the propaganda, your sources aren't reliable anyway. 62.133.151.108 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just to note, if consensus from a discussion at WP:RSN determined OKO.press is an unreliable source, then information cited in the article from OKO.press would be removed, along with the citation. That is why a discussion at WP:RSN is important if you believe it is unreliable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok,but it is very easy with them. they themselves say that were founded by Agora (which is far- leftist) as well as for "private person" in order to destroy PIS govt. So they name themselves as a propaganda tool nothing more. How propaganda fiche can be a reliable source? Jarek19800 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach it says that oko press was funded by Agora in order to fight with PIS Jarek19800 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content section

Section "Content" should be renamed to "Misinformation" as it describes missinfo examples exclusively. Also that section seems to be disproportionate in comparison to the rest of the article Saletri (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was renamed but later reverted. Personally I think Misinformation is not an appropriate title for all of the content that's currently there. Creating a long section called Misinformation, then listing things like "emotionally-charged content", fails NPOV and is just inaccurate. I think a Misinformation section could be reasonable, but only if it was trimmed down.
"Controversy" might also be a reasonable middle ground, while reasonably characterizing all of the current points there? XDanielx (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Polish government and right-wing elements section

Title of the section should be shortened to only relationship with Polish govt. so called ties with "right wing elements" mentioned in the section are rather comic. it is only Hungarian ambassador taging and some lady. by the way this article is not a place for presenting cv of lady. so changes needed are: get rid of mentioning of Hungarian ambassador and lady with her whole cv(i am laughing even writing it, it must have been written by some 10 year kid) and change title of section to Relationship with Polish govt (by the way former one so maybe whole section is to be deleted ) Jarek19800 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising agency

The Visegrád 24 publishes news and not advertisements. Why is it called an Advertising agency  ? Forest576 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From this source, the founder of Visegrad 24 actually stated “Visegrád 24’s authors are co-workers and employees of his advertising agency, not journalists.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like their source for that information is the Rzeczpospolita interview, which appears to be in Polish and also paywalled? I get the feeling something was lost in translation, or somebody misspoke, or they were commenting on a different period in the firm's history, etc.
If they're a marketing firm, who are their clients? Many news agencies receive some form of government sponsorship; I don't think that makes them a marketing firm.
Maybe the firm practices marketing as well (under a different brand?), but it seems clear enough that the main function of the firm (or the arm of the firm that runs Visegrád 24) is a sort of journalism, or at least news aggregation.
They call themselves a "Social Media News Hub" on Instagram, which to me seems like a reasonable characterization of their de facto activity. XDanielx (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal

WeatherWriter would you give a more clear explanation for removal of Fake news website category because your edit-summary NPOV cat does not make sense in this case. That category exists for a reason, and it is full of articles about fake news and misinformation websites and media outlets, yet you think that this article, which is almost entirely about misinformation and fake news business and thoroughly describes how this outlet and its website engages in it, should not be categorized in Fake news websites cat for NPOV reasons. Either article is NPOV and should be cleared of NPOV prose or it should be categorized per its clear and present Misinformation section, which takes nearly half of the article content. ౪ Santa ౪99° 11:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it isn’t a website and is a Twitter account, so that technically marks Twitter as a fake news website. Secondly, the reliability of Visegrad 24 still needs to honestly be assessed (no WP:RSN has occurred yet). Some RS say it is a place of misinformation (example OKO.press) and fake news while others RS say it is a reliable source and actually cite it (example CNBC and the Times of Israel). So yes, the category addition did violate the neutral POV policy and ideology on Wikipedia, hence why it was removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WeatherWriter, the application of the category doesn't seem objective or neutral. The Misinformation section is lengthy, but includes things like
  • false claims (most retracted) which plausibly could have been honest (albeit sometimes reckless) mistakes
  • claims that were never substantiated with solid evidence, but also never refuted in a very clear way (e.g., I don't think Pornhub clarified whether any block occurred)
  • some things that aren't misinformation at all, like claims about "emotionally-charged content"
I think there's plenty of evidence that Visegrád 24 doesn't consistently follow good journalistic practices, not so much that they fabricate stories. XDanielx (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visegrád_24&oldid=1219009370"