User talk:Vfrickey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I recently committed the error of giving people on both sides of a controversy over politicizing which sources are reliable enough to use in wikipedia a soapbox to use on this page. So, I archived everything.

A discussion of the issues and my thoughts on them can be found on my user page

Snopes talk[edit]

Hello, I don't know if I am talking to the right user or not. I am looking for loupgarous; when I clicked on the loupgarous link, it led me here. Anyways, I have recently engaged in Snopes talk 'Daily Mail expose' section. I saw your username there.

In addition to the Forbes article, I am trying to cite The Week article to talk about the transparency concern of Snopes.

Would you mind coming back and participating in the talk please? I would appreciate your input. SCIense (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm the guy you're thinking of, but the reason I am taking a pause from that discussion is the unwillingness of secondary and tertiary sources to cover the story of how Mikkelson slants his "fact checking" in Without good sources, editors can go there, read things like the inclusion of the "Western White House" attack on George W. Bush in an article alleged to be evaluation of the "A Tale of Two Houses" viral Email comparing and contrasting GW Bush and Al Gore's use of energy and care for the environment for themselves, and any conclusions they might reach are WP:OR. Some editors looked squarely at that page and did WP:OR of their own defending it on the snopes talk page, but as long as they control the consensus, that makes no difference, either.
Until we have a good secondary source (and there's no chance of getting the Daily Mail article critical of the slant in past the gauntlet of people who like it that way won't see past the Daily Mail's reputation and the guidance on WP:Potentially unreliable sources - also known as WP:PUS - not to treat it as usually reliable - and their decision is understandable, you have to wade through a ton of sleaze to get to the valid reporting in that Daily Mail article), we're stuck with the consensus.
And, unfortunately, consensus is as good as it gets - even though we have admins who are willing to wade in and "adjust" a consensus by discounting the votes of some editors for reasons which may or may not hold water, so apparently consensus is how we make decisions until an admin decides it's not. I'm going to wait, periodically look for secondary sources on not mentioned in WP:PUS critical of how they check for facts with a partisan fact-checking staff, and when those sources appear, we can get going.
But until then, it's not worth getting into fights on that talk page we'll just lose - and lose credibility while we're doing it. See what I'm saying? Life's too short to spend time arguing with those won't see the obvious. loupgarous (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your advise. I agree that the Daily Mail article is not a good source, however, I had thought other people would be reasonable enough to recognize the transparency concern raised by the Forbes and The Week articles.
Tell you the truth, I am not familiar with the "A Tale of Two Houses" reference. I've always thought that Snopes was a neutral fact checking site: nothing more, nothing less. Recently, I've heard from someone on the internet saying how Snopes is untrustworthy. So, I've decided to fact check his claim, which led me to the Forbes article and this Wiki article. I've also heard many people saying how Wikipedia is liberally biased and thus untrustworthy, too. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of other editors to compromise, in their unreasonably effort to prevent any hint of text that may portray Snopes in a negative light, only corroborates those people's allegation. If the transparency concern cannot be even mentioned on this so-called public-editable Wikipedia due to the liberal censorship, I doubt that any other liberal media would pick up the story, especially if Facebook pressures them. That implies that the trustworthiness of Snopes is worse than it is, and although Daily Mail is not a good source, in this case, they may have gotten it right.
It looks like there are a lot of partisan people who don't like Snopes. They will no doubt continue with their accusations on the internet. And when people like me notice a lack of the coverage, just as North Korean media lacks any criticism of their leader, we will put two and two together. At least I've verified why people's don't trust Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I will be recommending others not to trust Wikipedia and Snopes, too. Good luck and take care. SCIense (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you that wikipedia as a whole has a liberal bias. I also disagree that people don't trust wikipedia. It's used as a resource more and more often by all sorts of people. And most of our editor base is why - we don't let crap remain up on the wikipedia project for long, if we can help it. The article is a rare exception.
There are articles in which some editors may be taking a WP:OWN attitude, and those articles take the favored slant of the people curating them (usually enough of them that they never lose a consensus discussion). That is what I see happening on our article on - not that people are necessarily pushing a political agenda or even consciously violating WP:OWN or any other guideline. These editors are actually pretty reliable - MjolnirPants has done really good work on many articles.
It's a just a shame that the only articles critical of Snopes are on WP:PUS. This makes normally thoughtful editors think (understandably) that there's no case for the idea that slants its reporting on disputed stories in the Internet. In fact, it's a shame that Mr. Mikkelson decided to abuse the trust of his readers in the way he's done on too many articles in If not for that, could be a valuable resource, but it really isn't if it can't be trusted, every time on every story. shouldn't even be on WP:PUS, because even if bloggers. not staff write some of those articles, these are bloggers who are well-known in their professions - Kalev Leetaru, the guy who called Mikkelson up and asked him what was up with the Democratic party activists on his fact-checking staff, isn't some Breitbart fanboy in his mom's basement - he's notable enough for his own article here, as the Yahoo! Fellow in Residence of International Values, Communications Technology & the Global Internet at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. But, again, the other editors curating our article won't look past the guidance (not a hard and fast prohibition, and there are very few of those) on WP:PUS to be careful which articles on to use. It makes me wonder how got on WP:PUS to begin with, and I just haven't looked that far back on the WP:PUS page history.
The founder of liberalism (what we'd consider libertarianism now), Edmund Burke, once said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." If you give up on wikipedia because a relative few editors succeed temporarily in using the consensus process to push their political agenda (liberal, conservative or another agenda still) in an article, you're not helping. You're letting the people who abuse consensus win. That's not an option for me. loupgarous (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys keep talking as if it's a given that snopes is full of BS, and discussing the implications of that. That is a really poor assumption. The evidence does not support the claim that snopes is unreliable. There are accusations of bias (which, notably, all stem from unreliable sources, a fact which is less "unfortunate" and more "telling"), but there is no evidence of snopes getting it wrong on a regular basis, or any evidence of snopes getting it wrong and refusing to correct it even once. One would think there would be at least one case in which snopes disagrees with the rest of the fact checkers, but nope.
The worst I've seen is a notable reporter doing the same thing you guys are doing: trying to twist the facts to suit the preconceived notion that snopes is unreliable. Hence we end up with that forbes article: a long-winded diatribe that doesn't actually level any specific criticisms at snopes beyond "They don't operated the way I expected them to", and "they might have political opinions". Never once does the author entertain the notion that maybe the way he thinks fact checkers should operate isn't the best (or even the only viable) way for fact checkers to operate. Never once does the author entertain the notion that someone can have political opinions and still be objective. Which is, I'm sorry to say, an assumption I see coming from the political right quite often. I'm not sure what's more worrying: The fact that there seems to be a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of one of the few sites on the web where one can rely on the fact that everything they say is true, or the fact that two Wikipedians are sitting here discussing how to get around our RS policy in order to make this article reflect WP:THETRUTH. I'm sorry to say this, but if your views don't line up with reality, your views are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:Please stop conflating what I have to say with what other people have to say. Here, I said "In fact, it's a shame that Mr. Mikkelson decided to abuse the trust of his readers in the way he's done on too many articles in If not for that, could be a valuable resource, but it really isn't if it can't be trusted, every time on every story." And I stand by that statement.
I also told SCIense what other editors on the article's talk page told him - to cease further discussion until persuasive sources not on WP:PUS can be cited to show the pattern of partisan comment in's fact-checking. I'm not finding such sources yet, and it's only reasonable to stop arguing the matter until such sources can be found. How's that "discussing how to get around our RS policy"?
It's also reasonable to comment when, as in the "Accuracy" section of the article, the Web site's own proprietor is cited for most assertions made in that section. Come on, Mjolnir, when do we let anyone else tell readers in one of our articles how objective he is without proper weighting?
Finally, you stopped talking about the article or what I actually said on this page a while back and made a number of ad hominem comments about me, accusing me of "discussing how to get around our RS policy in order to make this article reflect WP:THETRUTH." If you can prove that, take me to WP:AN/I and make your case. I did the exact opposite - I counselled SCIense to stop arguing his point until WP:RS sources could be found to persuade other editors curating the page.
You seem to have a bad case of the attitude counselled against in WP:OWN (See bullet point five under "Actions", WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). It's driving you to ignore real issues with that article. Right now, the "Accuracy" section is an embarrassment to wikipedia - you are defending citing someone on how objective he and the other workers on his Web site are, without proper weighting. Primary sourcing is allowed, but only with proper weighting. loupgarous (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia:Churnalism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the essay Wikipedia:Churnalism, a page you have made significant contributions to, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Churnalism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)