YouTube Will Add Information From Wikipedia To Videos About Conspiracies (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about popular conspiracy theories to provide alternative viewpoints on controversial subjects, its CEO said today. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said that these text boxes, which the company is calling "information cues," would begin appearing on conspiracy-related videos within the next couple of weeks. Wojcicki, who spoke Tuesday evening at a panel at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin, showed examples of information cues for videos about the moon landing and chemtrails. "When there are videos that are focused around something that's a conspiracy -- and we're using a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia -- then we will show a companion unit of information from Wikipedia showing that here is information about the event," Wojcicki said. The information cues that Wojcicki demonstrated appeared directly below the video as a short block of text, with a link to Wikipedia for more information. Wikipedia -- a crowdsourced encyclopedia written by volunteers -- is an imperfect source of information, one which most college students are still forbidden from citing in their papers. But it generally provides a more neutral, empirical approach to understanding conspiracies than the more sensationalist videos that appear on YouTube.

Comments

Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[quonset]

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it go? They see it either as proof of their conspiracy... or proof the conspiracy is deeper than they thought ?

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[mentil]

I'm in the firm belief that it's very difficult to change anyone's mind immediately, on a subject they care about. People will be biased to be skeptical of your claims that are counter to their held beliefs. This makes some sense, as someone could easily be quickly manipulated if this wasn't the case. It is the mental equivalent of 'circling the wagons' and is a similar defense mechanism. I imagine (but haven't done any research on this) that the experiments done that found a Backfire Effect were all done so that a subject's beliefs were challenged and then surveyed later the same day. If the survey were issued the next day, after a night of mental processing, then I suspect the Effect would be less prominent. Personally, I'd want to do my own independent research on the presented claims (at least an Internet search) before I accept and act upon them.

That said, some answers (evolution by natural selection is a good one) are so elegant and answer so many things, that it's easy to accept them. Of course, the 'elegant answer that solves so many things' is usually a variation on 'invisible man in the sky made it happen', and good luck overturning THOSE beliefs unless you have an even more elegant solution. A solution that reads like quantum mechanics (if it makes sense, you don't understand it) isn't elegant enough to win against that, to a non-rationalist.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Penguinisto]

Actually, I think something else entirely will happen.

Got popcorn?

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

It won't change any minds, but it might prevent people from falling for it to begin with.

I remember when I first discovered moon landing conspiracy sites. I was fascinated and went down that rabbit hole until I stumbled onto a debunking site.

Since I was just looking into it for the first time, I had no commitment to it, and I was able to see that the debunkers has much simpler, more plausible arguments.

But if I had found the debunkers after telling people about it for a year, I might not have had the strength to admit I was wrong. So thanks, Internet debunkers. You do good work.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[mentil]

Yeah I read about 9/11 conspiracy theories on Digg for a couple years before a friend linked me to a debunking site. It cleared up pretty much every incongruity that looked suspicious.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, it's not the fact that the information is factual that makes then deny it, it's that they won't see the source as credible. Wikipedia is not a "primary source", which indeed will cause people to do this.

Like the only real way of putting conspiracy theories to bed is to change the algorithms to pick up words IN THE VIDEO, which the auto-transcribe function can clearly do, and find the correlation between the video and subscribers/commenters.

eg, If infowars posts a video called "drinking tap water turns men in to little girls", anyone should see through this bullshit. But infowars then turns around and sells a product that is simply tap water in non-BPA free plastic bottles, and calls it "super water, makes your penis bigger", would be factually incorrect, because the presence of BPA is mimics female hormones. Not because the claim is unfounded, but harmful.

If someone is pushing a product, then that video needs to be labeled "Product placement, this video is trying to sell you something." Then link to the manufacturer's MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and lab tests.

Like there are a LOT of products out there that will harm or kill you if are dismissive of the safety of the product.

If products are benign or "don't do what they say they do" then those products should be indicated as such, in the video AND in the text of the video.

But Conspiracy theories themselves, linking to wikipedia is basically pointless, since anyone can edit it, and by providing direct links to such theories being debunked, encourages far more vandalism of the wikipedia. No, I think the best way to solve this would be for Google to get an exclusive licence from snopes and politifact to publish their work to provide several separate "non-opinion" investigative sources (eg researched articles, not opinion editorials from papers.)

And yes, nearly every conspiracy theory debunking thing will slant liberal, not because they're liberal, but because they will always slant towards science. So shit like "global warming/climate change is a hoax" will always be debunked as bullshit. Conspiracy theorists are conmen playing a long-game of selling what people want to hear, and then selling them products to "protect them" from the conspiracy. Once the long-con gig is up, they go to jail, or pay fines, but the damage is irreversible.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[KeensMustard]

This assumes that the people who watch these videos are predominantly already in agreement with them.

The other day I fell into the trap of watching a few flat earther videos on youtube. I asked myself "who would watch this tripe?". After thinking about it the truth came to me : I was watching. Flat Earther videos aren't for Flat Earthers, but to stir the waters of people like me who find the notion teeth grindingly irritating. We watch the videos to arm ourselves for a debunking. And they get ad revenue. They win. Probably 80% of people watching those videos do so because their scepticism drives them to, or because they just like seeing a trainwreck of logic.

In fact at some point I saw an ad at the start of a flat earther conspiracy theory that was unequivocally aimed at anti-flat earthers.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This may backfire, but the studies on the backfire effect have been called into question.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[rtb61]

If you start bullshitting people all of the time, they will start bullshitting back. Want to annoy the crap out of government and corporate propagandists, tell them you believe the crap that is undermining them, even when you don't, in fact especially when you don't. Think about it, they go through all the trouble and expense of generating propaganda to target conspiracy theories and think they are failing because the response from the public, we believe the conspiracy theory fuck off (when they actually don't but are saying so, just to gaslight the fuck out of the propagandists and get them fired for being incompetent at their job). The best way to target the propaganda of the professional government and corporate propagandists is to target them, to fuck with their heads, to sow doubt and confusion, to spread FUD, not targeted at the public just at the propagandists.

Provide me with any conspiracy theory what so ever and the humour in convincing the people who are trying to convince people that it is false, that you believe it to be true, forcing them to keep trying, well, that is priceless (actually it is priceless as they continue to spend more and more trying to convince you not to believe in something you already do not but simply claim that you do, especially when done on a larger scale, meh, fuck em). When they government want to bullshit the people, it is time for the people to bullshit the government back, in every way possible, nothing really illegal in that, just funny as fuck.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Aighearach]

I take it a step further and question if there even are any flat-earthers.

Most of them seem like smug assholes who figured out that the average person thinks they understand science, but are just ignorant superstitious morons mimicking the sciency-sounding crap their high school teachers fed them. So the "flat-earthers" can have 1000 consecutive conversations with people who stand there claiming to think it is illogical nonsense, but can't actually explain why. Flat-earthers know their arguments can be debunked, but they also know the average person would fail at that attempt even if given thousands of hours to prepare.

They've all flown in airplanes, they have eyes, most of them aren't dribbling idiots on other technical subjects. So it is just not a credible belief. Like Pastafarianism; they clearly have some sort of deeply held belief that motivates their behavior, but also it might not be the motivation they listed on the box.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Jahta]

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

There is a more fundamental issue here; one that is well described in the book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.

As the Amazon summary says "Over the past three decades, we [Americans] have been choosing the neighborhood (and church and news show) compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. The result is a country that has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred that people don't know and can't understand those who live a few miles away."

Living and working in communities of exclusively like-minded people tends to reinforce beliefs (and make them more extreme) over time. Confirmation bias becomes ingrained, and the willingness to even consider an alternative viewpoint diminishes.

In such an environment, rational argument is useless. Inconvenient evidence is simply ignored. Sadly, this is not just an American phenomenon. I've seen similar trends emerging in the UK in recent years.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[edtice1559]

I think the same thing about those who argue in favor of quite a few policies, like tax cuts paying for themselves, as an example. Completely disingenuous.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[cayenne8]

No, I think the best way to solve this would be for Google....

I think THIS is the primary point that needs to be pondered.

Why even bother? Is this really a problem?

I mean, why not let anyone rant how they wish? As long as it isn't directing direct violent action against anyone....what's the harm?

Isn't this what the internet was created largely for...for anyone to be able to share their views and speak freely?

Why not let the viewer/listener decide what is bunk and what is fact?

And also...who decides what is conspiracy or not?

I mean, we have had a few things in history that proved that truth is stranger than fiction.....and conspiracies that sounded whacky but proved to be true.

The US government conducting drug and chemical experiments on unsuspecting citizens for example?

Who'd a thought that really would have happened, but did? Example: Operaton Sea Spray.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

Sure, debunking is great...when the conspiracy theory is false. But for a long time people would call you crazy if you thought the CIA was conducting mind control programs, the NSA was faking evidence to get us involved in wars, or the spooks were recording your phone calls and email.

I have a sneaking suspicion that YouTube has no interest in sorting fact from fiction in "conspiracy theories." I'm pretty sure they just want a method of attacking political views they disagree with. In the meantime, CNN will continue their hard-hitting reports confirming that sources familiar with the thinking of former acquaintances of Donald Trump speculate that Trump's use of Russian salad dressing confirms he's a double secret Putin agent and that Hillary really won the election #RESIST.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

What is a laffer curve?

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[edtice1559]

And indeed, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis section of that link, you would realize that the Laffer curve is basically discredited. Granted it would be nice if the article pointed that out a bit more, but it's still factually correct.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

...based on a 10% reduction of 2005 US tax rates. That does not discredit the concept of Laffer curves in general.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[thewolfkin]

I object to your characterization. Pepe the frog is an alt-right nazi hate symbol, not a gay frog.

he's also fictional. REAL frogs are all gay because of the water. that horrible horrible water.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[tbannist]

The irony of linking to RationalWiki on the topic of fighting self reinforcing echo chambers and conspiracy is really too rich.

Hint: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate
Then compare to http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate
And ask yourself why a meme site is more capable of representing different sides.

Wait. What different sides is the knowyourmeme page presenting? It appears to be relentless pro-Gamergate page where every criticism of Gamergate is neatly answered and every critic is shot down effortlessly (Which should be a clue that it's biased). Basically it takes everything that Gamergaters claim about themselves at face value even when their words and actions do not match their claims. On the other hand, the Rational Wiki page is dismissive and certainly biased against Gamergate, but they also appear to be fundamentally accurate and insightful when speaking about the movement.

The biggest thing I took away from my personal experiences with Gamergaters was how much the people in Gamergate were lying to everyone including themselves and each other.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[edtice1559]

There seems to be general consensus that at 100% tax rate, economic activity would come to a halt. But there is also consensus that, if there is a Laffer curve, we are definitely left of the maximum in the US right now so any reduction in tax rates is also a reduction in revenue.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[kilfarsnar]

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

This effect holds for those with conventional viewpoints as well. Most people, when presented with facts that indicate a conspiracy is actually afoot, will choose to ignore that evidence and continue thinking that there is no conspiracy. It indicates to me that, regardless of our viewpoint, we should all be more open minded and less sure that we know what we know.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

I could believe that about personal tax rates but not corporate (before the recent cuts). When you have billion dollar businesses fleeing to tax havens we're in the "economic activity (in this country) comes to a halt" phase.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[kilfarsnar]

It took years to become deprogrammed, mostly from living in Newark and New York, watching the filth of humanity greedily feast on the idiot liberals (of which I was one), begging for handouts during the day and mugging them at night, all while perfectly capable of working for an honest and productive living.

How did you track these people to find out that the ones begging by day were also mugging by night? How did you evaluate their ability to work? Or did you just make assumptions based on your preconceived notions and incomplete perspective?

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[edtice1559]

What you are describing is quite interesting, but it's not related to the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve does not account for the ability to move to lower-tax jurisdictions. Rather it talks about tax avoidance mechanisms within the jurisdiction (mostly using barter and creative accounting). I'm a conservative at heart. I'd like to see a lower corporate tax rate offset with higher and more progressive personal tax rates for exactly the reason that you described. Sadly that seems impossible in the current political climate and the disinformation campaigns put out by our two major political parties mean that this is likely unachievable.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

Isn't moving to a lower-tax jurisdiction just an extension of "tax avoidance mechanisms?"

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[edtice1559]

Yes. Just not one that Laffer considered/discussed. And we're seeing it happen. But it's a much different problem than the Laffer curve addresses. Basically we now have *competitive* tax jurisdictions which is different than the Laffer description of a monopoly tax jurisdiction. This tax competition should push worldwide corporate rates down as corporations can relocate fairly easily. It's harder to avoid personal tax rates as the nicer places to live have to pay for the infrastructure, public safety, et cetera, and those are expensive.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Wikipedia and Youtube are conspiring! They've been influence by foreign actors, especially Russian ones, and they go right to the top: Jimmy Wales is a self-proclaimed Objectivist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., a Russian created ideological dogma! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We need a public investigation and a media circus led by narcissists immediately!

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[novakyu]

You are much too hopeful.

So Wikipedia ...

[CaptainDork]

... will "AI," common sense?

This is just the start

[Jarwulf]

to adding 'alternative views' to many other videos to 'balance them'. But only the videos they dislike er I mean the videos that are offensive or patently untrue of course.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

It's a private platform. They could simply ban nutjobs.

Re:This is just the start

[Bing Tsher E]

But who would be left, then?

Just their favorite nutjobs?

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

I think I have a video of my kid playing pee-wee soccer on there. I'm C-R-A-Z-Y.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

Big Clive, AvE, and Cody's Lab?

Re:This is just the start

[AHuxley]

Re "private platform"
Once a private area starts to invite the wider population in?
That depends on US laws and what some US states say about the role of a private area as a forum open to the public for political use.

Re:This is just the start

[Jarwulf]

Cody's a white male so he'll be downranked or superimposed with a video or explanation from a minority content creator. And then when that minority becomes unfashionable, a newer more hip minority.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

They already restrict content, so they can't claim any benefit of being a neutral platform. Once you are stuck self-censoring, you might as well set up the censorship to your liking. Anyone can post anything they want on the internet, so it's hard to argue that they have some kind of monopoly... just post a video somewhere.

Re:This is just the start

[AHuxley]

The problem is a lot of people got invited into that politically neutral platform.
They created content and supported the brand and site for some time under that neutral platform.
Once self-censoring and big brand US party political censorship is used to ban once approved political content creators?
Some of the past US state laws about public use of private property open to the public for political use can become interesting.

Re:This is just the start

[Bing Tsher E]

I have a cat video on YouTube. About ten years ago it seemed like the thing to do.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

Some of the past US state laws about public use of private property open to the public for political use can become interesting.

Ugh, I hope not. I feel like we already treat IP too much like real property and we need to be going the other direction - not expanding in bold new directions.

Re:This is just the start

[Aighearach]

Ayn Rand thought that the evil of the academic hippies could be entirely and successfully countered by reserving 5 minutes at the end of lectures for contrary views.

Re:This is just the start

[PolygamousRanchKid]

They could simply ban nutjobs.

After singles between the ages of 22-30, nutjobs are the biggest target of the advertising industry.

YouTube wants to open to the maximal amount of viewers. A lot of folks think Google is hell-bent on diversity. Not true. They just want to own everyone.

Axe-murderers, Neo-Nazis, pedophile pepperoni pizzagate Hillary Clinton lovers and "Donald Trump turned me into a Newt Gingrich!" folks . . . c'mon in . . . your videos, and advertising potential are most welcome at YouTube!

Re:This is just the start

[houghi]

It is a public platform owned by a private company. Just like your local store has to abide by certain laws of e.g. access. I can not deny access to e.g. Jews or women or gays or even people at random.

That said, I can get exceptions for individuals or individual groups for specific reasons. That would almost always come by interrupting the operation of the business.

As what they do is part of their business (posting videos and have people make comments) it is more like saying "People come in at 06:00 and buy all the bread. Now others do not have any bread anymore." You can not just ban those people from your store. It could be possible after due process, but you might have a hard time making your case.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

I can not deny access to e.g. Jews or women or gays or even people at random.

There is a very narrow band of unlawful discrimination, and it actually varies by state. On a federal level, you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or sex. Pretty much anything else is open to discrimination. Perhaps there is some obscure FCC rule that could be bent to go after YouTube, but I'm pretty sure they have full editorial control over their own website. You could absolutely ban nutjobs from your bread store, too. You could forbid people from buying bread if they don't ride a red bike to your store, or if they belong to the American Nazi party. You can absolutely refuse service for any reason that is not explicitly protected.

Doesn't Go Far Enough

[mentil]

I'm all in favor of this, so long as it's expanded to creationism, fundamentalism, or any other extremist video predicated on a faulty premise. Heck, take it further and add opposing viewpoints to ANY video presenting only one side to a contentious issue, like abortion or gun control/rights.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

You know what...no. Every single thing you hold dear is a contentious issue if the audience is wide enough.

Freedom of religion is a contentious issue. In America we have it. In Iran they don't.

Free and fair elections are a contentious issue. In much of the west we have them, in much of the rest of the world they don't and they make a point of touting it as a superior alternative to ours...and some people here quietly agree.

Same thing for blind justice, property rights, the right to operate an automobile, plastic bags in grocery stores. All of is a contentious issue.

So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.

If a Christian theologian were to put a video of his sermon, would you want little atheist factboxes popping up around it? Maybe you would, but you can't expect him to stay on the platform if it's going to go at his content with a thousand little pinpricks.

If an atheist like Richard Dawkins puts up a lecture of his, is it sensible for little factboxes of REPENT SINNERS to pop up there?

Be serious dude. You're either responsible for policing all of the content on your platform or you're responsible for none of it. There's very little ground in the middle.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[Bing Tsher E]

Once you start picking and choosing the content on the medium you control, you have asserted editorial control, and you are responsible to edit and control ALL of the content, because you are now liable for all of it. YouTube really badly needs to be hammered for this.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[mentil]

I'm fine with this. It's not like there are absolutely no legitimate arguments against representative democracy. If a video makes an argument, counter-arguments can be automatically linked to on the Youtube page. Stated facts can have sources automatically added; same for contradictory facts.
I didn't say this would be done by humans, it'd obviously have to be automated. Look at Facebook's moves to combat 'fake news' and things are moving in this direction already.

What this move is really doing, is intentionally bursting people's bubbles of insularity that allows them to stay in an echo-chamber of ignoramuses. Even if someone has the 'right' views, more perspective is always a good thing. Of course, one has to guard against the "people think contradictory things, therefore nihilism" trap, then.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[ArylAkamov]

I'd love to see the reaction to the little factbox stating "there are only two genders". This whole experiment would get pulled pretty quick if it was equally applied.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[edtice1559]

Creationism isn't problematic. It's only when creationists want their mythology taught in schools that it becomes a problem. Other types of extremism are directly dangerous. Creationists don't shoot up a room full of people or violently attack minorities just because they are minorities. It seems that a line should be drawn for extremist viewpoints that have a history of leading to senseless violence.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[pots]

So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.

"If you can't do everything perfectly, never try to do anything." You have failed to sell this.

Not that you're wrong for criticizing the parent, he turned an effort to correct falsehoods into a question of contentiousness. That shouldn't have come up in the first place. The question is not, "Are the ideas in this video contentious?" the question is, "Do the ideas in this video agree with what's in Wikipedia?"

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[AmiMoJo]

According to TFA it would pull the following from Wikipeida:

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] People who do not identify as men or women or with masculine or feminine gender pronouns are often grouped under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.

Perhaps you can think of a better example.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

This is a garbage definition. It presupposes the existence of sex-based social structures as distinct from "gender identity." This is a nonexistent distinction. One's "identity" does not exist in a vacuum. You aren't Jewish if you say you are, you're Jewish if you say you are and observe religious practices that most Jews would recognize as Judaism. You aren't a woman if you say you're a woman, you actually have to be a woman as recognized by other women. If there's contention among a sizeable number of them...you aren't a woman.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[kilfarsnar]

It's not like there are absolutely no legitimate arguments against representative democracy.

It is wildly inefficient compared to a benevolent dictatorship.

Unfortunately, benevolent dictatorships are few and far between.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[AmiMoJo]

So being Jewish depends on you acting like a Jew, doing Jew stuff like participating in the religion etc. But being a woman isn't dependent on your acting like a woman, doing woman stuff like wearing women's clothing etc.

Also, lots of non-religious people identify as Jewish because it's both a religion and a race. But you don't have to have Jewish race to be Jewish.

IOW trying to narrowly, strictly define these labels is futile and not at all related to how people actually use them.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

Both questions are equally irrelevant. Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else. It's pretty good for nonpartisan stuff like science and geography (although you could see how the latter could have issues), but for political hot-button stuff that's a matter of opinion it has gatekeepers and they exercise their own editorial judgement. I'll give you an example:

Wikipedia will tell you unambiguously that having a gun in the house increases the chance that someone who lives there will suffer a gunshot injury. That's a verifiable fact. It's got all sorts of references from respected sources like the CDC attached to it. What it doesn't tell you is how the correlation and causation are distinguished, but it's a fact that's bandied about by gun grabbers to prove "scientifically" that guns are unsafe. The tacit assumption being that having the gun is what causes the suicides or the murders that it is used for. An equally valid and numerically verifiable fact is that in many US states, something like half the population owns a gun but the rate of misuse is something like 5 per million. And gun nuts can use that equally verifiable fact to say (again, correctly) that nearly everyone who has guns doesn't cause any trouble with them.

None of that discussion tells you anything about the value judgementwe should make as a society about whether we believe people should be allowed to carry/own/have access to firearms. It can certainly inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to own guns can cause X amount of marginal mortality" in the same way highway fatality statistics can inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to drive cars can cause Y amount of marginal mortality" (and btw Y is about 30pct bigger than X in the US including gun suicides and 300pct bigger excluding gun suicides), but it tells you absolutely nothing about how much you should value freedom of movement or freedom to defend yourself with deadly force over overall "safety." That last bit is a value judgement that can't be informed by statistics alone.

"Fact checking" frequently stops at the statistics and doesn't state that caveat. Usually that omission is made to score political points. It actually gives "fact checking" a bad name since most of the widely known fact-checking is done by left-wing news outlets against right-wing politicians and activists. This YouTube nonsense is just another example of it.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

No...to be a woman you have to be accepted by society at large as a woman. Just like to be a Jew you have to be accepted by society at large as a Jew. If a large number of Jews say you aren't Jewish because you have neither the bloodline nor the observance...you aren't a Jew. If a large number of men or women refuse to accept that you're a woman because you were born a man and lived your life as a man and are biologically a man...then you aren't a woman. Your say-so alone is not sufficient.

Perhaps a better example is plumbing. You can identify as a plumber. You can do plumbing. But if you aren't licensed to be a plumber, you aren't a plumber. Ditto for civil engineering. Commercial truck driver (I can hop in the cab of a big rig right now and make it go...that don't make it legal).

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[Trogre]

Umm, you do know this is about information that is factually incorrect, like man never landing on the moon, or 2.3 trillion USD missing from the Pentagon before 9/11.

Not just stuff that conflicts with your particular world view.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[pots]

Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else.

Wikipedia is way more authoritative than me, or you. Since we are the ones reading it in this scenario, that's a pretty good starting point.

For your example: it's true that Wikipedia won't tell you how to interpret the facts that it gives, but presumably that's what the video that you're watching is doing. That's what conspiracy theories do. Since the point of these links is to combat false information in youtube videos, telling you whether that information is true seems sufficient.

Yes it's true that Wikipedia (like all sources of information) is subject to editorial bias, but since its only purpose here is to counter false information that isn't a significant problem. You watch a video, you click the link, you find out that the video was lying to you, you realize that you shouldn't pay attention to what the video said. The end.

Re:What could go wrong

[MightyYar]

Perfect example of how you can't fix stupid.

What liberal bias on Wikipedia?

[tepples]

What examples of "left bias" have you found on Wikipedia that are unsupported by sources that have earned a reputation for fact-checking? They might be in need of bringing them in line with Wikipedia's point of view policy. Or is Wikipedia's guideline for determining "reputation for fact-checking" itself applied in a manner that shows a systemic bias?

Re:What liberal bias on Wikipedia?

[fafalone]

Not giving opinions the same weight as actual facts they contradict is left bias according to the right.

I've been downmodded a few times recently for criticizing the left, gotta get a few downmods in for trashing the right too.

Re:What liberal bias on Wikipedia?

[houghi]

If you are at right side at the end of a line, everything else is left. The same goes with the other side.

Re:What liberal bias on Wikipedia?

[sexconker]

Soros? Pizzagate? Gamergate? Fucking LOL, this is like a guaranteed alt-right bingo.

You're even linking to a site that was delisted from Google for hosting child pornography, that's your respectable source?

I swear you conspiratards get nuttier every day.

Uh, everything that AC posted is 100% correct. Can you actually dispute anything? Or do you live on blind faith in your adopted narrative?

Re:You mean everything but SJW/Liberal media

[youngone]

How the hell would a text box on Youtube kill Wikipedia?
I must be old but I can remember when slashdot was populated with people who knew how the Internet worked.

Re:You mean everything but SJW/Liberal media

[Bing Tsher E]

I must be old, but I can remember when a link on slashdot could kill the linked web site.

Re: So a left biased source will be used to hide..

[Anonymous Coward]

The media has always been biased, but biased news isn't the same as fake news. The American media, through the printed word, wasn't exactly favorable toward their rules in Great Britain, and the British didn't exactly like the satirical coverage they received. They sought to restrict the freedom of American newspapers to publish stories that were unfavorable to them. That's why the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. No doubt the American media was biased against the British government, but that's not the same as fake news. Even a completely satirical publication like The Onion isn't fake news because it clearly discloses that it's satire. Journalistic errors also aren't fake news, provided that retractions are issued when the errors are brought to the attention of those responsible. Fake news is when fiction is presented as real news for the purpose of deceiving people. The term "fake news" has become incredibly overused and abused, just as your post is doing.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of countering extreme or harmful posts, I'd love to see Slashdot implement better measures to reduce the garbage that gets posted here. They've had millions of comments that have been moderated up or down, so it should be possible to analyze that database and find predictors of comments (like the parent) that have a very high probability of ending up at -1. These comments could then be automatically rejected or flagged for editor review before being displayed. It wouldn't get rid of all trolling, and that really shouldn't be the goal. But it could curtail the most egregious forms of spam including some of the racist and conspiracy comments like the Qanon nonsense that gets posted sometimes. YouTube has a much bigger challenge in analyzing the content of videos, but the relatively simplistic natural language processing required to filter the most harmful of comments should be relatively simple to implement.

Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, biases

[harvey the nerd]

this affects a lot of "science" subjects. e.g. climate and medicine

You could even call WP a regular pharma ho' or sock puppet.

Re:What could go wrong

[AHuxley]

Look up a type of gasoline engine and get extra free unrelated information added on:
Sleeve valve.
The Wankel engine.
Look up Apple and get the history of Microsoft for free?
Interested in Microsoft? The web site will offer that with the history of Amiga.
The big brand owners are spreading a new look FCC fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... all over the users browser?

So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

The greatest conspiracy theory of our time (and the dumbest of all time) is Russiagate. Mueller - one of the people who lied you into Iraq has had more than a year but has gotten nothing more than twitter trolls and indictments that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia.

Pointing this out always results in butthurt from people who have been eager to get punked a second time by the people who lied to world about Saddam planning 911 and having WMD's. Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's maybe give Mueller time to conclude his investigation. He's given no indication so far as to whether it will conclude Trump has charges to answer or not, but he gives every indication of doing a thorough job. When the result comes out, whatever he finds, it should be conclusive. As to the minor charges so far: what, you expect him to simply ignore minor offences that he comes across in the course of his investigation?

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

How would this be a conspiracy? He is investigating facts. We know that Russia sought to influence our elections and we can be quite sure that Russia doesn't respect US campaign laws. The investigation itself shows that we are committed to our elections. Many companies (i.e Facebook, Twitter) have publicly disclosed Russion interference activities. So there's clearly something to investigate.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

How would this be a conspiracy? He is investigating facts. We know that Russia sought to influence our elections and we can be quite sure that Russia doesn't respect US campaign laws.

Your not-facts are the conspiracy theory. Again: none of Mueller's indictments have anything to do with Russian hacking or colluding with Trump to do so. This is nothing more than an excuse from partisan Democrats to explain their loss to the 2nd worst candidate in history, and so they don't have to change their corrupt corporatist money whore ways (that led to Trump in the first place).

We know that Russia sought to influence our elections

With Twitter trolls looking to suck people in with clickbait of all kinds and then make money from the add revenue, same as TMZ and countless other sites? And step back and look at this whole storyline for two seconds: why would Russia try to tip the election one way or the other when both parties have been extremely hostile to Russia for over a century. Nancy Cordes (who is unlikely to ever be invited on TV any time soon) asked John Podesta how Russia was able to swing an election with a few thousand dollars by focusing on purple states while the $1.2 BILLION Clinton campaign did not.

Many companies (i.e Facebook, Twitter) have publicly disclosed Russion interference activities.

Ever hear the expression "hiring you was like losing three good men"? That's what your "activities" do to the Russiagate theory. The first time people lost their damn minds over $5000 in Facebook ads (in a race where Trump got $6 BILLION in free media coverage), it turned out that many of them came after the election and were ads for puppies, Obama memorabilia or a documentary critical of Trump's golf course in Scotland.

Worst. CT. Ever.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[meta-monkey]

Sure, FaceBook disclosed that, mostly in 2015, some people in Russia ran clickbait ads for and against Black Lives Matter. Therefore, Donald Trump is a traitor and Hillary becomes President now.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

While I agree that Maddow in particular is trying to squeeze blood from a stone, you're obviously blind if you think the Trump campaign and cabinet members didn't get help from Russia, make shady deals with Russians, and lied about it â" sometimes under oath.

Copied and pasted since you skipped it the first time:

Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.

So far you Russiagaters have as much evidence as Birthers, Chem Trailers or Lunar Conspiracy nutjobs. But at least those jackasses weren't trying to drag us into World War 3.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[apoc.famine]

Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.

Oh, the delicious irony.

How awesome is it that you can demand others play by rules that you yourself won't follow? That's gotta feel good, right?

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

Oh, the delicious irony.

Insert Diego Montoya clip here.

How awesome is it that you can demand others play by rules that you yourself won't follow?

Except that's exactly how it works, dotard, as you can't prove a negative. It's the job of a person claiming a thing is a thing to prove that its a thing. If you say you believe in Santa Claus as a grown assed man (far less embarrassing than believing in Russiagate btw), is it somehow my responsibility to prove that a man with magical powers doesn't exist in an undisclosed location? Nope.

As Christopher Hitchens said after debating nutjob fundies who claim it was his job to prove that an omnipotent sky god doesn't exist, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

That's an interesting assertion, but it conflicts with what the President has said. “Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!” If the focus of the investigation is limited strictly to the Trump campaign, you would have a point. But it's much broader in scope. It's also not clear what our intelligence agencies knew or should have known. But the actions taken by the Obama administration are also controversial because they may have (intentionally or otherwise) ended up investigating Trump campaign operatives during the campaign. Given that both parties have hurled attacks at each other around this, it is shocking that there is any push back on the investigation from anywhere. http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

I have no idea how you got from the first statement to the latter and I think it's an attempt at some snarky sarcasm but maybe too cunning to be understood.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

One area where we are in agreement is that Rachael Maddow clips *should* be tagged.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

I don't want to believe that Russia actually influenced this. And Clinton wasn't a great candidate. But I do believe that Russia *tried* to influence the election. Would you argue that attempted murder shouldn't be investigated because the perpetrator was a bad shot and missed the target? I can understand Trump supporters being upset about the investigation as it does seem to psychologically detract from their joy of victory, but the feelings of Trump supporters are not a valid law enforcement concern.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

Well if those ads were very effective, it just makes the campaigns look incompetent. It's been pointed out that their spending paled in comparison to the campaigns' spending. The point of the investigation though isn't to evaluate the *effectiveness* of breaking campaign laws, it's to determine whether the laws were broken!

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

I'm tired of people lying and saying Saddam didn't have WMDs

You've managed to stay this ignorant for 15 years? You never noticed how the neocons who lied you into Iraq bother with this claim? Chemical weapons degrade over time, sparky. That mustard gas warhead that would have killed you in 1980 might....give you a bad rash in 2002.

Protip: it's not a weapon of mass destruction if its no longer capable of causing mass destruction.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

Think something through once in a while.

You first. Then explain how you can prove .0011% of a $9 billion plus election affected a vote, much less enough to swing an election. Did the Twitter click farms somehow prevent Hillary from campaigning in the Rust Belt states that cost her the election? Did the puppy ads on Facebook force Hillary to pick a right-wing pro-life running mate when she needed to bring in the left side of the party?

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

Think something through once in a while.

You first. Do explain how .0011% spending out of a $9+ billion election swung a vote, much less the election overall.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

He never said that they did. The investigation has nothing to do with trump. Get that through your head!!!! The investigation has nothing to do with trump!!!!! The only connection whatsoever is that Russia interfered with our elections, by trying to sway the American public with propaganda and other means, to have trump win the election, or to at least sow discontent.

Then why is he investigating Trump's campaign and administration, slick? You think Mueller became a meter maid in his retirement and he's coming to collect on unpaid parking tickets??

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[MrL0G1C]

Do you actually support Trump? A compulsive liar, a global warming denier who claimed to want to 'drain the swamp' and then puts the worst of the swamp in charge, a man who put Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, a man that says 'grab them by the pussy'. A clear racist who's made obviously racist comments. A man who is trying to decimate the EPA. A man who fires anybody who says anything he doesn't like, a man who has been called a fucking moron by his own staff. etc etc. He's a dangerous idiot.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

Do you actually support Trump?

I called out the Birthers who also made assertions without evidence, that Obama was a muslim born in Kenya. Doesn't mean I supported Obama's drone murders or bank bailouts. In fact I would see him in the Hague.

It's called having a bullshit detector, and using it no matter the source of the bullshit. You might try it some time instead of the noble cause corruption Russiagaters are presently engaged in.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

I'm sorry that facts upset you so much but you'll have to join the reality-based community at some point. Your cognitive dissonance may give you a heart attack when the truth is revealed, and most of the facts are public knowledge acknowledged by Trump himself.

Your complete and utter inversion of reality is noted. There are no facts that support the Russiagate narrative.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

Then investigate him for something real if you have probable cause (like money laundering or bribes). Not dumbass McCarthyite conspiracy theories trying to start WWIII.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

That's an interesting assertion, but it conflicts with what the President has said.

The president is a WWE character, a self-promoter and a habitual liar. If he said water was wet I could ask a chemist for confirmation.

If the focus of the investigation is limited strictly to the Trump campaign, you would have a point. But it's much broader in scope.

Which is the problem with special prosecutors: they turn our entire Constitutional system of justice on its head. Probable suspicion > warrant > investigation > prosecution is how this is supposed to work. Not having a Grand Inquisitor with a writ of assistance, unlimited powers to investigate and anyone and anything he chooses for any reason, in the complete absence of any evidence to support its theory.

it is shocking that there is any push back on the investigation from anywhere. http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Both parties have been actively hostile to Russia for over a hundred years. Which makes for one of the many, many, many, many plot holes in Russiagate: why would Russians try to interfere to put one party hostile to their nation over the other party hostile to their nation? It would be like accusing MLK of interfering in an election between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Doesn't make any kind of sense.

Fine print

[duke_cheetah2003]

Hmm. I bet these article links get about as much attention as the fine print on lawyer commercials. Good luck with that.

Re: Like for example

[negRo_slim]

The horse is fair from dead, a simple trip to Reddit or even casual listening to NPR will show you that.

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[romanval]

Wikipedia requires submitters to cite openly verifiable sources... which is something conspiracy sources won't bother doing... they are usually are self-referencing (bad source A citing bad source B, and vise-versa).. or they're deliberately obfuscating any factual data that contradicts their message.

Wikipedia Saved my sanity

[Air-conditioned cowh]

A few years ago Wikipedia saved me from believing all these monstrous conspiracy theories about Jimmy Saville being some prolific peodo or something.

I'm sure it will do an excellent job in protecting the fragile masses from any other conspiracy theory today.

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

I want to see a huuuuge disclaimer on these looney SJWs' videos stating there are only 2 genders and thinking otherwise is a mental illness.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be a little shocked, then, if you go to Wikipedia and read what it has to say about being Transgender.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Man the right gets worked up over folks' genitals. Really weird, don't you think?

Re:Uh, waht?

[Aighearach]

Right, because adding more speech to disagree with you is surely what "suppress" means. LOL

Wow, a person who can't tell "suppress" from "disagree with." Talk about mushy thinking. You should get some sort of award, maybe even a lifelong pension.

Re: CC on wikipedia

[Aighearach]

Maybe we can convince them to only eat right-handed proteins.

Don't let those hippies control your mind with left-food, only eat right-food.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[butzwonker]

First of all, one man's racism is not another's differing viewpoint. Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion. Nobody is expected to or even should be tolerant towards intolerant people. Read Sir Karl Poppers "The Open Society and Its Enemies", that might enlighten you.

Second and way more importantly, this is not about racism or political opinions, this is about getting rid of obvious off-topic troll posts. This thread is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a member of the KKK, and the people who post this useless drivel can just go fuck off - permban them, shadow-ban them, delete their posts. I'm personally fine leaving all kinds of KKK posts in a thread about "Hillary Clinton is a member of KKK".

These off-topic posts are designed to derail discussions. Ban those assholes, it's as simple as that.

Re: What could go wrong

[Hognoxious]

Marvellous. Those who believe there's a conspiracy will point to that as proof.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[iggymanz]

Wrong, people mentioning issues with outsourcing major projects to India or wanting to discuss demographics of inner city crime have been called racist. It is often a smoke screen raised to prevent rational discussion, a label thrown when no substantial argument exists.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[sinij]

Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion.

Not in a today's SJW-infested world. For example, opposition to illegal immigration often portrayed as racism. So definition is anything but clear, and I can guarantee that my definition is quite different from AmiMoJo's.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[tbannist]

Wow. Someone has been accused of something they didn't do or being something they aren't. I bet that's never happened on Slashdot before on any topic that's not racism...

I hope the sarcasm is obvious.

Of course, the flip side is that sometimes the "people mentioning issues" "or wanting to discuss demographics" actually are racists, and they're actually not mentioning or discussing anything other than their clearly racist views. The claims are just how they deflect criticism, I've seen it happen both ways, but the actual racists seem to be far more indignant about being called on their transparently held views.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[meta-monkey]

Not really. There's personal racism, structural racism, scientific racism, disparate impact, privilege theory, critical race theory, lived experience, etc. Racism is not simple, at all, and the way it's employed and criticized rhetorically is toxic to any sort of rational debate. You cannot simply handwave away the complexity of race in American society with "Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion."

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[meta-monkey]

The mainstream media does this all the time. Some garbage outlet like Buzzfeed reports "Florida Man Claims Bigfoot Sighting," and then Huffington post reports "Buzzfeed Reports Bigfoot Sighting," then WaPo comes in with "According to a Huffington Post Report, Bigfoot on the Loose in Florida," then the NYT asks the White House to comment on the bigfoot sightings reported by WaPo, then CNN runs with "NYT: Administration Dodges Bigfoot Questions" and has a 12-person panel analyzing the White House response to the bigfoot crisis, and then the next day we've got "Jennifer Lawrence Eviscerates Trump on Jimmy Kimmel Over Bigfoot Controversy!" trending on YouTube.

Re:Uh, waht?

[meta-monkey]

I wouldn't say "suppress." Just propagandize. Things they disagree with will get "corrected," but completely erroneous bullshit that confirms their political prejudices will show up on your recommended list.

Re:apply tags

[meta-monkey]

This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. Take one line, from one email, from one crank, and say "see this proves the greys and the lizard men are conspiring with the illuminati to corrupt our precious bodily fluids WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" The entire idea that Donald Trump, the golf course and casino guy from the TV show is really a secret Russian agent is ludicrous. It's one of the stupidest conspiracy theories of all time. Not only is there no evidence, it doesn't even make any sense. How the hell did the Russians know Trump was going to win? Nobody thought Trump was going to win! How the hell did they swing the election with a few thousand dollars worth of FaceBook ads about Black Lives Matter when the campaigns were spending billions?

The alternative explanation is a lot simpler: lots of people voted for Donald Trump because Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and fuck illegals, fuck muslims, and fuck China. Doesn't that make a lot more sense than sinister Russian plots?

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[AmiMoJo]

Some conspiracy theories have started using citations to add credibility to their claims. It's become quite common, especially among the "rational" community which centres around YouTube, and has been adopted by sites like Brietbart.

The thing is, the sources actually debunk them in most cases. But they know that most people don't check sources, or if they do they don't read past the headline. In fact the YouTube rationals have developed a technique for ensuring this, where they show part of the article and read it out in the video, so that viewers think they have seen it and there is no deception. 9 times out of 10 if you scroll just past where the video stops it debunks them.

So all that will happen is the conspiracy theories will incorporate the Wikipedia article, carefully cherry picking paragraphs and/or editing them, so that their lazy readership doesn't even bother to check for themselves.

Will it be fair??

[johnlcallaway]

Or is it only those conspiracies that the viewpoints at YouTube disagree with.

For instance, will it provide the same information for videos about climate change, since some claim those are conspiracies?? One could argue that the views for climate change are pushing an extreme viewpoint.

Or how about a conspiracy that YouTube is biased?? Will that show up??

Should be interesting to see what YouTube considers conspiracies that people need to be informed about and those that they should just accept.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[Megol]

So you don't see a difference between off topic trolls and actual discussion?

You were even given an example: someone posting claims Hillary Clinton is a member of the KKK in a thread about something else.

Re:Like the nutcases

[kilfarsnar]

that thought the government was doing mind control experiments, or that they were being monitored on the internet by the spy agencies, or maybe that the CIA was involved in trafficking drugs. Loons!

This is kind of the problem. I have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist for expressing views that are now fairly mainstream (like the CIA trafficking drugs). In fact, even the term "conspiracy theorist" was deliberately made into a derogatory term by the CIA. https://www.paulcraigroberts.o...

Re:apply tags

[Anonymous Coward]

The House Intelligence Committee has seen all the evidence and realized there's nothing there and is closing down their investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to follow shortly.

There's nothing there. It's a complete nothingburger. There is no evidence. You've been had.

It's time to admit that and move on.

The committee that has been caught, numerous times, coordinating with the people it is ostensibly investigating? They found nothing? You don't say!!

Re: So a left biased source will be used to hide..

[mukinrestak]

"Journalistic errors also aren't fake news, provided that retractions are issued when the errors are brought to the attention of those responsible."

There is however a very specific sort of fake news related to journalistic "errors". That is to have a pattern of constant "errors" favouring one position's arguments, which get retracted later.

More people see initial articles than retractions, so as long as you post a retraction later, you can print whatever bullshit you want, get it fixed in people's minds as real, then print a retraction later that only 25% of those people will see. This leaves you 75% of the people still thinking it's real while you've covered your ass with the retraction for when someone accuses you of deliberately lying.

So much for originality...

[iq145]

Isn't this a form of plagiarism?

Re: Doesn't Go Far Enough- Wikipedia has flaw

[iggymanz]

No, there is a world of difference between simplified summaries and presenting provably false mythical nonsense as fact.

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[novakyu]

Have you ever edited Wikipedia? There are no "Wikipedia submitters," and what you call "requires ... to cite openly verifiable sources" amounts to someone coming along after the edit is already visible, putting up a "[citation needed]" link.

I don't think you know how Wikipedia actually works.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[iggymanz]

Example: I believe in hiring purely based on ability and not to meet any racial quota. To have those racial quotas is racist. "Affirmative Action" is racist.

But people will claim I am racist for holding these race-neutral views.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[tbannist]

But people will claim I am racist for holding these race-neutral views.

Maybe they don't believe you're being entirely truthful? For example, I've found, in my personal experience, that people who say "Affirmative action is racist" tend to follow up the declaration by spouting actually racist bullshit.