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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.