WikiTribune Promises Evidenced Based Journalism Despite Wikipedia Shortcomings
WikiTribune
(Last Updated On: April 28, 2017)

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, released a video claiming that WikiTribune – a new website he’s working on – will attempt to fix all the “fake news” spreading about the internet these days (mostly from mainstream media). Wales will use crowdsource fact-checkers and professional journalists alike in an attempt to create an open, information capitalist ecosystem where community members and professionals can contribute to making journalism great again.

There’s only one problem with that… it doesn’t work for Wikipedia, so why would it work for WikiTribune?

In the video, Wales argues that fact-checking would reign supreme…

However, Wikipedia uses a similar model but bases their fact checking on the reliability and weight of a source. So ideologically driven editors will scrub a source (even if it’s fact-based) and use another for its “due weight” because it’s more mainstream or considered by Wikipedia’s editors (via consensus) to be reliable.

They use the bureaucratic runaround for their own means, to persuade the masses and peddle misinformation as fact. This causes a lot of hot button topics to turn into “edit wars” and “battlegrounds”, forcing administrative arbitration to step in at times. For instance, when evidenced surfaced of Zoe Quinn and co., involved in doxing, harassment and wrongdoing via the CON chat leaks, the Wikipedia editors filibustered the Crash Override Network article until they could find a way to ensure that none of the actual damning facts made its way onto the Crash Override Network’s Wikipedia page.

It’s also how Wikipedia’s #GamerGate article became such a propaganda-filled mess and is little more than a sounding board and advertising platform for Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and far leftist extremism. The editors favored sites like Gawker, Vox, and Washington Post since they had an obvious bias against #GamerGate. Their inclusion of the FBI report links to sites that paint the FBI as incompetent, all in an attempt to avoid mentioning the fact that the only thing the FBI found in their investigation were third-party trolls, and they couldn’t prove that #GamerGate was a harassment campaign.

So the question becomes: what would make WikiTribune immune from sourcing the Gizmodos, Voxs, and Snopes of the internet, when such sites – even Snopes – have been proven to publish false news?

According to Reuters, media professor from the London School of Economics, Charlie Beckett, believes that the site would simply serve the internet-savvy, information-conscious readers and may not really help curb the tide of false info being peddled to the masses from the mainstream outlets.

The bigger issue isn’t whether WikiTribune has reach, but whether or not it will suffer from censoring and squashing community contributions that don’t toe the political line for whoever takes charge. It’s already happened with Wikipedia under a similar model, and with so many websites succumbing to censorship and SJW sociopolitical biases, what would stop WikiTribune from suffering the same fate?


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Fear Me I Am Free

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  • Keystone

    If a site or source claims to be *the* arbiter of what is and isn’t “fake news” then you can safely assume it’s a partisan hack site.

    Even people or places that do have the facts are open to other points of view, unlike this guy and Wiki; you can tell just by looking he has that “I am smarter than everyone” look.

    • Disqusted

      This. Anyone who says “this is fake/real because I said so” is a conceited lying piece of shit.

      Reminds me of a science teacher I had in high school that all the other teachers worshipped just because they believed he taught from memory instead of using a textbook, although he referred to a textbook in my classes. He kept saying “[insert here] doesn’t exist/isn’t possible because I know so”.

      The guy was so up himself, he kept ruining kid’s lives by forcing them down specific paths against their will. Probably dead from old age by now.

  • Salt Miner

    Boy howdy, this certainly won’t be “unbaised” in any shape or form. Or how anyone can edit Wikipedia and inject their own Leftist fallacies without consequence. Ain’t that right, Jimmy boy?

    *wink*

  • Mr.Towel

    Consensus driven/peer review models doesn’t work in an era so ideologically charged. It will fail as truth source like all others.

    You know what works way better than consensus? Logic. Evidence and logic.

    Fuck consensus, if history teaches us anything is that consensus was wrong even at the Academia for many centuries, why would consensus from a bunch of journalists and laymen be any different? It doesn’t matter if 2 billion people believe something or buy something, If they’re are wrong, they’re wrong. They’re 2 billion people who believe in something wrong. It doesn’t matter how many people believe something. That’s the fallacy of numbers, Argumentum ad Populum.

    Logic doesn’t care about your consensus, doesn’t care about your feelings, doesn’t care about your ideology. It’s the cold hard truth and people should learn to deal with it.

  • So basically, WikiTribune will be just yet another biased, dishonest, leftard Social Justice feminist pile of crap?

  • RichardGristle

    Oh they’re going to decipher what news is fake or not huh? Wow I feel better already.

    • Disqusted

      Via Snopes and Politifact again, no doubt.

      • It would be hilarious if this is all an attempt to create an oscillating cycle of self-affirmation among the “fact checkers”. A perfect amalgamation of citogenesis.

        Politfact says “nuh uh” to some news beat. Snopes reiterates that point by saying it’s debunked because Politfact said so (while strawmanning the heck out of some topic for good measure). WikiTribune cites both Snopes and Politfact because “they said so”.

        Wikipedia cites WikiTribune because it’s a secondary source citing “reputable sources” and therefore it can’t be wrong.

        Citogenesis complete.

  • Disqusted

    Another attempt by liars to self-validate themselves.
    “We’re trustworthy because we say so! We checked!”

    • Disqusted

      I just noticed that “professional standards-based journalism” text. We all know just how reliable “professional journalism standards” are, don’t we?

      *cough*FAKE NEWS*cough*

  • FlamingoJet

    So those GamerGate articles are going to be properly ammended, when?