Talk:Media Bias/Fact Check/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The org should be described as an amateur operation

Per the CJR.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If the person has a communications degree, has pursued educating himself on media bias for 20+ years, and has successfully run a website for 5+ years that is frequently sourced by major media outlets and IFCN fact-checkers, is it fair to classify as an amateur operation? At this point, the website is authoritative in the bias rating genre. This classification is wrong and outdated.

Is finance.sina.com.cn a RS?

Can the editor who insists this is a RS explain how it is one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please descend from the high horse. Note in the original sentence that I said 'media organisations' have used it. I haven't stated that all those listed are the top tier of the media. I'm not going to get into a fight here as politics articles are the worst kind of battleground that I don't want to get involved in again. Point being, biased RS-Opinion sources should be able to be used here when cited for their opinions or when plain facts are in evidence (they used MBFC to discuss other news-media organisations, that is plain, obvious and uncontroversial). Reducing the sourcing in this article to only the top tier of the media and MBFC themselves does not result in a neutral or comprehensive article, and won't be able to. You are applying the letter of the law with no context as to what is being discussed, which makes a mockery of our policies. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Media organizations" also speak favorably of the flat-earth theory. Of course, not credible ones. But I'm sure why you can see how it's problematic to say "Many media organizations have described the theory of a flat earth as highly credible". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That comparison is far from apt. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual. I don't see why Sina Finance shouldn't be a reliable source for a website. It is a professionally edited publication, and its reliability would be comparable to, say, the CNBC website for non-controversial topics. WP:BIAS should be considered. feminist (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some clue as to when this started?

Yeah, I know I could find this out myself, but then what's the point of Wikipedia? Some clue as to when this thing started might be valuable. For all anyone knows from just the article, someone set this Media Bias/Fact Check thing up last week, and then wrote the Wikipedia article. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Classification and no Methodology

The section on Classification and Methodology gives a bare-bones outline on the site's classification system, and says nothing on methodology. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

AzseicsoK, It used to, but was removed by some other editors. I have no interest in edit warring to restore the content, but feel free to improve it if you wish. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 15:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, Interesting, thanks! I'm pretty sure this is not something I care to take on. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of website as a "fact-checker"

The editor Insertcleverphrasehere has edit-warred to introduce an unsourced description of MBFC as a fact-checker. The editor cited two Newsweek links and asked me to check them (as if they would substantiate the fact-checker claim) - neither source substantiated the claim. If someone is to be called a fact-checker, then it needs to be sourced - this is very simple. Furthermore, the fact the MBFC is not on Poynter's network of international fact-checkers casts considerable doubt on the website's own self-description as a fact-checker. As far as I can tell in reading MBFC's methodology, the people there just check fact-checks by actual fact-checkers and use those fact-checks to inform their categorizations of media bias.

Both the CJR and Nieman Lab opt to characterize MBFC as an amateur website that categorizes media bias (and CJR even cites the owner of MBFC's self-description for that), and thus we ought to go with those sources when we word the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Please don't make accusations of edit warring, no one has broken 3RR. The wording you are attempting to insert is not neutral nor is it representative of what the majority of sources say about the site. You may be right about not specifically calling it a "fact-checking organisation", as this implies that they check individual stories, which they generally do not. Rather they rate the sources themselves based on overall accuracy of their reporting as a whole and their political bias. I've changed the wording of the lede to reflect this and removed the "fact checking organisation" bit. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 12:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Different versions of the lede

• A. MBFC is an amateur web site that categorizes media bias.

• B. is a web site that rates news and media organisations based on their factual accuracy and political bias.

References

A is clearly preferable given that it succinctly makes clear that this is an amateur website that categorizes media bias. The sourcing is vastly stronger for this version: CJR and Nieman Lab opt for this description. Version B is overly long and full of unnecessary language - furthermore it fails to note that is an amateur website. The only RS cited in B are Newsweek (a borderline RS) and Fast Company - neither of which are as strong sources as CJR and Nieman. "InsideSources" is not a RS nor is the self-published HuffPo op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterisation of the relative strength of the sources. CJR has one paragraph about MBFC, and that writer seems very against the idea of bias checking in the first place, indicating that he might not be entirely neutral on the subject. Neiman Lab makes no accusation of being an 'amateur site'. This is strong language with important negative connotations which does not belong in the lede when precisely one source uses this language to describe MBFC. the current wording works perfectly fine and isn't too wordy. If anything the lede should be expanded, not cut down further. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Nieman Lab is essentially saying it's an amateur website: "a site that is not associated with any larger organization; it’s run by a man named Dave Van Zandt, who says he’s spent “more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That isn't the same thing at all, and doesn't have the same negative connotations as 'amateur'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have a synonym without the same negative connotations, please bring it. But we have to note that this website is basically just one guy rating news sites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

And we do. In the body of the article. Although it isn't just one guy, there is a team of reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

According to the website itself. CJR and Nieman make clear it's an amateur operation run by one guy, and there is nothing to suggest that this guy or any of the other people involved on the website are subject matter experts or that there are strictly enforced standards in place. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is any way to be a qualified expert in this particular field of assessing media bias, so I guess you are technically correct by default. In any case, their standards and editorial process is clearly laid out on the website (and used to be in the article before it was gutted shortly after I published it). Appologies for being a bit terse, but I would have never written this article if I knew how damn nitpicky you were going to be. Common sense isn't being applied here and by your standards of sourcing nothing is good enough unless it hold the same negative opinion as you do. The CJR guy doesn't like them, fine, but CJR barely covered them at all and Nieman isn't critical of them, just states that they are non-affiliated and verbatim quotes Van Zant. You say that Insidesources isn't reliable, but they look OK to me and seem to have researched MBFC in the most detail and I've seen no evidence of unreliability of the source. If you only want to rely on the top tier of the top tier of sources, even when they only barely mention the subject, you aren't going to get a complete picture and we won't be able to write a complete article. If you want to only rely on one source by a guy who clearly doesn't like media bias categorisation in the first place (CJR) then it won't be NPOV. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we adhere to a WP:RS policy. We don't use non-RS to fill in the gaps. That RS barely cover this organization should, if anything, be an indication of non-notability and fringe status. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, You say "non-RS" but there is not a bright line here. Some sources are generally more reliable than others. I disagree with your assessment of the sources, these seem like varying degrees of reliable sources to me, though some might be better than others, I wouldn't categorise any as 'unreliable'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion on the RS noticeboard by the way, encouraging folks on the RSN to help us write up this article (they're having a discussion on a related subject).[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, A is the most accurate. I looked at the article in Fast Company which says that "The [MIT] tool uses a machine learning technique known as support vector machines to learn to predict how media organizations will be classified by Media Bias/Fact Check, an organization that tracks the level of factual content and political bias in thousands of news sites. ". So, in fact, the interest of the article is not so much MB/FC but the development of tools that can create similar results (incidentally using input from Wikipedia :o). So the Fast Company article definitely does not support the claim that MB/FC rates sites based on their factual accuracy. (The citation above suggests the typical "search-for-charged-words-versus-neutral-(factual)-words" method.)

At RS/N it is pointed out that they don't define their terms. MB/FC puts Media Matters and The Root well to the left of Telesur and Jacobin respectively, which, I think most observers would agree seems wrong, since the former are both in the centrist/Democratic/neoliberal camp, while the latter are more closely associated with the Left/Socialist camp. Looking at their write-up of The Root, I find: "The Root always sources there (sic) information to credible media sources that are typically high for factual reporting." This use of "high sources" for "there information" doesn't inspire confidence, I'm afraid... ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

SashiRolls, They do define their terms, or at least their scoring rubric. See their website. Irregardless of 'amateur' A is incorrect in any case, because it leaves out half of what their rating is. They also rate on factual accuracy of the source, not just political bias. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no ill will towards the folks doing it. I wonder how they would rate en.wp ^^ (my guess, wildly unreliable, extreme center-fright-let, and possibly unpleasant). It's pretty clear they're notable given the researchers using them to train their bots. (Disclosure: I just about made a similar "there/their/they're" mistake.) I think it might also be good to mention they irritated the Daily News Bin, but good luck getting those sources into en.wp ^^

What's this story about letting users judge bias that I read in Newsweek? Is that fake news? It looks like some evaluations are signed, others not. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Media Bias/Fact Check is an amateur web site that rates news and media organisations based on their factual accuracy and political bias" could be a good introduction to the rest of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Ktrimi991, The problem is that this "amateur" wording is supported by precisely one source, while not used by any of the others. This supports its use in to body cited to the CJR source, but how does this justify its use as the first descriptive term in the lede sentence? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to find a middle solution. Alternatively, it could be "Media Bias/Fact Check is an web site that rates news and media organisations based on their factual accuracy and political bias. Some have criticized it for amateur practices". Thoughts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I think having it in the lede as part of a separate sentence is fine. I’ve tried a compromise edit. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, For reference, as a compromise I had tried the wording "Media Bias/Fact Check is an web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site has been described as an 'amateur' attempt at categorising the media. This was pretty similar to your attempted compromise wording suggested above (which I had accutally posted before I saw your edit, but My additions were reverted by Snooganssnoogans again... sigh. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, CJR and Nieman Lab are not "criticizing" anyone. They are RS and they are describing the website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Nieman Lab did not describe it as an amateur site, why do you keep claiming this falsehood? The entirety of what they said was "(Note: Western Journal categorized publishers as conservative or liberal based on the rankings from Media Bias/Fact Check, a site that is not associated with any larger organization; it’s run by a man named Dave Van Zandt, who says he’s spent “more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”)". This doesn't really say anything at all negative about the site whatsoever, nor does it suggest that the word 'amateur' is appropriate as a descriptor. Only the CJR article supports this assessment. You object to Ktrimi991 suggestion above with the word "criticise" yet reverted my attempt at compromise with the word "describe" (the same word you use above). You say there is overwhelming support on the talk page for describing it as an amateur site, but while SashiRolls said the he thought A was better, it doesn't mean that a middle ground can't work better still. It doesn't need to be binary and this isn't a reason to revert everyone's edits wholesale. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, all of you, try to find a compromise. A solution would be "Media Bias/Fact Check is an web site that rates news and media organisations based on their factual accuracy and political bias. It has been described as amateur". Thoughts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I agree entirely with this or similar wording. I won't edit the article again just now as Snooganssnoogans has already accused me of edit warring and I'd rather not have this appear to be 1v1 on the history page; but feel free to add this wording yourself. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I will return to this soon. Enjoy the few last hours of 2018 guys. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful! Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

BRD

The bold revert discuss process is being subverted on the article. After removing all the references from the lead, any reference to MB/FC's claim to fame has been deleted (the use of their site by 3 research laboratories to train automata to evaluate the spread of "fake news"). While it is true that the user who did this does like to control what appears in google knowledge engine blurbs, they've given no reason to establish why they think that the lede should not summarize the body of the article in this particular case.

I would propose that a fair lead which summarizes the body would be something along the following lines: Media Bias/Fact Check is an amateur web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site has been used at three research institutions as a trainer for algorithms designed to identify or track "fake news".

Anybody agree with the Snoog's "reasoning"? Oddly, normally they like to point out how sources like U. Michigan, MIT labs, Qatar research Intitute, etc. are good sources, but here, for some reason, they think that referring to such labs is undue. Perhaps you could explain your animosity towards a neutral presentation of the site, based on the information in the body of the article? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The website has been used in two non-peer-reviewed papers. It's unwise to dedicate more than half the lede to this and make it seem as if this website is a cutting-edge research tool. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the website has been used at three labs, which has been written about by several (four) RS in the body of the article. Nothing in the text above says it is a "cutting edge" resource tool, just that it has been used as a bot-trainer. So far, I am not seeing any justification for removing the sentence from the lead. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No, two non-peer-reviewed papers authored by researchers from multiple universities (incl. the three "labs" that you keep mentioning). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You asked for help from RS/N, you got it. The first paper was presumably at least minimally peer-reviewed for the conference sponsored by the Association for Computational Linguistics. It is published in the conference proceedings, as you can see in the wiki-entry biblio. The other paper is put forward by this new school at U. Michigan headed by the dean of research for the School of Information, Paul Resnick. I'm not sure if it has been peer-reviewed beyond UM. Of course, none of that is really pertinent anyway, given that all the primary sources verify is that they do in fact say they used the site as part of their methodology, as already reported in secondary sources. I just thought I'd point out your claim about lack of peer-review was quite likely at least partly wrong in both cases (peers created the budget for the new school in the 2nd case...) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, neither of these papers are peer-reviewed. This is not complicated. Peer-review does not mean "someone else read it". Conference papers are not peer-reviewed in case you did not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, that's not exactly my experience of conferences, probably because I never really did it professionally. I've added links to the papers in case anyone wants to read more. Where are my manners!? Always leave the labeling to agon-so-gnossanons. Besides, you're right; there are only two studies. :p SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, that's not exactly my experience of conferences...

Really. So tell us about the conferences you've been to, especially which ones have the peer-reviewed papers being presented. A few examples would suffice. --Calton | Talk 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

1) This is irrelevant to the matter at hand, since 4 "RS" have mentioned the studies. 2) No problem. Prior to working in the real world, I participated in four colloquia / conferences, two of which required detailed proposals prior to acceptance and all of which required demonstrated expertise in the subject area (digital editions / the history of linguistics: Studienkreis Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft). SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see the words "peer review" anywhere in your answer. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Now requiring peer review for the sources to be used in the lede? Snooganssnoogans, can you please stop moving the goal posts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this sentence in the lede as it is a substantive part of the body of the article and is sourced to reliable sources. The lede needs expansion, not cutting down to a single sentence. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, the lede really really does not need expansion. This Wikipedia article is incredibly short, and a sizable portion of the article is sourced to MBFC itself or to off-hand mentions in borderline RS. As for the substance, every major website has been used as a tool or source in research papers, yet for some reason, the lede to this amateur website has to characterize the website as some cutting edge research tool because two non-peer reviewed papers used it (note also that these same papers used Twitter and Wikipedia, yet it would be bizarre to throw that into the lede of the Wikipedia article and the Twitter article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  Snooganssnoogans, Well, of course it is going to be sourced almost entirely to the website itself if you keep removing all the other citations that have been added and slamming the undo button on every attempted compromise edit. Have you considered actually attempting to build the article and incrementally improve the article rather than just wholesale reverting everybody? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of plowing ahead with making edits to the article, Insert, it may be best to propose edits on the talk page and reach a consensus here. Consensus by edits is hard if when reverted an editor continually makes that same edit... PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As an aside (you really ought to know this) - you don't need to break 3RR to be edit warring. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, I am well aware of the rules. I have made different edits every time, attempting to get some version that is to Snoog's liking. Unfortunately he seems completely opposed to anything that might be in any way positively interpreted. Not sure how to proceed honestly. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have pruned the excessive self-reference and interpolation from namechecks in primary sources. The fact that several of us like the site (including me) is not an excuse for abandoning Wikipedia principles. Van Zandt is pretty clear that he has no qualifications in this field other than as an armchair expert, that his criteria are subjective and that there is no science behind it - as CJR also notes - so making it out to be scientific is an obvious problem. We need more sources about the website, rather than interpretations of primary sources that mention it. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Shall we just delete this article?

Seriously though, several editors have gutted this article so thoroughly that there is hardly anything worth salvaging. Every excuse under the sun seems fine for removing material sourced to reliable sources. JzG just went through and removed the BBC and Newsweek sources, as well as removing all references to the MIT project which used MBFC data. How in the world is this in any way appropriate? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)}

Seriously? WP:POINT. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, Well, pretty much every source that might contribute to notability has been removed by either JzG or Snooganssnoogans. CJR doesn't discuss MBFC in enough detail to pass SIGCOV, nor does Neiman lab. If you guys agree with them that the recent material and citations that they gutted from the article are not appropriate, then we might as well just delete the article as not passing notability.

Otherwise, someone please restore that material. The current article has been made to be essentially entirely negative in its coverage of the site, by selectively biasing the use of sources and doesn't even approach NPOV about the topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been prune back to what can be supported from reliable independent sources. What remains supports notability per WP:GNG. We no longer have "MBFC has been used as a source of data by $MEDIAORG, source, namecheck in $MEDIAORG". We still have substantive commentary on MBFC. The balance of independent secondary sources doe not support MBFC's self-image, but that's not really our problem to fix is it? Guy (Help!) 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, The current article basically just takes the one paragraph description of MBFC in CJR as Gospel, then throws out everything else written about it everywhere else. How is this NPOV? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's almost as if Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable independent secondary source, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is one paragraph in a larger article about media bias, in which the author is quite critical of the idea of measuring media bias at all. This is one viewpoint, and an important one that should be featured prominently, but not to the exclusion of all other sources. I'm done trying to discuss this as it is beginning to feel like talking to a brick wall. I'm unwatchlisting this article and moving on. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Check the actual content over time. Example: we said, in Wikipedia's voice, that "[t]he site's ratings have been used by BBC News and Newsweek when discussing the reliability and bias of other media organisations." The sources for this were namechecks in individual articles. That is WP:OR. The BBC source was a namecheck in a blog on the BBC website, without evidence of editorial oversight, still less of any wider use of MBFC - in fact it appears to be the only mention of MBFC on the BBC News website.. The Newsweek sources - which also appear to be the only two mentions of MBFC on newsweek.com - say, inter alia, "when determining bias "there isn't any true scientific formula that is 100 percent objective." It uses its own measures to determine media bias, in addition to allowing readers to vote on the bias of the source" and a single namecheck to undermine the reliability of an unreliable source. MBFC is a self-published source with no independent oversight, leading to a subjective and sometimes questionable set of outcomes. I still like it and use it, but I am not happy to see Wikipedia's voice endorsing its validity based on synthesis from often trivial mentions in primary sources. Guy (Help!) 01:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on a quick skim through this talk page, nobody seems to be claiming that CJR isn't reliable. It doesn't mean that this article should rely excessively on it, and ignore other sources that contain information on the topic. feminist (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There are three very strong sources in the body at the moment: CJR, Nieman Lab and Poynter. Those are basically the three best for coverage of media and journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Saw this come up at NPOVN, and this was my initial reaction. The sources seem to be very short mentions and/or citations. That makes it a good candidate for inclusion in an article like media bias, but I'm not seeing much by way of in depth coverage... Would want to dig a big deeper before sending it to AfD myself, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There are over 8000 cite conference templates in use in en.wp. Anyone interested in forming their own educated opinion on how the site was used at MIT / Qatar could have done so until JzG deleted the reference. While I agree with the removal of the passing mentions in Newsweek / BBC trending, I do not think it was correct to remove the conference paper explaining how the site was used. Our "job" is not to hide information that allows readers to form their own opinion.

This page should probably be compared to the hagiographic quackwatch page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I just took a look at that page and I agree. There seem to be too many primary source citation to the website itself. There is a need to see if other references are sufficient to back up the content (allowing these citations to be removed), or if the website alone is used to back up statements made in Wikipedia voice. Considering the subject matter, this may not be easy. feminist (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There's been a lot written into/about that entry. Editing it would be quite courageous IMO. Though I agree absolutely that what you propose would be a good idea in the absolute, I would imagine the page still has rather a lot of "protectors". I could be wrong. People move on. :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The existence of {{cite conference}} does not mean that it's a good thing. Conference presentations are not peer-reviewed and it's often hard to validate the actual content, but more importantly if something presented at a conference is genuinely significant then you'd expect it to be in the peer reviewed literature. Summarising unpublished and never-to-be-published research is certainly a thing you can do at a conference, but it's not a great basis for Wikipedia content. Fact is, MBFC is a one man operation. I happen to like it, its biases are my biases too, but the last two years have shown that we need to apply much more robust standards of scrutiny even to content we like. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Fact is, MBFC is not a one-man operation, Guy, at least according to their about page. The existence of the cite conference template is IMO a good thing, as it allows information to be classed and weighed (by the critical reader) according to its status. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It pretty much is, you know. And no, we are absolutely not supposed to present a subject by shovelling all the crap onto a page and inviting the reader to make up their own mind. The solution is pretty simple though: cite the research in its published form in the peer reviewed literature. As noted above, that works in a way that arguing for the inclusion of unreliable sources because they give the narrative you want, does not. And let's be clear here, I would be very happy if it were proven that MBFC is reliable. Every time I have checked a source there, I have pretty much agreed with its assessment. Unfortunately my personal agreement counts for nothing, and that is very much the point here. I love this, for example. Bang on the money. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Marketing claims

Claims like "Media Bias/Fact Check describes itself as "the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet" and "they list over 2500 media organisations on their web site" are marketing claims and need secondary sourcing. It is ridiculously hard to find any third party sources that evaluate this, which undermines my faith in the thesis of Network Propaganda that centre and left media self-police. Though when both WND and Palmer Report both hate you, you're clearly doing something right. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Screen Shot of Media Bias-Fact Check.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review

There has recently been an edit to remove, in the lead section, a citation to the Columbia Journalism Review, as well as a description of the website as amateur (cited to the CJR). I do not understand the rationale for this removal, which to me does not seem like an improvement. Notably, the effect of the edit was to leave the website itself as the sole citation in the lead section — not an ideal circumstance, as we prefer to rely on reliable secondary sources. Neutrality^talk 01:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it was recently added.[3]

I think this change to the first sentence of the lede is grossly undue, misrepresents the reference, and is misleading. It needs some context, and I don't see a problem with having a sentence in the lede addressing CJR's viewpoint. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to stick to the RS and describe the organization as a non-professional outfit in some way (as CJR does). Suggest alternative ways to word it. Otherwise, I suggest we restore the CJR wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Come up with proper context where we can find consensus while avoiding misrepresenting the reference, misleading content, and undue weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it's "grossly undue, misrepresents the reference, and is misleading"? The cited CJR source directly describes MBFC as one of several "amateur attempts" at evaluating media that is run by an "armchair media analyst" so I am baffled by your claim of misrepresentation. Also tagging JzG, who commented on a similar issue further up this talk page. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a single reference, so grossly undue.

It's an amateur attempt, not an "amateur organization". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether a website is amateur or professional is a baseline description, so that should of course be included. The CJR is one of very few media outlets to cover the website at all, so I don't think the "single reference" argument really makes sense. As for your other point: your beef is that we use the phrase "amateur organization" rather than "amateur website"? That seems weird — the CJR article speaks of "Van Zandt and his team" (= an organization) — but I am fine with "amateur website" or "amateur effort" if that would resolve the issue. Neutrality^talk 03:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"amateur organization" rather than "amateur website" No. These are not alternatives that I see or have indicated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So is your position that you won't accept the word "amateur" in the lead section, notwithstanding the fact that it is well-sourced in the gold standard publication for the journalism business? Neutrality^talk 03:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that either. Sorry, but I had to cut the previous response short. I'll respond more tomorrow. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is little more than a WP:STUB, so I'm ok with not needing to follow WP:LEDE closely, but placing the viewpoint of a single source into the first sentence is grossly inappropriate. It's a POV, and V violation. It's a non-starter.

If someone wants to present the viewpoint from CJR in a sentence in the first paragraph in a manner that doesn't violate WP:V, it's could be fine, depending on the level of detail, content, and context. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the lead section "violates V" (the content is, obviously, directly supported by the cited source) and saying a site is amateur is a simple description, not "a POV" (it is not disputed that the website is not a professional publication). I would be OK with the following text if it would address your objection:

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website is an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on factual accuracy and political bias.

Let me know if you are OK with that. If you are not, please propose an alternative. Neutrality^talk 17:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Attribute it, for example "According to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, the website is an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on factual accuracy and political bias." Wordier than I'd like... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not need in-text attribution because whether it is "amateur" or "professional" is a simple descriptor and not a statement of contentious opinion. Can you point to any source that describes MBFC as not amateur? Neutrality^talk 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Amateur effort" is what we're discussing, and I think it is best attributed, as BLP applies, and no other ref supports it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is crossing into the realm of silliness now. "BLP" does not prevent us from using the word amateur to describe an amateur project where that descriptor is supported by sources. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to use wording that could be interpreted to apply to Van Zandt.

So we agree that no other ref supports it? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've now added a second recent source that describes the site as an amateur effort (even though that is not a requirement for inclusion). We now have two high-quality sources that describe the website as amateur, and zero sources that contradict that. Identifying an amateur website as amateur is not an extraordinary claim that requires more than that. If you want to take it to RfC, you are welcome to do so, but it looks like me and at least one other editor (Snooganssnoogans) feel that this descriptor should remain. Neutrality^talk 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Very nice. Thank you. I qualified it slightly [4]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article has been tagged as unbalanced. It is just a hit piece, and as others have noted, sources removed to shift the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.245.38 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please explain, identifying what removed sources should be included and why. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

New noticeboard request regarding NewsGuard and MBFC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_Guard_+_Media_Bias_Fact_Check_Redux FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(Discussion archived here.) – _•Raven  ^.talk 13:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated CRJ articles regarding NewsGuard and hence MBFC and Newsguard score and new sources

Hello all, I recently joined Wikipedia and was directed to Wikipedia:RS/PS when I cited a Media Bias fact check regarding several far left and right bias media sources in a talk page debate. What sort of shocked me was that we have perennial sources listed that are rated higher (or have no consensus and thus allowed to be used) while Media Bias is generally not recommended for use at all. Reading this talk page I see the 2018 CRJ article is the gold standard being adhered to. However they have several much newer articles that alters that perception slightly, and in my opinion it may be worth consideration in regards to changing consensus on MB's classification. However I seek other opinions to confirm. You may also notice that the majority of the sources listed here are from 2018 (except the MB about page) and there is an argument to be made that we should use recent sources where possible especially in regards to algorithmic rating of news sources (which is a hot AI/Data driven field as I understand it)

1. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/ovadya-credibility-journalism-ocasio.php
"These standards, and other similar projects, fall into three main categories of evaluation efforts: those focused on helping news consumers directly, those focused on research, and those focused on providing data to platforms and advertisers. Fact checking organizations like those part of International Fact Checking Network provide information to ordinary consumers, based on “manual” human reporting, and generally focusing on the content of a specific claim or article. Source lists like Media Bias Fact Check and Open Sources attempt a similar type of evaluation for news sites.
Research over the past few years has also explored a variety of different signals and sets of signals to evaluate credibility as discussed in the related work section. There has also been a recent profusion of entities focused on providing a credibility score of sorts to third parties, including the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard."
And
"A framework for thinking about credibility signals may not give us “the one true answer” on complex cases such whether Glenn Kessler gave AOC an appropriate Pinocchio rating—but it can help us sort through the complexity. Even more importantly, it provides a model for building and understanding systems that combine humans and computers to evaluate credibility at scale—something particularly useful on the open internet, where humans and bots can blend together."--

2. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/pandemic_insurrection_trump_stories.php (leads to https://www.axios.com/brands-ran-ads-against-election-misinformation-b4bc06d3-4464-43e8-88ba-3fc9903f76ae.html?utm_campaign=organic&utm_medium=socialshare&utm_source=twitter)
"Sara Fischer, of Axios, has more. Fischer also reports that, according to NewsGuard, ad placement software put spots from hundreds of advertisers next to election disinformation, without the advertisers’ knowledge. And CNN has an early candidate for correction of the year, on a story detailing a Democratic lawmaker’s reaction to the Capitol siege: “A previous version of this story misstated that Rep. Ted Lieu grabbed a crowbar before leaving his office. He grabbed a ProBar energy bar.”"

3. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/2020-election-media-journalism.php
"Once again, CJR and The Guardian have teamed up to talk to journalists who cover the election, and to some of the people who monitor what they do. What follows are excerpts from those conversations."
And "Steve Brill, co-CEO and founder of Newsguard: The metaphor I always use is, if you walk into a library, the books are arranged by subjects. They’re on shelves. You can look at the book jacket, read something about the author, who the publisher is. Best of all, there’s a librarian who can tell you, you know, “read this.” If you want a conservative viewpoint about the minimum wage, here’s this magazine or this book to read. If you want a progressive viewpoint, there’s this. If you want something down the middle, there’s this. Imagine if, instead, you walk into the library and there are just 2 million pieces of paper flying around. You grab one and start reading. Who wrote it? Who is financing it? Is it by a Nobel economist? Some crackpot? Who knows? That’s the internet"
and
"Brill, Newsguard: Most people don’t understand that if you’re doing a story about X, hours and hours and hours of work went into it. Because the only other time they see journalists is when they’re sitting on Fox or MSNBC or CNN just pontificating. Every time a news site links to something else that a journalist has done, whether it’s their notes or the text of an interview or anything like that, it really drives home the point that a lot of work went into this and we believe in our work and we want you to see our work."

4. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/amplifying-coronavirus-protests.php
"NewsGuard, the news-ranking service founded by Steven Brill and former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz, has released a data set made up of what it calls covid-19 misinformation “super-spreaders” on Facebook—pages and accounts that repeat, share, and amplify myths, from false cures to conspiracy theories about the virus. The company says it plans to release similar data for other platforms, such as Twitter and YouTube, in the coming weeks. The Facebook data set identifies pages that have a combined reach of more than eighteen million users."

5. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/13/18220746/real-journalists-fake-news-newsguard
"Founded by big-name journalism veterans Steven Brill (founder of The American Lawyer, Court TV, the Yale Journalism Initiative) and Gordon Crovitz (former publisher of the Wall Street Journal), the startup engages a team of 25 trained journalists to determine whether a publication is a reliable news source. Using nine weighted criteria — including “does not repeatedly publish false content,” “regularly corrects or clarifies errors,” and “clearly labels advertising” — NewsGuard’s journalists regularly analyze and rate more than 2,000 of the biggest news and information websites."

6.https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
"The tool is designed to maximize transparency, says Steve Brill, NewsGuard's cofounder, best known for founding the cable company Court TV. "We’re trying to be the opposite of an algorithm," he says. Brill started NewsGuard with Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Along with the launch of the plug-in, NewsGuard is announcing partnerships with Microsoft as part of its Defending Democracy Program. The startup has also forged a deal with libraries in at least five states, which plan to install the extension on their own computers and educate members about how to use it at home. “Adding this service on computers used by our patrons continues the long tradition of librarians arming readers with more information about what they are reading,” Stacey Aldrich, the state librarian of Hawaii, said in a statement."

So based on the above, newsguard is notable and reliable and currently certifies MBFC with its highest rating making MBFC reliable (arguably ideal). NewsGuard is a paid product so you cannot view the full certification page which is protected but I took a snippet of it its badge here. The badge is original research, but the conclusion News Guard makes regarding the credibility of MBFC can be found publicly from many reliable sources including a couple of the above I cited and NG's own breakdown of their score is here which says: "Green: A website is rated green if it generally adheres to basic standards of credibility and transparency. (If the site adheres to all nine of our criteria, we note that in the rating. If it has significant exceptions among the criteria, we note that too.)"

Thank you FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Which of the above indicates it is reliable? --Hipal (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The World Health Organization is the strongest source I have located thus far: https://www.newsguardtech.com/press/newsguard-statement-world-health-organzation-partnership/ or https://strategichcmarketing.com/health-care-marketing-healthguard-fighting-disinformation specifically: "In late August, the company announced a partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO). Dr. Sylvie Briand, director of WHO’s Infectious Hazards Management Department, stated in the press release: “It is vital that people everywhere get the right information at the right time to protect themselves and their loves ones. That’s why we are looking forward to working with NewsGuard and other platforms to fight misinformation and disinformation.".

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/wikipedia-who-coronavirus-health.html

Mr. Pattison said he had a staff of only five, although the agency subscribes to NewsGuard, a service that hunts for new rumors springing up on the internet. His staff examines NewsGuard alerts, consults medical experts, posts accurate information on the W.H.O. website and then calls its contacts at social media agencies and asks them to link to it.

3. https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
"Adding this service on computers used by our patrons continues the long tradition of librarians arming readers with more information about what they are reading,” Stacey Aldrich, the state librarian of Hawaii, said in a statement.". Wired is a strong source according to RS/PS. This led me look for more sources and I found that NG has partners with many libraries and public education organizations. For example, Library.Alaska.Gov links to it here: https://lam.alaska.gov/covid-19.

4. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/08/23/defending-against-disinformation-in-partnership-with-newsguard/

Earlier this week, we launched Microsoft AccountGuard, a new service designed to help political campaigns and other organizations that underpin democratic processes protect themselves from cyberattacks. Today, we are further broadening the work of our Defending Democracy Program by announcing a new partnership with NewsGuard Technologies, which will empower voters by providing them with high-quality information about the integrity and transparency of online news sites.

5. https://publichealth.jmir.org/2021/4/e26527/

See section: Conclusions and Acknowledgements "Misinformation can spread rapidly and without clear direction; this is evidenced by one tweet we uncovered while conducting this research, which shared an article promoting a conspiracy theory with the commentary that the user had not established credibility but rather “thought I’d share first” (tweet anonymized for privacy). An understanding of the appearance, transmission, and evolution of COVID-19 conspiracy theories can enable public health officials to better craft outreach messaging and to adjust those messages if public perceptions measurably shift. This study demonstrates that identifying and characterizing common and long-lived COVID-related conspiracy theories using Twitter data is possible, even when those messages shift in content and tone over time. Acknowledgments We thank NewsGuard for licensing the data"

FrederickZoltair (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused, this feels like the wrong place to talk about this, but hey idk. Whether Newsguard is reliable or not I'm not sure, but none of these quotes, with the exception of the non-praising one from CJR, even mention Media Bias/Fact Check. I would encourage you to shift this convo to the RS noticeboard I saw you created. All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the point trying to be made is the same that I made above. That is Newsguard is a highly credible authoritative source that gives Media Bias Fact Check a perfect 100/100 score. Hence is if Newsguard is an authoritative source then it should be indicated on MBFC's wiki. The CJR article is dated and not relevant in 2021. What might have been perceived as an amateur effort 4 years ago may not be the case now. My recommendation is to drop Amateur as the lede, keep the CJR statement and add that Newsguard rates MBFC 100/100 on their scale https://api.newsguardtech.com/label/mediabiasfactcheck.com?cid=04dab292-85f2-47b6-b18c-097b097f9da8 Tommythecat69

Who says Newsguard is a highly credible authoritative source? --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we add the history bias in media to add some more information as to what Media Bias/ Fact Check is trying to prevent?

Hi. I'm a student editing wikipedia for a class and was wondering if there is anything specific you'd like help with. I had an idea of adding a paragraph of the history of bias in the media to show what Media Bias/ Fact Check is trying to accomplish.

Here is the source if you are interested in checking it out. Let me know what you think! Thanks. https://www.hoover.org/research/brief-history-media-bias

Maybe we could also put a section in that refers to other similar media bias/ fact checking systems. Here is another website I found that has a wikipedia page we could reference. https://www.factcheck.org/ Let me know if you have any other ideas!

Hmr005 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hmr005: This article is about Media Bias/Fact Check, not about media bias. We can not add something that is not directly related to the topic of the article. See WP:OR. You might want to take a look at the Media bias#History section. And expand it if you want. --Renat 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What about putting more information in about Dave's research team that helped him create the website? On the website itself, it goes into more detail of why he created the bias fact checker and I could add a short segment about that as well.Hmr005 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It comes down to what references can be found, and their quality. See WP:RS and WP:IS. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This Wiki Page needs Updating

The amateur designation in the lede is simply not appropriate 3.5 years after one person made what appears to be a biased comment against bias raters in general. This designation is shameful and should be embarrassing for the editors who seem to keep reverting it back. I am not arguing that this shouldn't be mentioned in the reception section, but to put this in the lede is worse treatment than most conspiracy websites get.

MBFC has grown and been successful for 6 years. They have a perfect score from Newsguard on credibility and transparency. They have been used in books for research and they are used as a reference by Poynter's own IFCN fact-checkers on almost a daily basis. None of this is in the wiki. Further, this wiki lacks funding information, which says a lot about a source. I tried to update it and add all this information, but of course, it was reverted back instantly. I would hope that editors would at least consider the information I provided and edit further. Or at the very least try to edit the Lede to remove what appears to be a false or at the very least a very dated opinion. Thanks. I am new to editing Wiki, so please bear with me. Tommythecat69 (talk) 16:33, June 2, 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you want to address the concerns that you may have a WP:COI? You don't need to do so, but it would help to get that out of the way.

Thanks for starting a discussion. I've left you basic information on your talk page that should help you learn your way around Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any conflicts of interest. My complaint is the same as most here and that is the lede description of the website seems different than most where a wiki will simply state what a source or person does without opining. ie. rates media bias etc. If there were numerous resources making the amateur claim then that would be a different story. In this case, there is one grad student writing for CJR who made this claim many years ago.

I admit that I have become a fan of MBFC's work, so in that I am biased. What opened my eyes was comparing this wiki entry to Newsguard's much more thorough review. Keep in mind Newsguard is not a bunch of amateurs! Unlike the freelance op-ed from CJR which is in fact amateur. All I am saying is there is way more credibility in Newsguard's assessment. I will not edit this further, but I hope the content in Newsguard's review is considered for inclusion in the MBFC wiki as this evidence should be enough to remove "amateur" from the lede paragraph. thanks. https://api.newsguardtech.com/label/mediabiasfactcheck.com?cid=d945da19-2739-4941-ba0c-76449a8f8d99 Tommythecat69 (talk) 22:38, June 2, 2021 (UTC)

No COI then. Thank you.

Newsguard doesn't seem to carry much weight here on Wikipedia. CRJ carries considerable weight. --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That is unfortunate and an issue with Wikipedia. Columbia Journalism Review is a fine source as both MBFC and Newsguard point out. The difference is Newsguard is more qualified to rate a source than a student author from CJR 3.5 years ago. Let me ask you a question. When you began editing Wikipedia you were an amateur correct? After many years of editing and experiences are you still an amateur wiki editor or are you an experienced expert in this field? Ponder that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.7.236.46 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all your opinion. Best to WP:FOC and on what reliable, independent sources say. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Sorry if my formatting is off, I haven't been here for a hot min) I would just like to agree completely with Hipal, and point out that CJR's order of magnitude greater age and supervision by professors of a highly regarded journalism school are what sets it apart from Newsguard, not just personal preference. All the Best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was reading about this company on User_talk:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen (by User:SuperHamster @valjean)). So I was bored, and dug, because the armchair seemed personal. The CJR article was written by a freelancer, who had not attended CJ as an academic or student who had worked previously for as a freelancer Poynter teach journalism courses, are owned by Tampa Bay, supported by [major funders] and are a rival fact checking network. There has been a manual revert for this company, when someone brought up the above issue.

Considering all this my hats off to them as one of them admits to being a wikipedia editor, but don't seem to have abused it by changing their page. They also give good reviews to CJR [Poynter]. They passed "The Daily Mail" test, but they failed in thinking wikipedia is unbiased (we don't even think that Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen#Media_Bias_Fact_Check_is_a_one-man_operation_that_we_have_repeatedly_dissed_and_is_highlighted_as_a_%22Generally_unreliable_source%22.

{{@SuperHamster

{{user:Valjean}

The two quotes on the Article have a freelancer who worked for both

Poynter owns Politiface which is a competitor

They seem to have pass "The Daily Mail" test https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ and they like wikipedia and the reviewer says they a wikipedia editor and has not corrected the accusations by a competitor on their page. Hats off to them.

The difference in size in companies (see below where I rough counted and tried to exclude advisory boards) seems about countries covered, whether they are corporate, sell detailed information about news sources to advertising companies, whether it's a web protection tool or browser extension as well, and whether they are ranking individual journalists. They all seem to be disliked by the extremes, which is good. The critical articles mentioned on wikipedia are all linked via employment or publication to Poynter which has International Fact-Checking Network and journalism courses

NPR mentions this study which used a combination of Newsguard and Mediabiasfactcheck .

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/ 8 @SuperHamster (A github project has a cleaned csv)

https://adfontesmedia.com/team/ 50 +

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news Allsides had 25ish, but has a Chrome extension partner called https://our.news/about/ which has 7

https://www.newsguardtech.com/about/team/ 50 plus Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wakelamp, what wording do you think needs changing? Do you have a suggestion for better/replacement wording? -- Valjean (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you still think they are a one man operation? I would suggest remove the stuff about Columbia and Poynter. But have a look at the previous argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Bias/Fact_Check/Archive_1 . {{@Newslinger}} seemed to dislike both Ad Fonte and MBFC, and at one put that same paragraph on both, I looked through the reliable sources discussions about the various fact checkers. I noticed some of the editors involved are now infinite banned, and there were arguments that seemed out of date (ie not part IFCN run by Poynter. There seems a strong not invented here about the fact checkers process - but I think ours may be similar Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Teeverha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: ChaseGil.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)