Whether or not that becomes official policy in this community, that is a terrific resource I have never seen before, so thank you!
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
90 points (81.2% liked)
News
23424 readers
4633 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't like this proposal, but I would love a bot that automatically comments with a link to this Wikipedia page anytime something from one of these sites gets posted here
I really would be fine with the proposal. I see no reason why a site like the Epoch Times should be allowed here when their articles are just blatant propaganda and usually also false.
Because when some false and propagandizing crap from the Epoch Times starts blowing up on telegram or twitter or facebook or wherever I'd like to be able to come to this community and find a comment pointing out the lies and bullshit (ideally with links to sources) that I can up vote here and copy and paste to where it's needed
I don't think this is about commenting. It's about posting.
I don't think anyone is suggesting barring them from comments within posts, are they?
I should re-phrase - I'd like to be able to scroll through this community's posts sorted by controversial or new, find a downvoted to hell (as it should be) Epoch Times article that's getting positive traction on other sites (or even other Lemmy instances), and find within the comments on that post one pointing out why the article/source is bullshit that I can copy and paste elsewhere. Searching through comments is a pain on my preferred mobile app (idk about the desktop web interface, but I can't imagine it's a lot better), and it would be just about impossible to know which post's comments would have the comment saying "oh, btw the Epoch Times is out with some fresh nonsense this morning, they're claiming x y and z, but in reality a b and c".
Thanks for this.
FYI: The Tesseract UI puts MBFC badges on posts with their bias/credbility ratings and provides a short report and link to the full report on their site.
I wonder how hard it would be to pull this list into a JSON file to use as an additional reference?
Thanks to your support in sharing this method, it is being employed by the moderation team. A bot scans for new posts and notifies the mods if there is a low credibility rating. We do not currently use bots to take any direct action on this basis.
A bot scans for new posts and notifies the mods if there is a low credibility rating.
Could it leave a comment visible to the general community on the article in question alerting the rest of us to low credibility sources?
For those worried about blocking certain viewpoints, it's important to note that the sources on the list aren't there for the unpopularity of their opinions, but rather the frequent publication of misinformation. For instance, Fox News, despite its frequent bias, is not one of the publications on the list.
As others have noted, the list can essentially be summarized as state-sponsored, tabloid, and extremist media outlets that, intentionally or not, have editing standards that result in misinformation on a regular basis.
Interesting to see last.fm, am I missing something?
In that case the issue is that it's user generated content. Just as you'd cite the references listed after a Wikipedia article for the source of that information rather than Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia policy favors references to established publications over those compiled by users in a manner similar to Wikipedia itself.
For the information to be verifiable, its original source has to be both clear and reputable.
According to the linked RFC it's due to the site's user generated content. I guess that's an understandable policy for Wikipedia.
Banning from this community won't make them disappear from site like facebook and twitter that have millions of more visitors, but it will keep people in this community from seeing the kinds of things facebook and twitter users see.
Bad articles from bad sources are a problem that should be solved by an intelligent and active community that downvotes and leaves comments pointing out the article and/or source's weakness. If the moderators don't think we have a strong enough community for that this might be necessary, but I don't think it is.