The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

It will take a few hours, but FOR NOW there won’t be a bot giving reviews of the source.

The goal was simple: make it easier to show biased sources. This was to give you and the mods a better view of what we were looking at.

The mod team is in agreement: one source of truth isn’t enough. We are working on a tool to give a composite score, from multiple sources, all open source.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Keep it gone. MBFC and others are not a source of truth.

    Adding multiple sources of bias does not produce an unbiased result.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ok. Think your response through.

      That means all news outlets are biased as well. This is why we want something that gives a composite score. If all sources say “this news outlet is shit”, maybe we take it with a grain of salt, or maybe we black list it. At a minimum, it helps mods and readers get a context of the content.

      • LagrangePoint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        LW admin/mod team seem to have this overbearing and weird belief that they need to tell everyone else what to think and how to think it.

        How about… you all just fuck off and don’t?

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve thought it through. We should not outsource critical thinking and media literacy.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think the problem arises from the fact that I don’t know what you mean by “this news outlet is shit”. Maybe we can define exactly what we mean here and block such news sites from being posted.

        I don’t think bias can be correlated with article quality, and we should be engaging with articles and ideas based on the merits within, not some aggregate made up thing like “bias”. I’m not saying it’s not a real thing, just that it’s made up and subjective enough to be in my view a useless measure and a fruitless endeavour to get a meaningful measure in the first place.

        If you want a bunch of opinions on the usefulness of an article then we have votes already.

        Obviously I don’t have the context of a mod, so if there are specific cases where you need a bias rating, however flawed, to do that job effectively then sure but I think that’s best developed as say a browser extension (or maybe one exists already) so it’s at least opt in.

        EDIT: Also want to say I appreciate both the call for feedback and also the decision to opt out of the bot for now.

        • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sorry for any confusion. We’re moving away from bias - that’s the goal, at least.

          News source being “shit” examples:

          • A Voice for Men
          • The Activist Mommy
          • Adams County Times
          • Akron Reporter
          • Albany Standard
          • American College of Pediatricians
          • Ames Today
          • Antelope Valley Today
          • Baltimore City Wire
          • Benton Times
          • Bloomington Leader

          I could go on, but I’m at work right now.

          • stormesp@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Can you tell me how many articles from those sources were shared the last month? Because i havent seen many or any at all, but meanwhile i have seen Al jhazeera and other news outlets being called not credible without much basis. If the information shared on an article is not factually correct, you can write a message or edit the title so people can know it or even remove the thread if it can be harmful, but what the mod team here is doing is just absurd. The goal should be to get rid of the bot already.

              • stormesp@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Thank you for confirming that having a bot leave a shitty opinion about how trustful that source is or not is not needed. Unless you are saying that the threads removed due to not having a reliable source is based on mbfc, which would be extremely funny and sad at the same time.

          • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Glad to hear we’re moving away from bias, I didn’t pick up on that which could have been my fault so appreciate the clarification. All the best with your work day.

    • batmaniam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      2nd. It’s just not necessary. Frankly what’s more off putting is the outright bizarre insistence on the mods part and outright denial of feedback. If the bot comes back I’m blocking the community, there are other streams for news.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          If everyone who doesn’t like the bot blocks it, people entering the community will see the bot upvoted. That will mean they assume the general consensus is that the bot is trustworthy and accurate.

          • PlantJam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I agree that the bot is problematic and don’t think it provides valuable information. I personally have it blocked. Leaving the community and blocking the bot both result in one less person advocating against the bot.