132
North Korean troops in Russian uniforms heading to Kursk, says US - Lemmy.World
lemmy.worldNorth Korean troops wearing Russian uniforms and carrying Russian equipment are
moving to the Russian region of Kursk, near Ukraine, according to the US defence
secretary, Lloyd Austin, who described the deployment as a dangerous and
destabilising development. Austin was speaking at a press conference at the
Pentagon with the South Korean defence minister, Kim Yong-hyun, as concerns grow
about Pyongyang’s deployment of as many as 11,000 troops to Russia. The US and
South Korea said some of the North Korean troops are heading to Kursk, on the
border with Ukraine, where the Kremlin’s forces have struggled to push back a
Ukrainian incursion. Austin said “the likelihood is pretty high” that Russia
will use the North Korean troops in combat. He added that officials were
discussing what to do about the deployment, which he said had the potential to
broaden or lengthen the conflict in Ukraine. Asked if it could prompt other
nations to get more directly involved in the conflict, he acknowledged that it
could “encourage others to take action”. MBFC
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/]
Archive [https://archive.is/MMYI7]
It’s from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Bias/Fact_Check
I think the perennial sources list gets a lot more attention than the wiki page for MBFC itself, and probably the standards for judging it reliable are higher.
I read that. My best guess is that this is either an error that hasn’t been updated in light of empirical studies corroborating MBFC’s reliability, or more likely any self-published list gets the “unreliable” sticker automatically.
Also, making claims about “a consensus” without sourcing these claims is mighty suspicious. Disappointed.
They’re saying the parts mbfc uses other data from is fine, like the fact checking matching others as they all use the same source. But the rest like bias can’t be trusted as it’s just their own unscientific methods.
They’re not saying that. How did you summarize 23 words using 39 words, and get the summary wrong?
They’re saying that there is no external professional vouching for MBFC’s conclusions, which is their usual gold standard for things being “reliable.” And that, on top of that, people within Wikipedia have specifically pointed out flaws with how MBFC does things, without any of the qualifications and categories that you added.
Tell me you have no idea how Wikipedia works, without telling me you have no idea.
You’re putting trust in the stuff that doesn’t mean very much, and "best guess"ing that the stuff that is dependable is not.