• yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      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.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 minutes ago

        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.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.