Edit: Even MBFC rates dropsitenews as a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
There is no rule about ‘blog sites’ on worldnews. Jordanlund has made this up and proceeds to classify anything he does not like as a 'blog '.
I really don’t understand why /c/world doesn’t use the Wikipedia perennial sources list instead of MBFC. It’s kept up to date, it’s peer-reviewed, there is extensive discussion and oversight by experts instead of what MBFC uses (which as far as I can tell is sometimes just one person with significant biases writing down whatever he thinks). Newsweek is just one of a few different significant sources where Wikipedia gets it right and MBFC’s rating is hot garbage.
I get the desire to use a somewhat professionally put together third-party list, it seems like a pretty necessary thing to do, but using for that objective list the MBFC ratings just seems like the objectively wrong decision when there is a source that exists that’s unambiguously better. IDK, you guys can do what you like, but it just seems like a baffling decision and I’ve never heard a really coherent explanation of the reasons behind it.
A lot of people complain about MBFC, but when I ask them “Great, show me a source they say is questionable that is not and I’ll stop using it.”
Silence.
Generally people get hung up over what they flag as right or left and that doesn’t enter into our decisions on whether to remove a post or not. Right/Left/Center doesn’t matter as long as it’s a reliable source and that’s one thing MBFC does that Ad Fontes does not.
“But, but, it can’t be ‘Right’ AND ‘Reliable’!”
Sure it can, look at National Review, which has been the gold standard for conservative thought for decades.
Al Jazeera and MSNBC. They both have the same factual rating as the New York Post, for transparently ridiculous reasons.
If by “questionable,” you mean “unreliable and thus forbidden for posting,” I’m not aware of one, although I could search. Would it make a difference?
The other side of the question – a source they say is unquestionable which in fact is highly questionable – is even worse. They produce an objective degradation in the quality of /c/world by allowing garbage sources like Newsweek (which they rate “mostly factual,” a tick above both MSNBC and Al Jazeera.)
MBFC literally has a “Questionable” category, this came up the last time I removed a bullshit link from Mint Press News.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mint-press-news/
New York Post and MSNBC are not “Questionable”:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
“Medium Credibility”.
Got it, fair enough. But why are we suddenly moving the goalposts to “Do they regard as questionable a source which is not?” instead of “Do they regard as un-questionable some sources which are questionable?” or “Is there an objectively better list we could be using instead?” I mean I’m happy to search and see if there is some that meets that first criteria, but the other two criteria also seem highly pertinent.
(Also why on earth is the New York Post not “questionable”? Does that mean it’s allowed? Mint Press is literal Russian propaganda. Is that the bar now?)
Generally, anything questionable is 100% removed.
Medium credibility is up to mods discretion, but the New York Post has a history so I generally just remove it without question similar to the Daily Mail.
Despite the reliability rating, they crossed the line from news agency to tabloid ages ago. A step above “Clinton Meets With Space Aliens”, but not that big a step. :)
Sounds good. Why are we moving the goalposts away from the questions “Do they regard as un-questionable some sources which are questionable?” or “Is there an objectively better list we could be using instead?”
I haven’t found one, and like I say, when people bitch at me and I go “But how are they wrong?” I get either silence or the typical teenage angst answer of “They just ARE! GOSH!”
What? No you haven’t. I’m not the only one who has been sending very detailed explanations, but I’ve sent you some specific objections in this comment thread. I keep raising them and you keep changing the subject.
For one thing, they count Newsweek as not questionable when it’s trash. For another, the New York Post. It sounds like your strategy is to use MBFC, and then override them when their judgement is obviously (cartoonishly) wrong, like it is for the Post. I would say that means they’re not reliable to use. But, you still rely on them for some things. Like Newsweek.
Glancing now at Wikipedia’s list, I see some other sources which are commonly posted on .world which they regard as unreliable since an ownership change or other slippage of standards. Raw Story is on that list for example.
It kind of sounds like you’re not interested in hearing this. Okay. If you’re planning on persistently pretending that this is teenage angst, I’ll go do something else.
Mintpressnews, the people reporting on Israeli spies writing American news and backing it up with evidence, is not reliable?
Your definition of reliable is “believes everything I believe”.
Well this is a straight up massive lie. You have been provided with a ton of examples in the past by many different users. Including many times in this very community.
Give me an example of a site MBFC says is “Questionable” that in reality is reliable. I can wait.