Wikidata:Property proposal/Media Bias/Fact Check ID
Media Bias/Fact Check ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
Motivation
[edit]Media Bias/Fact Check is a popular database that assesses partisan bias and credibility of media outlets and people. It also includes information on history and transparency (or lack thereof) of owners, editors, funders, etc. While consensus on English Wikipedia currently deems it generally unreliable for the purpose of encyclopedic references (largely due to being self-published), it is frequently included as a university-level resource for fact-checking and critical source analysis, alongside other resources like FactCheck.org (Q5428664) and PolitiFact.com (Q3394318) (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]). Self-published/user-generated external identifiers are by no means forbidden nor rare on Wikidata items, as evidenced by the likes of IMDb ID (P345), Fandom wiki ID (P4073), Geni.com profile ID (P2600), etc. Most profiles of journalists/commentators appear to be available only to subscribers, however these represent a vast minority of profiles (at present only 21 out of over 2,500 rankings).
Note: The structure of the Formatter URL is somewhat variable- most IDs appear to be in the "default" form of mediabiasfactcheck.com/$1, while others are mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/$1 (as in cnn-bias), but plugging "cnn-bias" into the default form redirects to the intended link. There may well be other URL formats such as mediabiasfactcheck.com/right, mediabiasfactcheck.com/far-left, etc. -Animalparty (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Support --Trade (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the Anderson Cooper page seems to have only advertising, no content. Is that what other people see? ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I generally use a browser ad-blocker so was unaware of the ads until just now. It looks like most pages have a lot of ads. That is very unfortunate. As I stated, most journalist profiles (save Dan Bongino) appear to be only viewable to subscribers. -Animalparty (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose this is not very useful if its self-published, full of ads and only available to subscribers. At least the fandom articles are freely available. --Hannes Röst (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hannes Röst: The presence of ads are unfortunate, and may be worse than many other identifiers, but is by no means unique to this site (see for instance PolitiFact people and groups ID (P2267), AllMusic artist ID (P1728), IMDb ID (P345), Discogs artist ID (P1953), Know Your Meme ID (P6760) Guardian topic ID (P3106) or Fandom article ID (P6262) with ad-blockers disabled), but the vast majority of articles appear to be freely available. From what I can tell, all media outlet rankings (>2,000) are freely viewable (their Least Biased list alone has over 500 viewable articles), while at present, only "journalist" rankings (i.e. humans) appear to be exclusive to paid subscribers, which make up a miniscule proportion of the sites rankings: at press time, there are only 21 "journalists", of which all but one paywalled. I think the site's value in fact-checking/credibility assessment/partisanship analysis outweighs the obnoxious ads (which are circumventable by using adblocking software), and offers content not readily found in similar external links (PolitiFact for instance tends to assess the veracity of individual statements by people/organizations, not the partisanship or credibility of the people/organizations overall). -Animalparty (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral
request registration —Eihel (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC) —Eihel (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC){{Oppose}}
- The request can be dismissed, and the content is then free-to-view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'm not sure how the opposes are germane to the question of whether or not this should have a property. It seems like something that should, and I continue to be concerned that editors are treating these proposals as a question of "do we like this website and feel it's aligned with Wikimedia's mission?" rather than the question we should be asking of "does this belong in a comprehensive knowledgebase?". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Sdkb The opposing positions are clear and there is no question of "do we like this website". Additionally, if the community thinks the site "is not aligned with Wikimedia's mission," it is okay not to accept this property. The kb can be complete, but problematic at the same time and therefore not worthy for Wikidata. Thank you for your understanding. —Eihel (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Animalparty, Trade, Hannes Röst, Eihel, Pigsonthewing, Sdkb: Done as Media Bias/Fact Check ID (P9852). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)