Thread replies: 38
Thread images: 16
Thread images: 16
File: holy fuck.png (160KB, 1710x361px) Image search:
[Google]
160KB, 1710x361px
Holy shit this fucking article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
>An analysis by Buzzfeed found that the top 20 fake news stories about the 2016 U.S. presidential election received more engagement on Facebook than the top 20 news stories on the election from 19 major media outlets
>According to BuzzFeed, during the last three months of the presidential campaign, of the top twenty fake election-related articles on Facebook, seventeen were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. Facebook users interacted with them more often than with stories from genuine news outlets
>A CNN investigation examined exactly how fake news can start to trend.[217] There are "bots" used by fake news publishers that make their articles appear more popular than they are. This makes it more likely for people to see and catch the eye of many. "Bots are fake social media accounts that are programmed to automatically ‘like’ or retweet a particular message."
How in the everliving fuck is this shit kept up under any illusion that it's true?
Wikipedia could lose a lot of credibility over this and many other shit articles if people are made aware of it
>>
>>134182170
>An analysis by Buzzfeed
Stopped reading there.
>>
(((wikipedia)))
i wish there was an alternative besides actual fucking books, but oh well.
>>
>Fake News
>the sources are Buzzfeed and CNN
Good to know Kikeipedia hasn't changed.
Metapedia is honestly more trustworthy at this point, and that site was always just a fucking meme.
>>
File: 1483968477037.png (164KB, 574x601px) Image search:
[Google]
164KB, 574x601px
>>134182170
Delete this
>>
File: xzibit_ag050.jpg (48KB, 827x550px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 827x550px
yo dawg i heard u like fake news so i put some fake news in your article about fake news
>>
File: 7.jpg?i10c=img.resize(height:160).jpg (32KB, 852x480px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 852x480px
>>134182170
>An analysis by Buzzfeed
>>
File: buzzfeed.jpg (85KB, 420x812px) Image search:
[Google]
85KB, 420x812px
>>134182170
>uses Buzzfeed as a news source
>literally the most hated news source of all
wew
>>
File: 1485379082060.jpg (20KB, 225x257px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 225x257px
>>134182170
>An analysis by Buzzfeed
>>
>>134182170
>>from 19 major media outlets
>Not Fake News
>>
>consistently liberal
>Al Jazeera America
>>
>>134182423
The shittiest thing about wikipedia is how they pretend lines have reliable sources connected to then, to then find out it's a fucking buzzfeed article
Yet just try to give wikipedia any kind of actual reliable source or cll them out on the ridiculous ones they have, it's an instant ban for vandalizing the page
>>
File: buzzjew2.jpg (380KB, 577x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
380KB, 577x1000px
>>134182646
kek
>>
File: 1492910642967.png (482KB, 824x490px) Image search:
[Google]
482KB, 824x490px
>post-truth political reality
God fucking dammit I hate postmodernists.
>>
>>134182170
rebrand Wikipedia Fakepedia
>>
Wikipedia should be labeled 'Fake Knowledge'
>>
File: 1331137639159.jpg (16KB, 499x306px) Image search:
[Google]
16KB, 499x306px
>>134182170
>analysis by Buzzfeed
>>
>>134182243
This
>>
Also:
>Wikipedia could lose a lot of credibility over this and many other shit articles if people are made aware of it
>Wikipedia
>Credibility
Hard to lose what's not there.
In front of any well learned person, wikipedia, ESPECIALLY on current events, is on par with the 'weekly world news' in terms of credibility.
Or, to say the same thing with a metaphor, you won't see a KFC worried about losing stars in a gourmet restaurant guide.
>>
>>134182570
>>134182646
>>134182608
>>134182646
>>134184088
Right wing intellectuals
>>
File: main-qimg-019010f5eaf125f57c00f0d9b8e51cb5.png (64KB, 600x442px) Image search:
[Google]
64KB, 600x442px
>>134183619
Self reported demographics of Wikipedia editors, so it can only be worse if anything. It's basically neets with useless degrees. You get what you pay for.
>>
Reminder, Buzzfeed was sued for Libel. When Buzzfeed filed a motion to change the jurisdiction, pic related was the response of the plantiff.
Exhibit 41 was a picture of a kitten that was put into the court record.
>>
File: CNN pepezi.png (906KB, 1167x659px) Image search:
[Google]
906KB, 1167x659px
>>134182170
>tfw we are bots now
>>
>>134184599
I like how they coloured yellow Ph.D, Master and undergraduate degree to not make people realize they majority has secondary and primary education
>>
File: oy vey.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1280x720px
>buzzfeed
FLAMING
PILE
OF
GARBAGE
>>
>>134183878
Truth is coming up?
WOW IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT'S TRUE NOW WE'RE IN LE POST-TRUTH
>>
>>134185162
Yeah, as you can tell from how I commented, it fooled me too lol
>>
>>134182170
its more engaging because people are quicker to point out when something is fake than when something has been vetting
how is this not obvious?
>>
>>134184964
Funny that they're they ones pathetic enough to actually use bots
>>
WIKIPEDIA IS USING FUCKING BUZZFEED AS A SOURCE NOW????
WHAT THE FUCK
>>
>Wikipedia could lose a lot of credibility
Ya nearly had me. It's never been credible, it's openly ran by the us government for propaganda purposes.
>>
>>134184628
Nothing will top that gawker guy who said they'd host the sex tape of a 4 year old celebrity
>>
VIEWTIFUL JOE WILL NEVER WORK FOR A REAL PUBLICATION
>>
File: 1468267127294.jpg (65KB, 500x750px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 500x750px
>>134182170
>Using buzzfeed as a source
Thank god I stopped liking Wikipedia a long time ago
>>
File: XPv-ClOU1T3wv7E_46pn2mPZGqkV99fvlsuuC_4OXyw.jpg (84KB, 453x768px) Image search:
[Google]
84KB, 453x768px
>conflating "fake news" with stories they didn't like
>no actual evidence that the right used bots
It's hilarious to me that the left can just flat out deny their using bots or that they used Correct The Record, and accuse us of the same thing.
Meanwhile, the NYT has at least one author boosting stories on twitter every week
>>
>>134182170
Also, I looked up the article they're using for the source for that buzzfeed """analysis""" and its just a one line quote from a buzzfeed writer, no actual analysis, no list of what was fake, nothing. These slimy faggots are never specific.
They're purposely conflating "fake news" with anything that's not them, because they're trying to maintain their business.
Thread posts: 38
Thread images: 16
Thread images: 16