ForumGarden

From the founder of Wikipedia cones Wikitribune and if it does half as good a job then I, for one, will sign up :-

Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales creates news service Wikitribune - BBC News

I just tried to log in but it appears that they've been overwhelmed by the response :-

https://www.wikitribune.com/

And still busy an hour later.

An exciting development.

Still unobtainable at 1.30 pm.

Let us hope it will raise the standards by being the 'go to' site to solve any 'alternative facts'.

I was able to get in. It showed a video of the news problem. It also showed 1 out of 10 journalists hired and the number of financial contributors. It also showed "29 days to go." That was about it.

I signed up as a supporter. We'll see how it plays out.

So, what will be the idea, that the community becomes the journalists and the journalist becomes the editor and both as subject to standards that Wiki defines?

Ahso!;1508620 wrote: So, what will be the idea, that the community becomes the journalists and the journalist becomes the editor and both as subject to standards that Wiki defines?


Well, it seems that the plan is to have profesional journalist and volunteers scan the main news sources, such as AP, Reuters, and such and compare the original report to the articles posted by others, and try to do some real-time fact-checking.

Since have the news publications feel the need to word-smith the original news to fit their "Editorial Standards" (read advertisers opinions) and since most news publications no long employ fact-checkers and proofreaders, there is hope for a more "balanced" final report.

We'll see haw that plays out.

I'll be surprised if it doesn't have any bias what so ever. I think the days of impartial reporting or journalism is long gone. For some reason everyone seems to have to choose a side now days.

YZGI;1508622 wrote: I'll be surprised if it doesn't have any bias what so ever. I think the days of impartial reporting or journalism is long gone. For some reason everyone seems to have to choose a side now days.Conservatribune, anyone (or better yet - Alternatribune)? I'm sure Wikitribune will be quickly labeled as a liberal biased outlet like Wikipedia was.

LarsMac;1508621 wrote: Well, it seems that the plan is to have profesional journalist and volunteers scan the main news sources, such as AP, Reuters, and such and compare the original report to the articles posted by others, and try to do some real-time fact-checking.

Since have the news publications feel the need to word-smith the original news to fit their "Editorial Standards" (read advertisers opinions) and since most news publications no long employ fact-checkers and proofreaders, there is hope for a more "balanced" final report.

We'll see haw that plays out.


Have you caught gmc disease ?

This is all so tiresome.

A final voice of truth, really?

YZGI;1508622 wrote: I'll be surprised if it doesn't have any bias what so ever. I think the days of impartial reporting or journalism is long gone. For some reason everyone seems to have to choose a side now days.


The fact is newspapers never were totally impartial.

For one Thomas Jefferson James Callender

Look at the history of any newspaper and you would probably find out it was not fouded on an altruist desire to report the "NEWS".

tude dog;1508635 wrote: This is all so tiresome.

A final voice of truth, really?


I do not look to a newspaper to provide me with the complete truth, I expect to find a partial truth.

What I reject is any news source which chooses deliberately to lie.

It can be biased - I expect bias. It cannot contain "alternative facts" because they're not facts, they're lies chosen and delivered knowing they're lies but presented as confirmed truth.

We have the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun - papers which print lies knowing them to be lies.

I expect you have similar news sources in your country.

And, of course, you also have Sean Spicer.

When a lie is told in the form of truth with the intention that is should be believed, it is a hoax. Not satire. Hoax.

Just another form of opinion of the facts. Everyone has their own truth.

magentaflame;1508654 wrote: Everyone has their own truth.There'd be no religion otherwise, let's face it. That still doesn't make monotheism true in any sense though.

thought we were talking about news? ...The link is to the 1984 scene of the "News department"

magentaflame;1508660 wrote: thought we were talking about news? ...The link is to the 1984 scene of the "News department"


I apologize for my absolute refusal to install Adobe's Flash Player on my computer but without Adobe's Flash Player I had no way of telling what the link contained. I responded to what you wrote, that being how forums work.

I have use of a computer today ....otherwise I'm usually in the same boat as yourself. But I responded to the thread . how you got religion out of it I'll never know.

magentaflame;1508663 wrote: how you got religion out of it I'll never know.
Because you wrote "Everyone has their own truth. "

spot;1508667 wrote: Because you wrote "Everyone has their own truth. "


Truth is relative, these days, and has little to do with religion.

LarsMac;1508619 wrote: I signed up as a supporter. We'll see how it plays out.


Likewise, I managed to sign up at my third attempt.

LarsMac;1508674 wrote: Truth is relative, these days


You'll be talking about truth dilation effects at this rate.