We are accepting other ideas, so far nobody has offered any.
So, for example, AllSides is great for tracking bias, but has no meter for credibility. We have no problem with a biased source, so long as it’s credible.
So, for example, National Review has a right bias, but is highly credible. Fox News has a right bias and is not credible.
AllSides will just tell you both are right bias, which isn’t helpful for our purposes.
The one we had a meeting with, had a good tracker for both, but wanted a 6 figure payment to access the API, which, as volunteers, we can’t fund.
So far, the folks complaining about MBFC don’t offer a solution, only complaints.
Ignoring the fact that I keep saying the point is to not bother including it at all and has been since the beginning. That any bias source is pointless unless you are using it for moderation purposes at which point it is none of our concern cause we won’t be able to see the untrustworthy articles you would decide to delete.
Demanding an alternative when being told the concept of picking any single source bias checker is pointless, insists that you refuse to accept any idea on this other than a deep seated desire that you want it for emotional reasons. Last time I repeat this. You are a waste of time and truly a poor communicator.
You can’t really say we aren’t considering alternatives when I’ve provided a list of alternatives we did consider all while providing absolutley none of your own.
Tell me what to look at, we’ll consider it.
Ideally:
API access for automation.
Free, we’re all volunteers here, we have $0 budget.
We are accepting other ideas, so far nobody has offered any.
So, for example, AllSides is great for tracking bias, but has no meter for credibility. We have no problem with a biased source, so long as it’s credible.
So, for example, National Review has a right bias, but is highly credible. Fox News has a right bias and is not credible.
AllSides will just tell you both are right bias, which isn’t helpful for our purposes.
The one we had a meeting with, had a good tracker for both, but wanted a 6 figure payment to access the API, which, as volunteers, we can’t fund.
So far, the folks complaining about MBFC don’t offer a solution, only complaints.
Wow that response is exactly my point. It’s like talking to a wall.
“You aren’t open to other ideas!”
“Here’s a list of ideas we looked at.”
“It’s like talking to a wall!”
You sure you aren’t looking at a mirror when you say that?
Still open to alternatives if you have any.
Ignoring the fact that I keep saying the point is to not bother including it at all and has been since the beginning. That any bias source is pointless unless you are using it for moderation purposes at which point it is none of our concern cause we won’t be able to see the untrustworthy articles you would decide to delete.
Demanding an alternative when being told the concept of picking any single source bias checker is pointless, insists that you refuse to accept any idea on this other than a deep seated desire that you want it for emotional reasons. Last time I repeat this. You are a waste of time and truly a poor communicator.
Again, your complaint is that we’re using a single source checker, but you offer no alternative.
If you want to say “Why don’t you use ‘x’?” I’m happy to look at it. So far, we’re striking out.
But the bot DOES use two sources, MBFC and Ground.News.
You can’t really say we aren’t considering alternatives when I’ve provided a list of alternatives we did consider all while providing absolutley none of your own.
Tell me what to look at, we’ll consider it.
Ideally: