It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia founder aims to 'fix the news' with crowd-funded website

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   


The founder of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has announced plans for a crowd-funded news website offering stories by journalists and volunteers working together, an initiative he hopes will counter the spread of fake news.

Jimmy Wales said the new platform, Wikitribune, would be free to read and carry no advertising, instead relying on supporters to fund it, while the accuracy of its articles would be easily verifiable as source material would be published.

"The news is broken, but we've figured out how to fix it," he said in a promotional video posted on the website's homepage, which does not yet carry any news stories. The page indicates the platform will go live in 29 days.


Wikipedia founder aims to 'fix the news' with crowd-funded website

I like this. A lot.

There is little money for investigative journalism any more. News publications and sites are turning to sensationalist click-bait for revenue. Their biggest competitors are Google and Facebook - who do NOT spend money on investigative journalism. So 'special interest' news-bots are running the show, and Libertarian hackers are gloating. Alternative facts abound.

Wales' wikinews might not change things, but hopefully, it will help.


Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is set to launch a community-driven online news service in response to the widespread distribution of deliberately misleading information masquerading as news.

“We want to bring [the] fact-based, fact-checking mentality we know from Wikipedia to news”
~ Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia

...Wales’s belief is that programmatic advertising has intensified “a race to the bottom” and led to some media organisations being unsustainable because of the high costs associated with news gathering. According to the trade association Digital Content Next, 90 per cent of growth in digital ad revenue over 2015 went to Facebook and Google, technology companies that don’t invest in journalism but have played a crucial role in the distribution of wilful misinformation during election cycles in western democracies. This shift has meant that media owners must now experiment with other revenue models, moving away from display advertising to subscription, where users are given access to material across a number of platforms.

“Subscriptions to the New York Times have gone through the roof in the last year or so,” Wales says. “To me, this is really exciting because that business model of people paying is much healthier than a pure ads business model. A lot of editors and journalists and owners of magazines and newspapers have been uncomfortable and are saying ‘we’re looking at this as a business model that’s driving us to clickbait – that’s not what we want to do, that’s not what our brand is about’. It’s exciting to me if more and more people will pay to subscribe.”




True, people are just people, with their own prejudices and biases, and don't necessarily have a handle on "truth." But the model worked for wikipedia. Here's hoping.



“When Kellyanne Conway said ‘alternative facts’, I was just like ‘#ck it, I can’t deal with this. We have to do something about this’”
~ Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia





posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

This is certainly a positive evolution forward in the information news industry. I will support it.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Worth a try, to be sure! Some Conspiracy Theorists think Wikipedia is a lame source, and I understand they don't think it has any authority since anyone can edit it if they want to jump through the cyber hoops to sign up to do it. Otherwise, the sources are always there, so I think of Wikipedia as a reasonable jumping off spot, then go to their linked sources to verify.

I have heard of people swapping out "true" items with crap, though....it does happen. And I've found blatant mistakes, too. Just never bothered to go on there to correct them. I have enough trouble trying to do that right here!!



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Crowd funded.
I suppose that means, give money.... and see pop-up ads.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
It would be a good thing, as long as they find the right investigative reporters and the editors do not blow things out of proportion. Most of the news stories have some of the truth in them, buried down in the forth paragraph and worthless since you already made an opinion in the first paragraph and title.

So many people just read the first two paragraphs and the News sites know this. Also the true explanation down below requires a person to understand how things work. Glorifying things to raise readership is not news. Real news actually can be a little boring sometimes, Real scientific research can also be boring.It does not stop science sites from misrepresenting evidence though, and of course people who profit by it being misrepresented will release a juicy version to the news.

Wikipedia usually has a couple versions of the same thing, they do put both sides of controversial stuff up. I usually search for multiple wiki articles on the subject when I use wiki. It will be harder for them to combine two separate opinions I think.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Whenever I go on Wikipedia, I always check the sources and footnotes. Wikipedia is a good start when researching something, but should never be the only source.

I'm looking forward to Wikitribune. I hope the journalists who post there will maintain some integrity and simply report, not analyze or interpret for me. And leave plenty of sources...



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I wouldn't get your hopes up.

This article explains quite a bit when it comes to fake news.

it comes down to geographical location.

www.politico.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Crowd funded.
I suppose that means, give money.... and see pop-up ads.



The whole idea is to get away from relying on pop-up ad revenue - and the click-bait used to generate it.


Crowd Funding Primer

...Crowdfunding is essentially the opposite of the mainstream approach to business finance.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Worth a try, to be sure! Some Conspiracy Theorists think Wikipedia is a lame source, and I understand they don't think it has any authority since anyone can edit it if they want to jump through the cyber hoops to sign up to do it. Otherwise, the sources are always there, so I think of Wikipedia as a reasonable jumping off spot, then go to their linked sources to verify.

I have heard of people swapping out "true" items with crap, though....it does happen. And I've found blatant mistakes, too. Just never bothered to go on there to correct them. I have enough trouble trying to do that right here!!


Actually, in many cases Wikki has some pretty accurate stuff and they seem to upgrade content as it is released. They also do have both sides of the issue in controversial cases too.

But then again, I make a lousy conspiracy theorist. I like to research all the facts and interpretations to make a determination.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
Whenever I go on Wikipedia, I always check the sources and footnotes. Wikipedia is a good start when researching something, but should never be the only source.

I'm looking forward to Wikitribune. I hope the journalists who post there will maintain some integrity and simply report, not analyze or interpret for me. And leave plenty of sources...


Agreed!

Also note: Nothing should ever be the only source!



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
Whenever I go on Wikipedia, I always check the sources and footnotes. Wikipedia is a good start when researching something, but should never be the only source.

I'm looking forward to Wikitribune. I hope the journalists who post there will maintain some integrity and simply report, not analyze or interpret for me. And leave plenty of sources...


I use this wiki quite often. en.wikipedia.org...

It does have some more technical interpretations and evidence.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse


I have to take exception to your statement! ...I consider myself a good conspiracy theorist - and ALWAYS research the facts and interpretations. I think all the real conspiracy theorists do so, and in the past at least, uncovering conspiracies was an honourable endeavour. Unfortunately, much has changed in the world. And conspiracy theory has been re-defined as foolish and nonsensical.

Sad, really. Another victim of the click-bait mentality I suppose.



edit on 25-4-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Resist—if you can—the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead, take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them.


From your link. And again, you posted something I can star!

Education is the answer. Nationwide internet, so that those deep red areas have access to the information they are missing by not having anything but Limbaugh and Jones on their AM radios. Market reports matter to farmers and ranchers who are stuck where they are. They need news. If the only news they hear is RW hysteria, then that is what will motivate them.

It's a tragedy. There should be a disclaimer on those radio shows at the end of EVERY commercial sequence: The opinions and statements expressed on this program are meant for "entertainment" only. No political or business decisions should be made from the information contained herein. Consult a recognized news organization for real reporting.

Funny how the article even mentions rural Kansas, just like I've been fussing about for five years.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Yah right until the fake newsers infect that website too. They have all the money behind them, this new 'clean' truth.org, not so much.

Remember, propaganda is pushed at the highest levels, the agenda will always be the wealthiest.

Golden Rule



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Anything real is not a conspiracy. The practice of people twisting the evidence to utilize it to prove their beliefs is not really a conspiracy either, it is just the way it is. People creating evidence to show what they desire it to show is not a real conspiracy either, it seems to be human nature. If someone is spreading misintrepeted evidence for profit it is a business venture, it really isn't a conspiracy either, we should know better than to trust people who profit from things.

So what is a conspiracy theory? Hell if I know. I guess it actually has different meanings to different people. I think it can't be considered a conspiracy theory unless it is wild and unresearched.

The fact that people twist things is not a conspiracy, it's just the way it is. People parrot things that are not true a lot without researching it thoroughly, actually we are debunkers, looking for the whole truth about things. You do not seem to be a conspiracy theorist to me, you do a lot of research and usually try to pass on the truth. I do not consider you a conspiracy theorist, more like a truther.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: butcherguy
Crowd funded.
I suppose that means, give money.... and see pop-up ads.



The whole idea is to get away from relying on pop-up ad revenue - and the click-bait used to generate it.


Crowd Funding Primer

...Crowdfunding is essentially the opposite of the mainstream approach to business finance.





Yep.
That idea sounds good, until the revenue stream created by the crowd is insufficient.... ads.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Yah right until the fake newsers infect that website too. They have all the money behind them, this new 'clean' truth.org, not so much.

Remember, propaganda is pushed at the highest levels, the agenda will always be the wealthiest.

Golden Rule



Well, that's an inconvenient truth! News is a product to be marketed and sold just like so much soap or deodorant.

The journalist can submit the raw material but the editors have the final say in how it's presented.
edit on 25-4-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: soficrow

Anything real is not a conspiracy.



!!! Wrong, rickymouse!

In general, conspiracies are 'hidden' strategies, plots, actions. But real and true.


conspiracy

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.






....You do not seem to be a conspiracy theorist to me, you do a lot of research and usually try to pass on the truth. I do not consider you a conspiracy theorist, more like a truther.



I look for the truth behind the curtain - that makes me a conspiracy theorist. Had to look up 'truther', learned it's another word for conspiracy theorist, don't like the label tho.


truther

US
informal
usually with modifier - A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: intrptr

Yah right until the fake newsers infect that website too. They have all the money behind them, this new 'clean' truth.org, not so much.

Remember, propaganda is pushed at the highest levels, the agenda will always be the wealthiest.

Golden Rule



Well, that's an inconvenient truth! News is a product to be marketed and sold just like so much soap or deodorant.

The journalist can submit the raw material but the editors have the final say in how it's presented.

No opposing opinion? Then thats just censorship of another flavor. 'Their truth'.

No matter how anyone proposes to get the truth out there, there will always be detractors, which is fine. Truth is where you find it. As long as the two way information discourse is still allowed, then the truth will out. The alternative is the days before internet, when the only information source was TV, newspaper and radio.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

It would be nice to think this would be pure, accurate news reporting, untainted by bias, and without publication of opinion as "fact" and absent the cherry picking of data to promote an agenda. But we know that wont happen. How do we know that? He's referring to the NYT.

The real problem with news reporting and the reason it will never be accurate is because Americans are obsessed with politics.........politics taints everything in the media and its all fake politics.




top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join