User talk:Glenriddle1016

Welcome!
Hi Glenriddle1016! I noticed your contributions to Mediaite&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite
Please stop edit warring. The solution here (and to me it's an obvious one) is to pull it out of the first sentence and put it farther down, and properly ascribe the observation to the sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I gave a thorough reply to SonOfThornhill below so hopefully he will desist. Regarding your suggestion I am in agreement. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite
I'm sorry but the sources that you have cited are not credible. If you read their Wikipedia articles you will see that. Of Ad Fontes Media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media#Reception) it is stated: In 2018, a Columbia Journalism Review article questioned the thoroughness of the Media Bias Chart and similar initiatives, stating that "the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets' production".[15]

In 2021, an article on the Association of College and Research Libraries' blog argued that the Media Bias Chart is detrimental to media literacy efforts because it "promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias, and reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes 'news' in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn't already hold a comparable view of the media landscape."

And of Media Bias/Fact Check (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check#Reception) is says: According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".

And The Factual only measures if the accuracy of articles, not media bias. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a more thorough explanation. However, you have made a big leap from a few criticisms to simply declaring the sites as not credible.
 * Apparently you would have us believe that one criticism in a 2018 Columbia Journalism Review article and a critical blog post of the Media Bias Chart are sufficient to render Ad Fontes Media as not credible. If that is all it takes to be considered not credible, then every fact checking and bias checking site, not to mention every media outlet, is likewise not credible as well. All are subject to some kind of criticism, some valid and some not.  It is important to allow such criticism so the reader can see there is legitimate debate and that the purveyors are not perfect and all-knowing.  It is precisely this kind of context that I am trying to provide on the page for Mediaite, but you seem to object to any of the criticisms being shown.  Specifically, the Columbia Journalism Review article did not say that Ad Fontes Media, or their bias chart in particular, was not credible, but instead lamented that the sample size was not larger, something since addressed and corrected by Ad Fontes Media.  The post on the Association of College and Research Libraries' blog itself was not credible.  Please read the original post: https://acrlog.org/2021/02/23/complex-or-clickbait-the-problematic-media-bias-chart/ While the post itself was little more than a diatribe, the CEO of Ad Fontes Media took the time to reply in the comments with a thorough and very respectful response, admitting to the limitations of a chart but also that many of the shortcomings had long since been corrected before the blog which focused on a years old version of the chart. Her reply was compelling. The response back from one of the blog authors was so churlish and childish as to completely destroy any semblance of credibility that he might have had, and comments from other blog commenters called him out for it.
 * The criticisms of Media Bias / Fact Check(one being the same Columbia Journalism Review article you used re: Ad Fontes Media) also do not say it is not credible, merely that their analysis is subjective and not scientific and was being offered by non-academics or, as they termed them, "amateurs." So? Most analysis is not scientific(BTW my day job is quantitative and fundamental analysis of companies), and Media Bias / Fact Check does not claim to be some sort of algorithm. All bias checking and fact checking endeavors are subjective to some extent. All are done by human beings, and human beings all have biases. However, that does not mean that efforts to fact check and bias check are not credible. It is dependent on many factors, including the process followed, the people doing the analysis, the oversight of the process and results, etc.
 * Regarding The Factual you are simply incorrect. From their description of their algorithm: "The Factual’s news rating algorithm analyzes more than 10,000 articles a day along four metrics: author expertise, publication history, writing tone, and cited sources and quotes" and "Mediaite articles tend to receive low scores from the Factual’s news-rating algorithm for several reasons. Above all, most articles incorporate highly biased or sensational wording..." So yes they do detect bias.
 * You did not reference any issues with Biasly or AllSides at all before simply declaring them as "not credible." Frankly all the sources I used are well respected and universally considered legitimate, credible sources. They are themselves rated by bias sites as either least biased or left of center. While a right-leaning site's criticism of Mediaite could be discounted, that is not the case with any of the sources I used.
 * In the end your claims that these sites are not credible are not supported by the criticisms shown on their Wikipedia pages that you specifically reference as evidence to back your assertions. Simply continuing to delete well sourced content because you can soon becomes vandalism.  I would suggest that instead of simply deleting the contributions of others that you do some research and add to the page.  If you can find sources that contradict my well sourced criticisms of Mediaite and which have analyzed their articles and found no bias, then please do so.  But I doubt even the folks who work at Mediaite would be so bold as to suggest their site does not have a left-bias, and certainly I am not aware of any bias checking site that concludes that they are not biased to the left. It is not so much a criticism as being open and transparent. I read Mediaite myself, but it is naïve to pretend that their are unbiased.  If we only call out bias on side and not the other, not only do we lose individual credibility as editors but Wikipedia loses credibility as well.  I would ask you to kindly restore my contribution and cease repeatedly attempting to squelch a legitimate and well-sourced entry, and I will wait until tomorrow to restore it myself. I am amenable to Drmies' reasonable suggestion above. Thank you. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but they are supported. The Columbia Journalism Review is the gold standard in journalism. Both Media Bias / Fact Check and Ad Fontes Media are not credible sources. If Mediaite receives a low score from The Factual, go ahead and point that out. But as your own quote states, "Mediaite articles tend to receive low scores from the Factual’s news-rating algorithm for several reasons. Above all, most articles incorporate highly biased or sensational wording...". However it never states if it is a right or left bias. In terms about pointing out bias, that is not the role of Wikipedia. The role is to present facts without subjective opinion getting in the way. If there are other articles that unfairly characterize an organization, you're free to point that out, discuss with other editors and have the characterization removed from the article. And my advice is to discuss with other editors on an article's Talk Page before making a radical change to an article based on your personal opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again you are calling Ad Fontes Media as not credible based on a single 2018 Columbia Journalism Review which did not say they are not credible and which is no longer germane as that version of the Bias Chart has not existed for years as they have substantially updated their process. You are trying to put words in their mouths to justify your action which is based on your own opinion. Regardless the chart is just a visual tool, nothing more. There is no argument that such a simple tool is limited, but you are essentially the only one trying to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that Ad Fontes Media is not credible when the source you site does not make that claim.
 * Again with Media Bias / Fact Check you called them not credible based on sources that themselves did not say they were not credible.
 * I did not say The Factual said their bias was one way or the other, yet you removed it anyway without valid reason reason.
 * Once again you called AllSides and Biasly not credible based on.....nothing. No sources at all. Even if your were correct on Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/ Fact Check, which you are not as your sources don't claim what you say they do, you undercut your own argument by unilaterally call other sources as not credible without even pretending to have a reason.
 * I had hoped you would want to have an honest dialog, but instead you transparently try to hide behind sources that don't even claim what you claim they do. Your actions are a violation of the intent and spirit of Wikipedia. Any further tampering by you would be nothing more than vandalism. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the Columbia Journalism Review would not be cited in their articles here if there was no merit in what they said about the two sites. And just because the word 'credible' wasn't specifically stated doesn't make them so. So please stop playing semantics games. It is not vandalism to restore an article to it's previous state when one person makes radical changes to it. If you want to make changes to the article, bring up the subject on the article's talk page and reach a consensus with other editors regarding the change. That's how things are done here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the CJR article it hardly made the case that Ad Fontes and Media Bias / Fact Check weren't credible. Is your interpretation that any criticism of a site renders it not credible? You are taking a mere criticism, which is valid, though no longer germane re: Ad Fontes as their chart process is much different now, and from that simply declaring them as not credible. That is not what CJR did. But you went much further than that, deeming The Factual as not credible while giving an incorrect reason and again you didn't even bother citing any criticism of AllSides or Biasly before declaring them not credible for no reason. Seems that you simply didn't like me pointing out that Mediaite is biased, which frankly I don't think anyone could argue. So what's your real beef?  It is hardly a radical change to include context that a media purveyor is seen as biased. That is hardly news. Or are you against pointing that out for any news site? I could see that point but we'd have to remove such description from every Wiki page for every media outlet that is described as left leaning or right leaning. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have advised you, if you want a change to the article go to it's Talk page and make your case to get a consensus of editors. That's how things are done here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If I have time I will do so. You have still never answered on what basis you declared Biasly and AllSides as not credible. Well? Glenriddle1016 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you want a change to the article go to it's Talk page and make your case to get a consensus of editors.SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will. But once again you refuse to answer. Telling. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're still not understanding, if you want to make a change to an article go to the article's Talk page, discuss the proposed changes there an come to a consensus with other editors regarding the changes. You should consider reviewing Wikipedia's Terms of Use (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use) as well. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand completely and will do so when I have the time. A little busy with business and two young children at the moment.
 * What I was referring to was our discussion above where you were happy to mention your reasons for deeming a couple of my sources as not credible but you have failed over and over again to mention your reasons for deeming other sources, AllSides and Biasly, as not credible. Every time I ask you either ignore it or talk about going to the Talk page. Again I will do so, but the question I asked you is part of this discussion above on this page. The fact that you avoid answering and keep trying to deflect is very telling. You don't have an answer because you have no real backup for your action re: those sources(not that you had legitimate backup to declare the other sources as not credible; your stated reasons were smokescreen excuses and laughable. Even the CJR did not argue they are not credible, explicitly or not, but rather that they were imperfect and at least partially subjective, none of which makes them not credible and CJR did not suggest otherwise). It is abundantly clear that you simply are against adding context to the Mediaite page to inform readers of the page of Mediaite's bias.  I find your position baffling, as Mediaite hardly makes an effort to be unbiased like some media outlets do. The 5 credible sources I mention, and others, and everyone like myself that reads and enjoys Mediaite, is aware of the bias. There is no reason not to state the obvious for those who are not familiar with Mediaite. Failing to add this context only serves to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia for failing to mention a site's left bias while never failing to do so to similar sites on the right. As someone who says that credibility is important I would think you would want that. Don't worry about responding as I know you won't continue the discussion further here by actually answering my question on AllSides and Biasly. Don't worry, I understand why.  When I have the time I will go to the Talk page on the larger issue and we'll see if that is a credible forum.  I am new to Wikipedia and hope this is a place of intellectual honesty.  So far I have been disappointed, but hopefully folks like yourself who occupy their time by making nonsense reverts of legitimate and well and credibly sourced contributions of others are the exception here and not the rule. We'll see. It really would be best if some folks would just stick to their knitting and leave the rest of us alone. So live long and prosper....hopefully staying well away from me. Bye. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are new to Wikipedia, you should review Wikipedia's Terms of Use (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use). SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I previously did so. I would suggest you review them as well, and abide by them. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have and I do. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL Glenriddle1016 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Mediaite) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. BusterD (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks BusterD but this isn't edit warring at least not on my part. I made and contribution to add needed context to a page. Another editor objected and reverted it but did not provide valid reason, merely claiming my source was not credible with nothing to substantiate his claim. I then revised my original contribution to add multiple credible and well known unbiased public sources. He again reverted claiming that all five sources were not credible.  He did provide more info, but his principal source did not take the position he claimed it did re: two of my sources. The other source he used is a discredited blog post that should itself have been removed as a source on another page.  Another of my sources he simply incorrectly stated did not check for bias, when that is precisely and clearly part of what they do.  The final two sources he declared as not credible and has never provided any backup at all. Given his unjustified revert I reverted back to my updated contribution.  But he just reverted again. I have talked with him here hoping he would be reasonable but it seems he is simply intent on protecting a media outlet from any needed context being added for the readers.  That context is provided on many other pages, so why not on the Mediaite page? The other editor's actions are destructive and not what should be allowed here. I provided a well sourced contribution from multiple sources that are respected and used and referenced commonly, and he simply declares them as not credible because he didn't like the result of their analysis. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)