The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ad Fontes Media appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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". [1]
References
The most recent removal seems to be based upon WP:OR and a non-independent, primary source. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Hipal:I see this as a very, very fundamental example of an underlying systemic problem regarding how Wikipedia operates in its treatment of sources. Anonymous - and presumably, we can't know - unqualified "editors" are placing their own personal judgement above that of the professionals, the experts, in this particular matter (among others). Ad Fontes Media has received praise from across the mainstream media landscape. More importantly, it has be cited as an authority in peer-reviewed academic studies which actually delve into the issues with which we're all supposed to be talking about here.
To give but one example:
We compared the Media Bias/Fact Check list with a list of 115 sources from a recent paper from the Berkman Center at Harvard and found a 0.77 Pearson correlation with p < 2.2∗10−16 when comparing bias ratings for all 87 sources that the lists had in common. We also correlated the list from Media Bias/Fact Check with 105 sources listed in the Media Bias Chart from Ad Fontes Media. We found a 0.92 Pearson correlation with p < 2.2 ∗ 10−16 for the 85 sources these lists shared. Finally, we compared the larger list with a set of 200 matching sources from the AllSides Media Bias Ratings.6ere, we found a Pearson correlation of 0.81 with p < 2.2 ∗ 10−16. These correlations are strong enough for us to trust the larger partisanship classification of 1,434 sources for our analysis. It is important to have such a large set of sources in order to accurately determine the broader media consumption diets of our participants — as described below our participants visited hundreds of these sources..
— Frank Bentley, Katie Quehl, Jordan Wirfs-Brock, and Melissa Bica., "Understanding Online News Behaviors.", In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (2019)
EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed the etymology section was removed the day I created it a year and a half ago as "SOAP." How is this WP:SOAP??? It's just explaining the Latin name so people don't think Ad means advertisement. I'm restoring it. YoPienso ( talk) 04:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I added the qualifier to the 2018 Columbia Journalism Review to indicate that the criticism was with respect to The Chart when it was based solely on Otero's personal reviews of "5-20 stories" per news organization. This qualification is important since the current version is now based on the collective opinions of a panel of reviewers and each review is now based on substantially more than "5-20 stories". Nowa ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
A new proposed section, "Use in Academic Research", is presented below:
Ad Fontes Media ratings, and associated individual article ratings, are used in "reputable academic research". An advantage of using Ad Fontes data is that “it publishes ratings of news articles on a common topic from the same news cycle”. [1] This allows researchers to get specific ratings for individual articles without having to impute an article’s rating from an overall rating of its published news source. Examples of how Ad Fontes Medias ratings have been used in academic research include: [1]
- Determining if there is a relationship between exposure to US news media political bias and COVID-19 infection rates. [2] [3] [4]
- Measuring to what extent Twitter’s personalized newsfeed algorithms amplify political bias. [5]
- Determining "the difference between the proclaimed ideological bias of a news outlet and the ideology of annotated articles from the outlet". [6]
An earlier version of this section was reverted as being "examplespam, So" (i.e., WP:Example cruft).
I've modified the earlier version and posted it here for further vetting.
WP:Example_cruft states: "Avoid the temptation to engage in original research by finding every example of a phenomenon...If the number of examples in an article become too many, consider pruning them, or creating a separate list at the bottom of the article."
I believe that the new proposed section is consistent with the recommendations of WP:Example_cruft.
The examples are all from the Haq reference [1] (see footnote 2 on page 5) and were specifically cited by Haq to support his position that Ad Fontes ratings are acceptable for use in academic research. Hence the examples in the proposed new section are not original research.
Furthermore, Haq's five examples have been pruned to three since three of them could be combined to a single example related to COVID.
Finally, the list is presented at the end of the new proposed section.
I would appreciate any additional comments so that we can reach consensus on what material, if any, should be added to the article.
I look forward to your additional input. Nowa ( talk) 13:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Initially, the team had access to only one media bias rating dataset (AllSides). Multiple teams raised concerns about the reliability of this third party source, and about making our findings dependent on the validity of a single underlying dataset. We have therefore obtained a license for a second media bias dataset (Ad Fontes Media). We present both sets of results in our paper with no normative judgment on the validity of either of these underlying sources of data.[1]
We select Gun Control as our political topic of interest, as it is a commonly studied topic for political bias and receives wide media coverage in the U.S. spreading across the entire political scale (left to right)."( doi: 10.1145/3555636) cites Gun politics in the United States. That Wikipedia article barely mentions the left-right spectrum, and the only direct mention I see there is a paragraph on pro-gun leftists. Since the paper is using gun control as a proxy for left-wing bias, this seems like a very poor cite for this specific point, and in my opinion, it weakens the reliability of the source. Grayfell ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The History section of the article can be updated using the following article from the Wall Street Journal [1]
I would normally just do that, but my first attempt was reverted, citing "rv - grossly UNDUE - SOAP, NOTNEWS".
I would like to request that a less involved editor take a shot at it and I will support their efforts. Nowa ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ad Fontes Media appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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". [1]
References
The most recent removal seems to be based upon WP:OR and a non-independent, primary source. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Hipal:I see this as a very, very fundamental example of an underlying systemic problem regarding how Wikipedia operates in its treatment of sources. Anonymous - and presumably, we can't know - unqualified "editors" are placing their own personal judgement above that of the professionals, the experts, in this particular matter (among others). Ad Fontes Media has received praise from across the mainstream media landscape. More importantly, it has be cited as an authority in peer-reviewed academic studies which actually delve into the issues with which we're all supposed to be talking about here.
To give but one example:
We compared the Media Bias/Fact Check list with a list of 115 sources from a recent paper from the Berkman Center at Harvard and found a 0.77 Pearson correlation with p < 2.2∗10−16 when comparing bias ratings for all 87 sources that the lists had in common. We also correlated the list from Media Bias/Fact Check with 105 sources listed in the Media Bias Chart from Ad Fontes Media. We found a 0.92 Pearson correlation with p < 2.2 ∗ 10−16 for the 85 sources these lists shared. Finally, we compared the larger list with a set of 200 matching sources from the AllSides Media Bias Ratings.6ere, we found a Pearson correlation of 0.81 with p < 2.2 ∗ 10−16. These correlations are strong enough for us to trust the larger partisanship classification of 1,434 sources for our analysis. It is important to have such a large set of sources in order to accurately determine the broader media consumption diets of our participants — as described below our participants visited hundreds of these sources..
— Frank Bentley, Katie Quehl, Jordan Wirfs-Brock, and Melissa Bica., "Understanding Online News Behaviors.", In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (2019)
EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed the etymology section was removed the day I created it a year and a half ago as "SOAP." How is this WP:SOAP??? It's just explaining the Latin name so people don't think Ad means advertisement. I'm restoring it. YoPienso ( talk) 04:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I added the qualifier to the 2018 Columbia Journalism Review to indicate that the criticism was with respect to The Chart when it was based solely on Otero's personal reviews of "5-20 stories" per news organization. This qualification is important since the current version is now based on the collective opinions of a panel of reviewers and each review is now based on substantially more than "5-20 stories". Nowa ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
A new proposed section, "Use in Academic Research", is presented below:
Ad Fontes Media ratings, and associated individual article ratings, are used in "reputable academic research". An advantage of using Ad Fontes data is that “it publishes ratings of news articles on a common topic from the same news cycle”. [1] This allows researchers to get specific ratings for individual articles without having to impute an article’s rating from an overall rating of its published news source. Examples of how Ad Fontes Medias ratings have been used in academic research include: [1]
- Determining if there is a relationship between exposure to US news media political bias and COVID-19 infection rates. [2] [3] [4]
- Measuring to what extent Twitter’s personalized newsfeed algorithms amplify political bias. [5]
- Determining "the difference between the proclaimed ideological bias of a news outlet and the ideology of annotated articles from the outlet". [6]
An earlier version of this section was reverted as being "examplespam, So" (i.e., WP:Example cruft).
I've modified the earlier version and posted it here for further vetting.
WP:Example_cruft states: "Avoid the temptation to engage in original research by finding every example of a phenomenon...If the number of examples in an article become too many, consider pruning them, or creating a separate list at the bottom of the article."
I believe that the new proposed section is consistent with the recommendations of WP:Example_cruft.
The examples are all from the Haq reference [1] (see footnote 2 on page 5) and were specifically cited by Haq to support his position that Ad Fontes ratings are acceptable for use in academic research. Hence the examples in the proposed new section are not original research.
Furthermore, Haq's five examples have been pruned to three since three of them could be combined to a single example related to COVID.
Finally, the list is presented at the end of the new proposed section.
I would appreciate any additional comments so that we can reach consensus on what material, if any, should be added to the article.
I look forward to your additional input. Nowa ( talk) 13:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Initially, the team had access to only one media bias rating dataset (AllSides). Multiple teams raised concerns about the reliability of this third party source, and about making our findings dependent on the validity of a single underlying dataset. We have therefore obtained a license for a second media bias dataset (Ad Fontes Media). We present both sets of results in our paper with no normative judgment on the validity of either of these underlying sources of data.[1]
We select Gun Control as our political topic of interest, as it is a commonly studied topic for political bias and receives wide media coverage in the U.S. spreading across the entire political scale (left to right)."( doi: 10.1145/3555636) cites Gun politics in the United States. That Wikipedia article barely mentions the left-right spectrum, and the only direct mention I see there is a paragraph on pro-gun leftists. Since the paper is using gun control as a proxy for left-wing bias, this seems like a very poor cite for this specific point, and in my opinion, it weakens the reliability of the source. Grayfell ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The History section of the article can be updated using the following article from the Wall Street Journal [1]
I would normally just do that, but my first attempt was reverted, citing "rv - grossly UNDUE - SOAP, NOTNEWS".
I would like to request that a less involved editor take a shot at it and I will support their efforts. Nowa ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)