The contents of the Stop Funding Misinformation page were merged into Center for Countering Digital Hate on 17 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be the subject of some dodgy editing (see [1]), and seems to have quite a lot of loaded language in it. It needs review by multiple non-involved editors to ensure that it meets the WP:NPOV criteria. Among other things, I've had a go at cleaning up citations, and fixed a wrong creation date that didn't match the cited source. -- The Anome ( talk) 05:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently citing the Companies House formation date; however, reading the incorporation document, this seems to have been a pre-existing "off-the-shelf company" that was put into use to create this organization; what's the best convention for noting this? -- The Anome ( talk) 07:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To add to the confusion, their site says that they were founded in December 2017, which is before even the initial incorporation of the company. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Any information? Shtove ( talk) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed a Times of Israel article reference here that backstopped a The Guardian reference which it substantially plagiarized [4]. I didn't see any outright invention, only theft, but be cautious about citing it as a source. Yappy2bhere ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
ItsKesha removed this entire subsection, and reverted my revert of their removal; I've now re-restored it ( diff), as the cites given seem to support the text. @ ItsKesha: can you please justify this removal? What exactly do you object to in the section? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Shtove ( talk · contribs) asked about funding five months ago but no information was forthcoming. I haven't found any information about its funding on the web. Its website contains the vacuous statement: "The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not-for-profit non governmental organisation (NGO) that is funded by philanthropic trusts and members of the public". It has lodged some accounts this year but they only give an asset figure and provide no information about its income. Burrobert ( talk) 15:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Article has a neutrality disputed template since June (added by The Anome. Is it still disputed? Seems OK to me. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a few tweets cited here: {{ cite tweet}} should be used when citing Twitter. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The primary authors of this article seem to have very few edits outside of it ( this diff, for example, shows a user with 8 prior contributions turning a redirect into a 28,000-byte fully wikified page in a single edit). jp× g 09:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to participate in the COI-discussion: Some time ago I decided to add some criticism to this page. I had the impression that the wikipedia article was one sided in the sense of representing the view of the CCDH in this social discourse and not the one of the people the CCDH accuses. So I wrote a short paragraph expressing the other point of view in this matter:
"criticism The Center of Countering Digital Hate gets accused by many people of censorship due to their attempt to deplatform people and therefore effectively driving them out of a large parts of the public discourse and of harming the reputation of the people and organizations targeted by the CCDH's campaigns[104]. Some people also defend the targeted people by stating their own positive experiences with them[105]. The criticism happens mainly on the organization's own twitter website[106] and on the private websites of the people who try to defend their reputation[107]."
First my neutral formulation of "many people" was changed into "anti-vaxxers and their supporter" which replaced my neutral term by a term with negative connotations that makes those people seem less credible and is also factually false. Later my whole addition got removed, officially due to unreliable sources. Well, I don't see were people defending themselves against a media organization should do that if not on their own private websites or on social media. If this is truely the point of view of wikipedia, we have a structural issue here that any company with media influence can create a social discourse (which is essentially what the CCDH does) and have any opposing views and reactions removed from wikipedia, since they can just exclude their source. The resulting wikipedia article will be onesided and not neutral by default...
2 days ago I added relevant information to the disinformation dozen section - that the central claim of one of their campaign is false and that facebook responded. Facebooks statistical information is also relevant, since it revails that their campaign was based on faulty statistics that are so obviously wrong and not valid as every first semester student in any subject that includes statistics would know. Therefore I'm 99% certain that what the CCDH did was blant lying. "Facebook responded to the letter and calls the disinformation dozen report a "faulty narrative" and the statistics used in the report are not representative of the millions of posts people shared on facebook. According to facebook these 12 people are only responsible for about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content shared on facebook. [75]" source: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/taking-action-against-vaccine-misinformation-superspreaders/
This got removed as well and I would find it very unreasonable if an official facebook statement about facebook and internal statistics can not be taken as source in this particular case.
To sum it up: I find it important that the information I wanted to include gets included into the wikipedia article to make it less biased. Currently my impression of this article is that it has been written to paint the CCDH in a positive light and criticism and negative statements will get removed by the people who are acting in the interest of the companies public image.
Greetings Allaion
Some time ago, we cannot know if the sources are reliable. Are we all supposed to look through the article history to search for your revision?
I think your statement regarding facebook as source is wrong. To quote the current wikipedia guidline: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Also you ignored my arguments and in the case wikipedia would disallow these kind of sources in cases like this, my question would be how can the same information be included here in the article, since it's relevant?
PS: I added the links as you requestet, to both the sources and the historical version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate&oldid=1026376368 https://twitter.com/CCDHate/status/1367172135295324164?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367172135295324164%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenmedinfo.com%2Fblog%2Fcenter-countering-digital-hate-publishes-digital-hitlist-including-greenmedinfo-f3 and https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/center-countering-digital-hate-publishes-digital-hitlist-including-greenmedinfo-f3
Greetings Allaion
I intend to reduce the Publications section – which seems to detail each and every leaflet the company has produced – to a bulleted list of publications; and that will still be generous on my part. It will be rather a BOLD edit. If you disagree, I will appreciate it if you specify the rationale instead of only hitting the revert button. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see this on the talk page, but I have restored a shortened list version of the bullet list for those publications that had secondary sources in the earlier long text. Secondary sources clearly indicate noteworthiness, and the bullet point version means there is no problem of undue weight and am now confident is not promotion and soapboxing. I have not, however, checked all of the sources; some may be weaker but if so they should be addressed on a case by case basis. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hipal can you explain this edit? What is "iffy" about this? HuffPo is a good enough source isn't it? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Re this edit, this edit, this edit: I think it is unnecessary and misleading to describe it as a "company" rather than "organisation". In the UK, most "organisations" register as "companies" without therefore being usually described as such. For example, Jewish Voice for Labour [6] and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign [7] are strictly speaking "companies" but our articles on them call them "organisations" in the lead and we don't use the company infobox for them. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The campaign, even though noted by the media, does not seem to enjoy notability independent from the organisation that runs it. — kashmīrī TALK 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Merged. — kashmīrī TALK 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Inf-in MD that this edit is excessive, removing basic info about the organisation (legitimately sourced via WP:ABOUTSELF) alongside some puffery. While secondary sources are better, primary sources are OK for stuff like who the CEO is. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Although the article correctly cites a 2023 ccdh source about the 99%, ccdh came out with this in 2021, as reported in https://greenmedinfo.com/content/debunking-ccdhs-disinformation-dozen-report-how-flawed-methodology-and-mislead, which has a link to a ccdh site with a 2021 date. So, the article should be corrected to include the earlier date. 136.36.180.215 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the Stop Funding Misinformation page were merged into Center for Countering Digital Hate on 17 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be the subject of some dodgy editing (see [1]), and seems to have quite a lot of loaded language in it. It needs review by multiple non-involved editors to ensure that it meets the WP:NPOV criteria. Among other things, I've had a go at cleaning up citations, and fixed a wrong creation date that didn't match the cited source. -- The Anome ( talk) 05:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently citing the Companies House formation date; however, reading the incorporation document, this seems to have been a pre-existing "off-the-shelf company" that was put into use to create this organization; what's the best convention for noting this? -- The Anome ( talk) 07:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To add to the confusion, their site says that they were founded in December 2017, which is before even the initial incorporation of the company. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Any information? Shtove ( talk) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed a Times of Israel article reference here that backstopped a The Guardian reference which it substantially plagiarized [4]. I didn't see any outright invention, only theft, but be cautious about citing it as a source. Yappy2bhere ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
ItsKesha removed this entire subsection, and reverted my revert of their removal; I've now re-restored it ( diff), as the cites given seem to support the text. @ ItsKesha: can you please justify this removal? What exactly do you object to in the section? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Shtove ( talk · contribs) asked about funding five months ago but no information was forthcoming. I haven't found any information about its funding on the web. Its website contains the vacuous statement: "The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not-for-profit non governmental organisation (NGO) that is funded by philanthropic trusts and members of the public". It has lodged some accounts this year but they only give an asset figure and provide no information about its income. Burrobert ( talk) 15:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Article has a neutrality disputed template since June (added by The Anome. Is it still disputed? Seems OK to me. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a few tweets cited here: {{ cite tweet}} should be used when citing Twitter. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The primary authors of this article seem to have very few edits outside of it ( this diff, for example, shows a user with 8 prior contributions turning a redirect into a 28,000-byte fully wikified page in a single edit). jp× g 09:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to participate in the COI-discussion: Some time ago I decided to add some criticism to this page. I had the impression that the wikipedia article was one sided in the sense of representing the view of the CCDH in this social discourse and not the one of the people the CCDH accuses. So I wrote a short paragraph expressing the other point of view in this matter:
"criticism The Center of Countering Digital Hate gets accused by many people of censorship due to their attempt to deplatform people and therefore effectively driving them out of a large parts of the public discourse and of harming the reputation of the people and organizations targeted by the CCDH's campaigns[104]. Some people also defend the targeted people by stating their own positive experiences with them[105]. The criticism happens mainly on the organization's own twitter website[106] and on the private websites of the people who try to defend their reputation[107]."
First my neutral formulation of "many people" was changed into "anti-vaxxers and their supporter" which replaced my neutral term by a term with negative connotations that makes those people seem less credible and is also factually false. Later my whole addition got removed, officially due to unreliable sources. Well, I don't see were people defending themselves against a media organization should do that if not on their own private websites or on social media. If this is truely the point of view of wikipedia, we have a structural issue here that any company with media influence can create a social discourse (which is essentially what the CCDH does) and have any opposing views and reactions removed from wikipedia, since they can just exclude their source. The resulting wikipedia article will be onesided and not neutral by default...
2 days ago I added relevant information to the disinformation dozen section - that the central claim of one of their campaign is false and that facebook responded. Facebooks statistical information is also relevant, since it revails that their campaign was based on faulty statistics that are so obviously wrong and not valid as every first semester student in any subject that includes statistics would know. Therefore I'm 99% certain that what the CCDH did was blant lying. "Facebook responded to the letter and calls the disinformation dozen report a "faulty narrative" and the statistics used in the report are not representative of the millions of posts people shared on facebook. According to facebook these 12 people are only responsible for about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content shared on facebook. [75]" source: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/taking-action-against-vaccine-misinformation-superspreaders/
This got removed as well and I would find it very unreasonable if an official facebook statement about facebook and internal statistics can not be taken as source in this particular case.
To sum it up: I find it important that the information I wanted to include gets included into the wikipedia article to make it less biased. Currently my impression of this article is that it has been written to paint the CCDH in a positive light and criticism and negative statements will get removed by the people who are acting in the interest of the companies public image.
Greetings Allaion
Some time ago, we cannot know if the sources are reliable. Are we all supposed to look through the article history to search for your revision?
I think your statement regarding facebook as source is wrong. To quote the current wikipedia guidline: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Also you ignored my arguments and in the case wikipedia would disallow these kind of sources in cases like this, my question would be how can the same information be included here in the article, since it's relevant?
PS: I added the links as you requestet, to both the sources and the historical version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate&oldid=1026376368 https://twitter.com/CCDHate/status/1367172135295324164?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367172135295324164%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenmedinfo.com%2Fblog%2Fcenter-countering-digital-hate-publishes-digital-hitlist-including-greenmedinfo-f3 and https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/center-countering-digital-hate-publishes-digital-hitlist-including-greenmedinfo-f3
Greetings Allaion
I intend to reduce the Publications section – which seems to detail each and every leaflet the company has produced – to a bulleted list of publications; and that will still be generous on my part. It will be rather a BOLD edit. If you disagree, I will appreciate it if you specify the rationale instead of only hitting the revert button. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see this on the talk page, but I have restored a shortened list version of the bullet list for those publications that had secondary sources in the earlier long text. Secondary sources clearly indicate noteworthiness, and the bullet point version means there is no problem of undue weight and am now confident is not promotion and soapboxing. I have not, however, checked all of the sources; some may be weaker but if so they should be addressed on a case by case basis. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hipal can you explain this edit? What is "iffy" about this? HuffPo is a good enough source isn't it? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Re this edit, this edit, this edit: I think it is unnecessary and misleading to describe it as a "company" rather than "organisation". In the UK, most "organisations" register as "companies" without therefore being usually described as such. For example, Jewish Voice for Labour [6] and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign [7] are strictly speaking "companies" but our articles on them call them "organisations" in the lead and we don't use the company infobox for them. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The campaign, even though noted by the media, does not seem to enjoy notability independent from the organisation that runs it. — kashmīrī TALK 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Merged. — kashmīrī TALK 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Inf-in MD that this edit is excessive, removing basic info about the organisation (legitimately sourced via WP:ABOUTSELF) alongside some puffery. While secondary sources are better, primary sources are OK for stuff like who the CEO is. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Although the article correctly cites a 2023 ccdh source about the 99%, ccdh came out with this in 2021, as reported in https://greenmedinfo.com/content/debunking-ccdhs-disinformation-dozen-report-how-flawed-methodology-and-mislead, which has a link to a ccdh site with a 2021 date. So, the article should be corrected to include the earlier date. 136.36.180.215 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)