Talk:Ballotpedia
|
This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Neutrality[edit]
This seems overly critical of Ballotpedia without providing any real substance that could be used to definitively describe them as a "right-wing blog masquerading as a neutral voter information website." Even though it was started by a right-wing organization, that doesn't mean it can't present facts and strive for neutrality. Media Bias/Fact Check says their factual reporting is high and they are very unbiased [1], so I think it may be time that we reevaluate this article, framing it in a more accurate light. We are skeptics, after all. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 03:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Spriggina I concur, after all, right-wing news consists of more than the likes of Fox news and Breitbart. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I jumped to environment and climate change... They try to be balanced, but they quoted Judith Curry and also think the Heartland Institute is a source that should be put in the article. Article here is guilty too of citing Heartland, Curry, and the softcore Bjørn Lomborg-style ("it's not settled") denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation
. It also cites John Christy, dunno who that guy is and no source provided for his quote. So, overall, their record on climate change isn't good. Can be better, but not good. I know they're trying to be fair and balanced there, but, c'mon, this is scientists weighed with lying industry shills. --It's-a me, 
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- The quote was only while they were summarizing different perspectives, and I consider it reasonable for them to include the perspectives of idiots, though it was disingenuous at the start of the second article to say all of their perspectives were "scientific." Technically, the articles do observe a neutral point of view system, just not the Wikipedia-style one where pseudoscience can be labeled as such and people should not be given undue weight. While I do not agree with the management or writing style they have in place, I hardly think these examples warrant such a nasty article, although they should be given a mention and it could be noted that Ballotpedia is a bit too neutral. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 04:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- u wot m8. I think its claims of right-wingness are fully backed up. Consider the funding sources, consider the "Dead people voting news", I mean what the - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- To make such an extraordinary claim requires more than one solid example, imo. More like 5 or 6. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think this wiki page is outdated. If it used to be a right-wing site, it doesn't appear so anymore. As stated by Spriggina stated, Media Bias Fact Check classified it as "Least biased" and factual reporting as "Very high". Interestingly, MBFC is a member of the Pro-truth pledge. If you see the "Public Figures" section of the Pro-truth pledge website, it actually links to Ballotpedia pages of politicians. As for the "Dead People Voting News", the page on the site just explains a form of election fraud that can happen, and even says "The extent to which this type of vote fraud occurs is not known.". The rest of the page is badly designed, as it just links to Google searches of "Dead People voting US State. So it looks like this website's not nearly as bad as Rationalwiki is currently describing. But I can't really edit much because I don't know if it used to be true. Shouldn't we somehow indicate that there's a dispute over this page? Do we have tags like Wikipedia? LiamM32 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- To make such an extraordinary claim requires more than one solid example, imo. More like 5 or 6. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- u wot m8. I think its claims of right-wingness are fully backed up. Consider the funding sources, consider the "Dead people voting news", I mean what the - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- The quote was only while they were summarizing different perspectives, and I consider it reasonable for them to include the perspectives of idiots, though it was disingenuous at the start of the second article to say all of their perspectives were "scientific." Technically, the articles do observe a neutral point of view system, just not the Wikipedia-style one where pseudoscience can be labeled as such and people should not be given undue weight. While I do not agree with the management or writing style they have in place, I hardly think these examples warrant such a nasty article, although they should be given a mention and it could be noted that Ballotpedia is a bit too neutral. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 04:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I jumped to environment and climate change... They try to be balanced, but they quoted Judith Curry and also think the Heartland Institute is a source that should be put in the article. Article here is guilty too of citing Heartland, Curry, and the softcore Bjørn Lomborg-style ("it's not settled") denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation
most articles are pretty neutral/informational & don't argue for any particular policy position Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)