Talk:PolitiFact/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Self-published sources?

I added a recent study to the Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings section. This study was done by Matt Shapiro and published on his project site, as well as The Federalist online magazine. I first referenced Shapiro's website, since that is the original source. Xenophrenic reverted that, due to WP:SPS. Therefore I changed the reference to the article in 'The Federalist', but Xenophrenic reverted that as well, claiming that it is still considered self-published (as the article is credited directly to Matt Shapiro) with the comment "Let's wait until it gets mainstream coverage and evaluation".

Xenophrenic, do you mind explaining your reasoning? I think you are interpreting the policy too broadly. Is it because the researcher and the article author are the same person, and there is no middle-man saying "according to such and such, bla-bla..."? Does it really matter, as long as the article is published at an existing media venue (and not just on a website that 'anyone can create', which, to my understanding, is the purpose of WP:SPS)? Do you consider "The Federalist" to be less mainstream than "The Nation" or "Human Events" referenced earlier in that section? Finally, this section is, after all, a survey of various publications done on the subject, with references for the readers to review, and none of it is presented as any kind of objective truth, so I'm not even sure WP:SPS applies.

Before anyone wonders, I'm not connected in any way with Matt Shapiro, and only learned of him and this study recently. I have no particular interest in quoting him specifically, but other links in this section are rather dated, and if you search for 'Politifact bias' in Google right now, the "Federalist" article is right there at the top, so I feel it is a suitable addition to the section.

Don't want to go into any kind of edit war here; would appreciate others to share their points of view. Drst (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting, as I've already expressed my concerns, and it appeared you wished "others to share their points of view". Claims that fact-checkers in general, including PolitiFact, are "biased" or "subjective" or "partisan" are common and numerous. This "study" is not new or unique. You asked if I consider "The Nation" or "Human Events" more mainstream than "The Federalist"? Well, they are, and they've been around longer, but that doesn't have anything to do with my concerns. You'll note that the writers of the Nation and Human Events pieces are not talking about their own "study". Shapiro is (regardless of whether he publishes it himself, or talks someone else into posting his words on their site), and that is where my concern rests.

If third-party coverage eventually develops about his "study", then perhaps we can reconsider adding it. Heck, I don't think PolitiFact has even noticed or responded to it, which they always do if it is worthy of any consideration. Hopefully that better explains my concerns about the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and thank you for elaborating on them. I do believe, as I said, that WP:SPS does not apply. It specifically says: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." "The Federalist", non-mainstream as it may be, falls in none of these categories. It is, after all, an established independent online publisher, apparently important enough to have its own Wikipedia entry.

You say that it does not matter whether the researcher "publishes it himself, or talks someone else into posting his words on their site". In my view, this is exactly what matters in respect to WP:SPS. After all, every scientific article in every journal, once reviewed and accepted, is ultimately credited directly to the author(s), which discuss... their own studies. Would you treat them all as SPS? Obviously not. You can say (and would be right) that scientific publications generally have a good, rigorous peer-review process, whereas you have no idea what process small media outlets like "The Federalist" have, if at all. But that is a different point, one that I feel is beyond the scope of responsibility of Wikipedia editors to establish. From the policy point of view, once it's published by a third-party, it's not SPS, pure and simple. Thus, I feel that shooting down this publication on the grounds of WP:SPS is a misuse of that policy.

The claim that this particular study is not unique or interesting enough may have weight, but it's a different claim altogether. I have not seen any attempt to define which criteria a particular publication must adhere to to justify its appearance in this section. Without such a definition, we cannot even attempt to be objective. While it may seem somewhat random that I chose to reference this particular publication, I explained above why I chose it, and it does not seem out of place to me. Drst (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: since it looks like we are at a stand-still and cannot reach an agreement, I will ask for a third opinion. Drst (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am here to help, I arrived here via your call for help Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. I am a unrelated to both of you, non-american and non-partisan (unbiased), never read known Politifact or federalist before (unopinionated), non-academic (not a hardcore sucker for stringent reference criteria but a pragmatic criteria), but from a computer engineer corporate job (Forbes is acceptable reference in corporate world but not in academic world) with PhD (I understand references and peer reviewed). If it was an academic topic, i would have gone with a stricter criteria of peer-reviewed punished journals. Since this article is about commercial news organisation doing own fact checks, where they have not published their SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA (this can introduce boas as to whoa and which stories they pick to check facts on) and FACT CHECK METHODOLOGY, in that aspect PolitiFact is no superior than TheFederalist, even though Politifact might be and older publication with higher readership, but TheFederalist seems credible enough and they been around long enough for last few years with several hundred monthly posts (large enough and regular ongoing sustainable operation). If it was an article on highly scientifically researched academic topic (e.g. Human genome) then I would suggest to exclude both Politifcat and TheFederalists as acceptable reference sources. Since this is article is on an news media project on political topic, then the inclusion of FACT CHECKING (such as by TheFEDERALIST) the FACTCHECKER (PolitiFact) sounds sensible to me. Merely having lower readership of a newer but sustainable ongoing with adequate track record (TheFEDERALIST) warrants its inclusion. SUMMARY: My suggestion is to include "The Federalist" as the factchecker of factcherks as it adds value to the critical analysis of the article, even as a reader's perspective I would like to see it in an article on a topic that is new to me. Hope this helps. Thanks. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Being.human, thank you for taking the time to review and provide your opinion. Xenophrenic, considering the discussion so far, do you still believe it to be a case of WP:SPS, or that it should be excluded for another reason? Drst (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

While WP:SPS is a concern, you'll note that my edit summary also suggested "Let's wait until it gets mainstream coverage and evaluation", which doesn't seem to be happening. You've linked to a piece by a non-descript individual, which hasn't been analyzed or reviewed by third-party sources (just reprinted whole by uncritical echo-publications). It also doesn't appear to say anything new from what is already in the PolitiFact article.

While I appreciate Being.human's participation, and I understand this is his first stab at offering a "Third opinion" (and apparently he is doing so after only 2 months of editing Wikipedia), I find his conclusion at odds with Wikipedia policy and convention. In particular, the SUMMARY: My suggestion is to include "The Federalist" as the factchecker of factcherks as it adds value to the critical analysis of the article, even as a reader's perspective I would like to see it in an article on a topic that is new to me indicates a misunderstanding of the role of The Federalist in this matter. There has been no fact-checking, or even input, by The Federalist (which disclaims wholly unmodified reproductions such as this as the opinion of the author only). I was hopeful that appropriate secondary coverage of this piece by Shapiro would appear, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Also, the claim by Being.human that PolitiFact doesn't publish their selection criteria or methodology reveals an unfamiliarity with the subject matter see here, for example, and equating PolitiFact (a news source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) with The Federalist (no such established reputation) as the same, except for age, is disconcerting. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You mention that you find his conclusion "at odds with Wikipedia policy and convention", but so far you failed to explain what this policy and convention is, and make revert after revert, based on your personal interpretation, without providing any sources to support your position.

At first you claimed WP:SPS, which I still claim does not apply, and now it seems we are in agreement on this point (or at least you stopped arguing it). Moreover, you are applying different standards to the new content I added, compared to existing content. If you look at the other 4 pieces quoted in the 'Analysis' section you will find - a clearly self-published study by Dr. Eric Ostermeier (in 'Smart Politics'), a reply to this study (in 'MinnPost'), a piece in 'The Nation' which combines discussion of Ostermeier's analysis with additional analysis by the piece's author - another clear case of self-published, and another piece in 'Human Events' which references all previous pieces and adds more analysis by the author. I don't see (and you did not explain) how these references are in any way more worthy than Matt Shapiro's recent study.

You may claim that it's about the missing 'secondary coverage', in which case - please provide evidence to a policy that shows such secondary coverage is required to reference a specific publication. Do we also need tertiary and quaternary coverage (that reference the references)? What is the limit? Who defines what 'mainstream' is for the purpose of this secondary coverage? For example, PolitiFactBias.com covered Shapiro's publications (and mostly disagreed with them, despite having a declared goal of pointing out PolitiFact's bias). This can be added into the section, but I have a feeling you will claim it does not meet your standards (which you have not explained fully, and have not explained why those specific standards should have deciding weight).

A final point - you mention that you find disconcerting that someone (Being.human) would equate PolitiFact with The Federalist. I find disconcerting that you think that an equality or inequality between the two is even relevant. The section 'Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings' is not and should not be a comparison of fact checkers, merely a selection of analyses of PolitiFact, done by independent sources (independent of PolitiFact that is; they can certainly have their own affiliations). I certainly feel that Shapiro's analysis falls within those parameters, and has the value of being much more recent than the other references, which are from 5-6 years ago.

Since we are still not in agreement, even after WP:3O, I will try an RfC next. Drst (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Both please take note of these WP:Ownership of articles (no one owns it, no matter how much you contributed or time you spent, do NOT EMOTIONALLY GET ATTACHED to this and do not run others off). [WP:NPOV]], WP:Neutral point of view are important becausein future someone might add or revert the content it if it is not balanced with both sides or all sides of the story before drawing a conclusion backed up by credible references (WP:Verifiability WP:Identifying reliable sources), and note the inadequacies of the conclusion drawn (with references), that is CRITICAL ANALYSIS. Include stuff but make sure give it only FAIR WEIGHTAGE and not disproportionate weightage, (particularly WP:UNDUE. You both are passionate and persistent enough about this topic, it is a good topic, SOME ONE HAS TO KEEP THE BASTARDS HONEST (i.e. factcheck the politicians, lol...but factcheckers could be biased, planted, conflict of interest, funding patterns, etc) ane include subheadings for SOURCE OF FUNDING and CONFLICT OF INTEREST (if none, say so, with references), even if no material then leave the subheading with a small statement as a pointer for other editors. I suggest YOU TWO ARE BEST BUDDIES and CANDIDATES to collaborate and spend your energy in enhancing the article by including the following: SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA and its critical analysis (merits and loopholes to see if it could be manipulated or could be biased/partisan) and FACTCHECKING METHODOLOGY and its critical evaluation, include what PRO views are and include ANTI views, both with references. Remember, if you run each other off with war of attrition (frustrate each other to the extent that one gives up). I like to throw a nice challenge to to both of you, forget this tussle, turn that in beautiful COLLABORATIVE FRIENDSHIP and work together on those 3 or 4 or more subsections (include both pro and anti) but make sure content is so FAIR and BALANCED that no one will revert it even long after u stop watching this page, otherwise useless to waste time editing something that will eventually be cut out after few hours, days, or years. A dispute is an opportunity to deepen the understanding and make new friends. GRAB THIS OPPORTUNITY and together you can NAIL many more articles, even if you might have opposing ideology (by adding contrasting analysis to the articles). Hope it helps. Group hugs <3 hehehe Where is the beer for me? or hop over to my condo, we sip some vodka red bull by the pool hehehe Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Being.human, thank you again for your thoughts (although they are a bit hard to read, perhaps splitting the content into more paragraphs and sentences could help readability). I agree with you, that there is room for expanding the article, and I think that one of the reasons it has not happened, is because folks are not as passionate as it may seem from this particular debate.

To respond to some of your specific suggestions: I believe that source of funding can be a legitimate addition, if done succinctly. In particular, I would not want to go into the various allegations and accusations and conspiracy theories about the funding of PolitiFact; this in my opinion would be a classical case of WP:UNDUE. However, PolitiFact itself disclosed its funding sources in this article, and I don't see a problem to mention it briefly in the introduction.

Similarly, about conflicts of interests: it is impossible to prove that there is NO conflicts of interest, and so I would not even bring it up, unless there are completely obvious ones (and I do not think there are).

I do think it's a good idea to expand the analysis section with references to additional analyses (which I tried to do in the original edit that spurred this debate), and mentioning sampling selection and methodology would also be good, as I do believe the PolitiFact staff has addressed both of these points in the past. It should not be too difficult to find them, and post them for the readers to review. I am willing to do the initial hunting. I should read the article thoroughly first, though - perhaps it's already been referenced.

What do you guys think? Drst (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. it was late 3 am here, sleepy, I tried to help. I do take your suggestion sincerely and with gratitude. I do realize I should take more due care while leaving comment, break those down, itemize, review before publishing, even on the talk page. Suggestion well accepted. Sorry for the inconvenience. I am glad to be of help. Next time I will try to make it more readable. Many thanks. Good luck buddy. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The reorganizing of the information in chronological order is an improvement, and I see no issues with the addition of funding information recently made. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Matt Shapiro’s article posted on The Federalist does not meet the quality standard for the following three reasons. First, comparing to the study conducted by Professor Ostermeier, Shapiro’s argument lacks data or facts to prove his viewpoints. In other words, his argument is not based on analysis, but merely on his personal feeling. Second, Shapiro is not an expert in this field. He posted only two articles on The Federalist, and doesn’t seem to be engaged with other more mature media at all. Therefore, Shapiro’s argument about PolitiFact is the same quality as an ordinary listener’s call to a political radio show. Third, no other significant media organizations quoted Shapiro’s argument, as far as I know. Thus, quoting the Shapiro’s study without doing counter arguments is very subjective.

I believe Professor Ostermeier’s study might be now obsolete because it was conducted in 2011 when the founder and full-time chief editor Bill Adair served for PolitiFact. Under his successor, Angie Drobnic Holan’s initiative, we need a new study on PolitiFact. However, Shapiro’s argument is not the right choice because of the abovementioned reasons. Let’s search for other reliable sources.

FYI: I am a Japanese citizen, who first translated the PolitiFact’s page from English to Japanese. I carefully read all references before the translation, and am neutral to American politics.--Mis0s0up (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. You make some good points, but I disagree with the first - Matt Shapiro does provide data in both his articles (mostly graphs of averages), and also elaborates on how he ran the analysis. You can point out flaws in the methodology if you see them (the PolitiFactBias guys did so), but I find it untrue to say that it is based on feelings and nothing more. Drst (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Please be noticed that Matt Shapiro’s article is below the basic standard of statistical analysis. Even if his conclusion is true, his article cannot be used without solving the following issues: no data collection period; no actual number of PolitiFact’s judges he analyzed (i.e. providing only the ratio does not guarantee apples-to-apples comparisons); and no explanation how he opted politicians in and out from the graphs. These are typical amateur mistakes, and seem to be manipulative to readers. Furthermore, The Federalist did not appropriately play a role as a reviewer before posting the article on its website. That is the reason why I regard Shapiro’s article as “personal”, not “professional”.

Idea: Here is an alternative you may want to refer in order to better support the argument that PolitiFact is biased: A Comparative Analysis of the Partisan Targets of Media Fact-checking: Examining President Obama and the 113th Congress. This academic report reached the same conclusion as Shapiro’s but does not contain the abovementioned flaws. It may not be the best choice, so please spend more time to search for reliable sources. Hope this helps.--Mis0s0up (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the clarification. I have to agree that Shapiro's content is not as rigorously presented as Ostermeier's. However, I do find that it's on par with the other articles currently quoted in that section (which mostly reply to Ostermeier and add some limited analysis / opinion of their own). So when I added the reference to Shapiro's article, it seemed quite at home with the existing content, which apparently was considered at the right level of rigor for this Wikipedia article. This is actually the crux of my disagreement with Xenophrenic - applying different standards to references in the same section.

I don't object to the basic idea of raising the bar on what gets in and what does not (the study you brought is an interesting candidate; I will read it thoroughly), but I feel that the standard should be clearly defined and evenly applied, otherwise future editors might be wasting their time (sort of like I did) locating and presenting references that seem to match the level of content, only to have somebody simply revert them (because they are not of sufficient quality in their view), without bothering to clean up existing content, which may be of the same low standard. Drst (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings

Should Matt Shapiro's study as published in 'The Federalist' be included in the 'Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings' section? See revision 782795663. This is an ongoing dispute with Xenophrenic (talk), which was not resolved even after invoking Wikipedia:THIRDOPINION. Please see discussion history above. Drst (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude the proposed paragraph as undue. It's essentially just an op-ed republished in the Federalist; devoting an entire section to it seems extremely WP:UNDUE. The entire section could use a clean-up - it's mostly filled with extensive quotes from opinion pieces or from articles that don't appear to have gotten any secondary coverage themselves, which gives the impression that editors are mostly using it to argue back and forth by proxy, and it's effectively a criticism section, which is a bad way to approach most topics anyway. But an entire paragraph devoted to one op-ed that, as far as I can tell, attracted no attention elsewhere doesn't seem appropriate. I would suggest reducing the entire section to a paragraph briefly summarizing the broad debates over PolitiFact without the extensive quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Others first article coverage should be in proportion to due WP:WEIGHT, and I think more prominent is the George Mason University study, or US News, The Atlantic, Ballotpedia, NPR, IVN, and CJR. The section also has plenty of other POV sources to summarize among HuffPo, Nationalreview, newsmax, insidesources, zerohedge, politifactbias.com. And the section should also include their own comments (such as here) Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

{The below was a response to my !vote above. I moved my !vote back up for reasons I explain below.} --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty to split your original quote, to have better separation of survey and discussion. I like your idea of general cleanup of the section, but I would not eliminate it altogether, since I think it's important to mention criticisms in articles about political topics (WP:CSECTION actually mentions politics as one of the topics where such a section may be appropriate). Which of the references currently presented would you keep in such a cleanup? Would you add new ones? Drst (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't edit RfC responses. An RFC is closed based on the arguments presented in it and the solutions those comments seem to prefer, so directly moving arguments out of it (even if you moved them elsewhere) isn't acceptable and could disrupt the RFC. Anyway, I'd eliminate every single quote, replace them with a general survey of points-of-view, and break the section up to present those positions in their appropriate places rather than concentrated into one back-and-forth criticism section. I strongly disagree with your assertion that it is important to mention criticisms. There is nothing special about critical opinions, and highlighting them (or giving them more weight than we otherwise would) simply because they are critical is a WP:NPOV violation - see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Debates and opinions about the topic should be included, of course -- nothing should be excluded simply because it is critical. But nothing should ever, under any circumstances, be included purely because it is critical, either; the standard should always be "is this a noteworthy person talking? Is what they're saying significant, and did it receive coverage?" This is one of the many reasons why (while we should include critical viewpoints when they are noteworthy) a criticism section is a terrible way to arrange our coverage of a topic, since it invites people to drop every negative opinion piece they can dig up. I would probably merge these opinions into the "reception" paragraph, since that's essentially what they are. Which individual points are covered is less important than you might think as long as we avoid the trap of having a separate paragraph for each - that is, I envision one or two sentences that summarizes all similar criticisms (so which individual ones we use to cite it is less significant.) Four different people saying the same thing is not worth devoting four paragraphs to. Something like "several commentators, including [person], [person], and [person], have said [summary of argument]." This is more concise, more helpful to a typical reader, and avoids turning the section into a dumping ground where people argue over the topic via proxy by dropping in an endless succession of dueling op-eds. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I understand your position now, and it makes sense to me (I don't see others objecting either). The proposed solution is the cleanest and most consistent I have seen so far, and if nobody picks it up in the nearest future, I will probably get around to it myself when I have some time. Drst (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I performed the cleanup by moving the paragraph about Ostermeier's study and Adair's response to it to the 'Reception' section above it, placing it in its chronological position, with some shortening. While outdated now, the study received a good amount of coverage, so it meets the standards we defined in this RFC. The other references I removed, since they mostly just talk about Ostermeier's study back and forth and are essentially opinion pieces. The academic report mentioned by Mis0s0up is newer (from 2016), but I could not find any secondary coverage of it, so I am not adding it at this point. Drst (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Outdated Info

"The site also includes an "Obameter", tracking President Barack Obama's performance with regard to his campaign promises, ..." This is outdated, right? John Mark Wagnon (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

2013 "Lie of the Year"

Politifact's position in 2013 may well stand in stark contrast to its 2008 statement but, to be fair to Politifact, saying that this is in 'stark contrast' without more may be potentially unfair or misleading because statements that were true can become false and misleading. It may be that the claim was still being made in 2013 but the facts had changed so that re-making and continuing the claim in 2013 might make it the lie of that year. There is therefore no inconsistency in Politifact's fact-checking - it can be considered to be reasonably objective, finding things true when they are true and false when they are false based on its processes and rulings. Failing to make this clear, and merely saying the two positions are in "stark contrast", whilst this is technically true, may be misleading by omission in this article. As I am on the borderline about this, I have not amended the article. aspaa (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2011 Lie of the Year

Politifact was ridiculed very widely for this, and rightly so. At issue was the assertion of many Democrats esp. the DCCC that Republicans "voted to end Medicare". Democrats struggled for decades to get Medicare enacted due to Republican opposition. It was created eventually because private health insurance kept getting even more unsatisfactory for the elderly, and its excessive costs were a major factor in elderly poverty. It was a rejection of the private health insurance model, which is why its passage waited decades until Democrats had a massive majority in Congress. Two generations of Americans paid taxes into that system with the promise of access to a government run and government backed program upon retirement. The Paul Ryan plan that Republicans voted in lock step for was to replace Medicare with subsidy checks for elderly to purchase private insurance - a return to a model that the passage of Medicare had rejected and replaced. The Ryan plan was also to make those subsidies become smaller (in real value) so that within a few years the elderly would have to shoulder a very large (and increasing) part of the cost of the private insurance. So it would have replaced Medicare with a system so different from Medicare that it barely bears comparison to Medicare. Some people were to be grandfathered into the existing Medicare system at least for the time being, but nobody else was to be given the option of having Medicare. It appears that Republican backers wanted to call the new system "Medicare" to blunt criticism of the changes, but that would have been virtually the only similarity between the public and private models.

When fact checkers like Politifact began criticizing Democrats for saying that Republicans voted to end Medicare, they would sometimes concede that the statement is correct Italic textas long as the phrase "as we know it" is appended to itItalic text. Republican politicians, coincidentally, complained along similar lines. That is a distinction without a difference, since the technical term for "Medicare as we know it" is "Medicare". Medicare has always been by design a government-run non-private non-profit health insurance system. So this criticism by outfits like Politifact was by their own admission pettifogging. I can take away your Lexis and replace it with a rusted out Yugo, but you wouldn't tolerate that just because I slapped a Lexis name plate on it. We have editors here who want to eliminate edits that draw attention to the assumptions that underlie the Politifact argument that it is "mostly untrue" that Republicans voted to end Medicare. The "mostly" is doing a lot of work, because the statement is indeed accurate by any normal definition of "Medicare", "vote", and "end". So if these editors want to improve the article, they really should make sure their edits convey the reasons why Politifact's position was widely derided as ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.153 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of lie of the year

I don't think it's encyclopedic to simply state every single lie of the year that Politifact has done, each with its own section, with nothing to add to each fact of the year, and they are all from the primary source. I believe it should either be removed, or add some information about commentary on it by secondary sources, such as if it were criticized by other media outlets or something like that. PikaSamus (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Politifact and the China Virus origin

Politifact in 2020 spread the unfounded conspiracy theory perpetuated by their "researchers" that it was debunked that the China Virus originated in a lab in Wuhan. In 2021 they retracted their lie. That should be added with sources, especially as their Fake News is part of their so-called "Lie of the Year" award in which they themselves lied. --Con^spiration 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing it to "unsupported by the evidence" is not the same as lying. --Aquillion (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Is PolitiFact biased? This content analysis says no"

So says the Poynter Institute: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/is-politifact-biased-this-content-analysis-says-no/ But the first chart definitely shows their True/false ratings favor the Democrats over the Republicans. Note that the Poynter Institute owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the International Fact-Checking Network, so is hardly a neutral party here. Hmm. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Another analysis of Politifact appears more neutral, and doesn't have the obvious COI problem of Poynter's (which owns PolitiFact).

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politifact

"AllSides has found that Politifact's bias is Lean Left."

So, as with all "fact-checking" sites/services, one needs to be informed, and skeptical, about the so-called fact-checkers. For PolitiFact, it's not encouraging that their owners published a "study" that doesn't acknowledge their conflict of interest. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Truth is determined by online voting now? Ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)