Journalism Low‑importance | |||||||
|
Open (inactive) | ||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saymay23, Zacharymiller 93.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Misinformation on this article
There seems to be unsourced/ un-cited information that was added, which states: "Journalist Emma Best published a correspondence from Wikileaks, which explicitly states that Bellingcat, which position themselves as an “independent investigation center” is on the balance of the British Ministry of Defense." As far as I can tell, this: https://emma.best/2018/07/29/11000-messages-from-private-wikileaks-chat-released/ is the source from which the allegation is based. However... all it shows is a sort of DM conversation between wikileaks and other parties, with no corroborating evidence at all. It should be treated more as a personal comment. However, it should be noted that this allegation has been shared mostly on russian-language websites, with no corroborating evidence as well. As a result, I have for now deleted this claim. Perhaps this article may need some sort of edit protection, considering that there has been persistent efforts at misinformation on this article. TheRealSuu (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Spreading fakes by Bellingcat
Want to point out how Bellingcat posted not reliable information about MH17 crash investigation. In particular: Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com. But its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat's conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of "how to not do image analysis." [1] It is a very important information, that shows us how not reliable are all claims of Bellingat's investigations. But some users delete it. Is it some censorship in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кислый Сахар (talk • contribs)
The quote by Neal Krawetz is an exceptional claim (ie. Bellingcats conclusions are unreliable). It is based on a single Tweet with no explanation other than basically "I disagree". Tweets are not a reliable source for such an exceptional claim. If Neal Krawetz released an in-depth report explaining why Bellingcat was wrong it would be different, but an off the cuff casual Tweet is not good sourcing for the magnitude of the claim - for all we know he is generating artificial controversy to draw attention to himself and product, using Bellingcat as a foil. And just because Neal Krawetz invented the software doesn't give him any special insight into Bellingcats conclusions, which are based on multiple lines of evidence beyond photo analysis. -- GreenC 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Before you revert again, Кислый Сахар, suggest you notice there are at least two other editors opposed to it, meaning you do not have consensus and continued reverts prior to resolution on the talk page here will be seen as edit warring. You can't force your way when there are more people opposing it then supporting it. You will need to get community support and read Wikipedia policy on conflict resolution options. -- GreenC 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- ..and just noticed you've added this same material NINE times and been reverted NINE times since May 2018 and that you are a single-issue SPA. It is already an edit war, and probably should be reported. Take this as a final warning that you must get consensus on the talk page here before adding it again, the next time you will be reported and very likely blocked given how long it's been ongoing, the number of reverts, and being a single-issue SPA. -- GreenC 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Boyd-Barrett
Should we be quoting an anti-imperialist and Marxist professor for sourcing in this article? In my opinion, not really for weight. Stickee (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I had a quick look around. I can’t see where the source of the description “anti-imperialist and Marxist” comes from. He doesn’t seem to describe himself in that way on his website. No source for the description was given when the edit was made by GreenC. Apart from that he is a Professor at a University who seems to specialise in media studies so his opinion seems relevant to me. The book was published by Routledge which is a well known publisher. Burrobert 01:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
That's what he is, he published a book titled Media Imperialism which is about media imperialism, a critical look at imperialism that sees mainstream media as serving the imperial interests of which he is critical ie. anti-imperialism. It's an extension of the cultural imperialism thesis as Boyd explains in this article. Anti-imperialism is not a dirty word, his views and positions on the media are of a school of thought, a thesis, that need be placed into context when he is making criticisms of Bellingcat, they are not objectively neutral observations but part of a thesis. I stand corrected on the Marxist as I thought imperialism was a Marxist / neo-Marxist discourse (not uncommon in academia particularly of his generation), but it appears media imperialism has both Marxist and non-Marxist interpretations, and according to this Oliver Boyd-Barrett is in the non-Marxist camp.
It's also worth mentioning Boyd-Barrett is another one of those American professors treated well by the Russians, brought over there to give talks with anti-western narratives ie. Russia did nothing wrong in 2016, Russia does not hack elections, it's all fake news, mainstream media has an imperialist agenda, Russia is a victim of the West, etc. He does not look like a disinterested neutral professor when it comes to Russian interests. -- GreenC 03:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Funding
This article needs a section on funding. I created one, citing tweets from Bellingcat's official Twitter account and from the verified account of Eliot Higgins, who created and runs Bellingcat. But User:Stickee reverted the edits and removed the funding section, writing "twitter is not a reliable source, especially for due weight or balancing aspects." While it is true Twitter is not usually a reliable source, these are tweets directly written by Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins, in which they acknowledged Bellingcat's funding sources, so in this case these tweets are indeed reliable sources. Unless there are any other objections, I will re-create the funding section. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- "This article needs a section on funding" - Maybe? I looked at what was written:
- Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by the United States government
- This is a bit misleading as it implies some connection between the US Federal Government and Bellingcat that may just simply be happen-chance, it is food for the conspiracy minded particularly those Russian-philes who keep saying Bellingcat is a CIA operation designed to make Russia look bad in the Malaysian airline accident, chemical attacks in Syria etc.. So we need to be extra careful here. Simply repeating data-points can be misleading. The other concern is no 3rd party sources have discussed funding, it's a WP:WEIGHT issue. Also arguably WP:PRIMARY since the topic is only sourced to Primary. Before restoring, please discuss until there is consensus per WP:BRD, as you started thanks. -- GreenC 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
A section on funding is not unreasonable and seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia pages about groups. I looked at pages of a few groups/organisations which I could quickly bring to mind.
“National endowment for democracy” page has a section called “source of funding”.“BBC” page has a revenue section“RT news” page has a budget sectionOn the “Voice of America” page there is a statement that it “is a U.S. government-funded international radio broadcast source”The “ACLU” page has a funding section.
The only exception in the few organisations I looked at was the page for the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which didn’t mention funding for whatever reason.
If the statement that “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by the United States government” is considered “a bit misleading” then perhaps just drop the second part of the statement and include “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”. If I am reading the discussion correctly has been verified directly by Bellingcat. Burrobert 12:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
The previous comment was from me (forgot the tildes). What about “Bellingcat has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”? Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
- There still isn't any sources that show this should be given WP:WEIGHT. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There are some sources of information about Bellingcat’s funding available via online news services. It seems it started with a Kickstarter project (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/bellingcat_brown_moses.php, http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/bellingcat-citizen-journalist-eliot-higgins-is-holding-global-governments-to-account/news-story/196436ab0cba6b6eea0a76c5f16af0a1 etc). He has also received funding from Google Digital News Initiative, Adessium, and Open Society Foundation (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat-the-home-of-online-investigations) and the Atlantic Council (https://www.rt.com/usa/423741-eliot-higgins-debate-postol/). Outside of the twitter feed from Higgin’s verified twitter account I haven’t yet been able to find anything about NED funding. The financial times did an article on Higgins in February 2015 which may contain some information but unfortunately it is paywalled. However the NED does have an online Awarded Grants Search tool so presumably the information can be verified there however the volume of grants is quite high and Higgins didn’t provide much information in his tweet to use in the search. What we need is an appropriate news agency to read his tweet and then print it word for word.Anyway, I think the verifiable information above should be enough to put together a funding section even though we aren’t in a position yet to list all sources of funding. Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
I do support a section about Founding. In this case it seems very important and relevent Geirsole (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- It 'seems' to who? See WP:WEIGHT -- GreenC 16:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- To me - because that indicates if I should take them seriously or not. When government funding comes through various organisations it looks like somebody wants to conceal a connection. Especially when they wear the label of NGO or want to appear like one, then deception is involved. E.g. The German Marshall Fund is usually described as an NGO, but they are government financed, so they are not an NGO. The International Crisis Group looks very official, but is a Soros organisation, i.e. a hobby horse of George Soros. There is also a Carnegie Endowment for peace, although we haven't seen a lot of peace in the last 30 years. Carnegie can fund what they like, successfully or not, but at least we know who is involved. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:15C:D3D0:4155:F19D (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS: I had a quick look at the bellingcat page at wikispooks. I cannot verify what they say, but there's certainly a fair bit of info. I am convinced bellingcat's info is useful, how unbiased or biased they are is for experts. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:15C:D3D0:4155:F19D (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- To me - because that indicates if I should take them seriously or not. When government funding comes through various organisations it looks like somebody wants to conceal a connection. Especially when they wear the label of NGO or want to appear like one, then deception is involved. E.g. The German Marshall Fund is usually described as an NGO, but they are government financed, so they are not an NGO. The International Crisis Group looks very official, but is a Soros organisation, i.e. a hobby horse of George Soros. There is also a Carnegie Endowment for peace, although we haven't seen a lot of peace in the last 30 years. Carnegie can fund what they like, successfully or not, but at least we know who is involved. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:15C:D3D0:4155:F19D (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Spiegel article
I noticed some people linking to a Spiegel article. Are you aware it's already linked in the article? It's reference 11 as of this oldid: [2]. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I recently reinstated a quote and provided a reference to a spiegel article to replace the previous twitter reference which was considered inappropriate. However my reference was also removed with reason “still doesn't meet due weight, per previous discussions on higgins talk page”. I have not been able to find anything relevant on the Higgins talk page about this. It also appears as mentioned above that the reference has been used elsewhere on the page. As a result I am confused about what the problem is with the reference and why it can’t be used to substantiate the quote to which it was attached (something about showing this was the way NOT to do image analysis). Can you provide some clarification please? Burrobert 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
I am still lost. The comment from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis" was initially removed because“remove per WP:PRIMARY - this is not reliable nor evidence of notable and issue of WP:WEIGHT. Please provide a secondary source”. I then provided the Der Spiegel article as a secondary source since the quote is mentioned in that article. Your comment on removing my update was“still doesn't meet due weight, per previous discussions on higgins talk page”.I travelled to the Eliot Higgins talk page (I assume this is the “link provided” that you mentioned) and found this
“The following conversations are currently activeLength of this pageOn "the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons."Edits”
None of the three topics covered the spiegel article or discussed due weight.
Regarding reference 11, it is the article Jens Kriese (June 4, 2015). "Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation". Der Spiegel. Retrieved June 11, 2017
which contains the quote. I am not sure what “sentence before it” you are referring to. The der spiegel article has been used twice elsewhere on the bellingcat page to substantiate the statements
“including by a German image forensics expert who said that Bellingcat's report did not prove anything”and“Image forensics expert Jens Kriese of Germany maintained that Bellingcat's report used invalid methods to reach its conclusion”.
I think that the second quote above may in fact be partly referring to the quote from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis". Maybe the quote from Neal Krawetz could be added after the second quote above as they are related?
Unfortunately without further guidance I have no idea of what the previous discussion was nor can I guess what the issue is with “due and undue weight” of the quote.
Having said that, I think the issue is partly covered by the two quotes from the Jens Kriese interview that already appear on the bellingcat page. It would be nice though to include a more specific instance (namely the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com) of where bellingcats methods are considered to be in error. Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
- "I think the issue is partly covered by the two quotes from the Jens Kriese interview that already appear on the bellingcat page". Which is why I linked to WP:DUE above. Stickee (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent thanks. That’s the clarification I needed. Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
Funding (based on tweets)
Hi, I don't have an old enough account to edit this page but could someone add a section on how Bellingcat secures its funding (Open Society Foundation/George Soros; Meedan; NED (US govt); Google; Adessium; Kickstarter crowdfunding)
See this tweet by Eliot Higgins:https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056
(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160121/https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056)
As well as this follow up tweet:https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145
(archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160348/https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145)
This is the kickstarter page:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat
(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160434/https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat)
(All archived on 21 September 2018)
Thanks.
Riudbvskj (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Tweets are not reliable for this. They can be non-factual or missing context on closer inspection, there's no independent editorial oversight and fact checking we normally recognize in reliable sources. The funding of Bellingcat is a complex issue with lots of info out there, some of accurate at one time and no longer, some of blown out of proportion, some of it framed to support an agenda, etc.. -- GreenC 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- the mere fact that bellingcats are doing an almost total work vs Russia and hes allies, speaks very well about suspects on their real founders. remember Udo Ulfkotte? of course wikipedia cannot say this this cleary but the mere list of tge so called scoops made by them, speaks a lot for who want to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at the Bellingcat site and see articles on Kashmir, Yemen, Afrin Insurgency, Iran, Trump, Ukraine far right, Nicaragua, United States, Africa, etc.. your conspiracy theory does not hold up to the evidence. -- GreenC 00:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- For some reason only one of these investigations appears on the Bellingcat wiki page. The exception is Yemen but it seems that Bellingcat does not mention the main actor Saudi Arabia in its investigation or, if it did, it didn't make it to the page.Burrobert (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at the Bellingcat site and see articles on Kashmir, Yemen, Afrin Insurgency, Iran, Trump, Ukraine far right, Nicaragua, United States, Africa, etc.. your conspiracy theory does not hold up to the evidence. -- GreenC 00:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- the mere fact that bellingcats are doing an almost total work vs Russia and hes allies, speaks very well about suspects on their real founders. remember Udo Ulfkotte? of course wikipedia cannot say this this cleary but the mere list of tge so called scoops made by them, speaks a lot for who want to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
New funding section
The previous funding section on this article was removed after some concerns that there were no reliable third-party sources that commented or discussed Bellingcat's funding. Well now there is: The United States government-funded fact-checking website Polygraph.info published a report that details the funding of Bellingcat, which includes quotes from the founder Eliot Higgins himself.[1] I have therefore added a new funding section based on this Polygraph.info report.
This article needs a funding section. Most articles on organizations like this have one.SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think it needs a separate funding section. I came to this page to find out how nonpartisan and reliable they were, and my first question was, where do they get their money? That's the first question a lot of readers have. That's one of the basic questions journalism schools and editors train reporters to ask -- "Who funds it?" It was hard for me to find, and I almost missed it. User:SpiritofIFStone had the same problem. It's not "basically identical," it's hard to find. As for WP:WEIGHT, just do a Google news search for "Bellingcat funding" and you'll find all the WP:RS you want that report it. I'd like to see User:Stickee give a good reason for not putting it in a separate section. --Nbauman (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- IMO breaking it out into a separate section feeds into the narrative that Bellingcat is somehow impartial, namely an instrument of the CIA or Sorros or whatever which is the buzz being generated by Bellingcat's enemies (Russia mainly) who seek to undermine Bellingcat's credibility and its findings. Because there isn't a lot that needs to be said about funding that can't be done in a single paragraph as part of the main text there isn't much to be said. Over-weighting the funding turns it into a larger issue which is exactly what Bellingcat detractors want to see, the creation of controversy, doubt, uncertainty. -- GreenC 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
TWEETS
..are not reliable. This sort of Tweety criticism has no substance, the issue is much more complex and nuanced then that Tweet allows for. Also the way it is worded: "Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com" -- is completely inaccurate and misleading. -- GreenC 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just cannot understand your opinion.
@IndependentOpinion:
- Verisign's WHOIS database information can be modified by registrant.
- The registration date does not represent the date on which the current website owner started to prepare for this website. Domain name trading is very common.
- There is no logical correlation between the registration date and the website's open day. Also, a website is not registered to the domain registry, but a domain name does have a record in WHOIS. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia we normally do not note when a domain name was registered, unless there is a specific reason given for noting this information (sourced to a secondary source WP:SECONDARY), and certainly not in the lead section, much less the first sentence. -- GreenC 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- You might also want to read WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY as these are relevant policies. -- GreenC 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Published counter-argument to Syrian chemical weapons reporting
https://twitter.com/SGSJournal/status/1172974238334107648From the journal "Science and Global Security" :"Regrettably, the Bellingcat group blog post contains a number of incorrect statements..."65.96.160.169 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- We haven't mentioned Bellingcat's criticism of the paper so the statement doesn't contain anything we can use at the moment. However the paper once published may be useful. Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
RFC: Reliable Source Noticeboard
Bellingcat has recently been accepted as a generally reliable source at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If another RFC is opened in the future, I think that its alleged links with the Integrity Initiative should be taken into consideration. ← ZScarpia 12:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (nb: "A June 2018 leaked document from the Integrity Initiative rated Bellingcat's 'Integrity' as 'Medium' although reportedly concerned that “Bellingcat was somewhat discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself, and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay”, the II did propose to include the group in the EXPOSE Network proposal, although the UKFCO declined to fund the project."[3])
- The Wikispooks page ("alleged links") is lol. It was mostly written by 1 anonymous person and is an obvious non-neutral attempt to discredit Bellingcat. I looked at the WikiSpooks "About" page and it's like they don't use or need reliable sources. The most recent edit page shows three edits to the entire web site on October 9. Nobody uses the site because it is obvious crank. -- GreenC 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Could well be that you're right. Articles there do cite references so readers have a chance to check for themselves the verifiability of at least part of the content. As for neutrality, well that's anyone's guess. Oh joy! ... I've just spotted that they have articles on Jennifer Arcuri and Dominic Cummings. Topical stuff! What? Michael Gove? Nooooooo!!!! ← ZScarpia 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- A good name for the next generation of nerve agent! ← ZScarpia 16:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Anything is possible with Unit 29155. -- GreenC 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- A good name for the next generation of nerve agent! ← ZScarpia 16:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a severe problem with considering Bellingcat a reliable source in ongoing "war debates" on issues like the veracity of evidence presented in case of the Douma_chemical_attack. Please study the Wiki discussion pages on this issue and the Commentary pages of Bellingcat itself on the incident and the WikiLeaks revelations [1]
Bellingcat is clearly financed by one of the war parties, the US. And all it's statements on the Douma issue were in interest of this one war party. So there is by far no consensus that Bellingcat falls in the utmost reliable source category Wikipedia has. There should be a small warning mark, like I find very appropriate for the source like RT (Russia Today). So Bellincat should have the same warning " ! " category like RT.
I urge the responsible persons for that in Wikipedia to do it quite soon. Otherwise I have to assume for Wikipedia that there is a collussion of interest of Bellincat financers and quite many, and/or really important ones, making this decisions, of our fellow editors. Greetings from Vienna, Austria - a non NATO country with a small military but many diplomats - FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @FrankBierFarmer: Wikipedia users a few months ago did not agree with you on Bellingcat. Perhaps you would list the authorities and websites you consider reliable so editors can see where you are coming from. I would urge you to file an RFC so this issue can be resolved, but then again its probable your request would be rejected. As probable as suggesting the Daily Mail/The Mail on Sunday should return to being RS, the latter newspaper may well be one you would consider reliable on Douma. Philip Cross (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @FrankBierFarmer: this was already discussed, at the well-attended and recent RfC archived here. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Bellingcat is similarly reputable as the Daily Beast. Bellingcat is often the source material for highly reliable sources including Reuters as well, that build onto the subject matter. Many organizations receive grant funding by the US government, because of Congress, but they act independently of it. Corporation for Public Broadcasting is funded by the US government which funds NPR and PBS, which are highly reliable and professional networks. There is no comparison of Bellingcat to Wikileaks and RT, which are propaganda and used as arms of the Russian government. Caesar116 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Bellingcat isn't NPR or PBS. NPR and PBS run programs critical of US foreign and domestic policy. It's not Wikileaks, either, which is an international organization that's been critical of many governments, including Russia's at times. NED grants don't function like normal congressional ones and give way more latitude towards propagandizing. It's a American equivalent to RT and blithely asserting it has editorial independence doesn't make that true; if Reuters trusts it, shame on Reuters. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bellingcat investigates the US and western Europe it is international scope. Nobody has ever presented evidence they are not editorially independent, it is a conspiracy theory. Bellingcat has made many enemies due to their investigation findings, the response is to discredit Bellingcat with misinformation. -- GreenC 15:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Reuter's, which must be one of the most reputable news organisations, came up. Last year, it was revealed that "the British government secretly funded Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s at the direction of an anti-Soviet propaganda organization with links to MI-6."[4] A declassified document explained: "HMG's interests should be well served by the new arrangement." Regarding editorial independence, the same news article cites a BBC spokesman: "The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the licence fee or commercial sources," a BBC spokesperson said in a statement on Monday." Pardon me for soapboxing, but, I suspect that the BBC charter wouldn't be much of an obstacle to any government intent on subverting the BBC's editorial independence. ← ZScarpia 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- We'll see how it goes. I think that the RSN discussion from which Bellingcat was adopted as a reliable source was fairly shocking. As far as establishing that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" goes, it was one of the worst cases of editors really just voting on whether they like it or not that I've seen. Not that it's worse than many news organisations, but there tends to be a double standard operating. When somebody writes that a source is "reliable full stop", it's a good indication that its reliability is a bit questionable. "This forum is being used as a breeding ground of conspiracy theory and misinformation." Nice use of fashionable buzzwords! Personally, I'm hoping that a new set of words and phrases to overuse will be latched on to soon. ← ZScarpia 07:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The reliability of Bellingcat was based on how other reliable sources consider Bellingcat. There you go again with misinformation and conspiracy theory ("editors really just voting on whether they like it or not"). Not just buzzwords, they are what you are doing. -- GreenC 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- We'll see how it goes. I think that the RSN discussion from which Bellingcat was adopted as a reliable source was fairly shocking. As far as establishing that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" goes, it was one of the worst cases of editors really just voting on whether they like it or not that I've seen. Not that it's worse than many news organisations, but there tends to be a double standard operating. When somebody writes that a source is "reliable full stop", it's a good indication that its reliability is a bit questionable. "This forum is being used as a breeding ground of conspiracy theory and misinformation." Nice use of fashionable buzzwords! Personally, I'm hoping that a new set of words and phrases to overuse will be latched on to soon. ← ZScarpia 07:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, this discussion, which does centre on what other sources have written about Bellingcat, wasn't the one I was recalling, so I must concede that what I stated about editors' justifications was incorrect. There has been a more recent discussion (which I wasn't aware of). This Grayzone report, which mentions Bellingcat's involvement in the Zinc Network, was one of the sources used in an attempt to have Bellingcat's reliablility as a source revised. GreenC, it would really be better if you gave up the clichés though. ← ZScarpia 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- The recent discussion just shows there is a minority of editors using unreliable sources like Grayzone, sadly, in a continual attempt to take down Bellingcat. FWIW, Grayzone is operated by Max Blumenthal who regularly writes for RT, just another American critic funded by the Putin regime. -- GreenC 14:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, this discussion, which does centre on what other sources have written about Bellingcat, wasn't the one I was recalling, so I must concede that what I stated about editors' justifications was incorrect. There has been a more recent discussion (which I wasn't aware of). This Grayzone report, which mentions Bellingcat's involvement in the Zinc Network, was one of the sources used in an attempt to have Bellingcat's reliablility as a source revised. GreenC, it would really be better if you gave up the clichés though. ← ZScarpia 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, you've decided to sit on the fence then? How about we meet back here in 15 years time and see how things are looking in retrospect? I think that you'll find that the Russians aren't the only ones who disseminate propaganda. In the meantime, I do recommend Hugh Wilford's books about the CIA. Although it's possible that the document is a forgery, you might also like to think about the Integrity Initiative's purported critical comments about Bellingcat.[5]
- Regarding Grayzone, the RSN discussion which concluded with it being deprecated is here. Subsequently I requested more detail about the reason for result from the closer. It appears that the comments of two of the participants carried particular weight. In February of this year, another editor contacted the closer about the decision. Grayzone's own response to being deprecated is here.
- ← ZScarpia 16:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- LOL that last link is hilarious. More of the same, conspiracy theory and misinformation. These are not cliches, they mean something and are apt descriptions. They generate false narratives of conspiracy ("cabal of editors") and misinformation ("Wikipedia is corrupt"). Some intelligent looking people buy into it ("we meet back here in 15 years time and see how things are looking in retrospect"). -- GreenC 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- The word "false" in "false narratives of conspiracy" is an interesting one. Theories that groups of people conspired to perpetrate acts are common (that would apply to much of Bellingcat's output, for instance). Those theories will have varying degree of truth or falsity. Each person will determine for themselves how much faith to put in each one. For editors of Wikipedia, there then comes the problem of preventing their own opinions from adversely affecting their editing.
- I'm old enough to have experience of how the lens of the present changes how events are perceived in major ways. Some reasons for that are that additional information is revealed over time and that distance from events changes perspective (for instance, situations lose their danger once they have passed). I'd say that it's pretty much guaranteed that the understanding of events which Bellingcat is involved in will change in major ways. I chose 15 years as a period because I suspect that's how long it will take before separation in time will allow a longer term view of current events to coalesce and because there's a reasonable chance I'll still be around then.
- ← ZScarpia 08:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Reliable source?
I seriously hope this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. A diabolical organisation and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/ Apeholder (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- What does "this site" and "this outlet" refer to? -- GreenC 00:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bellingcat
- Here's another example of their unreliability: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html Apeholder (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- What that article states is that one imagery expert disagrees with Bellingcat's analysis of a particular set of images in a particular case. This suggests that Bellingcat's analysis in this particular case should not be treated as gospel truth but rather as one contested point of view where relevant. What that article does not state is that Bellingcat's analysis was provably factually wrong, much less demonstrate is that Bellingcat is, on the whole, an unreliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
We have to revert the status of utmost reliable source for Bellingcat very soon. There is enough evidence around. Please see my comment, moments ago, on the RFC: paragraph above. There is NO CONSENSUS on being a reliable source!! FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- As noted elsewhere, just because the US Federal Government funds PBS doesn't stop PBS from airing anti-Federal Government programs. You seem unable to differentiate what kind of organization Bellingcat is. It is not controlled by the dictates of another organization. It is free press. The concept of free press is foreign to some people who see deep conspiracy. They believe nothing, but anything is possible. This is how they discredit organizations they wish to take down. -- GreenC 16:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Also from Consortium News: Robert Parry - Will NYT Retract Latest Anti-Russian ‘Fraud’?, 22 July 2016.
Over the longer term, for evidence of any links Bellingcat has with the intelligence community, it may be worth checking for sources which cite Hugh Wilford's books, "The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America" and "America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East".
← ZScarpia 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Funding again
Unless reliable secondary sources discuss Bellingcat's funders, there's no reason for us to include that information. A revert was made with the claim that "Funding sections are common for most articles about NGOs" - I haven't seen any other NGO articles which feature information about donors that is solely sourced to the organization itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Such section are common in articles about organizations, often with no secondary sources. See for example Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Finances - the entire first paragrph is sources exclusively to the organization itself. Ditto for Human_Rights_Watch#Financing_and_servicesHere come the Suns (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of those sections you cite include specific funders solely sourced to the organization itself. HRW's discussion of a specific funder is sourced to an article in The Washington Post, which indisputably provides the required secondary source proving relevance. In neither of those articles is there a mere laundry list of people or organizations which have donated money at one point or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've also added a secondary source which discusses the funding. You can stop beating this dead horse now. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not a dead horse, because you haven't demonstrated secondary sources for any of the other names in the useless laundry list. The grant from the Dutch Postcode Lottery is relevant because it has secondary sources. Funding from the other groups... isn't, until they do also. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the standard used in other articles, and no reason to apply such a standard here. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not a dead horse, because you haven't demonstrated secondary sources for any of the other names in the useless laundry list. The grant from the Dutch Postcode Lottery is relevant because it has secondary sources. Funding from the other groups... isn't, until they do also. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've also added a secondary source which discusses the funding. You can stop beating this dead horse now. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of those sections you cite include specific funders solely sourced to the organization itself. HRW's discussion of a specific funder is sourced to an article in The Washington Post, which indisputably provides the required secondary source proving relevance. In neither of those articles is there a mere laundry list of people or organizations which have donated money at one point or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Call for quote
From the entry:
- Bellingcat provides transparency regarding the process by which it uncovers stories.[2] It has been argued[by whom?] that Bellingcat's transparency has encouraged legacy outlets to increase their own transparency.[2][failed verification]
The word transparency, here repeated three times, led me to conduct inquiry into whether the article actually said this. None of the five occurrences of the term (which span the article, not two sentences as the three here do) really support the claim as written, because the claim gets lost in its jargon of transparency. Perhaps it would just be wiser to say something like: ... has encouraged traditional media to question the culture of sources speaking on condition of anonymity.
(This is amply present in the source.) Just a thought, didn't mean to rile anyone up! ( [6], [7] )