Talk:Clickbait/Archives/2017

New York Times definition

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/reader-center/clickbait.html
How We Define Clickbait (Which We Do Our Best to Avoid)
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
JULY 21, 2017
One cardinal rule is that we don’t want headlines that leave readers feeling cheated when they’ve finished the article. That’s our definition of clickbait. The challenge in a competitive news environment is writing headlines that grab the reader’s attention while maintaining our standards. So, for example, you might see more headlines for explanatory pieces that begin with How, Why or What. But you’re not going to see “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!” --Nbauman (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Much of it seems very dodgy. Using that Daily Caller article to claim HuffPo uses clickbait, for instance? Not only can't I see any actual claim in the article (other than repeated claims by ex-employees), but how is Daily Caller reliable in the first place?

CapnZapp (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. Which other sources are a problem? --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to get back to you on that - it was the Daily Caller source that caught my attention.

However, I'd now like to discuss the list of sites in itself. I find any such list very problematic: there will always be an element of arbitrariness in what sites are mentioned and what sites are not.

Just a cursory web search finds these sites as being associated with clickbait: Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Breitbart.com, Daily Caller, The Blaze, Buzzfeed, Buzzpo, Conservative Tribune, Daily Signal, Independent Journal Review, Newsmax, The Political Insider, Salon, Tea Party News Network, The Smoking Gun, Upworthy, Western Journalism Center, Young Conservatives, time.com, Complex, Deadspin, and I Fucking Love Science.

However, instead of starting to debate the merits of each site in the current list, I propose to throw out the list in its entirety. To shuck all the examples and instead say something about the general situation (that we can source). Which I pretty much suspect will boil down to "nobody likes it but everybody does it". I want to avoid the current unfortunate connotation the article brings: how some sites are shamed by being associated with clickbait by us at Wikipedia, while all those not mentioned implicitly get a pass from Wikipedia.

If we are to have specific examples, I would like to see a good source that not only discuss the issue but also illustrates the issue by making a balanced selection in the source itself. This way not only are the individual examples well-sourced, but the actual selection as well.

What do you think? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The article only says that they "have been described as" being associated with the term, which is a fairly low threshold to meet, and only requires that a source be (a) an RS, and (b) has used that description. How would you propose to construct your alternative list? -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, your templated notice on the article says that some of the sources "might not be reliable". Can you please give some examples of which, if any, of the cited sources you believe should not be being used in the article? -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard from you in several hours, and in the absence of any answer to my second query above, I'm going to remove the article tag again, since as far as I can see it does not directly address the issue you're concerned about. I think this is really a WP:NPOV vs. WP:SYN issue, and thus the discussion should really follow the principles of those policies, not WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the second editor jumping the gun on removing cleanup tags before discussing the issue. So first things first: having a cleanup tag is not a critique to your person or your contributions. There's nothing wrong with an article having a cleanup tag - this just means people care about the articles you contribute to. So, there, now. Let's discuss the issues FIRST, and when there's consensus the concerns have been addressed, then and only then do we remove the tags. Okay? Great!

Before I start, I need to ask you to give interested parties more than "several hours" to respond. I'm using three days to a week myself, but don't quote me on that, there might well be wiki policies that talk about this stuff. I'm just saying that "hours" is way too little time; at the very least logic suggests a complete 24-hour cycle to give the other editor a chance to respond regardless of time zone differences.

Next, you say

The article only says that they "have been described as"

, but as far as I can see you fail to see that this is a very recent edit. In other words: the language used in conjunction with all those references isn't stable. So please don't draw conclusions based on that alone.

Next, you can see that the issue is currently discussed. One editor (me) pinpointed one particular source, another editor (mcgeddon) fixed that. In no way should you conclude that the matter has been resolved - it's an open issue under discussion. You removing the tags can and will be considered an attempt to short-circuit or shut down that discussion. Please don't do that.

Finally, as you read through the talk page, you see the discussion moving over from discussing single sources to the way they're used in general. If your specific concern in that case is that you think a tag isn't appropriate, you should replace it with a more appropriate one, rather than remove it. Replacing it will be seen as an attempt at being genuinely helpful. Removing it carries the risk of being interpreted (again) as trying to whitewash the article, a risk of being interpreted as saying "there's no problems worth discussing here".

Now, my limited time is up for this time. Actually discussing the article will have to wait til next time. So I'll simply revert you, and hope for your understanding (given the lengthy reply I just posted). Talk to you soon! CapnZapp (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors (three of them now) are removing your "unreliable sources" banner because the sources look okay to them and there's nothing in the edit history or talk page explaining which sources the tagger thought were unreliable. If you want to tag constructively, just tell us in one short sentence which of the current sources you have a problem with. --McGeddon (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. It dawned on me that since my fellow editors are more concerned about the tag's presence than the potential problems it was meant to signal, I could be more constructive to the cause by making bold edits rather than trying to fight that misplaced concern. At least now, we can discuss real article issues rather than whether a cleanup tag is allowed or not. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

...aaand my hunch seems to be correct - none of these editors took the addition of those cleanup tags the way they're meant to be used: as a helpful signal to other editors alerting them of potential problems, in order to spark a constructive discussion or even to encourage editors to improve the article directly. They all focused only on the cleanup tags themselves(!!), and even worse, only on how to get rid of them by any means available, including deleting them on technical grounds that in no way helps the actual article quality. As if Wikipedia would be a better place with fewer cleanup tags (as opposed to better articles that didn't need them)... Oh well - luckily it's not often I stumble upon articles with such misguided defenders that so blatantly prioritize appearance over substance. Moving on... CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you add tags inappropriately ("unreliable sources" should not be used to flag "these sources are reliable but I want to start a conversation about how including examples might be unfair to publishers"), other editors will focus on removing those tags.

After an IP added back some WP:OR clickbait examples of their own this morning, I've restored the original sourced list which you seem to have blanked last month. --McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Before we go further, please be advised you have misread the situation, McGeddon. But let me start a new section for clarity. CapnZapp (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)