Talk:Climate Feedback

Poynter Institute as a source?

@Newslinger and Snooganssnoogans: I also added some sources from there too, but isn't it a primary source? Science/Health/Climate Feedback is a member of International Fact Checking Network which is aka Poynter Institute, so it doesn't seem independent? -- Yae4 (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's independent. The International Fact Checking Network provides a certification which validates that the publications ("signatories") are complying with the IFCN's code of principles. For comparison, the Food and Drug Administration is considered independent of a pharmaceutical firm even after approving its drug. — Newslinger talk 11:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FDA is independent, really? Drug companies pay FDA; XYZ Feedback pays Poynter Institute. Maybe there's some arms length separation, but they're connected, and mutually beneficial, but if you say so...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/fda-independent-agency/

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2016/12/in-fda-meetings-voice-of-patient-often-funded-by-drug-companies/

The application process entails a non-refundable fee (US$ 200).

They (assessors) are paid US$ 350 per assessment by the IFCN.

(For re-assessments) The application would be assessed anew by a different assessor and therefore incurs the $200 fee.

Source: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/process

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Poynter is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on Accuracy in Media's claims

There is a noticeboard discussion on Accuracy in Media's claims about the credibility of Climate Feedback. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Accuracy in Media on credibility of Climate Feedback. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Is it normal to close such "discussion" in barely over 4 hours? -- Yae4 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Only if the decision is extremely easy, as in this case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Axios as a reliable source?

WP:WINARS but Axios_(website) uses Native_advertising, which seems like a deceptive method.

https://www.axios.com/facebook-fact-checking-partners-poynter-087404bc-42f0-40c8-b570-6a45a1d6bd63.html#

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Axios is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI the question has been raised at RSN. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Include IFCN assessment of Climate/Science/Health Feedback?

Assessment:​ The standards to assess this criteria can be clearer in two ways:
1) Rigidity with some applicants: ​ The case of ​ Climate Feedback​ is illustrative. The organization was considered as "partially compliant" on this criterion after the assessor wrote: "There are collections of regular fact checks but the phrasing of the navigation is not based on traditional phrasings of most news organizations. The vagueness of ‘Scientific Feedbacks’ and ‘Blog’ leaves the first-visitor wondering where to click. The organization was classified as "partially compliant" by a user experience rather than by the actual content of their website, despite that the assessment form indicates what evidence is required to be “fully compliant”.

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/storage/docs/PUBLIC_VERSION-CODE_OF_PRINCIPLES_REPORT_YEAR_1_REV_AM.pdf

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/science-feedback

Or some more details of assessments, including partial or non-compliances?

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/574C63F1-9FB5-0962-7E60-37DB04BC7920

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/420C9502-78D9-A9B5-12CC-878620FF5AEA

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/science-feedback/31A59D0D-16CF-3F00-9D24-8E40755E35D6

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Include history of Google/Facebook fact checking, and Daily Caller controversy?

Are any of these sources deemed "worthy?"

https://www.christianpost.com/news/google-manipulating-searches-conservative-sites.html

https://world.wng.org/2019/09/the_fake_news_police

https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/googles-new-factchecker-is-partisan-garbage/

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/01/09/googles-bias-undeniable-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/

https://truepundit.com/google-ends-disastrous-news-fact-checker-program-algorithms-favored-liberal-news/

For completeness, but knowing the "other side" won't be allowed...

https://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Fact checks frequency statement

Re current statement: "The website fact-checks one or two stories per week."Source from February 2018. Should the article include this statement which now looks to be untrue? The IFCN 2019 review criticized them for not publishing enough checks. My count of articles/stories reviewed in 2019 is a total of 19, which is obviously only 1 or 2 per MONTH, not per week. It may have been true at some time in the past (2017?), but it isn't true now. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've already removed it. On February 1 2018 the cited source said "Since it launched in March 2015, the site has assessed the credibility of more than 90 stories." There are around 148 weeks between March 31 2015 and February 1 2018, and 90 / 148 would be around .6 articles per week. Also it's hard to guess what "assess" means, but I think that whoever guessed it means "fact-check" was not using a close synonym. You were right to remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be moved to Science Feedback?

With this edit,[1] JzG / Guy removed a lot of relevant, sourced info' saying in edit summary it should be in a Science Feedback article, but that redirects back here. With this edit[2], JzG / Guy did it again, but said (inaccurately, IMO) it was for a "different site" and suggested a split or rename for the article. I agree with renaming/moving to Science Feedback. Any comments? -- Yae4 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, there is sufficient content about Climate Feedback for a separate article, but you're welcome to start one on Science Feedback if you like. Guy (help!) 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG aka Guy, As discussed on your talk page[3] another admin and editor of this article, Newslinger, also hasn't found enough sources to create a separate Science Feedback article. IFCN reviewers also found the websites organization to be confusing, coincidentally. If I understand correctly, some criticism of the organization from the reliable sources previously cited is appropriate for this article, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the existing (non-critical) content...Surely, you acknowledge it's important to accurately present the performance of a fact-checker, as assessed by their (to some degree) independent reviewers. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, Ah, it's Schroedinger's article: simultaneously "a lot of relevant, sourced info" and not enough sources for a sepaarte article. Your diligent mining for critical content has already fixed the issue Newslinger noted. Guy (help!) 09:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the top of ClimateFeedback.org and HealthFeedback.org have the following message - "We've Moved. Visit our new website at Science.Feedback.org for reliable verifications of the scientific credibility of viral claims. Stay informed with trustworthy information on climate/health topics and more". ChaetoLv (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Facebook source about Facebook should be deleted, and statement reworded or deleted?

Re: "As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in Facebook's fact-checking partnership..."[12][13]

The Facebook source is a Facebook-published, very long article about Facebook fact checking process. "Science Feedback" appears only very far down in a simple list under "United States." This has two problems: (1) JzG aka Guy has objected to including other info' on Science Feedback, but here we have info on Science Feedback, and the source is by Facebook, about Facebook, with... (2) a factual error, because fact-checker assessor IFCN says Science Feedback is registered in France, not US. So, (1) shouldn't this Facebook source be removed from this article? And (2) Until we move/rename this article to Science Feedback, shouldn't this statement be updated to only talk about Climate Feedback? Also noting a related issue: This info' was added to the article by a user who may have a COI, based on username[4] and edit history. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, second-guessing sources is WP:OR. This content should be appropriate on an article on Science Feedback, and seems appropriate here because the Axios piece says "Some conservatives disagree with this characterization, arguing climate change is not a settled science", which would be a non-sequitur other than as a reference to Climate Feedback. It's a very short statement in the article, and I would not support anything longer here. It seems de minimis and establishes significance. Guy (help!) 15:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: aka Guy, My suggestion was to delete a source, and possibly reword or delete a statement. It is a mischaracterization of what I wrote to call this WP:OR. Pointing out that two sources say different things (France versus US), as a challenge to the source is not WP:OR. I think we're in agreement the Facebook source is not necessary, because it has only a microscopic mention of the topic of this article. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, of course you suggested that, but it is unnecessary. The primary source is fine in context because we have secondary sources that make the link, and the primary link is merely a means for the reader to directly check for themselves.

Now, about that WP:SPLIT... Guy (help!) 09:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding: I forgot, the Axios source[5] also only mentions Science Feedback, so maybe the whole statement should be deleted (Note changed heading)? -- Yae4 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Made small addition above before any responses -- Yae4 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, I added a source that makes the link directly. Guy (help!) 16:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard discussion

Is here, FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

John Stossel video review

John Stossel made a youtube video about a Climate Feedback review of him at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=punjBhQG__s In the video, it is almost as if the activists in charge of this advocacy group are not too concerned about the actual opinions of scientists in their zeal to ostracize and discredit global warming heretics. 2001:5B0:50C6:57A8:69EF:D065:EC41:F747 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article currently says In September 2021, journalist John Stossel filed a libel lawsuit against Facebook, along with Climate Feedback and Science Feedback, for labeling two of his videos on climate change "misleading" and "partly false". Stossel's lawsuit said the labels misrepresented his views.[18][19] I see a website post from October 2022 Journalist Stossel loses defamation suit against Meta over climate change posts. As far as I can understand, the statements about what Mr Stossel said were deemed to be opinions and therefore protected speech. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)