Talk:OKO.press

Inter-language links

@Kochas: The interlanguage link template {{ill}} exists so that readers are aware that a Wikipedia article about a topic (e.g. a person) exists in a Wikipedia of another language, even if it does not yet exist in the en.Wikipedia. The template is especially designed both for readers - Polish-language readers can click on the 'pl' link (in this case) - and for editors, who are encouraged to create the article either independently, or benefitting from the existing article in the other language(s). If the en.Wikipedia article is created with the suggested name, then the template will automatically only show the link to the en.Wikipedia article - it can be tidied up behind the scenes later on.

If you have a good reason why readers of the en.Wikipedia article OKO.press should not know about the pl.Wikipedia articles on key people in OKO.press, then please state that reason. Thanks! Boud (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Long quote

Re: [1] - Block quotes are "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement" [2]. They are also POV-ish since they tend to privilege and emphasize one particular point of view. There's really no good reason to include a lengthy block quote unless the quote itself is somehow notable, which here, it isn't. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The concern is not about "block quotes", it's about Using too many quotes. In this case, there is a single quote, so it's not "too many". It's used to illustrate a point and to attribute a point of view or idea. The chief editor of the news source thinks that the lawsuit is oppressive. Whether or not he is right, that's notable information for the reader, who will make his/her own judgment on whether or not Pacewicz is right. Block quotes are described on the guideline page at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and are accepted in en.Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There's really no reason to include it though except to push POV. Summarize and paraphrase his views if it's really that important. The fact that the chief editor disagrees with the fact he's being sued is not exactly some deep revelation. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to include it, indeed. It does not look good from the neutral point of view stand. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality requires the response by OKO.press if the attacks by the government's lackeys are included.VR Boxing (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again. Volunteer Marek 06:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources for left-wing/right-wing/pro-authoritarian/pro-democratic

The two axes of the political spectrum.

In this edit, the issue of whether OKO.press should be described as occupying a place on the political spectrum, on the left-right and authoritarian-democratic axes of the spectrum, per WP:RS, was raised.

Media Bias/Fact Check is currently considered generally unreliable. Ground News is an aggregrator, so is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. The current Wikipedia article says that the Ground News media bias ratings of news publications are sourced from Ad Fontes Media, AllSides, and Media Bias/Fact Check, so it's not proper (original) research done by Ground News. Adfontes is currently considered generally unreliable. WP:ALLSIDES is currently considered "no consensus". So Ground News is putting together two generally unreliable sources and one "no-consensus"-on-reliability source. I've left this in for the moment, but unless we get a better source reasonably soon, the left-wing claim will need to be removed.

Please let's see if we can converge on this in the body of the article first. It's clear that being left-wing, right-wing, pro-authoritarian, or pro-democratic is not currently a high priority for reliable sources who study OKO.press. Boud (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While MB/FC is indeed considered as "Generally unreliable" according to WP:RS, it shouldn't need neccesarily be taken at a face value, though I'm glad you've opened this talk. : )

The archive of discussion pertaining to such a classification has eaisly identifiable errors, aswell as loaded statements including "It's an amateur operation run by one guy (who describes himself as "an arm chair researcher on media bias") as a side-gig.[3]", where the source cited has no mention of this being a "self-description" in any way.

I think it's also fair to point out, the whole MB/FC debacle is at best a few years old at this point and may or may not need to be reviewed in it's own right.

Returning to the original point, there's plenty circumstantial evidence for the attribution of bias, both within their editorial line, and their mission.

Some examples:

1. „Donalda Trumpa wyróżnia fakt, że podczas jego prezydentury prowadzono dialog między Rosją a Stanami Zjednoczonymi Ameryki” [4]

A statement which misrepresents a quote from Dmitrij Peskov implying Peskov were commending Trump for his cooperation with the russian government rather than refraining from overt hostility.

2. "Zasłonięto im oczy – dokładnie tak, jak robią to media, gdy publikują zdjęcia przestępców."[5]

Here the author implies that the author of a picture has intentionally marked the migrants as criminals, with an intent of inciting hate against migrants, by censoring their faces with black bars - which is both completly unfounded and fails to mention the fact it's illegal to publish the pictures anyone unless authorized or excepted as per GDPR.

3. "Dobrze znamy również politykę premiera Węgier Victora Orbána, który od kryzysu migracyjnego w 2015 roku stał się czempionem i wzorem do naśladowania dla skrajnej prawicy w całej Europie dzięki swojej otwarcie wrogiej wszelkim migrantom polityce."[6]

Again the author misrepresents the hungarian immigration policy, stating that the Hungary is hostile to all migrants despite Viktor Orban publicly stating he's okay with Ukrainian refugees, stating "We’re prepared to take care of them, and we’ll be able to rise to the challenge quickly and efficiently"[7] which was later reiterated.[8]

4. And then there's fact the Stefan Batory Foundation - the financial entity behind oko.press's inception - was created as of historical record by none other than George Soros, thus establishing the potential connection between the points mentioned above and the general philosophy of it's financial backer, which seem to line up precisely.

What do you think? Infiriel (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR with a side of George Soros conspiracy theories to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you please adress the arguments, rather than immediatly alledge grand consipracy Yasuke-style, while missing the point entirely?

The point of this discussion is to answear the question of political bias in oko.press's reporting. We have to establish whether or not the source provided in a previous edit, claiming the bias towards the left should be considered sufficient, as Boud has raised the issue of MB/FC being listed as too weak / generally unreliable.

The reason for stating my points 1-4 (in fact there could be much more, as this media outlet is plagued with inaccuracies) is to create an argument for the review and/or an exception from the rating provided by WP:RSPSS as "Generally unreliable" doesn't preclude reliability. It's also fair to point out that the ratings provided therein are reportedly a consensus of the various wikipedia users (WP:RSPIMPROVE), created with what can only be considered WP:OR, though I admit my point was not as obvious as intended it to be.

Kind regards, I.

P.S.

Jesus crackers, I summoned an admin to a noname page with a mere mention of the uncle George. Infiriel (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Infiriel: I recommend that you click on the two links provided by Rosguill and read them. The first link is relevant to your arguments. If you want to reopen discussions at WP:RSP, then go to the talk page there to propose a discussion on a particular source, after reading the guidelines. I also recommend that you read the Contentious topics notice at the top of this talk page, and familiarise yourself with the guidelines linked there. Boud (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)