I just noticed that Youtube started doing this where they will add a little wiki blurb just above the title for whatever videos they deem are about conspiracy theories. Of course, wiki leans far left so this amounts to an attack on conservatives. If you think wiki doesn't lean left, try going in and making a change to one of their ad hominem additions. If you open up the video below in the regular screen, you will be able to see an example of the wiki info panel.



Here, is what youtube says about their "info panels." Notice in which countries the info panels are pushed and where they are not pushed. .

Info panel giving topical context
You may see info from third parties alongside videos on a small number of well-established historical and scientific topics that are often subject to misinformation, such as the moon landing.

An info panel giving topical context may show in search results or on the Watch page of videos. It will include basic, independent, third-party info about the topic. It will also link to the third-party partner's website to let you learn more about the topic.

This info panel will show by videos related to the topic, regardless of the opinions or perspectives expressed in the videos.

Note: This info panel isn't used in any decisions about monetization. Learn more about our Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines.

Countries/regions where the info panel is available

• Germany
• South Korea
• Spain
• United Kingdom
• United States

An article says ,

YouTube is taking action on the proliferation of conspiracy videos found on its platform: YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki told an SXSW panel Tuesday that the company would be introducing so-called "information cues" sourced from relevant Wikipedia articles on videos that talk about popular conspiracy theories.

These will appear as text boxes that can prevent alternative perspectives on subjects including chemtrails and the supposedly fake Moon landing, both of which were used as examples to show how this would work in practice during the panel. The info pop-up appears below the video but above the title and description, giving it a certain amount of prominence in the interface.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/14/youtube-to-add-wikipedia-background-info-on-conspiracy-videos/

Good for YouTube. Nudging people towards other sources of information on potentially misleading videos sounds like a good thing, even if the info is from Wikipedia.

BaylorFTW said:

---

If you think wiki doesn't lean left, try going in and making a change to one of their ad hominem additions.

---

So you're saying that my high school English teacher was correct that Wikipedia was "fake news"? She'd be happy to hear that.

I am legitimately curious -- what's an example of "one of their ad hominem additions" that someone has tried to edit which was rejected?

codyorr said:

---

Good for YouTube. Nudging people towards other sources of information on potentially misleading videos sounds like a good thing, even if the info is from Wikipedia.

BaylorFTW said:

---

If you think wiki doesn't lean left, try going in and making a change to one of their ad hominem additions.

---

So you're saying that my high school English teacher was correct that Wikipedia was "fake news"? She'd be happy to hear that.

I am legitimately curious -- what's an example of "one of their ad hominem additions" that someone has tried to edit which was rejected?

---

In the example, I posted they called the Great Replacement a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory among other things. That is ad hominem labeling designed to mark this concept as fringe even though this is a fairly conservative view. Everyone recognizes there is a sizeable drop in the birthrate or replacement rate. People just dispute the why where the leftist side pretends this is all organic.

Another example of wiki's bias is with the Institute for Creation Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research. This is an attack on Creationists that is highly biased that is very subjective. If you click on View History, you will see that others have tried to make various entries to correct the Wiki page only to have the biased left Wiki editors to revert it back to the biased language.

The fact is wiki shouldn't be propped up as some legitimate source on knowing what is true. This is just as bad as doing the same with the ADL and SPLC. Notice it is always lefty sources that are used by social media. This all amounts to revenge for Trump winning the election and them trying to control what people think. To make this clear, youtube doesn't let you opt out of their wiki disinformation panels.

Thank you for providing a sincere response. I've started ignoring too many threads on here because people only want to yell insults past each other.

I remember hearing the phrase, "reality has a liberal bias", and thinking it encapsulated what made the prototypical American liberal so annoying -- haughtiness and an unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints and perspectives.

That said, in the first example you gave, I think Wikipedia's descriptions are largely the correct ones. The idea that liberal elites are intentionally and systemically trying to replace white populations with minority populations is a conspiracy theory by definition. It also aligns with the ideology of white nationalists, so saying it is a "white nationalist" belief is neither factually incorrect nor an ad hominem. Due to shifting political landscapes, it may be more popular than a "far right" belief today, but over the past couples decades, it definitely would not be a mainstream conservative view.

On the ICR page, I see reversions that correctly remove pro-ICR-biased language like, "unfortunately rejected", calling something an "outdated review" without providing a cite that the academic community views it as outdated, saying it is distributed through "scientific settings", again without a citation. But I also see an aspiring-to-be-scientific resource treating religious views non-deferentially, and they could do a much better job framing their discussion. For example, the Creationism page does a better job balancing the faith-versus-scientific-method angst that the ICR handles poorly, that I'm sure it is still not perfect.

A few questions for you:

1. Why do you think people need to be nudged to what you think is "right think?" Why can't we be free to make up our own minds without interference in a free society? After all, people could still choose to visit wiki on their own prompting without the wiki disinformation panels and people can also make videos challenging any claims made on youtube.

2. What is the difference between a belief and a conspiracy theory? And who gets to decide which is which?

3. If research were done and it showed wiki did have a strong leftist bias where it labeled conservative ideas as conspiracy theories and similar language while giving the impression far left ideas were mainstream and not also labeling them as conspiracy theories or extreme, would you still think it is a good idea for youtube to use the wiki disinformation panels?

BaylorFTW said:

---

A few questions for you:

1. Why do you think people need to be nudged to what you think is "right think?" Why can't we be free to make up our own minds without interference in a free society? After all, people could still choose to visit wiki on their own prompting without the wiki disinformation panels and people can also make videos challenging any claims made on youtube.

There are time costs to doing additional research, and people are less likely to incur those costs when the additional research might contradict their existing belief. Some people are very trusting of what they read or see online and don't think that they need to "think" about it. For example, my aunt (and I'm sure we all have a family member like this) was complaining that the Government was giving illegal immigrants more Social Security per person than they were giving to her. It takes less than 30 seconds to do additional searching and find that this is absurdly false. But she saw something that confirmed to her prior views and ran with it. Hopefully providing additional context along with the video will mitigate this.

2. What is the difference between a belief and a conspiracy theory? And who gets to decide which is which?

Per Wikipedia (sorry, couldn't resist!) a conspiracy theory is an "explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." So all conspiracy theories are beliefs but not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. For example, I believe that people don't like to seek out information that will contradict their pre-existing beliefs, but it would be difficult to argue that my belief is a conspiracy theory. If, however, I said that the Government secretly specified school curriculum to make people docile and unquestioning of what they read online so the Government could exert more control, that would be a conspiracy theory.

3. If research were done and it showed wiki did have a strong leftist bias where it labeled conservative ideas as conspiracy theories and similar language while giving the impression far left ideas were mainstream and not also labeling them as conspiracy theories or extreme, would you still think it is a good idea for youtube to use the wiki disinformation panels?

No, I do not think it would be a good idea for YouTube to include strongly biased information alongside their videos. Key word being "strongly". Finding something that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral is likely impossible, but If the bias is small and the information improves people's knowledge of the subject, I think that's an acceptable trade-off. That said, YouTube should have a very strong preference for neutrality.

---

codyorr said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

A few questions for you:

1. Why do you think people need to be nudged to what you think is "right think?" Why can't we be free to make up our own minds without interference in a free society? After all, people could still choose to visit wiki on their own prompting without the wiki disinformation panels and people can also make videos challenging any claims made on youtube.

There are time costs to doing additional research, and people are less likely to incur those costs when the additional research might contradict their existing belief. Some people are very trusting of what they read or see online and don't think that they need to "think" about it. For example, my aunt (and I'm sure we all have a family member like this) was complaining that the Government was giving illegal immigrants more Social Security per person than they were giving to her. It takes less than 30 seconds to do additional searching and find that this is absurdly false. But she saw something that confirmed to her prior views and ran with it. Hopefully providing additional context along with the video will mitigate this.

But we know that wiki leans left so it will only challenge conservative ideas and thus creates a new bias. You don't wholly fix the problem you complain about and introduce a new one. And when conservatives realize what is going on, they are also less likely to trust what wiki says so it is debatable how much is even fixed.


2. What is the difference between a belief and a conspiracy theory? And who gets to decide which is which?

Per Wikipedia (sorry, couldn't resist!) a conspiracy theory is an "explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." So all conspiracy theories are beliefs but not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. For example, I believe that people don't like to seek out information that will contradict their pre-existing beliefs, but it would be difficult to argue that my belief is a conspiracy theory. If, however, I said that the Government secretly specified school curriculum to make people docile and unquestioning of what they read online so the Government could exert more control, that would be a conspiracy theory.

Alright, when does a conspiracy theory become a belief? Because it is common for people to hurl the ad hominem of conspiracy theorist when in fact there is evidence to support that belief. And also, it should be noted that a conspiracy theory can be true and there are plenty that are so. However, when wiki chooses to use such a term they are trying to force the reader to stop reading and investigating. In other words, they are risking creating the problem you fear with your Aunt where she will just instantly believe what is said by wiki without investigating further.

You also failed to mention why wiki's word should be taken over the video creator? Why are they deemed trustworthy and others are not? There are plenty of conspiracy theorists who have become vindicated as more information came out later.

3. If research were done and it showed wiki did have a strong leftist bias where it labeled conservative ideas as conspiracy theories and similar language while giving the impression far left ideas were mainstream and not also labeling them as conspiracy theories or extreme, would you still think it is a good idea for youtube to use the wiki disinformation panels?

No, I do not think it would be a good idea for YouTube to include strongly biased information alongside their videos. Key word being "strongly". Finding something that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral is likely impossible, but If the bias is small and the information improves people's knowledge of the subject, I think that's an acceptable trade-off. That said, YouTube should have a very strong preference for neutrality.

Ok, but we know wiki has a left leaning bias. So if nothing is done, it hurts conservatives and our democratic process. Why would you not instead want to hold their feet to the fire by making them be more neutral in their coverage? Or to put it another way, until they can prove they can be more neutral and not biased, they should not be accepted at all. If they want to be the gatekeeper of trustworthiness, they need to defend against their own bases first. Otherwise, there is no reason we should trust them.

---

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

A few questions for you:

1. Why do you think people need to be nudged to what you think is "right think?" Why can't we be free to make up our own minds without interference in a free society? After all, people could still choose to visit wiki on their own prompting without the wiki disinformation panels and people can also make videos challenging any claims made on youtube.

There are time costs to doing additional research, and people are less likely to incur those costs when the additional research might contradict their existing belief. Some people are very trusting of what they read or see online and don't think that they need to "think" about it. For example, my aunt (and I'm sure we all have a family member like this) was complaining that the Government was giving illegal immigrants more Social Security per person than they were giving to her. It takes less than 30 seconds to do additional searching and find that this is absurdly false. But she saw something that confirmed to her prior views and ran with it. Hopefully providing additional context along with the video will mitigate this.

But we know that wiki leans left so it will only challenge conservative ideas and thus creates a new bias. You don't wholly fix the problem you complain about and introduce a new one. And when conservatives realize what is going on, they are also less likely to trust what wiki says so it is debatable how much is even fixed.

As I said in the third point, I'm willing to accept a small bias increase for an increase in knowledge. But you're right; if Republicans respond en masse to Wikipedia the same way they respond to The Washington Post, this would be a waste of time. I also argue, as I did in the first couple posts, that the bias in Wikipedia is very small.



2. What is the difference between a belief and a conspiracy theory? And who gets to decide which is which?

Per Wikipedia (sorry, couldn't resist!) a conspiracy theory is an "explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." So all conspiracy theories are beliefs but not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. For example, I believe that people don't like to seek out information that will contradict their pre-existing beliefs, but it would be difficult to argue that my belief is a conspiracy theory. If, however, I said that the Government secretly specified school curriculum to make people docile and unquestioning of what they read online so the Government could exert more control, that would be a conspiracy theory.

Alright, when does a conspiracy theory become a belief? Because it is common for people to hurl the ad hominem of conspiracy theorist when in fact there is evidence to support that belief. And also, it should be noted that a conspiracy theory can be true and there are plenty that are so. However, when wiki chooses to use such a term they are trying to force the reader to stop reading and investigating. In other words, they are risking creating the problem you fear with your Aunt where she will just instantly believe what is said by wiki without investigating further.

You also failed to mention why wiki's word should be taken over the video creator? Why are they deemed trustworthy and others are not? There are plenty of conspiracy theorists who have become vindicated as more information came out later.

A conspiracy theory is always a belief because conspiracy theories lack sufficient evidence and are rarely falsifiable. If there is convincing evidence to support the belief, it is no longer a conspiracy theory. When Wikipedia uses the word, they are alerting the reader that there is insufficient credible evidence to support the theory. The next question should be, who deems whether the evidence is credible or not? That's where crowd-sourcing, history tracking, and a reliance on citations gives Wikipedia an advantage. Any random person can make up something on YouTube and share it.



3. If research were done and it showed wiki did have a strong leftist bias where it labeled conservative ideas as conspiracy theories and similar language while giving the impression far left ideas were mainstream and not also labeling them as conspiracy theories or extreme, would you still think it is a good idea for youtube to use the wiki disinformation panels?

No, I do not think it would be a good idea for YouTube to include strongly biased information alongside their videos. Key word being "strongly". Finding something that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral is likely impossible, but If the bias is small and the information improves people's knowledge of the subject, I think that's an acceptable trade-off. That said, YouTube should have a very strong preference for neutrality.

Ok, but we know wiki has a left leaning bias. So if nothing is done, it hurts conservatives and our democratic process. Why would you not instead want to hold their feet to the fire by making them be more neutral in their coverage? Or to put it another way, until they can prove they can be more neutral and not biased, they should not be accepted at all. If they want to be the gatekeeper of trustworthiness, they need to defend against their own bases first. Otherwise, there is no reason we should trust them.

We do not agree on the extent of the bias in Wikipedia, and I think they do an admirable job remaining neutral (Do you have a better idea for what should be used in their place?). They also do a much better job being neutral than what people are allowed to post on YouTube.

Do you think our democracy is better off with people watching very biased and factually incorrect videos without being told that what they are watching is biased/incorrect? Or is our democracy better off when people are alerted to the fact that what they are watching is not generally accepted as fact?

---

codyorr said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

A few questions for you:

1. Why do you think people need to be nudged to what you think is "right think?" Why can't we be free to make up our own minds without interference in a free society? After all, people could still choose to visit wiki on their own prompting without the wiki disinformation panels and people can also make videos challenging any claims made on youtube.

There are time costs to doing additional research, and people are less likely to incur those costs when the additional research might contradict their existing belief. Some people are very trusting of what they read or see online and don't think that they need to "think" about it. For example, my aunt (and I'm sure we all have a family member like this) was complaining that the Government was giving illegal immigrants more Social Security per person than they were giving to her. It takes less than 30 seconds to do additional searching and find that this is absurdly false. But she saw something that confirmed to her prior views and ran with it. Hopefully providing additional context along with the video will mitigate this.

But we know that wiki leans left so it will only challenge conservative ideas and thus creates a new bias. You don't wholly fix the problem you complain about and introduce a new one. And when conservatives realize what is going on, they are also less likely to trust what wiki says so it is debatable how much is even fixed.

As I said in the third point, I'm willing to accept a small bias increase for an increase in knowledge. But you're right; if Republicans respond en masse to Wikipedia the same way they respond to The Washington Post, this would be a waste of time. I also argue, as I did in the first couple posts, that the bias in Wikipedia is very small.

Yes, we disagree on the level of bias.

2. What is the difference between a belief and a conspiracy theory? And who gets to decide which is which?

Per Wikipedia (sorry, couldn't resist!) a conspiracy theory is an "explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." So all conspiracy theories are beliefs but not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. For example, I believe that people don't like to seek out information that will contradict their pre-existing beliefs, but it would be difficult to argue that my belief is a conspiracy theory. If, however, I said that the Government secretly specified school curriculum to make people docile and unquestioning of what they read online so the Government could exert more control, that would be a conspiracy theory.

Alright, when does a conspiracy theory become a belief? Because it is common for people to hurl the ad hominem of conspiracy theorist when in fact there is evidence to support that belief. And also, it should be noted that a conspiracy theory can be true and there are plenty that are so. However, when wiki chooses to use such a term they are trying to force the reader to stop reading and investigating. In other words, they are risking creating the problem you fear with your Aunt where she will just instantly believe what is said by wiki without investigating further.

You also failed to mention why wiki's word should be taken over the video creator? Why are they deemed trustworthy and others are not? There are plenty of conspiracy theorists who have become vindicated as more information came out later.

A conspiracy theory is always a belief because conspiracy theories lack sufficient evidence and are rarely falsifiable. If there is convincing evidence to support the belief, it is no longer a conspiracy theory. When Wikipedia uses the word, they are alerting the reader that there is insufficient credible evidence to support the theory. The next question should be, who deems whether the evidence is credible or not? That's where crowd-sourcing, history tracking, and a reliance on citations gives Wikipedia an advantage. Any random person can make up something on YouTube and share it.

Then, wiki with its lefty bias decides what is sufficient credible evidence. For example, it labeled The Great Replacement as a far right white nationalist conspiracy theory. To support this claim, it gave two sources from academia that did not appear to be neutral. That is pretty flimsy considering that academia leans strongly left itself. In the ICR wiki entry, you had lefty wiki editors rejecting conservative or contradictory citations simply because they challenged their worldview.

Also, many conservative views never get published simply for political reasons. Could an academic really be able to publish about the Great Replacement without fear of significant backlash? My guess is no and that should draw into question the bias of academia. If academia doesn't allow for different viewpoints, how much weight should we even give to the ones they allow? It really amounts to one biased group using another biased group. It lacks a solid foundation despite it giving a false illusion of doing so.

If wiki wasn't biased, conservapedia wouldn't exist. It bills itself as the trustworthy encyclopedia
and was made specifically to fix wiki's liberal bias. I could not find a direct listing for the Great Replacement although it is mentioned in this Generation Identity listing and notice how it is treated in comparison. https://www.conservapedia.com/Generation_Identity

Here, is also their entry for conspiracy theory which I think is more sound than wiki's version: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conspiracy_theory Notice which one acknowledges that some conspiracy theories are true. The wiki entry ignores this completely and that some conspiracy theories are true is an important fact.

3. If research were done and it showed wiki did have a strong leftist bias where it labeled conservative ideas as conspiracy theories and similar language while giving the impression far left ideas were mainstream and not also labeling them as conspiracy theories or extreme, would you still think it is a good idea for youtube to use the wiki disinformation panels?

No, I do not think it would be a good idea for YouTube to include strongly biased information alongside their videos. Key word being "strongly". Finding something that everyone agrees is perfectly neutral is likely impossible, but If the bias is small and the information improves people's knowledge of the subject, I think that's an acceptable trade-off. That said, YouTube should have a very strong preference for neutrality.

Ok, but we know wiki has a left leaning bias. So if nothing is done, it hurts conservatives and our democratic process. Why would you not instead want to hold their feet to the fire by making them be more neutral in their coverage? Or to put it another way, until they can prove they can be more neutral and not biased, they should not be accepted at all. If they want to be the gatekeeper of trustworthiness, they need to defend against their own bases first. Otherwise, there is no reason we should trust them.

We do not agree on the extent of the bias in Wikipedia, and I think they do an admirable job remaining neutral (Do you have a better idea for what should be used in their place?). They also do a much better job being neutral than what people are allowed to post on YouTube.

Do you think our democracy is better off with people watching very biased and factually incorrect videos without being told that what they are watching is biased/incorrect? Or is our democracy better off when people are alerted to the fact that what they are watching is not generally accepted as fact?

I think we are better off letting people decide for themselves without the insertion of disinformation panels. Notice I am not saying we should replace wiki with conservapedia. If people feel strongly about a topic as being insufficient, they can make their own video and win in the marketplace of ideas. But if youtube feels it is absolutely necessary to add such information panels, they have a strong duty to make sure the information panels are close to neutral and not putting their thumb on the scale in the aggregate. If they can't do that or won't do that, they should not be accepted as people can't trust that information.

---

---