PDA

View Full Version : YouTube wants to add Wikipedia Links to Conspiracy Theory Videos



uzn
14th March 2018, 10:21
In order to fight Conspiracy Theories YouTube wants to add Wikipedia Links to the Videos. Let´s see how that goes.

The full Article from WiReD:


YouTube Will Link Directly to Wikipedia to Fight Conspiracy Theories

After the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, in February, the top trending video on YouTube wasn’t a news clip about the tragedy but a conspiracy theory video suggesting survivor David Hogg was an actor. The video garnered 200,000 views before YouTube removed it from its platform. Until now, the company hasn’t said much about how it plans to handle the spread of that sort of misinformation moving forward. On Tuesday, however, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki detailed a potential solution. YouTube will now begin displaying links to fact-based content alongside conspiracy theory videos.

Wojcicki announced the new feature, which she called "information cues," during a talk with WIRED editor-in-chief Nicholas Thompson at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas. Here’s how it will work: If you search and click on a conspiracy theory video about, say, chemtrails, YouTube will now link to a Wikipedia page that debunks the hoax alongside the video. Here's another example: A video calling into question whether humans have ever landed on the moon might be accompanied by the official Wikipedia page about the Apollo Moon landing in 1969. Wojcicki says the feature will only include conspiracy theories right now that have "significant debate" on the platform.

https://media.wired.com/photos/5aa859ce5d6b7160f7e18454/master/w_2320,c_limit/youtube-panel-web.jpg

"Our goal is to start with a list of internet conspiracies listed on the internet where there is a lot of active discussion on YouTube," Wojcicki said at SXSW.

The decision to include links to other websites represents a dramatic shift for YouTube, which has historically existed as a mostly contained ecosystem. It’s also notable that YouTube chose to link out to text-based sites, rather than rearrange its own search algorithm to further favor content from truthful creators and video journalists. One reason for the decision might be that YouTube wants to avoid the perception that it’s rigging its platform to favor certain creators, a criticism it has faced in the past. It also prevents YouTube from having to censor content outright, serving as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

"People can still watch the videos, but then they have access to additional information," said Wojcicki.

Merely placing links to factual information alongside videos won’t solve the company’s moderation problems wholesale. For one, as Zeynep Tufekci at The New York Times and others have pointed out, YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is often how users end up seeing conspiracy theories in the first place. Wikipedia in particular can also be edited by anyone, and its own reliability issues of misinformation.

The problem with the recommendation algorithm is that it feeds users ever-more extreme content, sometimes straying from what they searched for in the first place. For example, if you search for a video about the Holocaust, YouTube might recommend that you then watch one about how the tragedy was a hoax. The recommendation system isn’t designed to ensure you’re informed; its main objective is to keep you consuming YouTube videos for as long as possible. What that entails has mostly been an afterthought. Even if every conspiracy video is served up with a Wikipedia article contradicting the information that it presents, there's no guarantee that users will choose to read it over the video they've already clicked on.

Take, for example, what happens when you search conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ videos about the Parkland shooting. After watching one, YouTube recommends you then watch another of Jones’ videos, this time about how the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. It doesn't suggest that you watch factual clip about Parkland or Sandy Hook at all. YouTube’s algorithm system serves to radicalize users, and until that’s fixed, the company will likely continue to suffer from scandals related to misinformation.

YouTube has also still yet to decide and implement clear rules for when uploading conspiracy theory content violates its Community Guidelines. Nothing in the rules explicitly prevents creators from publishing videos featuring conspiracy theories or misleading information, but lately YouTube has been cracking down on accounts that spread hoaxes anyway.

In the wake of the Parkland shooting for example, YouTube reportedly issued a “strike” against Jones for uploading a video accusing Hogg of being an actor (this video was separate from the one that trended on the platform). But Jones and his organization InfoWars have been uploading videos to YouTube prompting lies, hate speech, and false conspiracy theories for years, leaving YouTube’s users and creators to guess what’s actually permitted. Often it seems the platform reacts primarily in response to public outcry, which makes its moderation decisions inconsistent. Until YouTube has outlined a clear policy for how it wants to regulate misinformation, its new efforts to introduce text-based links won’t entirely be effective.

Merely serving up factual information has also not been a cure-all for other platforms that have suffered from scandals associated with misinformation, like YouTube’s parent company Google and Facebook. Both Google News and Facebook’s trending bar have surfaced conspiracy theories during breaking news events in the past, despite having plenty of links to more reputable news sites on their platforms. It's remarkable, too, that an enormous platform, equipped with a flow of advertising cash, has chosen to address its misinformation problem primarily using the work of a donation-funded volunteer encyclopedia.

Another obvious question here is whether Wikipedia and YouTube will be able to keep up with with breaking news events that quickly fall prey to conspiracy theories. For example, the Parkland shooting survivors were accused of being actors within hours of the tragedy. It's unclear how quickly YouTube will be able to add links to the thousands of misinformation videos that are uploaded every time a major news event occurs.

Still though, YouTube should be applauded for doing something to try to fight conspiracy, especially since adding links elsewhere will do nothing to immediately aid its bottom line.

Source:
https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-will-link-directly-to-wikipedia-to-fight-conspiracies/

Cognitive Dissident
14th March 2018, 12:03
Unfortunately, Wikipedia relies on "reliable sources", which basically means those sources which support the official story, no matter what that is. Anything which deviates from those sources is "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You will notice that "truth" and "logic" are not the most important thing for Wikipedia, especially when they conflict with "reliable sources".

If Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, "reliable sources" would have told us that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and any suggestion of the opposite would be "original research" or maybe even "conspiracy theory" ;-)

You can try to justify it by saying that Wikipedia is trying for some sort of objectivity, but the problem is, how can you play a hand of cards when you know the whole game is rigged?

Really, there is a war on for our minds. Either you are with "the reasonable view" aka the reductionist materialist official story aka the Matrix aka the Archon ruling over the black iron prison, or you are unreasonable aka "conspiracy theorist" aka truth seeker aka rational free thinker in a crazy world.

It is a very stark choice that we are being presented with, increasingly. We are all being forced to take sides. Interesting times indeed.

uzn
14th March 2018, 12:15
Wikipedia is at best the smallest common nominator. And very often biased by 3 letter alphabet agencies that have a big interest/investment in keeping the Status quo. There is a saying among scientists that for a new theory to be accepted, all the scientist that believed in the old theory have to die of old age.

jake gittes
14th March 2018, 13:27
At some point, people are going to have to start boycotting these websites and find alternatives to use and let these die along with MSM ratings.

ExomatrixTV
14th March 2018, 14:06
~never ever use wired as a "source" ... always try to track the REAL source of the story please https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17117344/youtube-information-cues-conspiracy-theories-susan-wojcicki-sxsw

is that so hard to do?

uzn
15th March 2018, 02:43
~never ever use wired as a "source" ... always try to track the REAL source of the story please https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17117344/youtube-information-cues-conspiracy-theories-susan-wojcicki-sxsw

is that so hard to do?

Then tell me how do you know that The Verge got the Story first. Both Sites have have the exact same timestamp on their Story.

WiReD:
Louise Matsakis security 03.13.18 06:36 pm

The Verge:
By Casey Newton@CaseyNewton Mar 13, 2018, 6:36pm

Joe from the Carolinas
15th March 2018, 03:10
Huh? That’s not a real bright move there, YouTube. Lol. They’re likely to create even stronger conspiracy theories.


In a new study, David Gal and Derek Rucker from Northwestern University have found that when people’s confidence in their beliefs is shaken, they become stronger advocates for those beliefs.

The duo carried out three experiments involving issues such as animal testing, dietary preferences, and loyalty towards Macs over PCs. In each one, they subtly manipulated their subjects’ confidence and found the same thing: when faced with doubt, people shout even louder.

Gal and Rucker were inspired by a classic psychological book called When Prophecy Fails.

In it, Leon Festinger and colleagues infiltrated an American cult whose leader, Dorothy Martin, convinced her followers that flying saucers would rescue them from an apocalyptic flood. Many believed her, giving up their livelihoods, possessions and loved ones in anticipation of their alien saviours.

When the fated moment came and nothing happened, the group decided that their dedication had spared the Earth from destruction. In a reversal of their earlier distaste for publicity, they started to actively proselytise for their beliefs. Far from shattering their faith, the absent UFOs had turned them into zealous evangelists.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/#.WqnjZVopCf0

Incidentally, Leon Festinger, one of the authors of When Prophecy Fails also came up with a neat little theory and term called Cognitive Dissonance.

Cognitive Dissident
6th May 2018, 14:27
Huh? That’s not a real bright move there, YouTube. Lol. They’re likely to create even stronger conspiracy theories.


In a new study, David Gal and Derek Rucker from Northwestern University have found that when people’s confidence in their beliefs is shaken, they become stronger advocates for those beliefs.

The duo carried out three experiments involving issues such as animal testing, dietary preferences, and loyalty towards Macs over PCs. In each one, they subtly manipulated their subjects’ confidence and found the same thing: when faced with doubt, people shout even louder.

Gal and Rucker were inspired by a classic psychological book called When Prophecy Fails.

In it, Leon Festinger and colleagues infiltrated an American cult whose leader, Dorothy Martin, convinced her followers that flying saucers would rescue them from an apocalyptic flood. Many believed her, giving up their livelihoods, possessions and loved ones in anticipation of their alien saviours.

When the fated moment came and nothing happened, the group decided that their dedication had spared the Earth from destruction. In a reversal of their earlier distaste for publicity, they started to actively proselytise for their beliefs. Far from shattering their faith, the absent UFOs had turned them into zealous evangelists.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/#.WqnjZVopCf0

Incidentally, Leon Festinger, one of the authors of When Prophecy Fails also came up with a neat little theory and term called Cognitive Dissonance.

That term explains quite a few things :ROFL:

Bill Ryan
6th May 2018, 16:19
~never ever use wired as a "source" ... always try to track the REAL source of the story please https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17117344/youtube-information-cues-conspiracy-theories-susan-wojcicki-sxsw

is that so hard to do?

Then tell me how do you know that The Verge got the Story first. Both Sites have have the exact same timestamp on their Story.

WiReD:
Louise Matsakis security 03.13.18 06:36 pm

The Verge:
By Casey Newton@CaseyNewton Mar 13, 2018, 6:36pm

Not taking any sides here! But I got a little curious, so I checked that myself.

The two articles


Were published at identical (simultaneous) times
Are attributed to different authors
Have a slightly different headline
Have similar content, but which is actually very differently written, and the WIRED article is longer and contains much more detail. WIRED actually explains: "Wojcicki announced the new feature ... during a talk (https://schedule.sxsw.com/2018/events/PP99815) with WIRED editor-in-chief Nicholas Thompson at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas."

My guess is that WIRED and The VERGE have a reciprocal arrangement for sharing some stories, and agreed to publish at the same time.

Respect to all. :highfive: It's the content that's important here.

:focus:

Michelle Marie
6th May 2018, 17:00
"It's the content that counts."

That's a great point, Bill.

We do have a faculty of discernment, too. Even when information contains some truth, we have the ability - which can be enhanced or developed, to discern.

Even some science fiction has some truth in it. Our innate intelligence gives us the feeling of whether it resonates with our inner knowing or not. Furthermore, the more we research, we accumulate a vetted database of evidence, and that can be weighed against as well.

Wikipedia is compromised (Example: geoengineering vs. chemtrails --Dane Wigington- whenever they use the word chemtrails they attach the word "conspiracy" to it.) But when it comes to finding out basic facts about a person, it can be informative). So their involvement with YouTube is questionable.

MM

Bill Ryan
6th May 2018, 17:17
Also:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7Y5-VZ_x0
And


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dL8vt1n-f8
An important extract from the transcript, which I posted here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101933-The-Weaponization-of-Social-Media-Corbett-report-1-March-2018&p=1211804&viewfull=1#post1211804):




NAFTALI BENNETT: Mo’etzet Yesha in conjunction with My Israel has arranged an instruction day for wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world.

As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza flotilla, we want to be there. We want to be the guys who influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’s balanced and Zionist in the nature.


SOURCE: Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY)

Michelle Marie
6th May 2018, 18:44
@Bill...
"Zionist editing on Wikipedia" sent me to find out more about Zionism. I have a much greater understanding now of the two types: true and co-opted. Here is what I found:

The Difference between Zionism and Judaism
kiLLI-s_7AU
From a Jewish perspective. Makes one understand the difference between true Zionism (being connected to the land/State of Israel) and politicized Zionism.
_____
George Galloway: Zionism and Nazism cooperated
1J8L_Xzrgzg
Arguments occur when the same words have different meanings. No anti-semitism in anti-Zionism.

True Zionism: wanting the State of Israel to exist
Co-opted Zionism: politicized co-opting of Zionism by Nazis (((This IS anti-Semitic.)))

Generates synthetic arguments for/against Zionism.

***All Roads of Destruction (and Fake News) Lead Back to Rothschild's***
~~~~~~~~~~~~Wikipedia + YouTube = Fake News ~~~~~~~~~~~
Wikipedia compromised -- YouTube Censorship

Zionism = Nazism = Guided by British-Swiss-Israel Rothschild's Satanic World
https://concisepolitics.com/2017/08/16/zionism-nazism-terrorist-criminals-guided-by-british-swiss-israel-rothschilds-satanic-world-dictatorship-agenda-against-humanity/

"Greater Israel" Zionism-Nazi Plan Leads to Rothschild's World Dictatorship
https://concisepolitics.com/2017/09/24/greater-israel-zio-nazi-plan-leads-to-rothschilds-world-dictatorship/
Purpose of YouTube - Wikipedia merger :::: more brainwashing for the masses ::: this is the agenda.

"Zionist Plan -- Expansionism and brainwashing of Israelis by TV and Prime Minister speeches."
From article above.

Political Zionism is anti-Semitic.

"The Rothschild's bought Israel from the Palestinian landlords in WWI."
http://thepoisonappleoftheworld.com/the-rothschilds-bought-israel-from-the-palestinian-landlords-in-ww1/

Within this link, video entitled:"How the Rothschild's created Israel -- Eustace Mullens"
SUPER interesting...not done yet. Includes Joe McCarthy story.

MM :sun: