Soliciting Feedback for Improvements to the Media Bias Fact Checker Bot
Soliciting Feedback for Improvements to the Media Bias Fact Checker Bot
Hi all!
As many of you have noticed, many Lemmy.World communities introduced a bot: @[email protected]. This bot was introduced because modding can be pretty tough work at times and we are all just volunteers with regular lives. It has been helpful and we would like to keep it around in one form or another.
The [email protected] mods want to give the community a chance to voice their thoughts on some potential changes to the MBFC bot. We have heard concerns that tend to fall into a few buckets. The most common concern we’ve heard is that the bot’s comment is too long. To address this, we’ve implemented a spoiler tag so that users need to click to see more information. We’ve also cut wording about donations that people argued made the bot feel like an ad.
Another common concern people have is with MBFC’s definition of “left” and “right,” which tend to be influenced by the American Overton window. Similarly, some have expressed that they feel MBFC’s process of rating reliability and credibility is opaque and/or subjective. To address this, we have discussed creating our own open source system of scoring news sources. We would essentially start with third-party ratings, including MBFC, and create an aggregate rating. We could also open a path for users to vote, so that any rating would reflect our instance’s opinions of a source. We would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as suggestions for sources that rate news outlets’ bias, reliability, and/or credibility. Feel free to use this thread to share other constructive criticism about the bot too.
You're viewing a single thread.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Okay, so maybe we don’t need a comment if it’s a meta post or a mod announcement. Thanks for your inadvertent feedback, bot!
it also does this with a bunch of weird little local newspapers or etc which I've never heard of, which is like the one time I actually want it to be providing me with some kind of frame of reference for the source. MSNBC and the NYT, I feel like I already know what I think about them.
Yeah, it’s tricky because who reviews those small guys? Granted, most of them are probably owned by a giant like Gannett, but that doesn’t mean we can just apply a rating from 1 small Gannett-owned paper to another. We’d like there to be some way for users to share their feedback/ratings on those small guys. But then it’s also true that some people will create a news site and try to share links on here to promote their new website and that’s typically just spam bots.
It's this uninvited commenting on the bots part that has me downvoting it. It's presenting itself at an authority here. If a user in the comments called the bot to fact check something and the bot did a bad job, i'd just block the bot. I'd even be able to look over that users history to get an idea of the bot's purpose. But this bot comes in and says "here's the truth", then spits out something i'd expect to see on twitters current itteration.
If the problem you're trying to solve is the reliability of the media being posted here. Take the left/right bias call out and find a decent databse on new source quality. Start the bots post out with resources for people to develop their own skill at spotting bad news content.
If the problem you're trying to solve is the visibility of political bias in content posted here. So the down vote button isnt acting as a proxy for that. Adding a function for the community to rate left/right lean like rotten tomatoes sounds interesting, so long as you take the reliability rating out of the bot. You can't address both media reliability and political bias in one automated post. nyt and npr being too pearl clutchy for my taste. and some outlet that exists only on facebook having the same assumed credibility as the associated press. are wildly different issues.
*stupid phone, i'll live with the spelling but not repeated words.