User talk:Catycherry

March 2019

Hello, I'm Chris troutman. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Disinformation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catycherry (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I added this sentence to talk about what Facebook is doing specifically to combat disinformation because their platform has been specifically mentioned so much in the context of disinformation and ways tech platforms are fighting it. The only reporting on their white paper is from Facebook itself, so I believe the sourcing mistake was made in error.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catycherry (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was wordpress the only delivery mechanism for this white paper? The sentence you added was "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, encouraging Facebook to issue a report about the prevalence of information campaigns on its platform and steps the company is taking to combat it." Perhaps it would have been more encyclopedic to say that Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent being a platform for the spread of disinformation. I reverted your edit because the text read (to me) slanted and you cited a blog. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catycherry (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, yes -- I referenced it in my MA thesis after hours of digging for another platform on which it was released. That edit makes sense though, would it be acceptable to change to the below? "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of its prevalence on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent the spread of disinformation on their platform."

Also, do you have any guidance for the citation issue?

Thank you! Catycherry (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still find your suggestion problematic. "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of its prevalence on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election." Who says disinformation is relevant? Wikipedia cannot declare that as fact. Does Facebook claim disinformation is relevant or do you, personally? Also, who says disinformation was prevalent on social media during the 2016 campaign? Maybe you believe that's true. Maybe Facebook believes that to be true; I don't know. You have evidence that Facebook has published its white paper and Wikipedia can say that, based upon the existence of same. Our content can only say what our cited sources say, with a careful eye to neutrality and verifiability. We cannot publish opinion as fact; we have to preface opinions and assertions as such, identifying who said so in what context. The sentence I suggested summarizes the issue, stating only the facts: Facebook published what, why, and about what. Your sentence pushes a point of view and assumes facts not in evidence. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catycherry (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC) The sources on the 2016 Election page, and on the disinformation page, say it occurred during the 2016 election and mention specific instances in which others commented on it. How about the below? "Disinformation was prevalent on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.^[1] Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent the spread of disinformation on their platform." Catycherry (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Recommended articles