"Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong"
Where has it gone wrong?
“We did not call into question the integrity of The BMJ’s story, only the comprehensiveness of it. That’s the point of a ‘Missing Context’ rating.
The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories, it's not like the warning is on the Article, it's where it's shared on Facebook and the missing context label is relevant in that context. A context where the vast majority of people viewing the facebook posts will not understand the BMJ may cover a sub-topic where the results do not reflect on the outcome of the parent topic...
1. The screenshot shows Facebook is telling owners groups of group that the information is "partly false." "Partly false" is obviously a distinct claim, and one that does not appear to be supported.
2. Quality reporting is being censored by selectively applying a label that belittles its objectiveness.
> 1. The screenshot shows Facebook is telling owners groups of group that the information is "partly false." "Partly false" is obviously a distinct claim, and one that does not appear to be supported.
This is only shown to Group Admins, you're correct that it's wrong however it's clearly a simple wording mistake with limited impact.
> 2. Quality reporting is being censored by selectively applying a label that belittles its objectiveness.
That's a big stretch, 4,000 - 8,000 thousand articles are published to the BMJ each year, one of them having a label on social media with 'missing context' is not censoring quality reporting.
>The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories
Where does this logic end? If I screenshotted your post and put it on my blog about how FB can do no wrong, that Zuck should be president, that the government is just out to get FB for being successful, etc. does that mean your post should have included context that clarified that none of this is true?
A warning alongside links on Social Media for 'missing context', where the Article is being used as evidence if something it's not seems like a good logical end.
So, suppose you take a picture of the sea and some flat earther reposts it as proof that the earth is flat. You're ok with FB putting a note on your picture, if anyone wants to like or share it they get a little nag beforehand, further posts you make are placed under additional scrutiny and not shown on the feed? That's giving a lot of power to the wingnuts.
No, and you're stretching... I'm not a scientific journal for one thing..
But if I was, and if I posted a picture of the sea, saying I was performing an experiment to measure the circumference of the earth.. Then yes, missing context label would be relevant. I wouldn't claiming that the Earth is flat, and context outside the picture would account for why 1 data point my suggest otherwise.
> placed under additional scrutiny and not shown on the feed
I'm not sure the 'missing context' label affects visibility like others do.
Where has it gone wrong?
“We did not call into question the integrity of The BMJ’s story, only the comprehensiveness of it. That’s the point of a ‘Missing Context’ rating.
The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories, it's not like the warning is on the Article, it's where it's shared on Facebook and the missing context label is relevant in that context. A context where the vast majority of people viewing the facebook posts will not understand the BMJ may cover a sub-topic where the results do not reflect on the outcome of the parent topic...