Talk:AlterNet

Trivia

I removed this section, for several reason. (1) 'Trivia' sections are discouraged on WP (2) I am sure there are many, many cases when Alternet was mentioned by some notable people - becuase if that was not the case, then Alternet's notability would be questionable. (3) the particular reference was to Alternet's own site - a blog at that! - and was overly self-promotional. Isarig 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly liberal, or occasionally pushing neocon talking points?

Would it be acceptable to note that in several instances, articles within AlterNet.org appear to be written by shills with a strongly conservative agenda?

Case in point: "A Critical Look at the Forced Spread of Democracy" http://www.alternet.org/audits/82716/ The writer claims repeatedly to have a liberal/progressive agenda, but the main thrust of the article is, in order of reading, a) claiming that Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are an effort to spread democracy, b) that liberals support the idea of using force as a method of spreading democracy, and that c) liberals should NOT support the United nations. These are decidedly far right wing talking ideals, not at all liberal.

Another case in point: "If We All Started Driving Priuses, We'd Consume More Energy Than Ever Before" http://www.alternet.org/environment/84982/?page=5 which uses nonsequitor arguments to convince readers that the past few decades have been evidence to show that increased interest in alternative fuel sources and energy conservation lead to MORE fuel consumption (not less). The author's most recent book endorses free market forces in the oil industry and argues against alternative fuels like Ethanol, and is lauded by at least one pro-oil-industry lobbyist in Washington. In short, it's written like a propaganda piece for the American oil industry.

If AlterNet is not entirely the liberal/progressive news center that it claims to be, Wikipedia should take a NPOV and say so.61.7.138.6 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If the overall tone is liberal/progressive, and it has a small amount of non-liberal/progressive (I don't know if that's the case or not, I just found the site), it might be advisable to change the description to something like "generally liberal/progressive" to indicate that that may not always be the case. --Dreikin (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

alternet is liberal/progressive like dr. pepper is a real surgeon. maybe its their attemp to be fox news style 'fair and balanced', if thats the case, they have their fair and balanced share of neo-con mixed in with their liberalism. i suggest that any labels that this site is politically oriented one way or another be removed. 141.54.138.169 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

re: "articles within AlterNet.org appear to be written by shills" Highly skilled shills and something I've come to suspect myself. AlterNet also seem to post articles by 'liberal/progressive types' that sabotage their own arguments. For instance take this little gem:

"I Was a Libertarian Internet Troll — How I Turned My Mind Around"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/i-was-libertarian-internet-troll-how-i-turned-my-mind-around

keywords: spyware, porn, white, dude-bro, murder women, KKK, dark side, cheat codes, pornography, 12-inch cock, pornographic, sexually, pussy is target, voluptuary, dysfunctional, trolls, fascism, liberal types, loser, bizarre, progressive types, mixed martial arts, libertarianism, libertarian dogma, college-aged white male, Ron Paul, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, pony-fuckers ...

Yaweller (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Position on Islam

I sometimes get the impression that, along with other left-wing newspapers like the Guardian, Alternet is secretly backing an Islamist agenda. It has written several articles on the subject. [1] [2] [3]ADM (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Those articles do not appear to support an "Islamist agenda" any more than an article discussing how mainstream Catholics don't really support child molesters would be supporting a "Catholic agenda", or an how article about how most whites aren't racist would be supporting a "white agenda". Do you have articles where they outright say, for example, that they support fundamentalist terrorist muslims (which I assume is part of what you mean by Islamist agenda)? Also, a few articles may not be representative of the whole, and/or may have been allowed through to provide a counterpoint or Opinions & Editorials type article, so it'd be nice to see a common pattern of such support if it does exist. --Dreikin (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2 posts removed per WP:PERSONAL and possibly WP:FORUM Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Drekin, username ADM is projecting his own anti-Islam bigotry and claiming anything standing up for Islamic minorities must be part of some grand Islamic agenda conspiracy. Nothing on Alternet is advocating terrorism rather than differentiating the difference between terrorism which is not Islamic and real Islamic people. 24.46.60.24 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Weasel word

- I changed the text from "workable solutions" to "solutions". The reason is that it's a weasel word. Every advocacy group, of any ideological disposition, advocates what they view as "workable solutions". Think about it - is any group going to advocate "unworkable solutions"? No - every group will always claim they have "workable solutions" to the problems that bedevil society. The word "workable" is a non-neutral weasel word because it implies that the group using the word has the answers. Should a right-wing group be believed if they claim they have "workable solutions"? If not, why should a leftist group be believed when they claim they have "workable solutions"? The truth is that the word implies the group using it has some claim to the truth, that they have the answer that eludes everyone else, which is just an untrue, non-neutral assertion. That's why I changed it to "solutions". 68.200.60.31 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection here... it may not fall under WP:WEASEL, but it is certainly superfluous. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Most people have never heard of AlterNet. The grotesquely racist attack by Chauncey DeVega was major news that brought AlterNet to public awareness. I posted on the issue, yet somehow I am "making a point" and non-neutral for posting objective facts with references? What is it with Wikipedia being so absolutely comfortable with EVIL yet so scared of TRUTH (truth is actually against Wikipedia guidelines - it's true, look it up). Is there an Honestpedia anywhere? Jwbaumann (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:AlterNet logo MED.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AlterNet logo MED.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AlterNet logo MED.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Alternet as a source on WP

Can anyone point me to a discussion on how Alternet is seen in terms of being a reliable source on WP? Or discuss this here?MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To discuss Reliable Sources one would go to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. One could then search for discussions in the archives or begin a new section. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Activist news service"

Calling AlterNet a "progressive activist news service" is misleading. This is a biased right-wing talking point, and is clearly taking a partisan editorial stance, which violates Wikipedia's standards. NPR described AlterNet as an "independent, left-liberal news and opinion site," and AlterNet describes itself as "a progressive news magazine and online community." These descriptions are much more neutral and accurate, so I am going to use them in the article.

Passing off AlterNet as a liberal news site is extremely misleading, given that AlterNet is a far-left anti-Semitic hate site. I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

References

Another Alternet

For future reference, there is another Alternet being promoted, a mesh networking proposal that can substitute for at least part of the internet. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For those interested in a follow up, the patent application was published in 2019 by WIPO. Besides proposing a mesh based network, Alternet also proposes a concept named Unification of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, which intends to reform the usage of radio communication resources. This concept opposes the traditional arrangement of the electromagnetic spectrum into discrete bands that are dedicated to specific (and thus incompatible) services (what is know as licensing), considering this to be highly inefficient (exclusivity makes unallocated or unused resources unavailable to anything or anyone else). It proposes an unified (universal), unrestricted and modern (network oriented) mechanism to access radio based wireless communications, addressing the problem of electromagnetic interference on a fundamental level (eliminating arbitrary frequencies in channel allocation and replacing them with an arrangement based on non-overlapping prime number frequencies).

Nordstelo (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC-6)

References

The Guardian

... as an "alternative news source"? It's as mainstream as they come. Nurse, nurse my sides! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:140F:7E07:1:1:3888:C2D1 (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree I think both the Guardian and Al Jazeera English are not alternative media in any form. I will be removing that. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Left-leaning?

Hello, I recently was editing Daily Kos and we were speaking on the talk page about how to better classify left/left leaning news organizations. While liberal ended up being the descriptive word for Daily Kos, I don't think that applicable here with AlterNet being a more progressive news outlet. However, I do think it's a bit further to the left than just left-leaning. I was hoping that others had some suggestions so we can start to come up with some more common language among media pages. Thanks! Davidgarcia84 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think left or left-wing would be appropriate. You'd need a source for that naturally. SatoMoto WikiFix (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

SatoMoto WikiFix, I agree but most sources determining media slant are based on crowd sourcing as one is trying to gauge public opinion. Which makes it unreliable by Wikipedia standards.

Agreed. AlterNet does not purport to be solely an organization dedicated to reporting; rather its self-described "higher purpose" from its about page is to "help the community funnel their energy into change" and to help combat right-wing misinformation and corporatism. wolf (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Frickiewolf: Alternet's website does not say they are far-left, so I've reverted you. Please don't do that again. --Doug Weller talk 12:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug WellerSo you reverted my entire edit, not just the far-left descriptor, and placed a warning on my talk page telling me I might get blocked from editing for citing Alternet’s self-described purpose from their own about page? I am reverting your reversion, but removing the far-left descriptor and keeping left-leaning. wolf (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, While far-left may not be the right term or require a source I don't think it's completely out of the question. AlterNet has almost been labeled a deprecated source by Wikipedia because of it's extreme bias and inaccuracies. In fact when Frickiewolf cited AlterNet itself there was a warning on the revision page. I don't think it does the public good to whitewash their bias by saying they are merely left leaning. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidgarcia84: is that your opinion or what reliable sources say? @Frickiewolf: was I wrong? Did their about page say they are left/far left? I really don't care about how Alternet is described as long as our policies and guidelines are followed. Both of you are new and perhaps need to read [[WP:VERIFY]. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Considering when using AlterNet as a source I am given a warning due to extreme inaccuracy and bias I don't think it's just my opinion Doug Davidgarcia84 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

We still have to follow WP:VERIFY. Being unreliable doesn't make it anywing. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, no, you were not wrong. The about page does not state that they are a far-left organization, which is why I reverted your reversion of my *entire* edit which included references to portions of the about page mentioning their "higher purpose" as an organization. And with all due respect, I am anything but new; I have had a registered account for 7 years and have committed several good faith edits. There is broad-ranging consensus on the Internet that AlterNet is a far-left, or left-leaning to put it moderately, source, but of course crowd-sourced media bias ranking websites are not reliable pursuant to the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. It also appears on link aggregation pages from educational institutions as a source of progressive (left-leaning) news. But instead of merely reverting the portion of my edit labeling AlterNet as far-left, you reverted my entire edit, labeled it disruptive on my talk page and threatened to block me from editing. Myself and Davidgarcia84 if I may speak for him are simply trying to ascribe to AlterNet the correct label, whatever that be, which I do not believe falls into the category of disruptive editing in any capacity. wolf (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ot new but only 72 edits shows you are inexperienced. The problem with the rest of the edit is that it stated their views as factual, which we shouldn't do. Organisations and people dont always tell the truth. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't believe I portrayed their views as factual; I stated they were aiming to achieve those goals and linked to their about page to verify that those were in fact their goals. I could change "aiming to" to "claims to" if that seems less like a factual statement. wolf (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Frickiewolf:, I see you linked to two institutions that labeled AlterNet progressive news outlets. I think that is a much better description than left-leaning. Perhaps you gather some additional sources than these aggregates then edit the page to reflect this information. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, better. We try to avoid words such as "claims" - we call them weasel words. See WP:Words to watch. "States" would be better. Doug Weller talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ownership/acquisition?

@JByrne404: Maybe you can confirm or correct us on this matter. These edits changed ownership of AlterNet from Alternet Media, Inc to Raw Story (in two places). Could you please tell us which is correct? (People seem to often get confused between brands, product names, and corporate names.) Grorp (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Grorp. AlterNet is owned by AlterNet Media, not Raw Story, though, as noted, they share common ownership. The ownership is referenced here: https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/meet-the-alternet-staff-2647453134 JByrne404 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Restored. Grorp (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)