North Korean troops in Russian uniforms heading to Kursk, says US - Lemmy.World
lemmy.world
North Korean troops wearing Russian uniforms and carrying Russian equipment are moving to the Russian region of Kursk, near Ukraine, according to the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, who described the deployment as a dangerous and destabilising development. Austin was speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon with the South Korean defence minister, Kim Yong-hyun, as concerns grow about Pyongyang’s deployment of as many as 11,000 troops to Russia. The US and South Korea said some of the North Korean troops are heading to Kursk, on the border with Ukraine, where the Kremlin’s forces have struggled to push back a Ukrainian incursion. Austin said “the likelihood is pretty high” that Russia will use the North Korean troops in combat. He added that officials were discussing what to do about the deployment, which he said had the potential to broaden or lengthen the conflict in Ukraine. Asked if it could prompt other nations to get more directly involved in the conflict, he acknowledged that it could “encourage others to take action”. MBFC [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/] Archive [https://archive.is/MMYI7]
  • dumbassEnglish
    293·
    12 hours ago

    What does it say? I blocked that stupid bot ages ago.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
      422·
      12 hours ago

      They added a line to the bot that includes Wikipedia’s stance on a source. And Wikipedia doesn’t consider MBFC to be reliable, so the bot reports that.

      If you scroll below that, MBFC rates themselves as maximally reliable, which I’m sure is based off of a rigorous and completely neutral assessment.

      Edit: although, reading the links in question they don’t seem to correspond to what the bot is saying. Perhaps this is some sort of mistake in how it was coded.

    • egrets@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      142·
      12 hours ago

      The post links both The Guardian and MBFC. The bot has picked up both links and posted the following (verbatim):

      Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

      Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

      Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.

      MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America

      The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

      Information for The Guardian:

      Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
      Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.

      MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom

      Search topics on Ground.News

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-ukraine-lloyd-austin
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

      Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
        192·
        12 hours ago

        Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.

        MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.

        Good stuff.

      • dumbassEnglish
        82·
        12 hours ago

        Hahahah, so it’s becoming self aware about how shit it is.

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    93·
    12 hours ago

    Personally, I’m just extremely irked that they refer to Wikipedia as “Wiki” when 1. that’s not a proper noun 2. WP is right there

    (don’t swat my house with a slideshow, matt mullenweg, pretty please)

  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.worldEnglish
    1·
    8 hours ago

    Where’s the critique coming from? The Wiki seems to have nothing but positive things to say. Might be an error. Ironic.

    Scientific studies[23] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[8] with NewsGuard[9] and with BuzzFeed journalists.[10] When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
      51·
      7 hours ago

      It’s from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Bias/Fact_Check

      There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.

      I think the perennial sources list gets a lot more attention than the wiki page for MBFC itself, and probably the standards for judging it reliable are higher.

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.worldEnglish
        31·
        7 hours ago

        I read that. My best guess is that this is either an error that hasn’t been updated in light of empirical studies corroborating MBFC’s reliability, or more likely any self-published list gets the “unreliable” sticker automatically.

        Also, making claims about “a consensus” without sourcing these claims is mighty suspicious. Disappointed.