停止在研究中使用媒体偏见/事实核查
Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
研究指出媒体偏见/事实核查（MBFC）方法不符合学术严谨标准，其数据不中立准确，是霸权的可计算解读。呼吁学术研究者停止使用MBFC，因其会重现错误信息学术研究要解决的危机。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
媒体偏见/事实核查（MBFC）旨在量化约10000个媒体来源报道的偏见、可信度和真实性，其数据常用于错误信息研究。本研究表明，MBFC的方法不符合学术研究的基本严谨标准。尽管其广泛流行，但使用MBFC的研究很少仔细审视它，常出现与“关于”页面矛盾的描述，或不顾其免责声明将其视为权威。我们认为MBFC的数据不中立、不准确，是霸权的可计算解读，是用于不加批判研究的似是而非数据集。研究呼吁学术研究者停止使用MBFC，因其数据将政治过程结果呈现为简单事实，重现了错误信息学术研究要解决的危机。
英文摘要
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) purports to quantify the bias, credibility, and factuality of reporting for roughly 10,000 media sources, and the resulting data is commonly used in misinformation research. In the present study, we show that MBFC's methodology does not meet basic standards of rigor for academic research. Despite its widespread prevalence, studies using MBFC rarely examine it carefully, often describing it in ways that contradict its ``About'' page, or treating it as authoritative despite MBFC's disclaimer that it is ``not a tested scientific method... [but] a simple guide to the idea of a source's bias.'' We identified no papers that adequately describe MBFC as the opinions of a single person or critically engage with its methodology in order to justify proceeding with its use. We argue that MBFC's data is not neutral or accurate, but a computationally legible account of hegemony, a specious dataset for uncritical research that mistakes the familiarity of the concepts it quantifies with accuracy. Our study concludes with a call for academic researchers to stop using MBFC. MBFC's data quantifies the results of political processes, including campaigns to discredit the press, and presents them as simple facts about the world, thus reproducing the crisis misinformation scholarship exists to address.
