![]() | Alt-right pipeline has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 25, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Beet skeet (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Hinrichs23.
— Assignment last updated by Acsieling ( talk) 18:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried editing Wikipedia to say "Many political movements have been associated with the pipeline concept. The intellectual dark web,[2] libertarianism,[4] the men's rights movement,[5] and the alt-lite movement[2] have all been identified as possibly introducing audiences to alt-right ideas, despite none of them had any control over YouTube's decision to place nazi videos in the sidebar of their videos, and have been vehemently protesting YouTube to stop placing nazi videos in the side bar of their videos since 2017."
I believe this is important to put on here because all of those groups you mentioned are vehemently against the alt-right movement, but YouTube lumped them into the pipeline without their permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B970:9460:1934:5592:5D40:3551 ( talk) 16:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The research paper cited that mentions BreadTube in the context of alt-right pipeline as "far-left radicalization". Where is this claim coming from? The only times the cited source mentions alt-right are BreadTubers share a collective interest in amplifying the visibility of leftist content and counteracting the so-called alt-right pipeline on YouTube
and Many BreadTubers seek to create a “leftist pipeline” as a counterforce to the alt-right pipeline.
It does not support far left or the implication that BreadTube is similarly extremist to the alt-right movement. I haven't looked at the NYT source but I would question giving a news article more weight than scholarly research. Therefore, I would suggest removing any reference to left wing extremism and move the mention of BreadTube to the "Concerns and prevention" section, especially since it has an explicit focus on deradicalization. (
t ·
c)
buidhe
16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist
If you are a hard line “scary” leftist and don’t feel like hiding your viewpoint or getting involved in political games, I would suggest building a community between channels espousing your vanguard views and the more popular issue based left channels. If you are more moderate or undecided, try to do the same for the more issue based left channels and the moderate edutainment channels.
The BreadTube community notoriously exists in a constant state of existential crisis, which is evident in discourses about the community’s disunity. First, the community hosts a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist, which has engendered considerable infighting. There is regular commentary within BreadTube of the community “cannibalizing” itself. Moreover, many BreadTubers recognize that the community’s infighting interferes with its ability to come together for tactical unity in promoting leftist ideas or action. As BreadTube creator Secular Talk (2020) noted in a video, infighting renders the community “politically impotent and ineffectual.”
far-right radicalization. ( t · c) buidhe 19:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
speaking out against capitalismis attributed to BreadTube as a whole, and the section about BreadTube and capitalism is a valid source for the claim that it's broadly opposed to capitalism. I also don't think that it's original research to say that opposition to capitalism is equivalent to anti-capitalist.And yes, the source does describe BreadTube in the context of the pipeline:
Many BreadTubers seek to create a “leftist pipeline” as a counterforce to the alt-right pipeline.That line was the whole point of using this specific source. If I wanted to write about BreadTube in general, there are plenty of other sources about it. This specific source supports the fact that elements of the alt-right pipeline were adopted by BreadTube, which is what's relevant to this article. I'll also note that there was a second source that reinforced some of this, but it seems that you've removed it. If you feel that there's a way to word these claims that's truer to these sources without repeating them, I'm open to suggestions. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
An intriguing phenomenon, and I'm glad it's up at GAN- will review soon. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Otherwise, the prose is extremely well-written and very impressive. I could see this going to FAC soon. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No fiction, lists, or words to watch present. Complies with other MoS standards. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citations are placed in a proper "References" section. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Otherwise, the article contains citations to reliable sources; most are journal articles, with some news articles and reports- all reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article is well-cited to reliable sources. I spotchecked a few random citations while reading just to ensure it's supported, and they all came up clean. No OR visible. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article addresses the process of the pipeline, the content involved in it, and psych factors, and concerns/prevention regarding it. All good here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There's definitely opportunity for bias, but as far as I can see, no editorial bias is visible. All good here. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Image is properly CC tagged. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is relevant and properly captioned. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |