Безопасен ли mediabiasfactcheck.com?

Доверено WOT
Верифицированный веб-сайт

Оценка безопасности веб-сайта

65%
Оценка безопасности WOT основана на нашей уникальной технологии и отзывах экспертов сообщества.
Этот сайт заявлен?
Да
Обзоры сообщества
★ 3.5
Алгоритм WOT
70%
безопасность для детей
Нет

Что говорит сообщество?

Оставить отзыв

Как бы вы оценили этот сайт от 1 до 5?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
Поделитесь своим отзывом и помогите сообществуВ отзывах должно быть не менее 15 символов.Выберите теги, которые лучше всего описывают этот сайт
Вредоносное ПО или вирусы
Низкое качество обслуживания
Фишинг
Мошенничество
Потенциально незаконное
Некорректный или неэтичный контент
Риск для конфиденциальности
Подозрительный сайт
Разжигание ненависти, дискриминация
Спам
Потенциально нежелательная программа
Реклама / Pop-ups
Для взрослых
Случайное обнажение
Шокирующий контент
Отмена
Опубликовать обзор
3.5
starstarstarhalf-starempty-star

На основе 20 отзывов

Сортировать по:
Новые
Legitimate fact checking backed up with sources. The least biased that I've found so far. If you've found something false, please cite it in your comments instead of just making general unfounded claims of bias or incorrectness.
Полезный
Legitimate fact checking backed up with sources.
Полезный
Don't troll the reviews. Just fine.
Полезный
left leaning fact checker, or as they would say, a mixed media bias fact checker rating. they definately lean left, but not as far as many others. subtle examples would be the stretch to connect conservative sites with terms inferring "hate site" without actually saying they are: ex. daily caller. yet, this slanted standard is not consistently followed when you look at the left of center sites, such as cnn or msnbc, where they frequently have racists and anti-semites on their show, and these are celebrated. they label virtually any Bible site or christian site as being conspiracy and pseudoscience. sites that have commentaries of Bible verses are not science sites, they are theology sites. perhaps if the site was a creation science site you could arguably make that statement, but when you label a site that interprets the parables of Jesus as pseudoscience ... wtf? there is a clear distain that this fact checker is exhibiting towards organized religious sites. as such, this site, ironically, is a hate site ... or at least a ... "i don't like them" site. still, it's a lot better than the likes of snopes.
1
Once again, WOT has decided a site is "unsafe" for nefarious reasons which they do NOT share. WOT has become next to useless in their "ratings" . . .
Полезный
They do have a ton of click bait and frankly, I would pay a fee to have no ads for this service. I am a firm believer in scientific, data-driven rating of measurable criteria to help align an Internet consumer about the media sources for which they are unfamiliar. I don't know why folks always align data and science-based stuff as left-biased. What's up with that?
Полезный
The people rating it low seem to not understand that it's rated by the community. It's a perfectly safe and acceptable site.
Полезный
It is odd that some reviewers claim the site is left biased, and some claim it is right biased. I have used it for quite a while and it seems to be balanced, and at least in terms of tracking my own casual observations, accurate. It rates sites on a spectrum from far left to far right, and appraises the factual accuracy of the sites. It judges this by examining documented instances of failed fact checks, citing sources. I have spot checked sites on both ends of the spectrum and have not found evidence of significant favoritism. Regardless of how conscientious an effort is made to produce this kind of information, it is always going to upset some people.
Полезный
A very useful website for the left and far left. It is not neutral and is seemingly disgusted with Christian websites.
2
I've used this site several times and they seem trustworthy so far. I also read several of the negative reviews and they seem to be based on anger over their favorite news source getting a poor rating. So I trust the site.
Полезный
This site gives an unbiased view of a massive amount of news sources and I have found it to be very accurate. I see right-wingers complaining because their favorite far-right sources are not being called unbiased. This site is non-partisan. Saying otherwise without any qualifying explanation is just an attempt to discredit this non-partisan website. The sight.
Полезный
Great resource and methodology!
3
This site is not biased toward right-wing sites at all, neither to left-wing sites. I've seen plenty of "mixed factual reporting" scores on both sides. Just because you're favorite site gets a bad score, doesn't mean this site is wrong. It just means that you should start getting your news from a different site (that you still agree with) that actually gives accurate facts. It's very comprehensive with its list of sites and has been a reliable, convenient source of fact-checking websites for a while now.
3
I own the MBFC website. The claims of right wing bias are completely unfounded. Furthermore, if there is bias to the right or left that does not make a website untrustworthy. We source all information to factual mainstream media sources.
5
Can't see the problem with this site. I like the lists they provide for their categories, makes it easy to do a 'face value' sanity check on their ratings.
5
A very well-balanced, comprehensive site that breaks down the bias of a myriad of news sites.
6
Extremely right wing biased, the voting "options" are biased for the left wing sites but NOT for the right wing sites. . The options for left wing news "voting" vary between propaganda and fake news, but for right wing news (even obvious propaganda sites brietbart, the gateway pundit and the blaze) get a range between extreme left and extreme right. I had really hoped that this would be an unbiased site since media is right and left biased and is like to find some reliable news.
2
A very useful website for determining the bias of media sources. Uses a methodology that is mostly accurate. This is a clean and appropriate website.
7
Claims to be neutral, but  seems somewhat biased towards right-wing politics.
6
Ответ от mediabiasfactcheck.com8 лет назад
This website has a methodology for establishing bias that is credible. This is one of the best sources on the internet for News bias and fact checking.
Проверьте, не были ли вы скомпрометированыПодключитесь к Google, чтобы просмотреть историю просмотров.
Войти с помощью Google
Как видно на
Выполняя вход, вы соглашаетесь на сбор и использование данных, как описано в нашем Условия использования и Политика конфиденциальности
alternative-placeholder

О приложении

Мы просмотрели более 2 миллионов веб-сайтов, и их число продолжает расти. WOT — это легкое расширение, разработанное, чтобы помочь вам быстро и безопасно просматривать веб-страницы. Он очистит ваш браузер, ускорит его работу и защитит вашу личную информацию.
Этот сайт использует файлы cookie для анализа и персонализации. Продолжая использование сайта, вы соглашаетесь с нашей политикой в отношении файлов cookie.
Принять