Ballotpedia

[[File:Ballotpedia logo.png|thumb|right|165px|Ballotpedia logo]]
{{bronze}}{{uspolitics}}
'''Ballotpedia''' is a website that provides information on [[United States]] elections and candidates for voters. It started out as a community-contributed site, but is now only edited by paid staff. It has information related to both US Federal government and US state governments, with a database of information on U.S. state executives, legislators, districts, candidates for such positions and ballot measures.

The website claims to be neutral and accurate.<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:About Ballotpedia: About], Ballotpedia.</ref> At the time of writing, the [[Media Bias/Fact Check]] page classifies it as "Least Biased" and "Factual Reporting: Very High".<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ballotpedia/ Ballotpedia],  Media Bias Fact Check.</ref> Due to the nature of the site, it ''does'' sometimes show decidedly non-factual quotes from other sources (such as public figures). Despite this, the site was founded by the Citizens In Charge Foundation, a [[libertarian]] activist organisation. The site is currently run by a remarkably well-fed nonprofit called the Lucy Burns Institute, which is substantially funded by [[Koch Industries]] money, funnelled in via various corporate shells.<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ballotpedia</ref> Board members include [[Erick Erickson]].<ref>[http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11791/lucy-burns-institute-publishers-ballotpedia-judgepedia-and-wikifoia-and-her-right The Lucy Burns Institute (Publishers of Ballotpedia, Judgepedia and WikiFOIA) and Her Right-Wing Bedfellows] (Sara Jerving, ''PRWatch'', 26 November 2012)</ref>

Although it looks like a [[wiki]] and uses MediaWiki as its CMS,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151204102456/https://ballotpedia.org/Special:Version Version] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from December 4, 2015).</ref> it is not publicly editable. Up until 2016 there was a group of "carefully vetted members of the general public" who could edit with every edit first reviewed by staff.<ref>[https://archive.md/X1c3w Ballotpedia:Editors] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from 16 Jan 2016 19:00:36 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160730145801/https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=guest-editors&limit=50 User list] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from July 30, 2016).</ref>

==Neutrality and its problems==
{{main|Neutral point of view}}
The co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], [[Larry Sanger]], was an early consultant for Ballotpedia.<ref name=neutrality>[https://ballotpedia.org/Why_Neutrality Why Neutrality?] by Larry Sanger (December 30, 2015) ''Ballotpedia''.</ref> Sanger left the leadership of Wikipedia in 2002, and has since become critical of Wikipedia not hewing to a strictly neutral point of view (NPOV).<ref>[https://150sec.com/wikipedia-is-a-broken-system-says-co-founder-larry-sanger/11453/ “Wikipedia is a broken system,” says co-founder Larry Sanger] by Sophie Foggin (May 23, 2019) ''150 Sec''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210218192249/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried: "The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger said.] by Maxim Lott (February 18, 2021) ''Fox News'' (archived from February 18, 2021).</ref> Sanger wrote a 2015 essay on NPOV for Ballotpedia, which presumably also explains Ballotpedia's position on NPOV.<ref name=neutrality/> Although Sanger acknowledges  the existence of "false balance" ([[balance fallacy]]), his example of NPOV for global warming is rather skewed away from adequately acknowledging the balance fallacy:<ref name=neutrality/>
{{cquote|A majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW); exactly which scientists to include as “experts,” and thus which surveys to consider and what percentage endorse it, is a matter of debate. In any case, while there are some distinguished climate [[science]] experts who are skeptics [of AGW], a decided majority are not.}}
Sanger wrote this in 2015, but by 2004 it was already the case that there was scientific [[Scientific consensus|consensus]]<ref>[https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.1103618 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change] by Naomi Oreskes (2004) ''Science'' 306:1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.</ref> and by 2010, it had reached 97-98% agreement among climate scientists that climate change was real and anthropogenic.<ref>[https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 Expert credibility in climate change] by William R. L. Anderegg et al. (2010) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences''  107(27):12107–12109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.</ref> and has since risen to >99%.<ref>[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature] by Mark Lynas et al. (2021) ''Environmental Research Letters 16(11):1-7. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.</ref>  Sanger was arguing that there was still a debate on the reality of climate change in 2015, when there wasn't one at all, i.e., the balance fallacy. Arguably, Sanger and subsequently Ballotpedia are NPOV [[extremist]]s.

Later in the essay, Sanger argued along the lines of supporting the ''[[argumentum ad populum]]'' fallacy [[MMR vaccine|measles vaccination]], thereby giving oxygen to [[Andrew Wakefield]]'s [[antivax]] [[bullshit]]:<ref name=neutrality/>
{{cquote|For example, suppose in a piece of writing, you discuss the [[MMR vaccine controversy|measles vaccination controversy]]. If you’re going to write in accordance with the canons of science (and also [[rationality]] and objectivity, no doubt), then in my opinion, you will support the view that children should be vaccinated, period. But if what you write is going to be neutral with respect to current American society, you will have to withhold any such forthright claim. Rather, you’ll report that while a very large majority of doctors and scientists strongly advise vaccination, something like 9% of the population thinks that the measles vaccine is unsafe.}}
Sanger does not even acknowledge that the [[Centers for Disease Control]] says that the MMR vaccine is extremely safe and effective,<ref>[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine] (Page last reviewed: September 9, 2020, 12:00 AM) ''Centers for Disease Control''.</ref> or that deaths in the US from measles dropped from 503,282 pre-vaccine availability to 89 post-vaccine availability.<ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/epidemics-infectious-disease-polio-flu-vaccine-aftermath-race Epidemics have happened before and they’ll happen again. What will we remember? A look back at past epidemics reveals progress in research and medicine as well as reminders of what still needs changing] by Aimee Cunningham (October 27, 2021 at 12:00 pm) ''Science News''.</ref>

Neutrality is all well and good when dealing with easily verified facts, such as who and what is on an election ballot, what responses a candidate for office has given on issues, etc. However, once one starts getting into more complex issues such as science, [[medicine]] or general [[politics]], neutrality becomes fraught with the [[balance fallacy]] (giving equal weight to [[Point refuted a thousand times|refuted]] or [[crank]] ideas), and ''[[argumentum ad populum]]'' (a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular).

So, let's throw a bunch of opinions on the wall and you can [[Confirmation bias|pick the one that you like]].

===Dead people voting===
From 2014-2018, the staff worked to look like they were putting in more effort than they were. ''e.g.'' on the surface, the "Dead people voting news" page looks like it's filled with many news articles of actual cases of [[Voter fraud|dead people voting]], but it's just a [[Google]] news script of "Dead + People + Voting + [fill-in state]", which is a poorly conceptualized search without any real stories.<ref>[https://archive.md/ENRJp Dead people voting] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from 1 May 2014 04:23:08 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181109001432/http://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting Dead people voting] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from November 9, 2018).</ref> Since 2018, the page redirects to a "Votes cast in the names of deceased people" page that gives equal weight to the views of the [[Heritage Foundation]], the Government Accountability Office, the Pew Center on the States ({{wpl|Pew Research Center}}), and the {{wpl|Brennan Center for Justice||.}}<ref name=zombies>[https://ballotpedia.org/Votes_cast_in_the_names_of_deceased_people Votes cast in the names of deceased people] ''Ballotpedia''.</ref>

Ballotpedia tries to portray the Heritage Foundation ("conservative") and the Brennan Center ("progressive") as simply views on opposite sides of the [[political spectrum]], however the Heritage Foundation is known for spreading [[bullshit]] (e.g., [[climate change denial]] and [[Intelligent design|evolution denial]]), whereas the Brennan Center is not.<ref name=zombies/><ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brennan-center-for-justice/ Brennan Center for Justice] (Last updated on April 29th, 2021 at 03:02 pm) ''Media Bias/Fact Check''.</ref><ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/ Heritage Foundation] (Last updated on March 15th, 2021 at 05:16 pm) ''Media Bias/Fact Check''.</ref> This is a case of the balance fallacy. Both the GAO and the Pew Research Center are nonpartisan.

===Face masks===
During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], Ballotpedia created two separate web pages showing arguments supporting and opposing [[face mask]] requirements (relevant expertise in '''bold'''): 
{{columns|cols=2|rule=thin red solid|gap=2em|body=
'''Supporting'''<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_in_favor_of_mask_requirements_during_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020-2021 Arguments in favor of mask requirements during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021] Ballotpedia.</ref>
#David A. Wohl ('''infectious disease specialist''' at UNC in Chapel Hill)<ref>{{wpa|David Wohl}}</ref>
#The Union-Bulletin Editorial Board ([[journalist]]s)
#St. Louis Post Dispatch Editorial Board (journalists)
#Richmond Times-Dispatch Editorial Board (journalists)
#Maria Godoy ('''science journalist''')<ref>[https://www.npr.org/people/348777820/maria-godoy Maria Godoy] ''NPR''.</ref>
#Yifang Zhu, UCLA Professor of '''Environmental Health Sciences'''<ref>[https://ph.ucla.edu/faculty/zhu Yifang Zhu] ''UCLA Fielding School of Public Health''.</ref>
#German Lopez (journalist)<ref>[https://www.vox.com/authors/german-lopez German Lopez] ''Vox''.</ref>
#Paul Sax, clinical director of the division of '''infectious diseases''' at Brigham and Women’s Hospital
#Jason Laughlin (science journalist)<ref>[https://www.inquirer.com/author/laughlin_jason/ Jason Laughlin] ''The Philadelphia Inquirer''.</ref> and Laura McCrystal (journalist)<ref>[https://www.inquirer.com/author/mccrystal_laura/ Laura McCrystal] ''The Philadelphia Inquirer''.</ref>
#Kansas City Star Editorial Board (journalists)
#Los Angeles Times Editorial Board (journalists)
#Coachella CA Valley Independent Editorial Board (journalists)
#Salt Lake City Tribune Editorial Board (journalists)
#Elaine Batchlor, MD, rheumatologist<ref>{{wpa|Elaine Batchlor}}</ref>
#[[Goldman Sachs]] ([[economist]]s)
#Jonathan Lansner (journalist)<ref>[https://www.ocregister.com/author/jon-lansner/ Jonathan Lansner] ''The Orange County Register''.</ref>
#Ron Saff, MD, allergist, board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility<ref>[https://www.tallahassee.com/picture-gallery/news/2020/07/10/physicians-social-responsibility-demand-masks-mandated-florida/5413540002/ Physicians for Social Responsibility demand masks be mandated in Florida] (9:47 a.m. PDT July 10, 2020) ''Tallahassee Democrat''.</ref>
#Palm Beach Post Editorial Board (journalists)
#Sioux City Journal Editorial Board (journalists)
#Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF Gladstone Center for '''[[AIDS]] Research'''<ref>{{wpa|Monica Gandhi}}</ref>
#Karen Levy (assistant professor in the department of information science) and Lauren Kilgour (doctoral candidate in information science)<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/opinion/coronavirus-college-reopening.html Don’t Make College Kids the Coronavirus Police] by Karen Levy & Lauren Kilgour] (Aug. 12, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET) ''The New York Times''.</ref>

'''Opposing'''<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_against_mask_requirements_during_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020-2021 Arguments against mask requirements during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021] ''Ballotpedia''.</ref>
#Ashton Forbes, a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging San Diego County's mask requirements (system architect)<ref>[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-06-02/palomar-health-worker-sues-county-over-masks-orders San Diego resident sues county over mask orders] by Gary Warth (June 2, 2020 6:43 PM PT) ''The San Diego Union-Tribune''.</ref>
#Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD in '''health policy''', surgeon general of Florida<ref>{{wpa|Joseph Ladapo}}</ref>
#Phillip W. Magness (political science, public policy, economics)<ref>[https://philmagness.com/cv/ CV] Phillip W. Magness</ref>
#Andrew Cooper, the plaintiff in a lawsuit in Nashua, New Hampshire (newspaper reader)
#[[Greg Abbott]] (Texas Governor)
#A large group of MDs criticed a paper in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences''.{{efn|Ballotpedia cited a ''[[Reason]]'' article<ref>[https://reason.com/2020/06/22/prominent-researchers-say-a-widely-cited-study-on-wearing-masks-is-badly-flawed/ Prominent Researchers Say a Widely Cited Study on Wearing Masks Is Badly Flawed] by Ronald Bailey (6.22.2020 5:11 PM) ''Reason''.</ref> rather than the MDs' criticism itself.<ref>[https://metrics.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj13936/f/files/pnas_loe_061820_v3.pdf Letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] by Noah Haber et al. (June 18, 2020).</ref> A correction was subsequently issued to the original PNAS article that did not change the conclusion.<ref>[https://www.pnas.org/content/117/41/25942 Correction for Zhang et al., Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19] by Renyi Zhang et al. (2020) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' 117(41):25942-25943. doi:10.1073/pnas.2018637117.</ref> Neither Ballotpedia nor ''Reason'' folllowed up, but the original ''Reason'' article concluded, "The upshot is that however flawed the PNAS study is, the balance of the scientific evidence strongly suggests that widespread use of facemasks will significantly help reduce the spread of COVID-19."}}
#Marc Siegel, MD, Professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center<ref>{{wpa|Marc Siegel}}</ref>
#Allysia Finley (journalist)<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/news/author/allysia-finley Allysia Finley] ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
#Philip Mauriello, Jr., an attorney representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging San Diego County's mask requirements
#Brantley Lyons, Montgomery City Councilmember
#Molly McCann, Of Counsel with Sidney Powell
#Antonio I Lazzarino, medical doctor and '''epidemiologist'''
#Trevon Logan, an economics professor at Ohio State University
#Steven Horwitz and Donald J. Boudreaux (economists)<ref>{{wpa|Steven Horwitz}}</ref><ref>{{wpa|Donald J. Boudreaux}}</ref>
#David Shane, physics professor<ref>[https://thefederalist.com/author/davidshane/ David Shane] ''The Federalist''.</ref>
#Yinon Weiss (tech entrepreneur, bioengineer)<ref>[https://thefederalist.com/author/yinonweiss/ Yinon Weiss] ''The Federalist''.</ref>
#David Shane (professor of physics)<ref>[https://thefederalist.com/author/davidshane/ David Shane] ''The Federalist''.</ref>
#Manchester NH Alderman At-Large, Joe Kelly Lavasseur
#Kyle Wingfield (newspaper reader)
#The Wilson Times Editorial Board (journalists)
}}

Holding expert opinions to be more authoritative and reliable is generally a good thing to do. Not every expert is correct, that's why scientists have disagreements. Consulting a range of experts often gets one closer to the truth or at least to avoiding bad outcomes. In the field of communicable diseases such as COVID, experts would come from the fields of epidemiology, public health, MDs who specialize in infectious diseases, and science journalists (who typically have a science degree and are trained to communicate science to the public). A simple MD (e.g., general practitioner), or an MD in an unrelated field (e.g., surgery) is not an expert in this case.

Here we can see that expertise does not matter to Ballotpedia either for within a position or between positions: only 5/21 opinions supporting and 2/20 opposing positions could be considered  written by experts in the field. This is especially peculiar because of Sanger's view on how to present information on NPOV, as well as Sanger's creation of [[Citizendium]], an expertise-based Wiki.

===Views on the role of greenhouse gases in global warming===
Ballotpedia's page on greenhouse gases in global warming was created on or before 2018 and has not been updated as of 2021<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181107123212/https://ballotpedia.org/Greenhouse_gases_and_global_warming Greenhouse gases and global warming] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from November 7, 2018).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211209202156/https://ballotpedia.org/Greenhouse_gases_and_global_warming  Greenhouse gases and global warming] ''Ballotpedia'' (archived from December 9, 2021).</ref> despite evolving science and the establishment of scientific consensus in 2004 or earlier.<ref>[https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change] by Naomi Oreskes (2004) ''Science'' 306(5702):1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.</ref>

{{columns|cols=2|rule=thin red solid|gap=2em|body=
'''Support'''<ref name=ballotpedia-greenhouse>[https://ballotpedia.org/Greenhouse_gases_and_global_warming Greenhouse gases and global warming] ''Ballotpedia''.</ref>
#[[United Nations]]' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007)<BR><BR>
#David Titley, director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Pennsylvania State University (2015)<BR><BR>
#Robert Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley (2002)<BR><BR>
#Kerry Emanuel, director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010)<BR><BR>

'''Oppose'''<ref name=ballotpedia-greenhouse/>
#Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology (2015)
#[[Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change]] [2015].<ref>[https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf ''Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming; The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus''] by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer (2015) ''The Heartland Institute''. ISBN 1934791571.</ref> The NIPCC is a group created by [[S. Fred Singer]] and associated with the [[Heartland Institute]], whose reports have been characterized as [[crankery]]<ref>[https://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378 Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience] by Michael J. I. Brown (December 24, 2018) ''The Conversation''.</ref><ref>[https://ncse.ngo/files/nipcc.pdf Debunking the Heartland Institute’s Efforts to Deny Climate Science] ''National Center for Science Education''.</ref><ref>[https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/ Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report] (28 Nov 2008) ''RealClimate''.</ref>
#John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (2015)
#Global Warming Policy Foundation (2011), a UK [[think tank]]/[[lobbying]] organization funded by dark money,<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors Global Warming Policy Foundation donor funding levels revealed: Accounts show extent to which secretive thinktank is funded by anonymous donors rather than income from membership fees] by Leo Hickman (20 Jan 2011 12.29 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref> which given the history of [[global warming denialism]], most likely comes from he [[fossil fuel]] industry
}}
Four positions are given for each. The 'support' positions include The IPCC (the summary conclusions of >400 climate scientists<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6606465.stm Bangkok hosts key climate summit] (30 April 2007, 08:27 GMT) ''BBC''.</ref>) and three individual climate scientists. The 'oppose' positions include opinions from two organizations affiliated with the fossil fuel industry (NIPCC via Heartland Institute and Global Warming Policy Foundation) and two from individual climate scientists. No real context is given for these opinions, and the opinion of >400 climate scientists is given equal weight with a single climate scientists. This is a false balance (balance fallacy).

==See also==
*[[Zombies]] — undead people voting

==External links==
* [https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page The site]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Kochsphere]]
[[Category:Wikis]]

Categories: Elections, Kochsphere, Wikis