I have been wondering for a while now, how does Forbes still maintain its brand?
It has now been at least two decades that it has had close to zero credibility, but somehow in general population it is maintaining its brand as a legit publication
People always have been misled by branding. For example, AT&T today actually has (almost?) nothing to do with the original AT&T; the name was effectively purchased.
These days, I find very few people will even engage in evaluating the credibility of what they read - they seem to scorn the issue. Look at all the links to Wikipedia here on HN, for example - something I didn't see until maybe a year or two ago: Wikipedia was always seen as a bit dubious and uncertain. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise, but again they seem to scorn or resent even raising the question.
> For example, AT&T today actually has (almost?) nothing to do with the original AT&T
Of all valid examples available, you picked AT&T, which is definitely out of set? Seriously?
Okay, they do not control the Northeast (that's Verizon), but other than that it'll be the equivalent of asking if Russia can trace back through the pre-1919 Russian Empire or the current Germany from Prussia.
P.S. Please look at this merger chart: https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BZ033_LIONDO_9.... Although it's unlikely that AT&T and Verizon will merge again (unless the US FTC lost all anti-trust enforcement), your statement can at least be proven wrong in this context. Maybe use Polaroid as an example next time?
> Wikipedia was always seen as a bit dubious and uncertain
Base knowledge has to come from somewhere, so where it would have been an encyclopedia fifteen years ago it is wikipedia now. That's just the times moving on - if you have material concerns with the linked articles you are free to edit them (although it must be said you will have a hard time doing so with rich folks - they have firms to whitewash their pages).
> Base knowledge has to come from somewhere, so where it would have been an encyclopedia fifteen years ago it is wikipedia now.
That agrees with the parent and GP comments: The assertion was that people rarely evaluate credibility, and the common citation of Wikipedia is given as an example. So we all agree that Wikipedia is commonly used.
If you mean that Wikipedia is inevitably used, that seems hard to suppot. There are an incredible number of sources available, and there's no reason Wikipedia had to be popular now. If people cared more about accuracy, a source with more focus on it would be more popular. I never use Wikipedia beyond checking the schedule for sporting events.
> if you have material concerns with the linked articles you are free to edit them
The problem is that I don't know what is accurate and what isn't on Wikipedia, and I don't have time to research everything. Also, editing Wikipedia is often very difficult and frustrating.
> although it must be said you will have a hard time doing so with rich folks - they have firms to whitewash their pages
And a hard time with anything controversial, or a page where an editor or editors who feel ownership, or one with an astroturfing campaign, or many others. Wikipedia is the original disinformation source, discovered long ago by some groups.
Ignorance most likely? I've noticed things getting worse, but everything in this article is new information to me. I also didn't know Huffington Post was written by contributors.
I think it’s all about placement and reach. They are good at SEO and article promotion on social media. Since people see it all the time they just assume it can’t be that bad.
It has now been at least two decades that it has had close to zero credibility, but somehow in general population it is maintaining its brand as a legit publication