Talk:List of fake news websites

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fake news websites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Should CNN be added to the list?

A1: No, because no reliable independent source identifies CNN as fake news. This has been discussed multiple times. For further details please review some of the previous discussion threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of fake news websites. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of fake news websites at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Robles, Alan C. (April 15, 2018). "Powerful falsehoods". D+C Development and Cooperation. Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines rode to power on a wave of disinformation two years ago. He has not delivered on campaign promises, apart from one thing. His phoney "war on drugs" has claimed some 12,000 lives. ...Wikipedia has published a list of Filipino fake-news websites.
Omer Benjakob (January 10, 2017). "How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Wikipedia Articles [of 2017] Paint a Dark Picture". Haaretz.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Comment

First of all, most of the links, are not listed under original sources, which suggest insider information or an insider posting.

Generative AI portion is not literally fake as per the original introductory definition which feeds the theory of a vendetta from the one user.

Nearly the entire article is written by one user further suggests a strong bias.

Lastly, the idea that Wikipedia will take a stand of what it determines to be fake news sites is a slippery slope and easily weaponized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.189.194 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "First of all, most of the links, are not listed under original sources"?

The intent for a WP-article/listicle like this is to list websites that WP:RS calls fake news. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarity your question , the detailed websites are not in the source links. This strongly suggests a biased poster creating the article 65.222.189.194 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making vague accusations and try to explain what you mean more clearly. An example that illustrates the point would help. DanielRigal (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, if you spot check most of the links provided, they are not listed on the original articles. I literally just went 8 straight.

but this point only speaks to the sourcing not to the clear one user created bias 65.222.189.194 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can provide an actual example of one? Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it isn’t written by one editor but 520[1]. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not IP editor but they might mean that one editor added a lot

I tried checking some of the entries and I think cites are incomplete. Some cite https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2017/weeks-after-his-death-most-of-paul-horner%c2%92s-fake-news-sites-are-down-so-what%c2%92s-left/ but that doesnt talk about the URLs cited to it but it links a Google Doc with the list of them According to an analysis conducted by Poynter, at least 20 fake news websites registered in Horner’s name have gone offline since his death Softlem (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, source 70

https://web.archive.org/web/20231206055051/https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/ai-tracking-center/

No sites are listed on that page. Perhaps it's behind the scenes but zero are listed in this list

Source 73

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927153619/https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CIB-Report_-China-Russia_Sept-2022-1.pdf

site: actualid

and Albuquerque

aren't listed in the source

But again my point is before we list sites that are bad from an initial editor that can have a potential bias, why are we double checking AFTER it's posted?

And this is just a quick spot check on my part. 65.222.189.194 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why are you accusing the poster of bias? You really need to provide evidence of such or retract your accusation, because that can be considered a personal attack against the editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's a bit strange for one poster to post literally 100s of sites? I would be

100% less concerned if it was multiple people. In fact, that's the ONLY thing the poster has done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TotalVibe945

A bias is that a person has a singular agenda. One ID that posts numerous sites and ONLY numerous sites far from sounds like a person attack

Again I have NOTHING support these sites. I do have a big issue with one person being the sole creator with nothing else. I can't imagine that seems normal to people here? 65.222.189.194 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence of bias, so I strongly suggest you strike through those accusations. The user is adding sites which have been cited by reliable sources for their appropriate categories. You still haven't even explained what the "bias" is, much less provided evidence of such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]