Jump to content

Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:List of fake news websites

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:00, 8 May 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:List of fake news websites) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Rappler's List of Fake News

The list of “fake news” provided by CATHOLIC BISHOP CONFERENCE OF PH published at Rappler lacks methodology and explanation on how the became fake news. http://www.rappler.com/nation/173832-cbcp-list-websites-fake-news

As others have pointed out, most of the listed websites were merely blogs and opinion websites that do not duplicate news websites nor label themselves as news websites.


The article on Rappler itself did not provide the very list supposedly released by CBCP. Just a “partial list” attributed to CBCP, no official document and therefore it gives the impression that the author could have just came up with the list out of nowhere.


The article did not provide any methodology used by CBCP to come up with the list. Another is that it is a list provided by a religious organization. This cannot be classified as fact. Religious groups publishes or disseminates information based on their dogma and doctrines that are not necessarily true or factual. For example, they can create a list of individuals supposedly following Satan. If a news site publishes it, does that make it true?

What is wrong with Wikipedia is that its reliability gauge depends merely on the brand. And on that matter, Rappler as a news brand has been already contested on Wikipedia for being a reliable source. It is currently on the state when its status as a news source is unclear since its permit has been suspended. Further, the website also hosts blogs that makes it a blog rappler.com/rappler-blogs . And Wikipedia labels blogsites as unreliable source.

The parts of this article cited on the Rappler article must be removed because Rappler is a blogsite, an unreliable source, because Rappler is not recognized as a news website, hence unreliable source, the list of Rappler is religiously motivated, hence a hoax and unreliable source, and the Rappler article did not provide its source material, hence unreliable source. 

NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Your arguments for why Rappler is unreliable do not comport with our guideline on reliable sources and are unavailing. Perhaps other experienced editors would care to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, although Rappler was originally a blogsite, it has evolved into a mainstream news media over time. In fact, western mainstream media do recognize Rappler as a legitimate news site and not as a blog site. (from BBC) (from The Guardian) Secondly, on CBCP, even if it is a religious organization, there is also no reason why the list should not be used as a guideline in determining fake news. Careful distinction should be placed on seeing the nature of the list. Lastly, it is suggested for NoNDeSCRiPT to show proof that rappler is an unreliable news source for he who alleges must prove his allegations. Cheers. -ERAMnc 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As per checking, we can classify rappler as questionable source.have you look into that or dont want to. Eyeofskadi (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well GMA news, a mainstream news program in the Philippines, also posted that CBCP List. "CBCP releases list of fake news sites" -GMA News --ERAMnc 13:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain to us why GMA is not a questionable source by citing unreliable source. Eyeofskadi (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For Eyeofskadi it is your burden to prove to us why both Rapler and GMA News, both legitimate news sites, at the first place are questionable sources. The list of CBCP is not per se unreliable unless there are valid proof to the contrary. Otherwise empty and baseless allegations would end in futility. --ERAMnc 13:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As per guidelines of reliable sources,the two mainstream media fit to the category by relying on unreliable source. The list that CBCP release is just a list without basis,i dont know how is that reliable. Baseless and empty accusation were first done by CBCP. Eyeofskadi (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not "per guidelines." There is no basis for this. Reliable sources routinely rely on underlying sources that we'd consider unreliable if we were to cite them directly. That doesn't render the relying sources unreliable or questionable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean that mainstream media are always factual and invulnerable to questioning. And will use guidelines when it is convenient. Eyeofskadi (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not always, but usually. Please read our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Rappler is a reliable source as per WP:RS. It is one of 2 journalistic organizations in the Philippines that are accredited by the Poynter Institute's international fact-checking network. -> Rappler now a member of the International Fact-Checking Network, one of the 37 organizations worldwide that's part of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter -Object404 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. FYI technically speaking Rappler isn't "accredited" by the IFCN, but it's a "verified signatory," which is a prerequisite for being considered for Facebook's fact-checking program. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RAPPLER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE HAS BEEN CANCELLED AA A NEW OUTLET. DOESN'T THAT PROVE THAT THEY'RE UNRELIABLE? CBCP'S LIST DID NOT PUBLISH A JUSTIFICATION ON WHY BLOGS ARE BEING CLASSIFIED AS FAKE NEWS. SO BY YOUR LOGIC "HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE" YOU'RE SELF-DEFEATING. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, and please don't use all caps. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Political Bias

Mr. Fleischman why do you prevent my addition to fake news listing if it is anti-government of the Philippines? I think this page needs to be cited for political neutrality because this is always biased in favor of the other side of Philippine politics. --Twentius (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Because we can only include in our articles what reliable sources say. It has nothing to do with political bias. The sources you added didn't say that the sites in question were fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Next News Network and PragerU

Please add the Next News Network (https://www.youtube.com/user/NextNewsNetwork) and PragerU (https://www.prageru.com/)(https://www.facebook.com/prageru/) to the list of fake news sites. Both of these sources distort facts and claim that other reputable sources are fake. Next News Network is very similar to Infowars, while PragerU presents itself in a very gracious light in order to distract viewers from it's falsehoods. Drucifer98 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Can you please identify a reliable source that says that either NNN or PragerU is a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I was able to find multiple sources discussing PragerU, (https://medium.com/@evemoran/prageru-and-their-antisemitic-propaganda-c018c6562436, http://sdsucollegian.com/2017/11/15/prageru-isnt-just-fake-news-its-dangerous/, http://www.dbknews.com/2018/03/09/fake-news-alex-jones-breitbart-conspiracy/) however I was unable to find any articles mentioning NNN in the title. I did however, find a Washington Post article that mentioned them. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.3d26aa845d0b) The quotes, "The content from Russian sites has offered ready fodder for U.S.-based websites pushing far-right conservative messages. A former contractor for one, the Next News Network, said he was instructed by the site’s founder, Gary S. Franchi Jr., to weave together reports from traditional sources such as the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times with ones from RT, Sputnik and others that provided articles that often spread explosively online," and "“The readers are more likely to share the fake stories, and they’re more profitable,” said Dyan Bermeo, who said he helped assemble scripts and book guests for Next News Network before leaving because of a pay dispute and concerns that “fake news” was crowding out real news," seem as good an indicator as I could find. Drucifer98 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think any of those sources quite fits the bill:
  • Medium: unreliable opinion source, and fails verification (doesn't say PragerU is fake news).
  • Collegian: unreliable opinion source.
  • Diamondback: unreliable opinion source, and fails verification (doesn't quite say PragerU is fake news).
  • WaPo: Fails verification - doesn't say NNN is fake news in article's own voice, only quotes a former contractor saying that.
There's no need to keep switching "answered" to no. If you post a comment here someone will reply. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

breaking-cnn.com

Is there any consensus on adding breaking-cnn.com to this article? They falsely are reporting today Apr 16 2018 that Barbara Bush has passed away at age 92 and it's blowing up on Facebook! Cheers mates. Vid2vid (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Any news organization can make mistakes, though that's a big one. This article is for websites that consistently report inaccurately. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 04:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The source added by JMyrleFuller appears to fit the bill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Thinking Pinoy (should be removed)

It says here: Opinion blog founded by RJ Nieto. Posted multiple fake news. Reading his articles reveal his articles are well researched and concurs to their sources. I'm sorry, but I will move Thinking Pinoy be removed from the list posthaste. 112.205.122.167 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This has already been discussed in the talk page archives. The cited sources confirm that Thinking Pinoy is a fake news site. Your personal analysis of its content is irrelevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant my gluteus maximus. Do you really base verdicts on that and NOT ACTUAL CONTENT?! DO YOU NOT READ?! For scholarly people, you sure don't know how to ANALYZE! 112.205.122.167 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank, you're using ORIGINAL RESEARCH as an EXCUSE NOT TO VERIFY THE NEWS ARTICLE! 112.205.122.167 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Please do not shout. The original research policy is a Wikipedia-wide community standard. If you wish I can point you to an appropriate for to state your objections, but this is not the place. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Satire that fools people is still satire

The last major discussion about this appears to be without a consensus.

Right now, the inclusion criterion that appears in the lede is that the websites have to publish falsehoods "for purposes other than news satire". This is a statement about intent, which makes it quite difficult for us to be objective. Part of the discussion above, for example, proposes that "how funny a site is" (in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor) should be factored into how we classify it. Skimming through the edit history, it appears that a different inclusion criterion is being used in practice:

These are sites which have been referred to as "fake news" by at least one reliable source.

The problem, of course, is that for many of these, it is possible to find them referred to as "news satire" by at least one reliable source as well. Moreover, we would do well to acknowledge that the two are often conflated because of the same click-driven environment that allows fake news to thrive in the first place. "Fake news" has been a hot topic since 2016. For stories that are remotely close to that topic, it is clearly profitable to work that term into the reporting many times. At the very least, if we want to continue to distinguish between fake news and satire, we must ensure that the sources we use also make that distinction. Look at all the articles that say The Onion is fake news.

I've made a list of sites with a "satire / fauxtire" disclaimer. For each of these, we should be able to find sources that apply both labels if we don't have them in the chart already. Most of them used to be in the self-admitted section, which was deleted along with the disputed section after a short discussion. For the record, I think the arguments for removing the former were not as strong as those for the latter.

  • Bizstandardnews.com: The first source tells a story of how the site happened to be right by accident and calls it satirical. All other sources are Snopes which is about verifying factual accuracy, not the intent of the piece.
  • Celebtricity: The second Washington Post source mentions typos and disclaimers on every page, probably to imply that no one should fall for it. The third one calls it a "hoax celeb gossip site".
  • Empire News: One of many entries cited to (1). This source is useful for keeping track of which sites have disclaimers (or did at one point like Stuppid and Boston Tribune). Since it's a listicle, it includes many borderline entries.
  • Empire Sports: One of many entries cited to (2). Although this article is critical of the sites it discusses, it announces that it is all about "satire news sites".
  • Global Associated News: Also cited to (2). This probably shouldn't be here anyway since it's a generator which makes it as honest or dishonest as the person who uses it.
  • Huzlers: Cited to both (1) and (2). There is also a value-laden Christian Post article which mentions the disclaimer and doesn't seem like a good source.
  • KMT 11: Sources widely acknowledge its "fantasy news" disclaimer. The fourth one rejects this claim calling it "bogus".
  • Last Line of Defence: Snopes appears to call it "disreputable". The Politifact source calls it a "parody" once.
  • National Report: This one is interesting because reliable sources have called it a satirical site even though some of Paul Horner's other websites certainly qualify as fake news. Sources include (1) and an interview opining that the site "today" is satire. There is also a Columbia Journalism Review essay which says that sites such as this are "nothing like the Onion" but doesn't go into further detail.
  • News Buzz Daily: Also cited to (1).
  • News Nerd: Also cited to (2). The paragraph about it states that someone who believes this site has only himself to blame. This suggests that we should put more emphasis on journalists not doing their due diligence when false stories are propagated.
  • React 365: Also cited to (1). It is a generator as well.
  • World News Daily Report: Obviously still disputed. A Buzzfeed listicle is not very good sourcing.

(1): Snopes Field Guide (2): New Republic

So what should we do about these websites? And how do we resolve the apparent tension in the sources? I hope the people who were debating this a year ago are willing to continue. Connor Behan (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good discussion to have but I disagree. If there are independent reliable sources that say these sites are satire rather than fake news, then that should be noted. However in the cases that you cite you're looking at what these sites are calling themselves. This fits squarely into WP:ABOUTSELF, and these sources' disclaimers are plainly self-serving. In fact, some of the independent sources that you yourself have cited to verify some of these disclaimers explain that these sites are fake news sites in spite of their self-serving disclaimers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
More than that. If independent RS says that these sites are satire then they should be removed from the list. The only exception would be if those sources are in a clear minority. I.e. if most others not only call the sites "fake news" but indicate that they are using the term to mean "non-satirical fake news" the same way we are. A "satirical intent" disclaimer certainly could be a lie but we only get hard evidence of that in rare cases. E.g. when the disclaimer is in tiny print / obscurely coloured text or when there is typosquatting. Politifact and CJR are the main sources I can think of which characterize these disclaimers as disingenuous. However, this is based on nothing more than Occam's razor. It would therefore be more appropriate to attribute this WP:LABEL instead of saying that Wikipedia agrees with it. Connor Behan (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You and I have different takes on this. I'm not going to put any stock in what any of these websites put into their disclaimers or otherwise self-publish, and I'm not going to support any removals from the list based on such first-party sources. If you put together a list of these sites that independent sources label as satirical (in their own voice) then I'll take a look at it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You're right that I put some stock in disclaimers. Even if they are also self-serving, they give people a single click method to make sure they are not being deceived. However, this is a discussion for later. I just want to focus on independent sources right now since that is the most productive starting point. A search turned up these labels.
The quotation marks are mine by the way. Connor Behan (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
And regarding your analogy to The Onion, the sources you link to are either unreliable (in the case of the BI headline) or independently say that The Onion is satire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
To add on, I'd be happy to discuss these sites individually in separate threads. There may well be some changes to be made. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspect that some of these 13 sites are more borderline than others. I will read some more and then start a thread about the ones where the case for moving them is the strongest. Connor Behan (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the independent sites you point to aren't reliable. There are a few in there that are worthy of consideration. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So I guess you consider Realorsatire.com, Mediabiasfactcheck.com, Fakenewscodex.com, Hoaxslayer.com and school library guides to be unreliable? That's fine but we still have Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, Politifact.com, The Washington Post, The Epoch Times, The Hollywood Reporter and two books on the subject. We also have Isitfakenews.com, a blog that gives a handy amalgamation of many sources that are not blogs. Compare this to the number of sources that the article currently has saying that the bold websites are fake news rather than satire in their own voice. I count 0, 1, 2, 0, 2, 3, 3, 0, 1 respectively. Connor Behan (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes that's exactly the list of outlets I do/don't consider generally reliable... Would you mind making a new list that just includes the Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, Politifact.com, The Washington Post, The Epoch Times, The Hollywood Reporter and/or two books sources? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just hard to address these issues when half the sources you linked to were unreliable. Also I'm not the only one who's been curating the list... Is there anyone else watching who wants to weigh in? Anyone? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Stop using fake news sites as references, it makes Wikipedia look like 'fake news'. 2001:569:BD10:5E00:EC56:30BC:22C1:F4DB (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Rambling with no specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, can you please me more specific? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Biz Standard, Empire News, Last Line, National Report and News Nerd

Sources referring to these as humour sites are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I think this is significant enough to change how we list them.

I was arguing for removal before but I'm not completely comfortable with that anymore. One reason is that there would be no place to put them, since the requirement for a dedicated article is currently being enforced on list of satirical news websites. Another reason is that a genre including these websites called "fauxtire" or "bad satire" is starting to be recognized. We can probably find some publications covering the debate over whether this is closer to satire or fake news. So I think it would be best to start a section for entries where reliable sources are divided on how to classify them.

Longer term, we might want to look at Politifact, MetaCert] and OpenSources. Unlike the other sources where we find decentralized opinions (e.g. the first Washington Post writer says X is satire, the second Washington Post writer says X is fake news), these three have databases which render an opinion of the publication as a whole. Connor Behan (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm really torn about this. The trouble is that there seems to be a huge difference between sites like The Onion, which preexisted the recent fake news brouhaha and take pains to broadcast their satirical nature, and some of the clickbait sites at issue here that appear to present serious, non-humorous stories, include "we're satire" in their disclaimers, and perhaps are described by an independent source as satirical as proof that a false story is fake. Aside from that broader issue, the PolitiFact and Hollywood Reporter sources do not describe these sites as satire in their own voice and cannot be used for that purpose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There are a couple problems with that: The Onion appears not to have a disclaimer right now and all of these sites except The Last Line of Defense were founded before 2016. Even for sites founded after, it's hardly fair for us to say that a site trying to follow the model of The Onion got started too late and missed its chance to be labelled as satirical. But I agree that in all likelihood, some of these sites are hoping that people do not notice their disclaimers. That's why the separate section I'm proposing can be as scathing as it wants in suggesting that fauxtire is little more than fake news. I.e. we can cite articles like these ones as long as we ultimately let the reader decide.
I'm not suggesting that we base any decisions on when I site started. I'm saying that the difference between these two types of sites is pretty stark, and that troubles me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there is quite a difference. But a section about these websites can be written in a way that gives due weight to that concern. I'd like to make a subsection of this article with its own list for Biz Standard, National Report and News Nerd. Perhaps Empire News as well given the bureaucratic hurdle for moving it. The list would be prefaced with a description of how these sites blur the line between "satire" and "fake news" and would include sources on both sides of the debate for which camp they should be placed in. Connor Behan (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Now about those two links. The PolitiFact article says "parody" twice outside quotation marks but both of those sentences involve "Blair". So I guess it's not safe for us to assume that it's the publication's own voice. However, the Hollywood Reporter story opens by calling The News Nerd an "Onion-esque parody site" which I think could not be any more clear. Connor Behan (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Good call on the Hollywood Reporter source. I was searching for "satir" but didn't consider "parod". But the PolitiFact source still attributes the parody statements to the site's author, so we can't use that. ("Blair discussed the details of his brand of political parody." "Blair ... says he designed his parody site..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This dichotomy is well described by Delaney & Madigan, which does support the case that Empire News should be excluded from this list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And btw Empire News is definitely notable so if it is indeed satirical then it belongs at List of satirical news websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
We should call User:KalHolmann then to see if this site without its own article can be added to it. Connor Behan (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The existence of an article should never be a criterion. However notability can be (and often is). The two are often confused. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Connor Behan, as I informed you via edit summary on 17 May 2018, items on the List of satirical news websites "must have a dedicated Wikipedia page. See Talk:List of satirical news websites#Website notability guidelines." If you have a bone to pick regarding those guidelines—which I had no part in formulating—please do it on the appropriate talk page, not here. KalHolmann (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Intro needs work

The discussions I've read so far have mostly been arguments over specific sites like WNDR, InfoWars and CNN. So perhaps you can point out how my recent edit went against previous consensus. The motivation was to more clearly define the sources that we are following and to make it easier to incorporate a section for Biz Standard, Empire News, National Report and News Nerd should we decide to do that. Here is some further explanation.

1. I tried to keep all the main content. The part about spoofing attacks and typosquatting is still there but moved down. The part about fake news sites using deception to spread on social media and drive web traffic is still there but moved up. The summary of the NYT source, while condensed a bit, still has the points about clickbait / tabloid style and partisan fake news exploding after 2016.

2. I removed an unsupported sentence; "most fake news sites are portrayed to be spinoffs of other news sites..." does not sound right and it's not in the Business Insider source.

3. I added a couple new things that seemed interesting. One is a Snopes article saying that "fake news" is sometimes used to describe "bad news" and should not be. Another is commentary by some notable people saying that it is a slippery slope when large organizations censor fake news. If the latter is too off-topic, I'm okay with removing it.

4. I tried to mention fact-checking sources earlier. The first sentence says that we require sties in this list to be debunked by fact checkers. Even if we didn't say this before, it was definitely the main criterion as this confirms that a site is fake and also establishes notability. Also, the second sentence of "tracking" mentions Snopes, PolitiFact and FactCheck as these are some of the most trusted sources. It also presents these as the best examples of a broader movement by mentioning that MetaCert and Zimdars are engaged in similar fact checking. Perhaps I should've clarified that the latter two are not as reliable.

5. I made some subtle changes to the tone. I said that fake news is "usually published" with the above goal instead of just "published" because this is the safest conclusion. See "the reasons aren't always apparent" in a reliable source and various social experiments. I also said the sites were "most often distinguished" from satire instead of just "distinguished" because this should be part of how we choose sources. A site that is just like Snopes but calls everything "fake news" including The Onion would not be reliable for our purposes. Finally it is better to say "intend to profit from humour" than "is humorous" because there is no one sense of humour and sometimes none of these jokes are written well enough to work. We also should not pretend that only fake news can be for-profit.

The "definition" section in the current version is not aptly named since it ends by saying that the definition has become more vague. This will become even more true once we add the Mikkelson Snopes piece which is very relevant. And, as our last discussion shows, the definition is flexible enough that for at least three sites, some RSs say "fake" and other RSs say "satire". It would be better to say we are following sources that are mostly on the same page instead of following a precise definition. Connor Behan (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the intro was never very good but I'm not excited about the direction you took it. Broadly:
1. Even before your edit there was too much "commentary" for a list article. We already have an article about Fake news, so there's no need for all the observations about fake news generally. Sure there's been some notable sources discussing what fake news is and how the term has been distorted by the political discourse, but as you say, all of that just confuses readers and raises questions about our inclusion criteria. My suggestion is that we simply cut the entire section named "Definition" (what you renamed to "Tracking"). There's no benefit to having that information here when it can and should be included in fake news if it's not already. I believe this subsumes your points 2, 3, and 5. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Getting rid of the section sounds good, but then I would add a slight mention of sources to the first couple sentences. Maybe something like the following (incorporating your second comment) would help. "This is a list of fake news websites that have spread hoaxes and disinformation multiple times according to journalists. Some of them have additionally had their stories debunked by fact-checking organizations such as Snopes, PolitiFact or FactCheck." My main concern, whether we solve it with a long intro or a short one, is being upfront about the fact that identifying fake news is more of an art than a science. Connor Behan (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. Whose identifying fake news? Ours, or our sources'? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources. But I think it's good to mention three of the best examples in the lede so people know where to look if they are wondering what gets a site landed on this list. Connor Behan (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Regarding our inclusion criteria and your point 4, you changed them significantly, probably inadvertently. Over the course of many, many discussions here there has been a consensus that we're including all sites that (1) have been identified by reliable sources as fake news, and (2) are not obviously satire. You made three changes that may be just semantics, but they're important. First, you changed the criteria to require that sources be from "fact-checking organizations," whatever that means. I don't know if that's intended narrower than reliable sources, but it shouldn't be. We should apply the normal encyclopedia-wide sourcing standard. Second, you added "debunked," which suggests that the source must actually prove the hoaxes or disinformation. If a reliable sources says a site is fake news, then currently it gets included; there's no need for the source to back up its claim. Adding a "debunking" requirement would lead to the removal of a great many sites from the list. Third, you changed the criteria to allow the inclusion of a site when a single one of its stories has been reliably described as fake news. We've been trying to avoid including sites that have isolated articles described this way and only include sites for which there's a broader statement about the site's fakeness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

New additions

Connor, in the last few days you added a whole bunch of sources that don't meet our inclusion criteria (along with some that do). Remember we're only including sites that are described by reliable sources as fake news sites and that aren't satire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right... I got a bit carried away. I have now removed half of the websites that I tried to add before. I don't think any of them were satire, but I agree that the sourcing was not enough to include them. Being called out for publishing a "fake news story" is only enough to qualify something as a "fake news site" if it happens repeatedly. The next thing I will try to do is trim the commentary that you said was too long. Connor Behan (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

libertyinfonews.com

I found this fake news website www.libertyinfonews.com, found a link on Twitter, I checked it out, found it was hosted by WordPress, then I checked the Side-Menu and it has a Sample Page on it. It's obviously fake. Nickolas Gonzales (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We'd need an independent reliable source that expressly identifies libertyinfonews.com as a fake news site before we could include it on the list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

www.bbcnewshub.com

Is this a fake news website? or site pretending to be BBC? Different controversial view point is spread around through watts-app using this website as source. I searched internet & was not able to find any conclusive evidence regarding this site's authenticity. Can any one please check?117.194.163.24 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems likely fake to me, but I couldn't find a reliable source saying so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Freedom's Final Stand and USA Television

Connor Behan, I don't understand some of the removals you made in this edit. I haven't gone through them all, but why did you remove Freedom's Final Stand and USA Television? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The advice from you that guided that edit was "We've been trying to avoid including sites that have isolated articles described this way and only include sites for which there's a broader statement about the site's fakeness." Perhaps I didn't draw the line in the right place but a quick search turned up only that one FactCheck source for the isolated story on USA Television. So I concluded that the site is either not broadly fake or not very notable. I suspect that the same could be said about Freedom's Final Stand but I actually removed it by mistake, so feel free to add it back. The intent was to preserve every item that had been added by someone else. I just got thrown off by Freedom's Final Stand because my edit changed the name of the reference for it. Connor Behan (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not being very active this month, by the way. Soon I hope to revisit the lede since it still does not make our inclusion criteria clear. Everyone should be able to guess that we follow reliable sources. But we need to say what side we err on when one RS says "fake news site" and another RS says "not a fake news site". Connor Behan (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. I think we had a miscommunication. When I made that comment I didn't mean to suggest that there must be multiple sources to support any inclusion on the list. I meant that a source must make a broader statement about the site then saying that a single story was fake news. This is because it's at least theoretically possible for a legitimate news site to have an isolated fake news story. So, if the source says, "This story, which appeared on xyz.com, was fake news," then that's not enough to say xyz.com is a fake news site. But if the source says, "This story appeared on the fake news site xyz.com," then that would be sufficient. This might seem like a technical difference, but it's important; one source is making a conclusion about a story, while the other is making a conclusion about a website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Truthfeed.com and TruthFeedNews.com

@Jay Rush: Before removing these two cites, which Harvard's Berkmen Klein Center calls a fake news website, please get in touch with me. That's not how Wikipedia works. If someone reverts it, you should first attempt to form consensus on this talk page before reinstating the contested material (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). The Bloomberg source seems usable to me, but its statements appear to be general... Let's see the input of other editors; if you have more sources please also mention them here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


We can argue semantics until the cows come home, but no matter how you slice it, TruthFeed and TruthFeedNews are FAKE NEWS websites. Harvard says so, Bloomberg Business Week Says So, Snopes.com (a FACT CHECKING site) says so, and they should be included in this list. Just because you don't see the words "FAKE NEWS" referenced, doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. The difference between human beings and animals is that we can use our judgement - and by any measure - those sites should be on this list. Snopes.com found that TruthFeed habitually makes up fictional stories "DACA Recipients burned an American Flag," "Black Lives Matter beat a homeless veteran," "Rep. Adam Schiff's sister is married to George Soros son," and "Chris Matthews Endorses Donald Trump." If you want more I can give you more. If you search for TruthFeed on Snopes website there are two pages of stories that have been completely debunked.

If what I've cited is insufficient, rather than have a protracted argument about this, we must escalate this disagreement to the next level. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Rush (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jay Rush: You seem to be under the impression that by yelling loud enough and obnoxiously enough, you'll get your way. That's not the way to get things done on Wikipedia.
Looking through your references, I see that Snopes described two articles published by TruthFeed as false. Snopes does describe the site as a "repeat offender" (meaning it has happened more than once) but does NOT describe the site as fake news. Given that reputation, I'd refuse to accept them as a reliable source, but that's a long way from listing them as a fake news website. They might well be, but the sources you have provided don't say they are - and that's key, at Wikipedia we only document what others report. Our own opinions aren't supposed to get into the articles.
As for your your comment ...we must escalate this disagreement to the next level, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a list page, not an article. At an article where TruthFeed was being discussed, the Snopes reference might well be enough to refer to it as a fake news source in passing. But this is a list. This is supposed to contain the most notable fake news sites. It's not intended to be a indiscriminate list of every fake news site on the internet. So, for the purposes of keeping this list at a readable level, and to ensure the best quality information in it, the editors who have been working on this page have agreed that, to include a site in this list, we need reliable sources explicitly calling them a "fake news site". The Snopes article establishes that they are "repeat offenders" when it comes to fake news stories, but numerous sites (some otherwise reliable and some not) which are not predominantly fake news sites have -on more than one occasion- repeated a fake news story. So it is not enough to include them here.
Also, your repeated threats will NOT work. The only possible outcome of an editor taking such a belligerent stance is the blocking of that editor. No-one is even remotely afraid of you, or in the slightest doubt what will be the outcome if you try to make good on your threats. So knock it the fuck off, grow up and engage like an adult. You have been repeatedly warned already. It's time you listened to those warnings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

changescamming.net silentnomoreph.com pinoyakoblog.com 2800:A4:1760:A900:1961:2216:C7FD:E5ED (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided a reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

independent.co.uk Viktorhougaardj (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

yournewswire.com Snopes references

Snopes has a long list of debunked-stories that originated at yournewswire. https://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/

ex:

I don't have an account, but what is the recommended approach for adding this as a reference? Just link to https://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/, or individually link to several of the examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:4:2A1B (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This list isn't for debunked stories, it's for publications which are cited specifically as fake news publications. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In that case, we should cite any one of the individual Snopes articles that refer to YourNewsWire specifically as "fake news" then?
ex:
Also, doing some additional digging shows Politifact also referring to it as fake news.
It's also on a fake-news list from factcheck.org: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/websites-post-fake-satirical-stories/
There's also this extensive article by Poynter noting that it has been factchecked by Snopes/Factcheck.org/Politifact/Associated Press more frequently than any other site in 2017-2018: https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checkers-have-debunked-fake-news-site-80-times-its-still-publishing-facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:4:562F (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The more I dig, the more references I find to YourNewsWire as a fake-news site. This article notes that it is the second biggest publisher of popular fake stories that spread on Facebook in 2017: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/these-are-50-of-the-biggest-fake-news-hits-on-facebook-in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:4:562F (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV in the Philippine section

This list is biased in favor of the Philippine opposition. But it is well known that either side is spreading fake news.[citation needed]

Rappler.com has been caught spereading fake news itself[citation needed], so at least it should not be used as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan999 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've annotated your comment. Please take these annotations as literal requests and provide reliable sources supporting those statements, and we will adjust the list accordingly. If there are no reliable sources supporting them, then nothing will be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now-defunct NewsBuzzDaily needs to be removed from the "List of Fake News Sites"

NewsBuzzDaily.com has been defunct for quite a while. It used to be a fake news site. It is still on the list. I bought the domain after it was defunct, and it will eventually be redirected to a valid news site. My degree is in Journalism. How do I update this list of fake news sites? I would like NewsBuzzDaily to be removed from the list. Thank you. LorBailey (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)LorBailey

Thanks LorBailey. I've indicated in the table that this site is defunct. It should remain on this list, though, as people could still come across the site's content through screenshots, archived pages, citations, and so on. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is the largest hoax on the wiki

A traditional and accessed site like global research is listed, used as a basis for news agencies without tradition or quality as snopes and in addition does not list criminal sites like JDL and Kavkaz Center. Funny also do not cite Mídia Sem Máscara that released fake news from URSAL in full Brazilian election. Please check this out too. 2804:14C:5BB5:915D:F418:4C9B:923D:51C9 (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

globalresearch.org(or globalresearch.ca) is a conspiracy theory website. There's no question about that. Hell, on their front page right now is the claim that the War on Terror was a secret move by Neoconservatives to end Democracy and usher in a New World Order™. I think you may be thinking of globalsecurity.org, which is a fairly well respected site that is frequently used by news agencies for research. I have no idea what you mean by "without tradition or quality as snopes" though. You may want to re-phrase that. As for any additions to this list, we need reliable sources to support them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
and the MBL? [1]. 2804:14C:5BB5:83A3:3C94:7494:E367:82D (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What about it? This list is not a copypasta from the FB blacklist, nor is Wikipedia responsible for anything Facebook does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to snopes.com. The question is on the internet everything that thrives is modinha passageira. In Portugal and in Brazil, Global Research is a source and I have the option that countries such as Iceland, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Russia accept all these universities. And USP, the best Latin American university, has listed some fake news sites.: [9] 2804:14C:5BB5:83A3:3C94:7494:E367:82D (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You were referring to snopes.com without mentioning snopes.com, but rather directly saying "what about Y" which is not snopes.com, and linking to a Portuguese-language website running a story about some sites getting "caught up" in a Facebook.com block? That's completely nonsensical.
globalresearch.org is a fake news site, this is established beyond all reasonable doubt. Indeed, it is notorious for it's fake news. Right now, in it's "science" section, one of the top stories is a CS-laden piece about how the US military uses hurricanes and typhoons as weapons. It's ludicrous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
How will we write about history if every day at least one big site is accused of fake news? Remember that only futile things like Clodovil Henandez and the tacky one can be judged by this criterion if it is something encyclopedic. 2804:14C:5BB5:83A3:3C94:7494:E367:82D (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So perhaps for consistency we should list Veja magazine as fake news as well. 2804:14C:5BB5:83A3:3C94:7494:E367:82D (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, see WP:POINT and WP:V. If you cannot provide reliable sources identifying a site as a fake news site, you may not add it to this list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

And here?187.20.109.19 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to close this section if you don't start making a coherent point. I understand that English may be your second language, but you're not proposing any concrete changes to this article except for one WP:POINTy suggestion that will never fly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls, people. We've got one user who's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and another who's dignifying their ridiculous arguments by prolonging this discussion unnecessarily. Smartyllama (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:DONTFEED is an essay. WP:AGF is a policy, and this editor clearly has some difficulties with English. So kindly fuck off with your 3-days-late shitty advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Facebook exclui páginas de 'rede de desinformação'; MBL fala em 'censura'". G1. 2018-07-25. Retrieved 2018-07-25.

CNN, again, again

FYI to those editors who wish to include CNN on this list, please review previous discussions: 1,2, 3, 4,5, and 6. Pegnawl (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for putting this message at the top in a FAQ type box so that it does not get archived and is permanently shown. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That would be a neat trick! If you can, great - if not, I see the archival notice mentions "Sections without timestamps are not archived." How does one create a section without a time stamp? Pegnawl (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I can see how to make a FAQ by copying the way it is done on another page. I'm going to try something. If it doesn't work, I'll self-revert. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That worked well and it was easier than I expected. Is everybody happy with the way I have worded it? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Well done! Looks good to me. Pegnawl (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Subjective at best

This article contains a list of some unreliable news outlets, but also contains sites that promote a "non-mainstream" viewpoint. The addition of these sites weakens the legitimacy of this article from a neutral point of view. There are citations justifying additions to this list that are arguably opinion-based, rather than news. I think this page should be considered for removal. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? Pegnawl (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
6 months ago I mentioned 5-10 sites that definitely don't belong. A reliable source saying "WNDR is fake news" is not good enough when there are also reliable sources saying "WNDR is satire". Note that I don't actually think it's possible for a source to be "reliable" in the inherently subjective matter of defining satire. The objective option (looking for a disclaimer) has unfortunately been vetoed in the past. Connor Behan (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Why was it vetoed? That seems like a reasonable proposal to distinguish satire from fake news. The fact that some people can't be bothered to read a clearly-posted disclaimer and attempt to share satire as real news is not the satirical site's fault. What's next, we'll list The Onion as fake news? I mean, people have tried to pass them off as real news too. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Odisha TV

I have removed the entry for Odisha TV. The sources noted allegations of fake news and lawsuits, but didn't call the TV channel (or its website) a "fake news website", with the possible exception of one YouTube video. Google News searches turned up empty. Huon (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Memebuster as a citation source?

Both CNN and International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) signatory Vera Files use Memebuster as a source for their fact-checking/anti-fake news articles. Can we then use Memebuster as a citation source? You'll notice that Memebuster has no editorial board in their About section, but there's a reason for this. Vera Files once reached out to the Memebuster staff about their identities, but the authors/staff were adamant about their anonymity/privacy for fear of reprisal from trolls/fake news purveyors. -Object404 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The first link does not state that CNN uses Memebuster, but rather contains a footnote that lists Memebuster among several other websites which debunk fake news. That amounts to a decent endorsement, especially considering that they also recommend the Vera Files, which itself cites Memebuster several times in the link you provided. Absent any good arguments to the contrary, I don't see why it couldn't be used as an RS for this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Any more inputs or objections? If there are none in the next week, I'll start re-adding entries sourced from Memebuster. -Object404 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC

These are the true fake propaganda news outlets! Be aware. Don't be fooled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotliesTellthetruth (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No these are the reliable ones. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont' think Gateway Pundit belongs on this list

Yes, it is sensational, but then so is the Mail. Yes, they have printed some false stories, but then so has Buzzfeed recently. In fact any full-time news organization that publishes >5 stories a day is going to make mistakes. The fact that I could footnote a couple of them doesn't make Buzzfeed a fake news outlet. Low quality? Maybe.

The New York Times published dozens of stories by Jayson Blair that were 100% fake, made up reporting.

They are NOT cyber-squatting, NOT using a fake-looking logo to impersonate someone, NOT making up blatently false stories. I believe they had two reporters acredited to the White House Press Corp, in 2018.

Their inclusion in this list strikes me as a POV failure. It's a very opinionated Right Wing site, and it's a POV failure for us that we are including them in this list, but not similar Left leaning sites, that have made an equal number of errors. It is the way that Wikipedia critics expect us to fail, and we are living down to the stereotype. ZeroXero (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion on what qualifies as a fake news site doesn't matter. Reliable sources call them fake news, so they go on the list. Reliable sources do not call Buzzfeed News or the New York Times fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The two sources used on this list to support the claim Gateway Pundit is a fake news website, are as follows:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/31/media/gateway-pundit-robert-mueller-false-allegations/index.html

https://www.adweek.com/digital/study-finds-that-twitter-still-has-a-major-fake-news-problem/

The CNN source literally doesn't even mention the words "fake news", and is about one single story posted on the website, which was pulled as soon as doubts were expressed about its authenticity. The CNN piece isn't even prepared to go as far as saying the person who wrote the piece for GP was part of the attempt to promote a false story, they may have been duped by what seems to be the ultimate source of the apparently fabricated story, Surefire Intelligence (which is strangely missing from this list). To consider this evidence that CNN intends to label Gateway Pundit as fake news, you would have to surmise they believe the website was a willing party to the deception, or that fake news is a term that applies to anyone that doesn't fact check stories to a standard equivalent to reliable sources, neither of which CNN seems prepared to say explicitly here.

The AdWeek piece doesn't explicitly label Gateway Pundit as a "fake news" website, and the context of the story, a study about dodgy Twitter accounts and the websites they link to, makes it equally likely that the meaning of the reliable source is to label them as a propagator of conspiracy theories, not fake news. If there was not meant to be a difference between those two activities, then I surmise this reliable source would not bother to make the distinction. Either way, there is no explicit wording, so the idea this source means to label Gateway Pundit as fake news has to be inferred by the reader, which seems to be exactly what has happened in the mind of whoever added it to Wikipedia.

So, it seems obvious to me that the idea Gateway Pundit is a fake news website, according to this Wikipedia page, is not proven. As such, ironically, it appears to be a case of Wikipedia spreading fake news, or at the very least, putting their own spin on the words of reliable sources. The art of spinning facts to suit your own agenda being the later definition of fake news, the sort of thing the Mail might do, rather than the straight up publishing of lies for clicks (the original and long forgotten meaning of the term).

If, as is claimed, there is a reliable source out there which explicitly, or at least unambiguously, labels Gateway Pundit as a fake news website, it should be added to this page, so that readers might be able to believe the claims made by Wikipedia about an entity that Wikipedia quite clearly has every motivation to smear (if we generously assume the hobby project that is Wikipedia is rightly considered part of the mainstream media ecosystem, given their claimed reliance solely on what reliable sources say, and not their own interpretations or inventions of what is in said sources).

Grant Chester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Chester Wiki (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is bullshit. The CNN source immediately describes Gateway Pundit as "a blog prone to peddling conspiracy theories". If you can't understand how that's labeling them a fake news outlet, then you should probably not be trying to make changes to this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Either the definition is wrong ("These sites intentionally, but not necessarily solely, publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire") or Gateway Pundit does not belong here. The standard of proof, that they knowingly print hoaxes and disinformation, is not met by their political polar opposites (like CNN, which also has a significant record of printing "errors") is hardly evidence. CsikosLo (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No, The Gateway Pundit definitely belongs in this article list. The NewsGuard browser extension describes that website like this: "A far-right political website that publishes false and misleading content. The Gateway Pundit regularly distorts information and occasionally spreads conspiracy theories." Additionally, NewsGuard states that The Gateway Pundit severely violates basic standards of credibility and transparency. NewsGuard's full Nutritional Label report can be found here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV?

This seems like a pretty dubious project for Wikipedia. Should it at least be flagged with an NPOV warning? There are undoubtedly many fake news sites, but this seems like it will devolve into yet another partisan page on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:D801:7A96:FB93:C4BD (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is going to be worked on, how about more effort to include really serious fake news, like site operated by Russia or Qatar? Politico recently exposed veteranstoday.com as operated by Russia, for example. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:D801:7A96:FB93:C4BD (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247

Proud to be Black

This is a relevant Wall Street Journal story from last month about how Russian disinformation trolls created a fake news story at proudtobeblack.org and promoted it with Wikipedia, Twitter, and Tumblr in 2015. Use as you will. A cached version of the story is available on Google for those who don't have WSJ subscriptions. R2 (bleep) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Archived and fully readable link here. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

BuzzFeed

NBC, Tim Pool and The Daily Caller, all reliable sources, are stating that BuzzFeed clearly and intentionally lied about a piece of the Mueller investigation. A simple read of the links and reference points given shows this. The Continuous deletion of BuzzFeed from this article is suspicious, as it comes off as personal political bias instead of fact. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC) (User blocked for abusing multiple accounts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source for anything except attributed conservative opinions. Who is Tim Pool and what makes him a reliable source? The cited NBC News source says absolutely nothing about BuzzFeed "clearly and intentionally lying". It instead reports that there is a dispute over what different sources told different people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I concur that TDC is not a WP:RS. Misrepresenting what other sources say is not the way to do things. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, particularly not when attempting to moan about somebody else allegedly misrepresenting something or other... --DanielRigal (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Who is Tim Pool and what makes him a reliable source?" Try using Wikipedia's search features before asking suck questions. We have an article on Tim Pool. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You've just answered your own question. Some of his reporting for mainstream outlets may be citable as a reliable source; his self-edited videos published on YouTube are, of course, a self-published source without independent editorial control, and aren't usable as a reliable source. Given that the above user hasn't actually linked to anything Tim Pool said about this, we can't judge which is which. But judging by a quick search, it appears that Pool has made a number of YouTube videos harshly critical of BuzzFeed; if this is what CoopDEtat19 is referring to, it's irrelevant for our purposes. Literally anyone can say just about anything on YouTube. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Literally anyone can say just about anything on YouTube." Not entirely true. They publish a lot of crap, but have a deletion policy for "videos containing defamation, pornography, and material encouraging criminal conduct". In 2019, YouTube introduced new policy guidelines:
  • "In January 2019, YouTube said that it had introduced a new policy intended to stop recommending videos containing "content that could misinform users in harmful ways." YouTube gave flat earth theories, miracle cures, and 9/11 trutherism as examples.[1] Efforts within YouTube engineering to stop recommending borderline extremist videos falling just short of forbidden hate speech, and track their popularity were originally rejected because they could interfere with viewer engagement, but began being implemented in 2019.[2] Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make Pool an RS for this however. The issue is whether BuzzFeed is a fake news website. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Weill, Kelly (2019-01-25). "YouTube Tweaks Algorithm to Fight 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earthers, Miracle Cures". Retrieved 2019-01-29.
  2. ^ Bergen, Mark (April 2, 2019). "YouTube Executives Ignored Warnings, Letting Toxic Videos Run Rampant". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2 April 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Disclose.tv is not a news publisher in technical terms, but an online community ("platform") like reddit.com, Facebook or Twitter. All content on Disclose.tv is user-generated. Thus, please remove the page from the list as this is false. Therealhacker (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

USNews describes them as a fake news publication. Even though it is user generated, can it not count as a propaganda news outlet? (Not sure myself, just wondering since the source mentions them) – Þjarkur (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page List of fake news websites/Archive 6. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Orvilletalk 17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Could you please add following websites to your list.

publiszer.pl centrummedialne.pl kontrowersje.net wpolityce.pl

Please see below link to Oxford University junk news study, see table 7 of the document. https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/05/EU-Parliamentary-Elections-Supplement.pdf Mozgen1983 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page List of fake news websites/Archive 6. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Orvilletalk 17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Innovation Norway

Can someone who can read/translate those sources confirm that they unambiguously report IN as a fakes news website (as opposed to only criticizing that event)? Similar material also needs review at the Innovation Norway article itself. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Jeblad for adding an English source at the main article ([10]). "Senior official apologizes" - such is generally good sign that the outlet is not necessarily a fake news one. Most have done errors but the important is that they then issue errata and/or apologies. The article also doesn't call IN a fake news site but discusses fake news in a broader topic. I'll remove the entry from this list for now. —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

Disclose.tv is not a news publishing page at all, it is a platform for user-generated content like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc. In light of this please remove the false listing of this website on this Wikipedia page. 2A02:810D:600:6368:31C8:2390:651:CB4B (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Not done: The about page says they are "investigative citizen journalists" and that they are an alternative to: "Repressive governments, biased and omnipotent big technology giants, partisan fact checkers, gatekeeping search and social algorithms crafted to reflect the leanings of its creators as well as politically aligned mainstream media outlets shape our opinions and increasingly suppress, withhold, censor, de-monetize or de-platform alternative viewpoints which threaten a favored political, corporate, social or ethical agenda." O3000 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fake news sites

Disclose.tv is not a news publisher. It's much like facebook in that it's content is 100% user generated. Sgt slotter (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the site is WP:CANVASSING. But, please keep the discussion in one section. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

Aren't these people just a WordPress reddit page? There is nothing news (fake news or otherwise) about this domain. Users who join can just post what ever stupid shit they want here and let other people view and post stupid shit comments. If this site is consider a "news" site, then every UFO, Bigfoot, Moon Conspiracy site should be listed as a news site as well. This is just people having fun, and not running amok. Kelvington (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

On their Facebook site they claim to be a "news & media website". As you say, there is no editorial oversight. In addition to the USNews cite in the article, they are also on the Politifact fake news list.[11] We go by reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: I must be missing something because I can't see what website Kelvington is referring to. Please make sure to specify a requested edit in A → B format. Kelvington, if you were talking about Disclose TV then please cite Reliable sources for the edit. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

107.242.117.14 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Epoch News should be added. Reason they are just to oppose real news. You tube ads keep promoting this and needs to be informed. Just being opposition is not news.

Relevance

It looks like quite a bit of these entries are based on single instances of falsehoods. That is a standard no media outlet can meet. What exactly are the criteria for inclusion? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Defunct/down entries

To all contributors - please do not delete defunct/down/cybersquatted entries. I've seen instances where sites that were previously down went up again. Let's preserve them in the list for historical data & research purposes. Even when sites go down, they still leave trails that disinformation researchers can use. -Object404 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all!

I'd like to request for all contributors to add the URLs of the fake news websites to their entries (but don't hyperlink them so people don't accidentally click!) - this will help a lot in disinfo research. Thanks! -Object404 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

I would like to add two websites to the fake news site list: www.insiderfinancial.net www.wellstonjournal.com

These websites are deceivingly posting old news as new news (for unknown reasons, but presumably to get traffic). Spike3557 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources referring to them as such to add them. O3000 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
information Note: Setting this answered as  Not done, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Add OpIndia.com to the list. It was rejected by International Fact-Checking Network as a fact-checker on account of spreading fake news. Hardeepasrani (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There are some sources that can be used for this on the article OpIndia – Thjarkur (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done Please cite your sources in future request. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 00:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hardeepasrani, as per the source you have given, Opindia.com was rejected by International Fact-Checking Network as a fact-checker for poor methodology not for spreading fake news Divyam Seth (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?

This seems to be a valuable page. What is a good requirement for inclusion? Something called Summit News seems to fit the bill. At least one site that claims to unmask fake news sites lists it.[1] But is that site itself considered reliable enough to use as a source? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Summit News". Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved 20 March 2020.
Hi PaulinSaudi, unfortunately, Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source because it's one person's self-published website, and that person is not considered a subject-matter expert. If you can find a reliable source that describes Summit News as a fake news website, feel free to add it with the citation. At this moment, I don't see any inclusion requirements for this list other than verifiability. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Please add asia-review.com to the list of fake news website: - It was created as recently as the 19th Mar 2020 as per whois (https://1stdomains.nz/info/whois_query.php?domain=asia-review.com). - The website has no signed articles and a deliberate anti-Western, anti-US stance - The 'Terms of Use', 'Privacy Policy', 'Advertisement Policy' links don't work. - The Google+, Facebook, YouTube icons in the top right only point to these generic websites (except for Google+ which is a discontinued product). - Inpection of the code shows that this was created with WordPress using a Yoast plugin.

It initially popped up on scmp.com facebook site and was pushed by someone who aslo posted YouTube videos from dotdotnews (a fake news website banned by Facebook, but not by YouTube) which is linked to the Beijing Liaison Office in Hong Kong.

Thanks 163.47.107.219 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Unfortunately, this is original research. There needs to be a reliable source that supports this addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites/Archive_6&oldid=955508069"