Jump to content

Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Next News Network 24.107.182.23 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC) "The channel is run by anchor Gary Franchi, once a leading proponent of a conspiracy that claimed the US government was creating concentration camps for its citizens. It was the Next News Network that broadcast the fabricated claims about Bill Clinton raping a teenager, although Franchi insists he is not a fake news producer. (He tells me he prefers to see his channel as “commentating on conservative news and opinion”.)" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth

“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. 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.182.23 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I will not take the descriptions for the notes cell because it's a copy paste from the source provided. If you want it in there, you can paraphrase them. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 04:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Please add www.andromedacouncil.com to the Fake List Website.

This website has been intentionally publishing fake news and disinformation for the last 10 years. Every single post of this website has proved to be false. For example, if you read the latest post on the Corona Virus pandemic, he has said that the casualities are fake and called it a false flag. He has referred to a Dr Rashid Buttar, who has a very dubious background. This Dr Rashid Buttar was brought before the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners in 2007 for providing unapproved and ineffective therapies to four cancer patients, three of whom later died. Dr Buttar's videos have been recently taken down by Youtube for dangerous misinformation.

Andromeda council website has also referred to the Corona Virus Pandemic as a false flag in its April 4th announcement. There is also the fake news of rescuing and releasing 35927 children from 'China lake' in California. This representative of Andromeda Council is intentionally disseminating fake news and has put up videos of people from extremely dubious background. Other 'laughable claims' of Andromeda council have been Comet Ison being a Space ship with 'Alien beings' in it. His old posts and youtube videos on this are still up on Youtube.

Please add this website to the Fake News List, as he disseminates fake news every time some real situation has happened and refers to dubious people on his blog as evidence of his fake news. 2402:8100:30A6:632A:1:0:BDE0:66F (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable, independent sources that characterize the site in this way. Otherwise, this is original research, which can't be used. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Add to list - thejournal.ie a website based in Ireland that focuses on clickbait headlines 89.100.155.92 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm not really picking up on any of that when I reviewed our article on TheJournal.ie... El_C 11:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose adding Montana Daily Gazette to the list

The Montana Daily Gazette is named in a way reminiscent of the state's leading newspaper, the Billings Gazette, and of the long-established The Daily Gazette. Articles are credited to PUBLISHER rather than a particular author.

Montana Daily Gazette has been flagged by social media as fake news according to the site's own articles. However, reliable third-party assessments are in short supply. I've only found this and this even discussing the site.

Help or input is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SivArt (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Add American Herald to this list

This website masquarades as a news site, but is actually run by a Pro Trump super-pac https://www.salon.com/2020/08/12/pro-trump-news-site-is-run-by-trumps-super-pac--and-that-raises-legal-questions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:300:800:580A:BF6C:ACD2:DAAB (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

I request that Politifact be added to fake news list. This is based upon the countless examples where Poltifact's flawed methodology lead to declaring a fact as "fake news". Indeed Politifact has spread more misinformation than the so called "conspiracy theorists" it claims to debunked. Please see zebrafactcheck.com for a detailed list of Politifact's wrong rulings and propagation of fake news. Ciahaconsulting2020 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Zebrafact is self-published. We would need (preferably multiple) reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Kindly add "LibyaObserver" To the list. Thanks!

The LibyaObserver started as a blog, then morphed into a full blown news site. The catch here is, that this website talks about Libya, Sounds Libyan, but isnt Libyan. The website has been involved in propaganda since 2011 to defame Eastern based Administrative government in Libya during 2011, 2014, 2019 civil wars in Libya. It was heavily engaged in warping, distorting, and smear information against Haftar. The claim is that Haftar is a Soon to be dictator, but fails to mention that haftar is under mandate of the parliament, and that the government of accord that the website constantly advertises has expired and therefore required dismantling. The LibyaObserver is more of a information war tool used by Turks to create a narrative for "helping" its Turkish backed "government" ( which is semi Legal ) in Libya. Turkey is also conveniently occupying Libyan bases, despite completing its international mandate to "Intervene" and "rescue" the government of National accord. LibyaObserver has been involved in information war ( omitting ) Embarrasing information for the government of National accord, however intentionally targeting Benghazi. Please add LibyaObserver to the List, as it is a Turkish based war propaganda website, funded by Turks. Thank you. Biomax20 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

please examine the list of "fake News" outlets. 74.196.91.22 (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Lerant.proboards.com

Independently managed blog for active and retired New York Police Department personnel largely pro-Trump, anti Andrew Cuomo and anti Bill Deblasio, anti Black Lives Matter and perpetual re-posting of fake news and right wing conspiracy theories. 174.44.42.1 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 22:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Buffalo Chronicle

The source alleging Buffalo Chronicle is fake is only an opinion blog, and itself not a reliable source. There are other concerns with the page (lack of contact info, etc) but that shows low-budget journalism, not that the info is not reliable. Calling an unpopular source 'fake' is a common way to discredit unfavorable reporting, but without verified evidence the reports on the page are consistently or deliberately false, it doesn't rise to the standard to be included on this page. DeknMike (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

minus Removed in Special:Diff/989676332. Since the only secondary source cited for the entry is explicitly labeled as an opinion piece, I agree that the sourcing was not strong enough to classify Buffalo Chronicle as a fake news website. No comment on the reliability of Canadaland.​ — Newslinger talk 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

six websites lying despite obvious and proven evidence https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/video-doesnt-show-election-fraud-in-georgia/ https://time.com/5917732/georgia-election-disinformation/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/12/03/trump-lawsuits-challenging-election-michigan-arizona-pennsylvania-georgia/6425725002/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/12/four-viral-videos-falsely-suggest-voter-fraud-led-bidens-victory/ https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-election-board-member-fact-checks-fraud-claims/85-cf4b4a43-d14e-4254-9539-0df7d407ce6e https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-from-ga-does-not-show-suitcases-filled-with-ballots-pulled-from-under-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.167.11 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

I would like to add FAKENEWS-websites from Russia, Ukraine to the list/chart.

For example, antikor.com.ua - December 19 2014 the website published fakes about Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov having Panama citizenship and owning a villa in Mallorca(Spain).[1] antikor.com.ua is also known for publishing fake-news about Donetsk Jewish community leader J.Kellerman was killed in January 2015.[2] Because of antikor.com.ua having reputation of a fakenews-websource ukrainian Wikipedia administrators added the website to a blacklist of unrecommended sites.[3]

Sources: [1] - https://voxukraine.org/uk/fejk-u-avakova-ye-pasport-panami-ta-villa-na-majortsi/ [2] - http://vaadua.org/news/esli-feyk-zapuskayut-znachit-eto-komu-nuzhno-ieguda-kellerman-zhiv [3] - https://www.facebook.com/ntkrr/posts/10164542512315495 Mosha.yu (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2020

Can YOU add FAKENEWS-website antikor.com.ua to the list?

Mosha.yu (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)(UTC)

Sorry, I have no way of verifying it due to language barriers. Halfadaniel (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The categorization of a site as fake news depends on reliable sources that identify it as among those that "deliberately publish hoaxes and disinformation". A Facebook page and two blogs are not sufficient to make this judgment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading?

This Wikipedia post is misleading.It states that it list fake news sites. It does not list any sites that have been deemed fake by the American people, in the English language. I looked this up on a English language version of Wikipedia it seems like the author is using the title he chose to Intentionally mislead the English speaking people particularly of the USA to click on a source of foreign "fake news" which he can not site a single reference. Therefore his list does not exist as advertised. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt to "trick" people to believe that the author has compiled a list of fake news sites. As a matter of fact he has not it is unfounded and needs to be removed from Wikipedia to keep it a reliable and true source to find information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:2B04:70CB:D45D:6B97:1CB8:44E5 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

198.55.44.164 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
CNN SHOULD BE ON TOP OF THE LIST FOR BEING THE LARGEST FAKE NEWS MEDIA OUTLET IN THE WORLD!
 Not done: No reliable, independent source describes CNN as a purveyor of fake news. See the FAQ at the top of the page and provide reliable, published sources to support your request next time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

On OpIndia being considered fake news website.

The article mentions OpIndia being considered as a fake news site, but if the requisite is, as it's shown in the talk page, is any reliable independent source identifying it as fake news, then I don't think it can be considered as a fake news site, because the source-article cited itself is under the OPINION section, and doesn't rely on any secondary source then the writer's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

220.255.111.191 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

abc.com is not fake

It's not, which is why it's not here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS should all be added to this list. 2600:1002:B01B:244:44A0:684C:FB34:6153 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Per the definition:

"Fake news sites deliberately publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media"

Conflict:

Disclose TV is neither a "news publisher" nor a "news website," as this Wiki page falsely suggests. Disclose.tv does not "deliberately publish" anything, but it is a "non-partisan online community," a place for public moderated discussion, where all content is user-generated (like on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, or other online forums on the Internet).

Solution:

Please remove "Disclose TV" from the list.

X/ Disclose TV

Y/

References:

https://www.disclose.tv/about

"Disclose.tv is a non-partisan online community of like-minded users who observe together how world events unfold in the great theater of our time. Our members help each other to gain true insight into what is actually happening as the world becomes increasingly complex."

https://www.disclose.tv/faq

"Civilized Place for Public Discussion: Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge, and interests through ongoing conversation."

Therealhacker (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In particular, reliable independent sources are required for any characterization of any source listed. We do not accept any sources self-characterization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

UmarMayKnow (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

I have not seen enough data to suggest that Disclose.tv is reliable for research or reporting purposes. That being said, I do not think that there was enough justification given to place this platform on a "List of fake news websites." The field that normally describes what makes the website unreliable is left blank next to Disclose.tv. Additionally, the two sources used against Disclose.tv (U.S. News[1] and Politifact[2]) are both websites that mass flag websites. They do not offer any clarifying or supporting details as to why any particular entry is on their website. USN only reports Disclose.tv as "Propaganda" while PolitiFact lists the site as "Fake news."

References

  1. ^ Dicker, Rachel (November 14, 2016). "Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on August 19, 2019. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
  2. ^ Gillin, Joshua (2018-04-20). "PolitiFact's guide to fake news websites and what they peddle". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2018-06-18.

This being said, I do not believe that this USN or Politifact articles are viable sources. They only argue in favor of a stated thesis, but do not offer supporting evidence. It is a bit like using an article that says "The Earth is round" to debunk flat-earth theories instead of a scientific overview that guides readers to a conclusion. But, since no one has provided an argument for how Disclose.tv is fake news (neither on Wikipedia nor the cited websites), we have, in the end, allowed the spreading of ill-sourced content.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

NewsMax is another fake news/QAnon type station. 67.241.133.17 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TGHL ↗ 🍁 23:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

CBSnews.com.co is now defunct. DarkNight0917 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Although the original owner has apparently died the registration does not expire until 2023 and as such is potentially a target for reusage. In addition, stories that originated there during Horner's use of this domain are still circulating. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera?

They have published a lot of fake news and have opposite stories in English and Arabic. DestroyerXyz1 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@DestroyerXyz1:, what reliable sources do you have for those claims? Do such sources state that Al Jazeera "deliberately publish(s) hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media?" How do you think anything has changed since its status has been debated the previous eight times? [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Please be specific. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This article

This entry should be listed as fake news. What's the correct style for referring back to a Wikipedia article? Jkp1187 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for this List

I have found that a number of sources are bad in that they do not adhere to any burden of proof. I removed two [2] sources that only contained mass lists of untrusted sources. There is no reference to what makes these sites untrustworthy. This means that if we want to use these sources, we just have to accept that these sources have accurately researched their position yet do not wish to explain their process. In citation, chain of evidence is important. We can not take on faith that these sources are accurate and instead must review sources to determine their validity. In pursuit of determining whether these sources were good, I found that they simply do not achieve a reasonable standard of proof. UmarMayKnow (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

Please add Grayzone to this list, it regularly publishes false stories including denial of the Uyghur genocide GoodOlBoyMeaningNoHarm (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Private Eye

This is incredibly undue for the "definition" section. We could perhaps discuss an entry in the list, but devoting a paragraph to it above the top of the list is absurd unless there are more and better sources somehow indicating that this dispute is central to the very concept of listing fake news websites. --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and for basically the same reasons. @Uamaol: perhaps you can help us understand your reasoning. It would help if you could follow WP:BRD and not re-include the content without consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Global Times inclusion is invalid

The three sources do not in any way confirm that Global Times belongs in this list. The first source source from buzzfeednews mentions two occasions where opeds have been written around the statements of a chinese official which ventured into a conspiracy around covid. This is not fake news and can at best be described as irresponsible editorials. The second source from tibet net aims to rebuke a specific article in Global Times. This outlet is controlled by an exile government in direct opposition to the owner of Global Times and as such disqualifies as a reputable source. The content doesn't either confirm the charge of fake news. The third is a hitpiece in the Economist, which aims to smear the newspaper for taking different stances than the Economist on internationally divisive and highly contested issues. None of these qualifies, and it's frankly evident that the attempt to include this newspaper here is nothing but a political outburst. Please remove this section after the article protection ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.82.120 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Zero Hedge?

I've never been to Zero Hedge But um... You might reconsider if that's your evidence:

The Wuhan Lab Leak theory is now suddenly mainstream and the New York Times wrote a story that up to 90% of all positive PCR tests for covid were wrong.

Even the Nobel Prize winning biologist who invented the PCR process railed against it being misused the exact way the NYT described it being misused. (Ironically he died several years ago and he was complaining about the way Fauci and company used it for HIV... Prescient.)

As fas as the Seth Rich thing, I'll say only that I can list 100 crazy ideas were were't allowed to believe that later turned out to be true. If they asked legit questions, it seems better than accepting the narrative we're told to accept. Again, look at the lab leak which was actively suppressed when it is obviously quite likely.

I doubt this will persuade anyone because people on the Internet refuse to accept they might have been wrong, but when you cite these examples to call them fake news it makes wikipedia look very very bad.

So I won't remove it because wikipedia has become a child's playground and whoever put it there will just revert it, but seriously, this makes wikipedia look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.121.31 (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it for reasons similar to those you suggest and because the reference provided does not really support calling them fake news to begin with. And their Twitter account has been restored, so the premise of the article is basically moot at this point. In addition, Wikipedia's ZeroHedge page does not refer to them as fake news in the lede. So Wikipedia has not determined by consensus that it is fake news. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bueller 007: The Wikipedia editor community has most definitely declared it by consensus to be either fake news or close enough (depends on the definition you use). They have been deprecated and listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Zero Hedge: "Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated." Removing Zero Hedge from List of fake news websites because you didn't see the word "fake" in Zero Hedge is an extremely weak argument. You are unlikely to see the word 'fake' placed publicly in the lead, as you suggest. Please read the three WP:RSN discussions (linked in the RSP entry). Platonk (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Platonk: Not everything on that RS list is "fake news". I don't have to explain that to you, right? Sites like InfoWars that contain "fake news" specifically say "fake news". And if you actually click through to those conversations at Reliable Sources where ZeroHedge is discussed, you will see that it is not listed as a reliable source because it is a BLOG that posts POLITICAL OPINIONS and it doesn't have much editorial oversight. That's it; that's why it's not an RS. That doesn't make it "fake news" more than any other blog. The summary in that RS table does not reflect the actual conversations that have been had. In those conversations, some people say it is "conspiratorial" without actually saying what conspiracies they're talking about (and when they do mention them, they usually cite things like the lab leak theory that are now mainstream). They're just asserting things without evidence. And as those discussions mention, almost all of the time, when a Wikipedia article has cited ZH in the past, there was a perfectly good replacement from a reliable source elsewhere. The reason for that being that ZeroHedge is not "fake news"; it was reporting the same thing as reliable sources were. And yes, as mentioned in those conversations, it is a source for cutting-edge financial gossip, rumours, etc. And Time magazine has ranked ZH as a top financial blog. You don't know what you're talking about. Until ZeroHedge is listed as "fake news" on the ZeroHedge page, it is inappropriate to list it here; it's just a way to sneak a classification of the site as "fake news" in through the backdoor. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Platonk: The Wikipedia editing community deciding that a source is generally unreliable or deprecated is not consensus to describe the source as "fake news" in its associated Wikipedia article (or add it to articlespace lists such as this one). One is an editorial decision based on editors' evaluations of a source reliability, which would be WP:OR if used in the mainspace. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.stalkerzone.org/western-historians-debunk-the-ideology-of-holodomor/

https://www.stalkerzone.org/western-historians-debunk-the-ideology-of-holodomor/ Absolute disgrace Russian propaganda. Please add this one too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.208.228 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

grayzone

The sources for inclusion of The Grayzone are opinion piece in New Politics, opinion piece in al-Jazeera, Democratic Socialists of America piece that never once says the word "fake", and factcheck.org that never once mentions Grayzone. Can somebody please explain to me how this is sufficient for inclusion on this list? nableezy - 23:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It isnt factcheck but rather a Pulse Media article as the fourth, and while that does support it that is the only one that does. nableezy - 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Real Raw News

I think Real Raw News should be listed. The site has published a range of fantastically, transparently false stories that are usually conspiratorial and involve public figures being arrested, tried, and executed. Politifact has profiled the site, and NewsGuard has declared the site "severely violates basic journalistic standards". LeadStories and Snopes have also debunked several of RRN's claims. Politifact is a RS per WP standards, as is Snopes.

None of these sites specifically use the phrase "fake news" to describe RRN (though some people interviewed in the Politifact story do). The site has a satire disclaimer. However, this disclaimer is buried in the site's "About Us" page and the author of all stories ("Michael Baxter", a pseudonym) claims in posts cited in the Politifact story that all stories on RRN are true, even though it is trivial to show that it is all made up. RRN gets enough circulation on Facebook that I think the record should state in WP's voice that it is a fake news site. Is everyone ok with this? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m ok with it Victor Grigas (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Almost two weeks and only this one comment, so I went ahead and added it. Mods, please revert if this was inappropriate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

List of fake news websites contains no "websites"

Here is our current lede:

"Fake news websites are those which intentionally, but not necessarily solely, publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire. Some of these sites use homograph spoofing attacks, typosquatting and other deceptive strategies similar to those used in phishing attacks to resemble genuine news outlets.

Here are examples from the current list: The Boston Tribune, Buffalo Chronicle, Conservative 101, Conservative Frontline, Bipartisan Report

Those are not websites. Those are proper names.

Using Bipartisan Report as an example, here is a website: https://bipartisanreport.com/ or maybe it is https://bi-partisanreport.com/, or https://bi-partisan.report.com/, etc.

What is the point of creating a list to identify fake news sites, that are called out for using homograph spoofing, if you are not going to specify the actual URL that points to the problem site. If you don't do that, then you may be casting a shadow over a legitimate site that has been hijacked by these fake news sites. The only way one can find the actual websites for the examples I listed, is to use Google, and then choose from the many different possible hits.

I strongly suggest that we include a column with the current relevant website URL for all listed entities. I am not volunteering to do this, because it is huge research project and there are many longtime editors that have contributed to this page in the past. I think adding the URL needs to be done as part of adding a new entity to the list so that it can specifically point to the organization that was researched with citations. Respectfully,  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of creating a list to identify fake news sites, that are called out for using homograph spoofing, if you are not going to specify the actual URL that points to the problem site. They do like ABCnews.com.co (defunct) and Bloomberg.ma (defunct) Breaking-CNN.com DrudgeReport.com.co and more
I strongly suggest that we include a column with the current relevant website URL for all listed entities. Strong disagree. Linking to bad information and COPYVIO websites creates problems to solve one thats already solved that Softlem (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, and certainly, some of the list are URLs. But I still think that The Boston Tribune, Buffalo Chronicle, Conservative 101, Conservative Frontline, Bipartisan Report (for example) are ambiguous. I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean by "Linking to bad information and COPYVIO websites creates problems to solve one thats already solved that." If the point of this article is to warn folks off certain bogus sites, then how is it not a good idea to let them know exactly which site you are talking about. In any case, it is just a suggestion that I hope will generate a little more feedback. Thanks.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean Some are WP:COPYLINK problems and the websites that need the URL listed can have it added to the name like the others, but I dont think it should be a new column with the current relevant website URL for all listed entities
But I still think that The Boston Tribune, Buffalo Chronicle, Conservative 101, Conservative Frontline, Bipartisan Report (for example) are ambiguous I think add them in the name column Softlem (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Example? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Then surely you can provide an actual example of one? Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
And it isn’t written by one editor but 520[20]. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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://wiki.riteme.site/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)
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)
hey if you're saying one user making one article isn't a concern, listing multiple sites that don't reference link, then I concede. 65.222.189.194 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There are 6.7 million articles, lots of them are written by one editor. You are reading too much into this. It's just an article, and really more of a list, there is no agenda here. Beach drifter (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Beach drifter 520 editors as I recall. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
IP editor is reading the page wrong
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
Thats source 100 not source 70 and none of the sites are cited to that link, As of December 2023, NewsGuard has tracked at least 583 news/information websites automatically generated by machine learning models that span 15 languages. is and the page supports that. The table at List_of_fake_news_websites#Generative_AI has the sources and is labeled Sources Softlem (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Large diff issue being tracked

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T355113

An issue with the ability of the WP:DIFF program to display the content of a diff related to a large edit in this article is being tracked at T355113. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article is currently #3 on the List of longest pages at Wikipedia, and is way, way, way overdue for a WP:SPLIT. I propose the following split series:

  1. List of corporate disinformation campaigns – from § Corporate disinformation campaigns (74kb)
  2. List of political disinformation campaigns – from § Political disinformation campaigns (105kb); excluding the United States, but including a 5kb summary of it
  3. List of political disinformation campaigns in the United States – from § United States (156kb)
  4. List of fake news websites by individuals – from § Campaigns by individuals (22kb)
  5. List of fake news troll farms – from § Troll farms (35kb)
  6. List of satirical fake news websites – from § Satire (39kb)

The numbers above are *only* the list content from the respective sections; the new articles will be larger, due to top and bottom matter that will need to be added. Subtracting those figures from this article will remove 431kb leaving roughly 225kb in this article for starters, but that number will grow because there will need to be brief sections added here summarizing the split off articles in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will get started on the split. TotalVibe945 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Unarchived, and bump, to forestall archiving while still under consideration on the article page. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Split two more sections; removed split notice from the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

More sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/media/russia-us-news-sites.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Victor Grigas (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Added to List of political disinformation website campaigns in Russia. TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a platform called Xin'an Newspaper because it has repeatedly published false articles in the lifestyle and emotional categories, hoping to generate coverage. This has caused a lot of misunderstanding and controversy.AYAO32269 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! This is an interesting example. Based on a translated version of the article, it describes what appear to be mainstream news sources with failed fact-checks that were later corrected. I would lean against adding this source to this list, which typically includes sites that involve some level of deception (which I don't see evidence of, per the article). TotalVibe945 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites/Archive_6&oldid=1221919627"