Talk:Fake news website/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lead section re-write needed
The second, third, and portions of the fourth paragraph of the lead section need to be completely re-written, as they don't represent a summary of the article. Lead sections are supposed to be broad summaries of the subject, not collections of attributed, specific quotes, reports, and viewpoints, even if those quotes, reports, and viewpoints. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- DrFleischman, I just did quite a bit of work on the lead, including addressing the concerns you expressed here. Let me know what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a tremendous improvement, thanks. Are there sources talking about how the fake news phenomenon has received increased scrutiny in recent months? If so, something about that should be included in the lead. And if those sources tie the increased scrutiny to the U.S. presidential election, then something about the election belongs in the lead as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the sources used (I've read most of them, but not all, and it's been a few weeks for most of them) talk about the ramp-up of coverage and attention, though it shouldn't be too hard to find one that does (I know I listened to an NPR piece that mentioned it). I'm at work though, so hunting for new sources isn't something I can take the time to do right now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that the shorter lead is an improvement (still a bit of cite-overload though... can we summarize, rather than listing two dozen countries by name-with-attached-footnote?). However, although it reflects the current state of the article far better now, that current state *is* still a muddle which conflates distinct things:
- clickbait scammers who run fake news websites for making a living, e.g. ABCnews.com.co and the majority of the Macedonians
- partisan political and ideological operatives who sometimes run sites (but more often concentrate on comment spam or social media operations or other non-website-based techniques because unlike clickbait-scammers they are NOT primarily trying to make fast cash via pay-per-click infrastructure), e.g. Chacos and the guy from Romania who are -- at least partially -- motivated by politics as much as by clickbait-cash
- shadowy cracking groups and even-more-shadowy intelligence agencies involved in black propaganda and cyberwarfare (almost never have sites per se unless they are false fronts), with geopolitical nation-state motivations that they sometimes try to advance via fake-news-techniques
- Merkel is complaining about the second group primarily. Macleans is complaining about the first group, and most of the countermeasures that google cares to implement will be against the first group. Hillary Clinton is complaining about the third group, and to some extent the second group. MI6 is all about the third group. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the title of the article: It intentionally covers all of those, because they're all fake news. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about what wikipedia should summarize, I'm arguing about how we should summarize. Lumping everything together is a category error, we need to deal with separate subtopics in separate subsections of the article. And speaking of category errors, please note that the title is specifically fake-news-website, very much distinct from the DAB page fake news, and that an attempt to broaden the topic-definition failed. Talk:Fake_news_website/Archive_2#Requested_move_7_December_2016. You are correct that the current article *is* written as if the topic were fake-news, but the topic is actually fake-news-website. We ought to cover fake-news-website (clickbait scam) first, and then explain fake-news-story (influencer of opinion on social media) second, and then discuss fake-news-techniques (geopolitics) third, plus discuss countermeasures for each individually (different countermeasures necessary foreach of the different categories). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the lead or the body? Because this thread is specifically about the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Both -- the lead is as muddled as the body, since the lead now better-reflects the muddled body. But we can fix the lead first, then improve the body, or vice versa. So in that spirit, here is the current lede, stripped of footnotes and long lists of country-names:
Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news) deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation, using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial or other gain. Such sites have promoted political falsehoods in half a dozen countries. Many sites originate, or are promoted, from other countries.
- Right off the bat, it conflates fake-news-websites with hoax-news-stories. The ambiguous phrases "amplify their effect" does not specify whether it is talking about amplifying the effect of sites (clickbait cash) or of stories (influencing public opinion). Same ambiguity in the sentence about satire-site, which say "for financial or other gains". That 'other gains' was discussed above, further up the talkpage, as being a conflation-point. I would also note that 'seek to mislead' only applies to groups trying to influence public opinion -- clickbait scammers has a laser-focus upon 'seek to garner clicks' which is a fundamentally different motive. The satire-sites *also* seek to garner clicks, as does the mainstream news media, but Teh Onion et al are honest about their nature. Last sentences are the country-lists, and imply that fake-news-websites are fundamentally about 'promoting political falsehoods' which is not the case, and the final sentence again conflates fake-news-sites ('originate') with fake-news-stories ('promoted'). We ought to separate with precision, not conflate into a confusing blob. I can suggest better wording, but until we get consensus that conflation is happening and more crucially is to be avoided that seems pointless. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fine with trying to avoid conflation of different motives, e.g. clickbait versus propaganda, provided the sources support it of course, but having separate content in the lead section for fake news sites versus fake news stories seems like overkill to me, and I don't know if the distinction is supported by the sources either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Maclean's source I mentioned further down the talkpage clearly understands the distinction, and illustrates it well (nothing about propaganda nor about yellow journalism -- only concentrates on the narrow core clickbait-scam definition).[1] His exemplars are Coler and Horner, aka clickbait-hoax-sites, motivated by profit. He also explains how, if that is the motive, fake-news-stories are written. Similarly, look at the ArsTechnica articles on the Russian cracker stuff,[2] where they never once mention 'fake' anything (not their motive!), versus their older stuff about covert interrogation by undercover agents,[3] which ArsTechnica does call 'fake news' even though it is definitely a distinct meaning from the hoax-sites, and their considerably older stuff where ArsTechnica calls video news releases a type of 'fake news' even though it is a special subtype of propaganda.[4] When arstechnica *actually* talks about fake news, in the modern-neologism sense, they sometimes screw up, albeit arguably less badly than WaPo.[5] But they DO understand the difference between 'sites' and 'stories' very well methinks. Plenty of the "reliable" sources conflate things, of course: "largely false or purposefully false"[6] emphasis added; "definition...is broad" per Snopes.com direct quotation[7]; "blurs the definition... precision in defining what’s bunk—and, more importantly, what isn’t—is the first order of business, even if it comes at the expense of a good narrative. Otherwise, labeling something as 'fake' will quickly lose its punch."[8] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm fine with trying to avoid conflation of different motives, e.g. clickbait versus propaganda, provided the sources support it of course, but having separate content in the lead section for fake news sites versus fake news stories seems like overkill to me, and I don't know if the distinction is supported by the sources either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Both -- the lead is as muddled as the body, since the lead now better-reflects the muddled body. But we can fix the lead first, then improve the body, or vice versa. So in that spirit, here is the current lede, stripped of footnotes and long lists of country-names:
- Are you talking about the lead or the body? Because this thread is specifically about the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about what wikipedia should summarize, I'm arguing about how we should summarize. Lumping everything together is a category error, we need to deal with separate subtopics in separate subsections of the article. And speaking of category errors, please note that the title is specifically fake-news-website, very much distinct from the DAB page fake news, and that an attempt to broaden the topic-definition failed. Talk:Fake_news_website/Archive_2#Requested_move_7_December_2016. You are correct that the current article *is* written as if the topic were fake-news, but the topic is actually fake-news-website. We ought to cover fake-news-website (clickbait scam) first, and then explain fake-news-story (influencer of opinion on social media) second, and then discuss fake-news-techniques (geopolitics) third, plus discuss countermeasures for each individually (different countermeasures necessary foreach of the different categories). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the title of the article: It intentionally covers all of those, because they're all fake news. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a tremendous improvement, thanks. Are there sources talking about how the fake news phenomenon has received increased scrutiny in recent months? If so, something about that should be included in the lead. And if those sources tie the increased scrutiny to the U.S. presidential election, then something about the election belongs in the lead as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Literally adding the word "website" to the end of my last response would address your second concern without changing the meaning of that response in any appreciable way. As to the first: Why not create a "Types of fake news websites" section in draft space or even here and (using RSes, not your own intuition or research), describe the different types? You're saying there's a problem with this page, but you're not doing anything about it. You can add it on Sunday or an autoconfirmed editor can add it sooner, if it meets our standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to adding content to the lead about the recent increase in attention, should we also include some content summarizing how fake news is spread, what its impact has been, and what steps have been taken or proposed to stop it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. (No commentary, I just agree with this idea.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- See talkpage section below: how fake-news-stories are stopped/blocked/fought, is fundamentally different from how fake-news-websites are stopped/blocked/fought. Similarly, the impact of fake-news-websites is one thing, the impact of fake-news-stories is another. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. (No commentary, I just agree with this idea.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia bias — No mention of CNN being Fake News allowed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a long discussion on the Talk page about the topic of CNN being Fake News according to Donald Trump and that the statement should at least be mentioned here. User:CFCF decided to just ignore everything, delete my change and put the discussion in the Archive. Thanks for not joining the discussion and showing that you are unable to talk and immediately threaten with a block.213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion was going nowhere, was not based on any sources or policies. Donald Trump's quotes hardly constitute reliable sources, and spamming the talk-page is not a discussion. I archived it because it violates the guidelines at WP:TALKPAGE. If you consider it to be WP:DUE to mention how Donald Trump has said these sources are fake news — that is a legitimate discussion, but not the one I archived. However it is not something to just be inserted to the article without taking care to balance it. Seeing as it is controversial, adding it now without any repudiation released does not chime with WP:NOTNEWS, nor does it discredit us from using CNN as a source as you implied.
- Get the premises of the discussion right, do not add highly controversial passages without taking care to balance them out — and under no circumstance readd legitimate news-media's logos over and over again and we might just get somewhere. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- When a future President of the United States says that a major news station is Fake News, than this has to be mentioned in the article about Fake News! You even cite some journalist of a newspaper The Local who nobody knows and is nearly non existent — but the President Elect Of the USA is not noteworthy for you?
- And you say that its "vandalism" when i talk here at the Talkpage about how i should write that, but you are not able to just join the conversation? The discussion was called "CNN and BuzzFeed is Fake News"! It was about what Donald Trump said and how i should add it. Read what i wrote, it is neutral and balanced. I just wrote what happened and linked to 3 sources.
- You have some clear Political Bias and you are a shame for Wikipedia.213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fundamentally this is an issue about WP:Reliable sources. I suggest you read that guideline to understand why quotes are not reliable sources for statements of fact. That Donald Trump says one thing does not make it so, and this is not a biased position. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which is good advice. But there are sources, oodles of them, for the fact that Trump said it. And this is the article where those sources belong, correct? The question is exactly where to put the sentence, and exactly what the sentence will say. I proposed a variant, and listed some sources, which you archived (a wee bit hastily). I'll go retrieve that stuff, and we can have some nice calm discussion about exact phrasing, please. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fundamentally this is an issue about WP:Reliable sources. I suggest you read that guideline to understand why quotes are not reliable sources for statements of fact. That Donald Trump says one thing does not make it so, and this is not a biased position. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
sources
My proposed wording:
- On January 11, 2016, during a back-and-forth altercation with a CNN journalist at a press conference, president-elect Donald Trump told the CNN journalist "you are fake news".[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Will add 213.47's proposed wording in a moment. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Proposed wording by 213.47, which CFCF reverted without explaining why:
- On January 11, 2016, during the first press conference of president-elect Donald Trump after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Trump told CNN’s senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, that CNN is "fake news", after Acosta tried multiple times to force Trump to accept a question from him and interrupted the question of another journalist.[19][20][21]
Other phrasing-suggestions also welcome, obviously. And likely these are not the only sources, they are just what turned up in a quick one-minute google. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Some context should appear if this is to be due. For example the release by Buzzfeed, the repudiation from CNN etc. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we can go with he-said-she-said, but I would rather just explain the broader context; Trump was recently in some CNN stories, which are linked (in the metaphorical rather than the technological) sense to far-less-careful Buzzfeed stories.[22] Whether that belongs in journalistic scandal, or here, is a question, but it was also definitely called 'fake' at one point, on the record in a televised broadcast. Most of the gory details probably belong in the spinoff fake news in the United States, but probably we can summarize it here as well, since it got press-coverage in France and Australia and the UK already. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, feel free to skip the mention of the repudiation, but context is necessary. If there is insufficient context in the news we should wait till more appears. Seeing as it hasn't been 24 hours and this is not an article on a news event I would suggest we wait and see.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The GoldenShowerGate is a bigger Fake News scandal than PizzaGate, so it should be mentioned in Fake News in the United States and the repudiation of CNN should go there, because it's related to that and it would be out of context here. Here it would be more appropriate to just quote Trump.
- Btw. it's interesting to see, that CFCF somehow thinks that this whole thing should be mentioned now and isn't vandalism anymore.213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, feel free to skip the mention of the repudiation, but context is necessary. If there is insufficient context in the news we should wait till more appears. Seeing as it hasn't been 24 hours and this is not an article on a news event I would suggest we wait and see.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we can go with he-said-she-said, but I would rather just explain the broader context; Trump was recently in some CNN stories, which are linked (in the metaphorical rather than the technological) sense to far-less-careful Buzzfeed stories.[22] Whether that belongs in journalistic scandal, or here, is a question, but it was also definitely called 'fake' at one point, on the record in a televised broadcast. Most of the gory details probably belong in the spinoff fake news in the United States, but probably we can summarize it here as well, since it got press-coverage in France and Australia and the UK already. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is WP:UNDUE in an article on fake news sites, because only one (unreliable) source characterised CNN as fake news. It may be relevant in an article on Shit Donald Trump Says, or similar (that article would be yuge). Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Guy. Trump has said a lot of crazy things, we don't need to cram every single one of them into some article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama said lots of things too, so should we combine that all in one single article now? Or don't you think that they belong to the articles they are related to, like it is now?213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama said things, but he did not say crazy irrational unhinged things that have absolutely no connection to reality. Calling CNN a fake news organisation is fantastical nonsense. Saying this and then immediately calling on Breitbart? Satire is dead. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, i could quote many many crazy irrational and unhinged things Obama said, thats not a problem at all.
- And i just realized that the Guy who makes this crazy questionable suggestion is the one who closed the discussion about the political bias of CFCF with some even more questionable comment. Now thats nice… Wikipedia is really surprising me every day :D213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, i could quote many many crazy irrational and unhinged things Obama said, thats not a problem at all.
Well? I await your list of 'unhinged' Obama quotes with breathless anticipation... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)- If i talk about that, some specific Users like biased CFCF would block me, because this is not relevant in this discussion here :D. Just remember, that i got warned because i added the Trump quote. That's vandalism, you know.
- So, back to topic: You are suggesting that all quotes of persons should be in their own specific articles and should not get mentioned in related articles? Or is this some suggestion that just somehow applies to Trump?213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, Carl Fredrick isn't an admin and can't block you. Nor could an admin block you for posting accurate quotes without having a whole buttload of admin and editors come crashing down on them (including me). No, you said you could quote "many many crazy irrational and unhinged things Obama said" and now I expect you to either do just that or admit you're full of it. We don't deal in lies on WP, we deal in verifiable truth. If you can't do that, you have no place here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can, and i invite you discuss that with me in private, because i don't believe that "nah, nobody would block you, for sure", especially not from someone who answers on a comment with just "ROLFMAO" and thinks that this is an valid argument. The Talk page is not for private discussions and i respect that and i know that i would be the one who gets punished for it and not you. And you have to know that most of Obamas crazy irrational comments are in geopolitics, so you should know something about that you should be better arguing than you are here.
- So, back to topic: You are suggesting that all quotes of persons should be in their own specific articles and should not get mentioned in related articles? Or is this some suggestion that just somehow applies to Trump? (but this would be not political bias, of course)213.47.44.99 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, Carl Fredrick isn't an admin and can't block you. Nor could an admin block you for posting accurate quotes without having a whole buttload of admin and editors come crashing down on them (including me). No, you said you could quote "many many crazy irrational and unhinged things Obama said" and now I expect you to either do just that or admit you're full of it. We don't deal in lies on WP, we deal in verifiable truth. If you can't do that, you have no place here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama said things, but he did not say crazy irrational unhinged things that have absolutely no connection to reality. Calling CNN a fake news organisation is fantastical nonsense. Saying this and then immediately calling on Breitbart? Satire is dead. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama said lots of things too, so should we combine that all in one single article now? Or don't you think that they belong to the articles they are related to, like it is now?213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Donald Trump is not a reliable source for what is and isn't fake news. In fact, Trump is about the worst possible source for any such claims. The fact that he called CNN fake news might be noteworthy in an article about Trump, or perhaps in a subsection about the backlash against recent efforts to combat fake news, but as things stand right now, we're not going to take his word for anything but his own opinions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No idea if Trump says crazy things, but the involvement of Buzzfeed in publishing the story and linking the source is relevant, especially as Buzzfeed has been cited as a reliable source for much of the content of this article. I suggest a description of the sequence of events be added to the end of the US intelligence analysis section: [[23]] Seems we're in a hall of mirrors. Shtove (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually PolitiFact.com is a really bad "source" who constructs straw men in order to discredit political oponents. http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO No, sorry. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Respect. That's some very insightful argument you have there.
- "ROFLMAO" — Thats Wikipedia Standard. Really nice :) 213.47.44.99 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Make a ridiculous argument, you get a ridiculous response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't even read the source i linked, but you know that it's ridiculous? Nice and totally reliable. What would you say, if i tell you that in the article about PolitiFact.com is a section about exactly this with the source i posted here?
- And of course is something like "He said stupid things, so i am allowed to say stupid things too!!!" Wikipedia Standard, am i right? You are pathetic.213.47.44.99 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, i didn't realize that you closed the discussion, you can move my comments up there or remove it — whatever you think is more appropriate for "Wikipedia-Standard" — btw. it's interesting how you always close the discussion as soon as someone of your miserable main authors get BTFO.
- Make a ridiculous argument, you get a ridiculous response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO No, sorry. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirect of Fake news
For those who are interested, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fake news (disambiguation) about whether Fake news should redirect to Fake news (disambiguation) or Hoax. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Added "Popularization of the Term "Fake News" in the Internet Era"
As a historian, I thought this might be of interest to readers -- where did the term come from? While I cite the 2004 incident as the earliest significant blip, I have not definitively traced back the etymology in popular culture. It only appears on Urban Dictionary starting in 2007. (unsigned comment by User:Petercorless)
- Hello Petercorless, there is a section called fake news website#Definition which is where such things would appear, although please be aware that wikt:fake_news is the dictionary project, whereas this is the encyclopedia project. The goal here at *this* page is to explain the concept/meaning of 'fake news website' and the related concept/meaning of 'fake news'. So for things like a detailed etymology and a who-first-originated-this, that would belong in wiktionary instead of in wikipedia, probably.
- Can you please list the URLs that you have come up with, the oldest ones at least? I am also working on sourcing the definitions (mostly for wikipedia but possibly also for wiktionary). These are preliminary: VNRs 2004+,[24][25][26][27][28][29] news satire,[30][31][32] and the modern clickbait-scam plus metaphors related thereto.[33][34][35][36] See also the green-highlighted-ref here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge proposal: Fake news websites in the United States
Transcluded from Talk:Fake news websites in the United States:
- Sorry I'm late to the party on this, but what is the basis for having a separate article from Fake news website? It seems we have a substantial duplication of effort, with some arbitrary forking of content. And much of the content that needs to be mentioned here isn't specific to U.S. websites. There's also the problem that many fake news websites are about the United States or directed at U.S. readers but use non-U.S. domains, are hosted on non-U.S. servers, and/or post fake stories written by foreigners; it's unclear whether these sites are intended to fall within the scope of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I see it there are two issues here:
- Much of the content here is WP:UNDUE for the article on Fake news websites and would have to be removed
- Fake news is currently a hot topic in the United States, but is prevalent elsewhere with the advent of facebook's newsfeed — so any merge could result in the main article turning very anglocentric.
- I'm not saying that these issues could not be overcome, or that they are reasons why we should keep the articles separate, just that they exist. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see these as arguments for keeping the articles separate. If the media attention has been disproportionately on the U.S., then Fake news websites can and should have a U.S.-focused emphasis, per WP:BALASPS (articles should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"). I'm going to add merge tags since this discussion hasn't gotten much attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is where you are wrong though — the attention of the U.S.-media has been dis-proportionally focused on the U.S. Fake news has in fact been pretty hot on the agenda in many countries, and not necessarily relating to the U.S.-election. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest this piece: [37]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, then this article needs to be re-balanced. That's not a basis for a content fork. Generally speaking, a fork is appropriate when a main article gets too long. That's not a concern here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this article needs to be rebalanced: I would suggest shoving most of the 'fake news' material into the newly-drafted article on fake news, and most of the USA-specific material (Russia-based computer crackers and pizzagate and so on) which is really only VERY tangentially related to 'fake news websites' into either #1) the existing dedicated article as a WP:SPINOFF, or #2) into a rewritten section of this Fake news website article that is about the USA-specific aspects of 'fake news websites' ONLY. (The USA-specific section of fake news should deal with fake-news-in-the-USA stuff.) I truly would NOT care per WP:BURO whether or not we merge, usually. It is merely a rule of thumb that spinoffs are generally only made per WP:TOOBIG, but as long as the content of the spinoff is balanced, I would have no problems with an organizational structure that splits things up. I do tend to see geographical spinoffs as inherently being a WP:BADIDEA for this specific topic-area, however: there are plenty of fake-news-sites in Macedonia which *target* gullible readers in the USA, and there are plenty of fake-news-sites in the USA which *target* readers worldwide. So I support the upmerge, until and unless WP:SIZERULE comes into play, of the current (identical) contents of Fake news in the United States to the parent-article fake news, and also the upmerge of the current contents of Fake news websites in the United States to the parent-article of that topic which is fake news website. Ping HelgaStick and Sagecandor, who might be interested in commenting here as well. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do think that it would be undue weight to merge all the information mentioned on this page to the Fake news website article. But I wouldn't be opposed to condensing or rebalancing some of the content mentioned here.
- Those who say that the main page (e.g. DrFleischman) should have a US-basis, I would argue that this is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on balancing aspects. Although the English Wikipedia prefers to use English sources (for obvious reasons), it's important to recognise that English language sources are naturally going to focus on the US election, and online sources are more likely to mention recent phenomena. The systemic bias of English-language sources need to be taken into account, and it's fairly obvious that this is not a new phenomenon. Therefore, the US bias is undue weight and too focused on recent events. HelgaStick (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say, HelgaStick, but what do you suggest we have in the various articles? Do we need to have all the articles we have now? Fake news (disambiguation), fake news, fake news website, fake news in the United States, list of fake news websites, maybe a few more that I missed/forgot, plus related concepts like news propaganda and lying press and yellow journalism and scraper site. Which articles do we really NEED to have, and what FOCUS should each article we need, concentrate upon? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... Difficult to say. I think that merging "Fake news website" into "fake news" and "Fake news websites in the United States" to "Fake news in the United States" should happen (the latter is what I originally named the article when I made it). As for "News propaganda", "Yellow journalism" and "Scraper site", these deserve their own articles (although I would probably rename "lying press" to Lügenpresse for clarity, but that seems an irrelevant discussion to have here). HelgaStick (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say, HelgaStick, but what do you suggest we have in the various articles? Do we need to have all the articles we have now? Fake news (disambiguation), fake news, fake news website, fake news in the United States, list of fake news websites, maybe a few more that I missed/forgot, plus related concepts like news propaganda and lying press and yellow journalism and scraper site. Which articles do we really NEED to have, and what FOCUS should each article we need, concentrate upon? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this article needs to be rebalanced: I would suggest shoving most of the 'fake news' material into the newly-drafted article on fake news, and most of the USA-specific material (Russia-based computer crackers and pizzagate and so on) which is really only VERY tangentially related to 'fake news websites' into either #1) the existing dedicated article as a WP:SPINOFF, or #2) into a rewritten section of this Fake news website article that is about the USA-specific aspects of 'fake news websites' ONLY. (The USA-specific section of fake news should deal with fake-news-in-the-USA stuff.) I truly would NOT care per WP:BURO whether or not we merge, usually. It is merely a rule of thumb that spinoffs are generally only made per WP:TOOBIG, but as long as the content of the spinoff is balanced, I would have no problems with an organizational structure that splits things up. I do tend to see geographical spinoffs as inherently being a WP:BADIDEA for this specific topic-area, however: there are plenty of fake-news-sites in Macedonia which *target* gullible readers in the USA, and there are plenty of fake-news-sites in the USA which *target* readers worldwide. So I support the upmerge, until and unless WP:SIZERULE comes into play, of the current (identical) contents of Fake news in the United States to the parent-article fake news, and also the upmerge of the current contents of Fake news websites in the United States to the parent-article of that topic which is fake news website. Ping HelgaStick and Sagecandor, who might be interested in commenting here as well. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is where you are wrong though — the attention of the U.S.-media has been dis-proportionally focused on the U.S. Fake news has in fact been pretty hot on the agenda in many countries, and not necessarily relating to the U.S.-election. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see these as arguments for keeping the articles separate. If the media attention has been disproportionately on the U.S., then Fake news websites can and should have a U.S.-focused emphasis, per WP:BALASPS (articles should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"). I'm going to add merge tags since this discussion hasn't gotten much attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I see it there are two issues here:
Proposed: Add Section on how Wikipedia protects against Fake News citations?
Before I add a section that meets a hasty delete, do you think it would be apropos to write a section about how Wikipedia handles citations from fake news sites? It's been mentioned in numerous articles, including this one from KQED, Wikipedia Handles Fake News With Humans, Not Algorithms. Thoughts? (unsigned comment by User:Petercorless)
- I'm not sure that would be an appropriate section for article space. It seems to be more like a Wikipedia essay of sorts, related to the policy of trusting reliable sources. That being said, I do think that this is an important topic to discuss. Whether a section in article space is appropriate would depend on numerous finding third party sources talk about Wikipedia with relation to this topic, less about citing sources than about dealing with the overall challenge of fake news sources in general. If enough sources are found, this could even have its own article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have a WP:NOHOAXES policy, and it is seen at the top of hoax for instance, in a Template:selfref hatnote (see also WP:HOAXLIST). It makes sense to add the same hatnote here, perhaps? We can also add a see-also to the Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_information (see also fictitious entry), although I don't think wikipedia has yet been called 'fake news' in exactly that turn of phrase. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Whenever we write about Wikipedia I think it's important that we take great care to avoid bias. If you were to list all the reliable sources here we could maybe draft something together. If we include anything we need to take care to attribute it correctly, the risk is that we come across as beating our own drum if we aren't critical enough. This article currently gets very many views and it may be detrimental to promote Wikipedia too much in it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also currently drafting a main fake news article, and such a section may be more appropriate there than here. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Whenever we write about Wikipedia I think it's important that we take great care to avoid bias. If you were to list all the reliable sources here we could maybe draft something together. If we include anything we need to take care to attribute it correctly, the risk is that we come across as beating our own drum if we aren't critical enough. This article currently gets very many views and it may be detrimental to promote Wikipedia too much in it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have a WP:NOHOAXES policy, and it is seen at the top of hoax for instance, in a Template:selfref hatnote (see also WP:HOAXLIST). It makes sense to add the same hatnote here, perhaps? We can also add a see-also to the Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_information (see also fictitious entry), although I don't think wikipedia has yet been called 'fake news' in exactly that turn of phrase. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, per WP:SELFREF. An essay or guideline would be fine, but actually it should probably be embedded within WP:RS. A link to RS at the head of the Talk page, as a "Here's how WIkipedia deals with it" sort of thing, would be a good idea, though. It's not really a content thing but it's a possible (and indeed foreseeable) meta-question from readers. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what the question related to. Rather it was if we should include a section of all the praise leveled at Wikipedia's handling of fake news — not whether we should link to a internal Wikipedia-page. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's how I understood it. Still, no, per WP:SELFREF. Readers interested in our polciies on fake news (and incidentally any real-world validation of those policies in the form of positive commentary) should be directed to a project page via a notice on Talk. We do way too much navel-gazing here. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what the question related to. Rather it was if we should include a section of all the praise leveled at Wikipedia's handling of fake news — not whether we should link to a internal Wikipedia-page. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to say No per SELFREF, with the caveat that if it gains significant coverage in the RSes, we might wish to make a very brief section about it, and place the link to the WP essay at that section, rather than the top of the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- What? That's like saying we can't have an article on Wikipedia. Of course we should add this as long as it's properly sourced, and there is no reason at all to link to our essays. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Wikipedia is a 'thing' in the sense that it is something readers would conceivably want to read about. 'How wikipedia works' is a subject that isn't going to be of interest to most readers who are attempting to look up information about fake news websites. Anyone interested in how WP handles fake news would have all their questions answered by a wikispace article such as WP:RS. So I think it's the sort of self-reference we should avoid, unless it's something that gets some appreciable coverage in RSes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is just blatantly false. RS is a policy page, it doesn't discuss the sociology or culture of Wikipedia or its effect on society at large. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that WP:RS doesn't explain what we should do with fake news 'sources'? That's ridiculous. I never suggested that the RS page says anything about sociology or culture. I said it would answer questions as to HOW WE DEAL WITH THESE SOURCES. Which it does. Yeesh. Don't read something entirely different into my comments then tell me I'm wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Then why are you arguing beside the point? The question is whether we should have a section about Wikipedia's impact — which has been discussed in a number of reliable sources... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Editorial judgment. It looks like self-congratulatory navel gazing. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Adding a section might be WP:NAVEL, but what about hatnote using Template:Selfref? We can point to WP:NOHOAXES policy, or to be more self-deprecating, we can point (instead of or in addition to) readers at WP:HOAXLIST with our shameful screwups. But the hatnote is normal, and fake news website should have it, compare with the hatnote at hoax for instance. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CFCF: The proposal was for a section on "how Wikipedia protects against Fake News citations". My argument specifically addressed the how of that. You mentioned a discussion of the "sociology or culture of Wikipedia or its effects on society at large", which is a departure from this RfC. You seem a little upset, so I hope it helps for me to say that I'd be much more supportive of a proposal for a section about how this subject pertains to the "sociology or culture of Wikipedia or its effects on society at large" provided we could find adequate sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Editorial judgment. It looks like self-congratulatory navel gazing. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Then why are you arguing beside the point? The question is whether we should have a section about Wikipedia's impact — which has been discussed in a number of reliable sources... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that WP:RS doesn't explain what we should do with fake news 'sources'? That's ridiculous. I never suggested that the RS page says anything about sociology or culture. I said it would answer questions as to HOW WE DEAL WITH THESE SOURCES. Which it does. Yeesh. Don't read something entirely different into my comments then tell me I'm wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is just blatantly false. RS is a policy page, it doesn't discuss the sociology or culture of Wikipedia or its effect on society at large. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Wikipedia is a 'thing' in the sense that it is something readers would conceivably want to read about. 'How wikipedia works' is a subject that isn't going to be of interest to most readers who are attempting to look up information about fake news websites. Anyone interested in how WP handles fake news would have all their questions answered by a wikispace article such as WP:RS. So I think it's the sort of self-reference we should avoid, unless it's something that gets some appreciable coverage in RSes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Pope Francis
Why does the world's #1 Jonathan Pryce lookalike get his own section? Guy (Help!) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Because of his fancy hat, of course. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Popehat? Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Popehat. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think even a man who gets to wear a huge tiara should have a subsection all to himself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. That being said, there's no appropriate place to move it to, and the text itself is not undue. So, I think I'm going to rename the section like so.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- An improvement. What do you think about moving it under "United States" -> "2016 election cycle," since the Pope's comments were in response to false news concerning the U.S. election? (I noticed that most responses by public figures are under the Impacts by country umbrella.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The pope's actual comments were not in response to fake-news-in-the-United-States. And in fact, the pope did not even *mention* fake news. The pope's remarks were reported (and in several cases misreported) by the news media in the United States, in some cases either truncating or mistranslating the meaning of the original interview (in Spanish-language for a Belgium-news-entity). Agree the pope's commentary does not need a dedicated subsection. (It used to be in the lede!) The pope is specifically talking about journalistic scandals broadly, and about journalistic sensationalism generally, and not about fake-untrue-false-news, and very much not about fake-untrue-false-news-during-the-2016-USA-election-cycle. There are media outlets in the USA which put that spin on what the pope said, and wikipedia should note such things in a footnote, but per WP:Accuracy we also need to read the USN&WR and the NPR sources, rather than the crappy ones we have (WaPo was *still* partially misreporting what the pope actually said a week ago last I looked.) See talkpage archives for which sources got it correct, and which sources screwed the pooch: Talk:Fake_news_website/Archive_2#pope_sources_need_work. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- So do you think it's in the right place at the moment, or are you proposing we move it to the lead section or elsewhere? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The pope's actual comments were not in response to fake-news-in-the-United-States. And in fact, the pope did not even *mention* fake news. The pope's remarks were reported (and in several cases misreported) by the news media in the United States, in some cases either truncating or mistranslating the meaning of the original interview (in Spanish-language for a Belgium-news-entity). Agree the pope's commentary does not need a dedicated subsection. (It used to be in the lede!) The pope is specifically talking about journalistic scandals broadly, and about journalistic sensationalism generally, and not about fake-untrue-false-news, and very much not about fake-untrue-false-news-during-the-2016-USA-election-cycle. There are media outlets in the USA which put that spin on what the pope said, and wikipedia should note such things in a footnote, but per WP:Accuracy we also need to read the USN&WR and the NPR sources, rather than the crappy ones we have (WaPo was *still* partially misreporting what the pope actually said a week ago last I looked.) See talkpage archives for which sources got it correct, and which sources screwed the pooch: Talk:Fake_news_website/Archive_2#pope_sources_need_work. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- An improvement. What do you think about moving it under "United States" -> "2016 election cycle," since the Pope's comments were in response to false news concerning the U.S. election? (I noticed that most responses by public figures are under the Impacts by country umbrella.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. That being said, there's no appropriate place to move it to, and the text itself is not undue. So, I think I'm going to rename the section like so.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposal: Fake news
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The discussion was superseded by an RfC. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl talk 05:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing that fake news be merged into fake news website. The two separate articles are redundant, there isn't a need, that I see, to keep them separate NimbleNavigator (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd add the header but I cannot NimbleNavigator (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge. Fake news seems to me to be a POV content fork. I added the appropriate tags to both articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- What bizarre nonsense is that? What POV does either page exhibit? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The POV that fake news is a subset of hoax. You did not achieve consensus here to make that change, so you started a new, redundant page to reflect that view. That's textbook WP:POVFORK. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, and no. Fake news is per definition a hoax — if you read the sources and the definitions it isn't even debatable — and so far noone has said anything to the contrary. This article even makes it out be called "hoax news". POV is not the same as semantic accuracy — I'm not sure you are being sincere in calling it an issue. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that all of your efforts surrounding the "fake news" nucleus of pages have been to steer readers away from Fake news website, which does not say that fake news is a hoax, and toward other articles in which you have said that fake news is hoax. Am I mistaken? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, and no. Fake news is per definition a hoax — if you read the sources and the definitions it isn't even debatable — and so far noone has said anything to the contrary. This article even makes it out be called "hoax news". POV is not the same as semantic accuracy — I'm not sure you are being sincere in calling it an issue. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The POV that fake news is a subset of hoax. You did not achieve consensus here to make that change, so you started a new, redundant page to reflect that view. That's textbook WP:POVFORK. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- What bizarre nonsense is that? What POV does either page exhibit? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
They're two different topics—that are both on their own relevant and pass WP:GNG. With more information coming out each day it seems very apt to have two articles. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CFCF:, So, what is your vote here? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The overlap between the two concepts is almost 100%. I'm not aware of a single source that falls within the scope of one but not the other. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fake news that has spread to legitimate news sites such as Pizzagate has little to do with fake news websites. And fake news that's spread primarily through twitter or facebook — such as inaccurate reports of violent incidents after users started using the "I'm safe" function of facebook? Those are two examples that come to mind. What JzG stated on the other talk page — what we really ought to have is a more list-style article (this one) about fake news websites, and a more general article over at Fake news. Much of the material here should be merged there, because that is the main topic. This article is a real mess with pretty much no coherence. I would also split out Fake news impact by country for the list of countries that have had any impact by fake news — it isn't immediately related to this topic. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for sharing your view. Let's wait for others to weigh in. Please do not remove the tag until consensus is achieved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well the US-specific article will never be merged here, that is classic WP:SNOW. This article is already tilted towards a US-centric view, smashing in a similarly long article into the middle of this one will make that 1000x worse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- My explanation for that particular merge proposal is in the discussion below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well the US-specific article will never be merged here, that is classic WP:SNOW. This article is already tilted towards a US-centric view, smashing in a similarly long article into the middle of this one will make that 1000x worse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for sharing your view. Let's wait for others to weigh in. Please do not remove the tag until consensus is achieved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fake news that has spread to legitimate news sites such as Pizzagate has little to do with fake news websites. And fake news that's spread primarily through twitter or facebook — such as inaccurate reports of violent incidents after users started using the "I'm safe" function of facebook? Those are two examples that come to mind. What JzG stated on the other talk page — what we really ought to have is a more list-style article (this one) about fake news websites, and a more general article over at Fake news. Much of the material here should be merged there, because that is the main topic. This article is a real mess with pretty much no coherence. I would also split out Fake news impact by country for the list of countries that have had any impact by fake news — it isn't immediately related to this topic. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose per above. The fact that they are two separate topics trumps the fact that the fake news article needs work. This article does not explain what fake news is, making the main article necessary. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
CommentMerge and rename, I was thinking of proposing this, however, then I then I realized that this article covers a whole lot more than the other article, we can have the other article merged into this one, and this can be renamed to simply "Fake news" per WP:COMMONNAME, compare the number of results for these searches for "fake news" and "fake news website".∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk01:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- definitely oppose merging fake news website into fake news, they are not the same, but more pertinently, on pragmatic grounds (avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:EDITWARs). Fake-news-website means, an internet domain name that originates/publishes/propagates/reprints/promotes, fake news... but only with a specific motive, either clickbait scams like 'Denver Guardian' or in rarer cases false fronts used for geopolitical purposes. We can cover the fuzzy concept of 'fake news' within the article on the narrower-more-specific-topic of fake news website, as they are tightly intertwined, but we cannot properly cover fake news website as a 'subtopic' of fake news, methinks. I will not oppose this if consensus emerges that it is the right thing per WP:IAR, but I will point out that we have enough trouble in *this* current article with imprecise muddling, and if the very title becomes a fuzzy almost-meaningless term (without upstream news AND downstream fake news website to anchor it), that guarantees the content will become more muddled rather than less muddled. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect as a content fork; both articles are about the websites and fake news website article has a lot more to say about the fake news phenomenon, to the point where we're doing readers a disservice by serving them a stubby "this section needs expansion" article about fake news when we've got a much more detailed article right here. If a general article and a list of sites makes sense (and I agree that it does), we should write that list somewhere and move fake news website to fake news. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note for you, we already have the list you're looking for at List of fake news websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- And as a counterpoint, instead of having fake news and list of fake news websites, one too fuzzy and one too binary, I suggest at the RfC on the list-icle page that we should upmerge the contents of list of fake news websites into this fake news website article, where we can treat the topic with nuance demanded by the sources. And we could then (optionally) split the current fake-news-stories content of fake news website, into a parent-article on fake news. But we should try to achieve precision, which means using titles that have meaning... fake news is a very fuzzy title, and list of fake news websites attempts to impose a binary-ness which does not exist in the (non-crappy) WP:SOURCES. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note for you, we already have the list you're looking for at List of fake news websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- strong oppose Different subjects. Article contents must be thoroughly split. fake news website must be purely technical. Fake news must be about all social implications, including the term misuse and differing definitions. Unless you want to say that facebook and twitter, major fake news vehicles, are fake news websites. We have multiple accounts when fake news were planted from other unsuspecting places, such as reddit. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of the latter (fake news planted on Reddit)? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: That's what I've read yesterday. BTW, is thiss worth adding to wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's interesting enough that it may merit mention here. Nothing too major though. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you read further into the article they mention using it to promote fake stories. Those stories included a youtube video and social media posts — not fake news websites. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Promotion of fake news isn't the same thing as fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you read further into the article they mention using it to promote fake stories. Those stories included a youtube video and social media posts — not fake news websites. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: That's what I've read yesterday. BTW, is thiss worth adding to wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of the latter (fake news planted on Reddit)? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could support the elimination of 'fake news' ... which is to say, rewriting THIS article fake news website to be about the distinct but interrelated concepts of 'fake news site' as originator/publisher/host/vector, and also explaining as a necessary quasi-subconcept the idea of 'fake news' as both a description of the fake-news-stories that such fake-news-sites publish and propagate, but ALSO as a more general metaphor (for alleged propaganda by Russkies or for alleged poor reporting by CNN or for the various other linguistic gymnastics that the phrase 'fake news' has undergone in the last two months... as well has quasi-'historical' meanings like calling Colbert/Stewart/SNL 'fake news' and calling video news releases 'fake news' which are impeccably sourced). Could also support leaving them split, with the 'fake news' contents of the current fake news website body-prose being upmerged to fake news, and the contents specifically about fake news websites -- which are a VERY different topic... definitely agree with Staszek Lem that these need to be kept precise and distinct regardless of WHERE we cover the two concepts in terms of article-titles-and-structures -- remaining here in fake news website, whilst getting significantly sharpened and demuddled. I tend to see fake news as inherently a WP:POVFORK of the news article, however, and definitely not as a WP:POVFORK of *this* article on fake news websites. I can say without qualification though that CFCF created the fake news article in good faith, and not as a POV fork, but as a way to help improve this muddled article about fake news websites that is *also* about fake news and also about non-website-based Russian propaganda and also about journalistic scandals... needs help badly. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge, and apply the same to Fake news websites in the United States. HelgaStick (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question. It seems there was a mini-rise in fake news in the 1930s – What was all that about, and how should that be covered in Wikipedia? wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Links to fake news in the 1920s - wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you can find noteworthy content in reliable sources, then sure! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Where should such sources be merged, is the question methinks. Finding verifiable evidence of fabricated 'news' from prior to the 2016 election cycle is easy. Specifically with respect to this RfC, if the outcome is to get rid of fake news and only retain fake news website, then how can we talk about the 1920s and 1930s under an article-title which says 'website' right on the tin? Seems nonsensical... and tends to support the idea that fake news needs to be Keep as a separate topic, distinct from fake news website which is a strictly modern mostly-clickbait-scam-related-phenomena. But as I say above, I tend to take the view that we *could* write about the fabricated journalism of the 1930s *here* in fake news website, as a historical parallel, *iff* in specific cases the stuff from the 1930s involved faking-a-news-production-entity. Fake news websites like Denver Guardian are pretending to be online newspapers, but actually just making stuff up. If there were fake newspaper mastheads in the 1930s, such as "TheMadeUpTimes" or whatever, then that is a historical parallel of somebody pretending to be an offline newspaper aka fake news entity, which would belong in fake news website#Historical_parallels. By contrast, if in *different* incidents back in the 1930s, there was a case of people fabricating stories and then falsely pasting the NYT masthead over those fabrications, that would be a type of 'fake news' which involves misattribution to a real news entity, rather than outright fabrication from whole cloth of a 'real-sounding' news entity that was entirely fake. I would classify false-story-with-misattribution-to-NYT under hoax#fake_news rather than under fake news website#1930s_hoaxes. The question asked by Wbm1058 is a good one, which cuts to the heart of the various merge-and-fork RfCs that are floating around. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you can find noteworthy content in reliable sources, then sure! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – there is plenty of content in fake news that has nothing to do with this article. Deliberately fraudulent news can exist offline. Laurdecl talk 07:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – WP:BROADCONCEPT seems to apply to fake news. Fake news website is clearly a topical subset. Laurdecl talk 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge proposal: Fake news by country
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The discussion was superseded by an RfC. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl talk 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose that Fake news by country be merged back into this article and WP:BLARred. It doesn't merit its own article, as this one isn't overly long and an overwhelming amount of Fake news by country's content was merely copied and pasted from this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – The article is too long if we include all of this. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- We should let the RfC run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definition
http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/fake-news-propaganda-and-influence-operations-%E2%80%93-guide-journalism-new-and-more-chaotic-media "A definition: Fake News is news items that are invented or distorted intentionally" Victor Grigas (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017
 | This edit request to Fake news website has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Germany
start with
After the United States presidential election lies
German Chancellor Angela Merkel lamented the problem of fraudulent news reports in a November 2016 speech,
btw she did not alone in "Neuland" (Computer newland Germany) .. see also "postfaktisch" (post-factual) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics#Germany
x 178.3.170.64 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please clarify what you want. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
please add 'After the United States presidential election lies ' before "German Chancellor Angela Merkel lamented the problem of fraudulent news reports in a November 2016 speech, ..."
x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.223.176 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.223.176 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
x - i removed a mistake
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Fake news, Fake news websites in the United States, and Fake news by country be merged into Fake news website? If you believe that one or two of those articles should be merged, but not all three, then please indicate that in your !vote.
Also, please note that before Fake news existed, there was an formal move request last month (though not an RfC) proposing that Fake news website be moved to Fake news. The move request was closed on December 23 with a result of no consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Absolutely not! First: fake news is the main topic; second: fake news websites is about specific sites that only work to spread fake news; and lastly: there is sufficient content for a US-centered article. Note that the articles all need expansion and work, but this is not a reason to merge them – since much of that work is actually underway (they're rather heavily edited). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge (as nom). These articles contain a tremendous amount of overlap and there's no practical benefit to keeping them separate. The arguments I've heard in favor of keeping Fake news (and Fake news by country separate center around the contention that the "fake news" concept is distinct from the "fake news website" concept. This strikes me as semantics; regardless, I'm not aware of any reliable sources that make this distinction. If both of these articles were fully fleshed out they would be nearly identical in content. As for Fake news websites in the United States, that article has serious scope problems since many fake news websites are hosted outside of the U.S. and/or written by foreign nationals but concern U.S. politics. Plus, it's not like this article is too large. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comment: As this comment demonstrates, readers are unaware that we have two articles of nearly identical scope. As Fake news website is much more complete then Fake news, these readers are missing out on our content. We aren't serving them well right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. I don't think this extreme degree of overlap is helpful for the reasons outlined by Dr. Fleischman. Neutralitytalk 01:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge undiscussed content forks ASAP: Fake news with Fake news website (under either title) adding in Fake news by country, leaving Fake news websites in the United States where it is as it's too large to merge. Merging "fake news" with "fake news website" was proposed above and should be resolved quickly - "fake news" is a significant and topical subject right now, and as DrFleischman says, we're doing readers a great disservice in serving up little more than a stub at fake news (which User:CFCF/Carl Fredrik seems to have created as a quick and unilateral content fork ten days ago, and which has been barely edited by anyone since), with its empty "needs expansion" history section and a single sentence about its impact, when we have a full and detailed article here at fake news website. Fake news by country appears to be another undiscussed content fork by CFCF from last week, which can be redirected back - it seems to just be repeating this article, the only addition being a paragraph about Canadian pension plans. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging Fake news by country with Fake news website and oppose merging Fake news websites in the United States with Fake news website – There's clearly enough content for an article on just the United States, supported by the RSs in the sources provided there. Merge Fake news and Fake news website – seems to almost identical in content area. Stickee (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Stickee, I'm not disputing your position, but how do you propose we resolve the scope problems raised about Fake news websites in the United States? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose all, especially oppose merging fake news and fake news websites. Fake news is a clear WP:BROADCONCEPT article, whereas fake news website is a topical subset. Fraudulent news can exist in newspapers (and has, throughout history). Laurdecl talk 07:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose all - create broadconcept as per User:Laurdecl. Have the broadconcept at the primary topic fake news - for this proposal and reasons see Talk:Fake news (disambiguation)#Revert dab to redirect. The dab can be made into a summary style and fake news websites and other entries (including recently removed entries) made into a useful broadconcept covering the different intents of news that isn't real. Widefox; talk 11:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Widefox, I'm not arguing here but I'm trying to understand. Your proposal seems logical in concept, but how would it work in actual practice? Currently we have two articles covering the same scope and content. The sources don't seem to distinguish between the broad concept and its implementation on websites. So, how do we go about making two distinct articles? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- DrFleischman, fake news websites and fake news have a pretty clear distinction in my mind. One is a website that propagates false information and the other is concept in journalism. The fake news page lists specific example of "fake news" that occurred long before the internet was invented. I see an obvious distinction here, I'm not sure what you mean? Laurdecl talk 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not asking how they're different things in our minds. Of course they are. I'm asking how we can make two distinct articles about them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- DrFleischman how about:
- Fake news: Scope all time, all intents (i.e. including parodies), broadconcept, WP:SUMMARY style, say based historically.
- Fake news website: scope websites only (presumably covering mentions in social media (websites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- This wouldn't solve the problem. Nearly all of the sources covering fake news are talking about fake news on websites. And they're not about parody. So one article talks about the history of fake news, and the other talks about how fake news appears on websites and is mentioned in social media, but both articles draw from the exact same sources? We'd effectively end up with two articles with different titles but virtually the same content. That's essentially what we have now, except that on top of that Fake news is vastly inadequate while Fake news websites is much more complete. That doesn't serve our readers well. WP:BROADCONCEPT can only be taken so far. It shouldn't be used, for instance, to say that we should have separate articles for Social media and for Social media on the Internet. Or take a counterexample. We have separate articles for Meme and Internet meme because there is a large body of sources covering non-Internet memes. What sources do we have covering non-website fake news? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- all normal per WP:BROADCONCEPT "...may be difficult..." "...dab page..." etc. Sources like "Fake news is thriving — but history shows it's nothing new". Widefox; talk 11:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- This wouldn't solve the problem. Nearly all of the sources covering fake news are talking about fake news on websites. And they're not about parody. So one article talks about the history of fake news, and the other talks about how fake news appears on websites and is mentioned in social media, but both articles draw from the exact same sources? We'd effectively end up with two articles with different titles but virtually the same content. That's essentially what we have now, except that on top of that Fake news is vastly inadequate while Fake news websites is much more complete. That doesn't serve our readers well. WP:BROADCONCEPT can only be taken so far. It shouldn't be used, for instance, to say that we should have separate articles for Social media and for Social media on the Internet. Or take a counterexample. We have separate articles for Meme and Internet meme because there is a large body of sources covering non-Internet memes. What sources do we have covering non-website fake news? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fake news: Scope all time, all intents (i.e. including parodies), broadconcept, WP:SUMMARY style, say based historically.
- DrFleischman how about:
- I'm not asking how they're different things in our minds. Of course they are. I'm asking how we can make two distinct articles about them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- DrFleischman, fake news websites and fake news have a pretty clear distinction in my mind. One is a website that propagates false information and the other is concept in journalism. The fake news page lists specific example of "fake news" that occurred long before the internet was invented. I see an obvious distinction here, I'm not sure what you mean? Laurdecl talk 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Widefox, I'm not arguing here but I'm trying to understand. Your proposal seems logical in concept, but how would it work in actual practice? Currently we have two articles covering the same scope and content. The sources don't seem to distinguish between the broad concept and its implementation on websites. So, how do we go about making two distinct articles? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Fake news and Fake news website, Weak support Fake news website and Fake news by country - As this article mentions fake news is not limited to websites and has a broader history. As others have mentioned, one is the primary topic and the other is a specific one. Thus, I strongly oppose the merge of Fake news and Fake news website. On the other hand I support a merge of Fake news by country and Fake news website, though not strongly. On one hand the "Impact" section of the latter is abundantly similar to the former, on the other hand the case made for opposing the merge of Fake news and Fake news website can also be made for the other merge in question, though not as strongly since the Fake news by country article covers mainly fake news websites instead of a broader case. Concerning the US-Specific page I oppose the merge simply because of the article's length. It's cited as a "Main article" in the impact section of Fake news by country as it should be.Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Merge (Weak Support) As per DrFleischman, there is an incredible amount of duplicated content between all of these articles that could be more concisely and comprehensively treated in a single page. On the other hand, each does technically treat a discrete and concise topic, but I'm not sure they can't all be addressed collectively. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wish I could cast two oppose !votes. This article is way beyond fake news websites and merging them simply makes no sense. Look at the infographic on this page, published by no less than IFLA, which talks about "fake news" in an offline context. Laurdecl talk 03:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging fake news into fake news website. I'm happy to see it go the other way: websites part of the fake news in general. Mozzie (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fake news is an old issue as shown on the "fake news" article section about fake news in history. fake news website is about a novel way to make money from fake news, which is yellow journalism. In fact, the "fake news website" page should be merged into the "yellow journalism" wiki page, where it belongs. It would be improper to try and squeeze the "fake news" history into the modern "Fake News Website". XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – As others indicated, it would be more appropriate to merge Fake news website into Yellow journalism. — JFG talk 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding User:DrFleischman's "Plus, it's not like this article is too large." - prose size on fake news website is 52 kB right now, and WP:SIZE recommends a split at "50 kB and above". Although Fake news by country looks like a straight copy-and-paste content fork which wouldn't add any page weight coming back, I think Fake news websites in the United States has too much additional content to merge back here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The size guideline (sorry, WP:SIZERULE, not WP:SIZE as I had mistakenly linked to) says an article "may need" to be divided starting at 50 kB, but "probably should" be divided starting at 60 kB. We're not there yet, though I can certainly see us getting there since this topic has been so hot in the news. There is still the scope problem for Fake news websites in the United States, i.e. it seems unclear to me which sites would count as being in the United States and which would not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Controversy" section added: discuss here
21sall (talk · contribs) just added, in one fell swoop, a section that looks more essay-like than encyclopedic to me, and seems a bit redundant. I've removed it and am showing below. Opinions?
Controversy
- Fake new can create controversy throughout the United States of America. Newton Gingrich, American politician, is gathering a national debate on false education in school. This contributes to what President Trump was underlying about “Fake News”. Before the inauguration, Gingrich said he was concerned that a Trump administration might "lose their nerve" on certain issues in the face of Democratic opposition.
- For unemployed youth in countries such as Macedonia and with a Trump fan base open to consuming such stories, fake news is a growing business. Nevertheless, these stories are not just harmless fun or mere business opportunities. While a study by Pew Research Center shows that the majority of US adults get their news from social media, fake news stories can influence election results and even cause violence.
- In December 2016, an armed North Carolina man travelled to Washington DC and opened fire at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, driven by a fake online news story accusing the pizzeria of hosting a pedophile ring run by the Democratic Party leaders. These stories tend to go viral quickly. Social media systems, such as Facebook, play a large role in the broadcasting of fake news. These systems show users content that shows their interests and history, leading to fake and misleading news.
- A situation study by the New York Times shows how a tweet by a person with no more than 40 followers went viral and was shared 16,000 times on Twitter.
- Jump up ^ Scott, E. (2017, March 19). "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'" Retrieved March 23, 2017
- Jump up ^ Maheshwari, S. (2016, November 20). "How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study." Retrieved March 23, 2017
Pinging @21sall:. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Odds and ends
Article title is "fake news website," but in the first line of the article the words "fake news websites" are present (note the plural). Should the article title be changed to reflect this? Or does it matter? I also noticed that there is a small little sentence regarding someone's fact checker site having code being open for editing by anyone. Should that, for readability purposes, be merged into the previous sentence where the fact that he used someone's list for the checker is present? Or is it fine standing alone as is? And I noticed that MI6 was in parentheses somewhere in the article next to someone's title. I had a feeling that removal was necessary, but something is telling me that it is needed. So should it be left in or no? Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fake news website. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502031846/http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/29/russia-today-s-disinformation-campaign to http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/29/russia-today-s-disinformation-campaign
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fake news website. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161204131843/http://dcist.com/2016/12/comet_ping_pong_ups_security_as_bri.php to http://dcist.com/2016/12/comet_ping_pong_ups_security_as_bri.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
World News Daily Report
You are invited to participate at Talk:List of fake news websites#World News Daily Report, where there is an interesting discussion going about whether World News Daily Report is satire or serious. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Dubious grammar
One would think the best way to distinguish between a reliable information source and one created by a non-native speaking fraudster would be the quality of the English. So it's rather worrying that the lead paragraph contains this:
"Fake news is becoming more frightening with fake news video.[6] Decades ago, video production costed thousands of dollar and was a big thing, however with the technological advancements, there is an exceptional rise in fake news video as selfie stick or just a smartphone is required to create it[7]. "
Is wikipedia being written by teenagers in Macedonia? 106.91.201.164 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Fake website used to accuse News18 India of publishing Fake News
This edit by User:ScholarM accuses News18 India of publishing Fake News when in fact the website used as reference http://www.timesheadline.com itself is fake news site hosted by some guy named Deepak (See whois info) and not part of any reputed media organisation. This is deliberate addition of misinformation on wikipedia by the said user. --Xzinger (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Removing fake content for now since there is no opposition or even a discussion as per WP:BRD.--Xzinger (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding recent changes
@WikiWizard3: This source you cited points out that there is some fake news among the left. There's nothing really about Misuse of the term there, however. You were adding it to a section titled "Misuse of the term."
That source does not support the claim "that pro-Democratic liberals, progressives, and left-wing to far-left individuals have appropriated the term more to target their political opponents since its emergence."
It does not support the claim that "Contrary to popular belief, considering President Trump's proneness to use the term, as well as his supporters, it is not solely used by Republican politicians, conservative media, or right-wing individuals."
The section is about misuse of the term -- such as when a certain fan of InfoWars and Fox & Friends calls anything besides praise for him "fake news." This source supports that material and there's been no real reason to remove that source or the material it supports.
You can't make up stuff that's not in the source. Summarize sources, don't bother making something up and then slapping a claim on there that is tangentially related. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Start class entry
It has been noticed that 80% of this entry was written by sockpuppets of the CIRT (User:Sagecandor + VPN IP) with help from a few others [38]. Despite 140K of star-power writing, it still remains a start-class / C-class entry, depending on the domain. Can someone explain to me how these classes work on en.wp? — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 23:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Study on fake news retracted
Do we cite this study[39] in the article? It's been retracted and should be removed from the article. I can't look into this right now. Posting it here for ya'll to look into (or as a reminder for me later). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019
| This edit request to Fake news website has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under United Kingdom, change "assist other nations including Europe" to "assist other nations including European countries" (because Europe is not a nation). LuciePalm (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Done Thank you LuciePalm. —PaleoNeonate – 16:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
On Libya's News war propaganda and Not so "Official" sources of news
Dear Editors, Please help expanding, fixing, or improving the Libya's controversial section for news reporting. There are no independent agencies or bodies investigating the rampant historical negationism and politically news reports, and vandalism. Theres a extreme media campaign at work attempting its vicious best to Brainwash the general Libyan public to attune them towards a certain perspective and its working flawlessly. """TRUTH""" is the bane of criminals, and implore your editors to help me expand the Libya controversial section for "Libya observer". I cannot do this on my own. This is a matter of principle, what is right, in such a time in Libya when Criminals are at the helm protecting themselves in any way possible. Thanks. Biomax20 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwang0821. Peer reviewers: AwesomeWikipedian1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcallahan01.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cristalg827. Peer reviewers: Amandaldd, Graffrich.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)