![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A clear inclusion criteria is crucial to a list such as this one. I would even argue that there should be no such list unless one can be articulated. Here's a try:
How's that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be unrelated to the discussion, but I want to see these websites listed under a sortable table, with three different columns: the website name, notes about the website, and citations. It then wouldn't look cluttered as it currently is. Evking22 ( talk) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
example
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
example
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I have no idea who runs this site, but there is a list on it http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find anything about this site? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GlobalResearch Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of fake news websites's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Novella2010":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/the-9-worst-fake-news-sites-1681729157 This could be added to a few already here Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding this article too, because it sums up a few sites Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I just removed this:
Because it's contentious, and really should have a few more references if it is to be on this list. In the reference above from Vice News, it says that the map published was corrected. I don't think that sufficient to claim that it's a fake news source. Be my guest if you can find more references. Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
References
If everyone doesn't agree with the classification of BREITBART, then put it in another section in this article, and describe it. If is is a cross between satire news and fake news, then state it. The MOST important thing it is not "real news". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Infowars should be included in this list, its a site that does not use facts. Two more sources here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/dont-get-fooled-by-these-fake-news-sites/8/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/04/fake-news-delivers-real-gunman-to-pizzeria-caught-up-in-alt-right-fake-news.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:6500:16D0:9D07:66D4:D29E:6FC0 ( talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The citation included with the listing of Before It's News cited this article by US News & World Report, which categorized various sites as satire, hoax, or propaganda. The article listed Before It's News as propaganda. Are "the plethora of left- and right-leaning propaganda sites out there, deliberately spreading misinformation in order to appeal to certain groups" (as described by the article) within the scope of this list? Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
ADDENDUM My opinion would be that, to be included on the list, the site must be reported in reliable sources as having intentionally fabricated news articles (in contrast to simply sloppy journalism). Thus, to put it in the terms of the US News & World Report article, I would include only the satire and hoax sites. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The standard of inclusion is far too low. For instance [9] right now just refers to another list. ( http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-14/avoid-these-fake-news-sites-at-all-costs) Specific gripes, that aren't taken out of context, or minor, please. 88.159.72.122 ( talk) 02:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I see many problems regarding a neutral point of view for this article. Perhaps predictably, editors keep introducing agencies to the list that are notable and established because they may have a bias against them, for example Fox News and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Due to this i feel it is appropriate to add the POV dispute template to the article, and the topic can of course be discussed here. -Euphoria42 ( talk)
This article list page brings together information from 24 sources. I checked the talk page but did not see any explanation for the "globalize" tag. Perhaps the tagger could explain and also suggest additional sources they would like to use to add to the page? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Added CNN to the list. One of their journalists admitted that they fabricate news stories at the behest of governments. http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journalist-governments-pay-us-to-fake-stories-shocking-expose/ Nick012000 ( talk) 08:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Amber Lyons did indeed complain about government influence on CNN, but YNW gets the story completely wrong. Lyons complained that a documentary she created for CNN was not aired on its international channel, and speculated this was to avoid offending the government of Bahrain, which purchases advertising from CNN. She never accused CNN of hosting fake news, and never accused any government of pressuring CNN to change a story [2]. The degree to which YNW got the story wrong can only lead to the conclusion it is totally unreliable. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then, how about this: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/ The New York Post might be a tabloid, but they don't publish unreliable information (it risks getting them sued). Donald Trump himself stated that “‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said." Is the President of the United States an unreliable source? Nick012000 ( talk) 10:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Under my inclusion criteria, CNN cannot be listed without a reliable source stating that CNN has a practice of intentionally fabricating news articles (criteria that undisputed fake news sites like National Report would certainly meet). These criteria would prevent endless debate over whether a source some editor doesn't like qualifies as fake news, arguments that would ultimately lead to deletion under WP:LSC. (I trust that User:Nick012000 isn't simply adding CNN and MSNBC just to make a point that the editor doesn't view the sources as reliable.) RJaguar3 | u | t 16:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If FoxNews is missing from this list, then CNN doesn't belong on it either. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source while looking for another source for CNN. Funny how these things work out sometimes. Adding them to the list. www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/16/the-list-lies-and-disputed-stories-nbc-news-let-brian-williams-tell-for-a-decade/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Nick012000 ( talk) 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
"Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source." My irony meter has just pegged its needle and burst into flames. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site. Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake. Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
“ | Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site. Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake. Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something? | ” |
There is an ongoing discussion about what exactly *is* the definition of a 'fake news website'. Plenty of people in the wild, and here on the talkpages, think that any website which ever publishes something THEY personally believe is false, counts as 'fake news' because fake==false==untrue==QED. The trouble with that, obviously, is that there is a big difference between being PURPOSELY FALSE with intent to defraud readership and advertising-infrastructure-firms out of money for clicks, and being biased / yellow journalism / similar. MSNBC is a biased website. FOX is a biased website. Breitbart is a heavily biased website, but they are not a fake news website, and has been correctly removed from the list.
We have several examples of websites in the list now which use URL-squatting techniques for domain names in Colombia, and purposely pretend to be 'NBC' or some other mainstream (albeit biased) news website. That is a clear example of a 'fake news website'. So the question is, where does that leave InfoWars? For starters, it is a real website. It is not a trojan horse website, or a phishing website, or a website which pretends to be 'NBC' or something like that. People that visit InfoWars, know they are visiting InfoWars. It is a corporation, with named owners, and does business in a legitimate fashion. The main business that InfoWars is involved with, is best characterized as Extreme Talk Radio; they are particularly targeting readership/listenership who believe in aliens (cf Coast to Coast), and specifically targeting people who believe in anti-establishment conservative issues (cf Breitbart but vastly more extreme). Plus a bunch of other conspiracy theories of all stripes: conspiracy of banks, conspiracy of government officials, conspiracy of rich people, conspiracy of aliens (see previous), conspiracy of the mainstream media, et cetera, etc, etc.
So what is the difference? Here is a legit Breitbart articlewww.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/08/exclusive-house-conservatives-rally-behind-rep-mick-mulvaney-for-trumps-omb-chief/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used which talks about a possible cabinet-level appointment of Mick Mulvaney who is a Rand Paul-faction-conservative that joined the House Freedom Caucus and helped overthrow John Boehner as speaker, with some straight-reported comments by sitting House Leader and the guy who *almost* replaced Boehner, before Paul Ryan stepped in to take that dirty job, saying that Mulvaney would be a great OMB appointee. Breitbart doesn't give any theory on why estab-repub McCarthy, is endorsing Mulvaney, but reading between the lines (and knowing the factional loyalties of Pete Sessions who is also quoted), the establishment-aka-centrist-repubs are hoping that tea-and-liberty-faction Mulvaney will take the executive branch job and get out of their hair in the legislative branch. The same thing over on InfoWars, would have all kinds of conspiracy theories, as to *why* McCarthy was REALLY endorsing Mulvaney, his sworn intra-party-factional-opponent.
Here is a good example of the kind of story that InfoWars publishes, all the time: "Obama to Expand Modern-Day Slave Trade With TPP".www.infowars.com/obama-to-expand-modern-day-slave-trade-with-tpp/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Once you have clicked the conspiracy-headline, you see that the subtitle is only slighly less conspiratorial: "President inviting slave-trading countries to join trade agreement." And when you read the body-prose, you learn that there is a significant amount of illegal human trafficking in the Thailand, and that there was a tussle between Obama D-IL and Menedez D-NJ over whether to insist that Thailand be excluded from TPP because of the high number of incidents, or whether to include them on the condition that concrete steps to reduce human trafficking were put in place. Obama won, and Menendez removed his poison-pill legislative rider from the TPP, according to the story. Of course, those bare factoids are couched in the most corrosive sort of language, with plenty of room for people who WANT to believe that Obama is in favor of slave-trading, to confirm their preconceived beliefs. That said, there is not much there, obviously, besides yellow journalism and clickbait aimed at ultra conservatives. For a similar example of headline clickbait, aimed at liberals who wnat to justify *their* extant worldview: "Donald Trump Building Team of Racists" from November 18th, which is when Trump made his first cabinet-pick, who is a sitting senator. [3] Or maybe that is 'mainstream' liberal viewpoint, and the 'ultra' liberal viewpoint would be something harping about wealth qua wealth. [4]
What are the conspiracy-oriented-conservative stories, that are currently most popular at InfoWars, as I learned when I read the piece about human trafficking? Well surprise, surprise, the fake news controversy is MANA FROM HEAVEN for the owners of InfoWars, because all their predictions of a global conspiracy to silence them just came true. #1. "CIA Election Report Is FAKE NEWS To Attack Trump & Russia" 2315 Comments. #2. "Rogue CIA Calls For New Election, Could Lead To Trump Assassination." 1639 Comments. #3. " MSM Caught in Massive ' Fake News' Smear Against Alex Jones. 1194 Comments. #4. "Mitt Romney Is Out, Rex Tillerson Is In, I Told You So!" 986 Comments. #5. "Town Fights Back After ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Christmas Tree-topper." 904 Comments.
Three out of the top five stories, are about the fake news controversy. All of them have over a thousand comments, each. More important than government conspiracy to suppress christianity, more important than establishment-faction republicans like Romney getting a cabinet post, is the trilogy of stories about how THERE REALLY IS actually a conspiracy to censor InfoWars. Therefore, I can say with a perfectly straight face, those of you here who want to see Alex Jones become a multimillionaire, those of you that want to make the kind of rhetoric found at InfoWars more and more popular, then you should bend every wikipedia policy you can think of, and keep this list-icle with infowars at the very top of the page. To be frank, InfoWars does not need any help from wikipedia editors -- according to alexa, they are the #1 conservative-leaning political website in the world. Slate is the #1 liberal-leaning political website in the world, also according to Alexa. [5] And what is the difference between Slate, and InfoWars? About 6% from what I can tell: Slate predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 81% chance of winning, [6] whereas InfoWars predicted that Donald Trump had an 87% chance of winning.www.infowars.com/political-science-prof-trump-has-87-of-winning-the-election/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used
Thus, I strongly suggest removing InfoWars from the list here, per IAR. Yes, there are sources which claim it is 'fake news' and yes, there is some basis to that claim, but wikipedia needs to be better than "some basis" because there is also some bias to that claim. Take out InfoWars from this list, and preferably, get rid of the list-icle, entirely and forever, delete and salt. It is NOT going to help improve wikipedia, because there is no firm definition of fake news (one that will not be changing tomorrow as it morphs into something else). It is a transient slang topic, which we ought to cover by disambiguating amongst the various things it can mean. As with 'fascosphere' the definition is primarily encapsulated in the category of we-dislike-them-very-badly. It is a moving target, in other words, and under some variants of the definition, any website with conservative views or Republican party views is 'fake' news. Wikipedia is not in that business, and needs to stay out of that business. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 19:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that all the satire sites on this list need to be removed, satire always has the potential to be misinterpreted. Case in point - http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/north-korea-china-onion/ this page ought to be only for sites that have a record of publishing outright falsehoods, not for comedic purpose, we have a list of satire sites for that. Thoughts anyone? Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Rabble.ca - an activist fake news outlet that inflates numbers to make their left wing pals look more powerful. Stories are blatantly twisted to cast them in a positive light. Violent criminals are haled as heros. Protest numbers are larger than other media reports. This website lies through omission and seldomly is ever critical of it's own faction, the extreme left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtofury ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As I know this list is purely sour grapes from the Trump election, I thought I'd find some really good sites that just make the blood boil of some Wikipedia editors. However, it would help if you just had a list with simple links to each site.
Because after all - with so much in Wikipedia being blatantly false, it's arguable Wikipedia should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Would The Clone Zone qualify for this list?
It allows users to make copies of any site, including news sites, and has resulted in fake news, but is not exclusively a fake news distributor. I'm split about whether to include it or not.
Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I object to the concept of a "Disputed" section, at least as currently framed, as it implies a false equivalence between reliable and unreliable sources in violation of our neutrality guideline as well as our verifiability policy. If reliable sources call a website a fake news website, but the website says it's not fake, then the website belongs in the "fake" category, not some wishy-washy "disputed" category that ignores bedrock Wikipedia principles. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of fake news websites has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Washington Post is not fake and is a respected news outlet. 64.138.198.65 ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverted this addition - It was a frivolous, agenda-pushing edit made without consensus.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
12:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Forbes has stated that The Washington Post pushed a news story about Russians hacking a power grid -- which went viral and created a fake news story. The article clearly lays out how The Washington Post updated the story several times with known false and misleading information. Per the definition of fake news provided by The New York Times and PolitiFact, this qualifies The Washington Post to be added to the list. -- Jdm64 ( talk) 07:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The "Sources" column is confusing and should be re-worked. The problem is that some of the sources are for the site being including on the list, and some of the sources are for the notes, and it's unclear which is which. I propose that we remove the "Sources" column and insert the refs in-text as we would for a non-list article. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the list of fake news websites within this article contain Infowars? Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember folks, we do not have to define fake news and decide what sites meet our criteria. We have to review what reliable independent sources say. If all reliable sources that discuss the fake news status of a site agree that it's fake, then we can say that in Wikipedia's voice. If some do but others analyse the claim and dispute it, then we attribute the categorisation and discuss the dissent. That is policy. Guy ( Help!) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A clear inclusion criteria is crucial to a list such as this one. I would even argue that there should be no such list unless one can be articulated. Here's a try:
How's that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be unrelated to the discussion, but I want to see these websites listed under a sortable table, with three different columns: the website name, notes about the website, and citations. It then wouldn't look cluttered as it currently is. Evking22 ( talk) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
example
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
example
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I have no idea who runs this site, but there is a list on it http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find anything about this site? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GlobalResearch Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of fake news websites's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Novella2010":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/the-9-worst-fake-news-sites-1681729157 This could be added to a few already here Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding this article too, because it sums up a few sites Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I just removed this:
Because it's contentious, and really should have a few more references if it is to be on this list. In the reference above from Vice News, it says that the map published was corrected. I don't think that sufficient to claim that it's a fake news source. Be my guest if you can find more references. Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
References
If everyone doesn't agree with the classification of BREITBART, then put it in another section in this article, and describe it. If is is a cross between satire news and fake news, then state it. The MOST important thing it is not "real news". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Infowars should be included in this list, its a site that does not use facts. Two more sources here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/dont-get-fooled-by-these-fake-news-sites/8/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/04/fake-news-delivers-real-gunman-to-pizzeria-caught-up-in-alt-right-fake-news.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:6500:16D0:9D07:66D4:D29E:6FC0 ( talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The citation included with the listing of Before It's News cited this article by US News & World Report, which categorized various sites as satire, hoax, or propaganda. The article listed Before It's News as propaganda. Are "the plethora of left- and right-leaning propaganda sites out there, deliberately spreading misinformation in order to appeal to certain groups" (as described by the article) within the scope of this list? Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
ADDENDUM My opinion would be that, to be included on the list, the site must be reported in reliable sources as having intentionally fabricated news articles (in contrast to simply sloppy journalism). Thus, to put it in the terms of the US News & World Report article, I would include only the satire and hoax sites. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The standard of inclusion is far too low. For instance [9] right now just refers to another list. ( http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-14/avoid-these-fake-news-sites-at-all-costs) Specific gripes, that aren't taken out of context, or minor, please. 88.159.72.122 ( talk) 02:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I see many problems regarding a neutral point of view for this article. Perhaps predictably, editors keep introducing agencies to the list that are notable and established because they may have a bias against them, for example Fox News and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Due to this i feel it is appropriate to add the POV dispute template to the article, and the topic can of course be discussed here. -Euphoria42 ( talk)
This article list page brings together information from 24 sources. I checked the talk page but did not see any explanation for the "globalize" tag. Perhaps the tagger could explain and also suggest additional sources they would like to use to add to the page? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Added CNN to the list. One of their journalists admitted that they fabricate news stories at the behest of governments. http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journalist-governments-pay-us-to-fake-stories-shocking-expose/ Nick012000 ( talk) 08:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Amber Lyons did indeed complain about government influence on CNN, but YNW gets the story completely wrong. Lyons complained that a documentary she created for CNN was not aired on its international channel, and speculated this was to avoid offending the government of Bahrain, which purchases advertising from CNN. She never accused CNN of hosting fake news, and never accused any government of pressuring CNN to change a story [2]. The degree to which YNW got the story wrong can only lead to the conclusion it is totally unreliable. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then, how about this: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/ The New York Post might be a tabloid, but they don't publish unreliable information (it risks getting them sued). Donald Trump himself stated that “‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said." Is the President of the United States an unreliable source? Nick012000 ( talk) 10:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Under my inclusion criteria, CNN cannot be listed without a reliable source stating that CNN has a practice of intentionally fabricating news articles (criteria that undisputed fake news sites like National Report would certainly meet). These criteria would prevent endless debate over whether a source some editor doesn't like qualifies as fake news, arguments that would ultimately lead to deletion under WP:LSC. (I trust that User:Nick012000 isn't simply adding CNN and MSNBC just to make a point that the editor doesn't view the sources as reliable.) RJaguar3 | u | t 16:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If FoxNews is missing from this list, then CNN doesn't belong on it either. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source while looking for another source for CNN. Funny how these things work out sometimes. Adding them to the list. www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/16/the-list-lies-and-disputed-stories-nbc-news-let-brian-williams-tell-for-a-decade/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Nick012000 ( talk) 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
"Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source." My irony meter has just pegged its needle and burst into flames. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site. Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake. Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
“ | Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site. Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake. Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something? | ” |
There is an ongoing discussion about what exactly *is* the definition of a 'fake news website'. Plenty of people in the wild, and here on the talkpages, think that any website which ever publishes something THEY personally believe is false, counts as 'fake news' because fake==false==untrue==QED. The trouble with that, obviously, is that there is a big difference between being PURPOSELY FALSE with intent to defraud readership and advertising-infrastructure-firms out of money for clicks, and being biased / yellow journalism / similar. MSNBC is a biased website. FOX is a biased website. Breitbart is a heavily biased website, but they are not a fake news website, and has been correctly removed from the list.
We have several examples of websites in the list now which use URL-squatting techniques for domain names in Colombia, and purposely pretend to be 'NBC' or some other mainstream (albeit biased) news website. That is a clear example of a 'fake news website'. So the question is, where does that leave InfoWars? For starters, it is a real website. It is not a trojan horse website, or a phishing website, or a website which pretends to be 'NBC' or something like that. People that visit InfoWars, know they are visiting InfoWars. It is a corporation, with named owners, and does business in a legitimate fashion. The main business that InfoWars is involved with, is best characterized as Extreme Talk Radio; they are particularly targeting readership/listenership who believe in aliens (cf Coast to Coast), and specifically targeting people who believe in anti-establishment conservative issues (cf Breitbart but vastly more extreme). Plus a bunch of other conspiracy theories of all stripes: conspiracy of banks, conspiracy of government officials, conspiracy of rich people, conspiracy of aliens (see previous), conspiracy of the mainstream media, et cetera, etc, etc.
So what is the difference? Here is a legit Breitbart articlewww.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/08/exclusive-house-conservatives-rally-behind-rep-mick-mulvaney-for-trumps-omb-chief/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used which talks about a possible cabinet-level appointment of Mick Mulvaney who is a Rand Paul-faction-conservative that joined the House Freedom Caucus and helped overthrow John Boehner as speaker, with some straight-reported comments by sitting House Leader and the guy who *almost* replaced Boehner, before Paul Ryan stepped in to take that dirty job, saying that Mulvaney would be a great OMB appointee. Breitbart doesn't give any theory on why estab-repub McCarthy, is endorsing Mulvaney, but reading between the lines (and knowing the factional loyalties of Pete Sessions who is also quoted), the establishment-aka-centrist-repubs are hoping that tea-and-liberty-faction Mulvaney will take the executive branch job and get out of their hair in the legislative branch. The same thing over on InfoWars, would have all kinds of conspiracy theories, as to *why* McCarthy was REALLY endorsing Mulvaney, his sworn intra-party-factional-opponent.
Here is a good example of the kind of story that InfoWars publishes, all the time: "Obama to Expand Modern-Day Slave Trade With TPP".www.infowars.com/obama-to-expand-modern-day-slave-trade-with-tpp/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Once you have clicked the conspiracy-headline, you see that the subtitle is only slighly less conspiratorial: "President inviting slave-trading countries to join trade agreement." And when you read the body-prose, you learn that there is a significant amount of illegal human trafficking in the Thailand, and that there was a tussle between Obama D-IL and Menedez D-NJ over whether to insist that Thailand be excluded from TPP because of the high number of incidents, or whether to include them on the condition that concrete steps to reduce human trafficking were put in place. Obama won, and Menendez removed his poison-pill legislative rider from the TPP, according to the story. Of course, those bare factoids are couched in the most corrosive sort of language, with plenty of room for people who WANT to believe that Obama is in favor of slave-trading, to confirm their preconceived beliefs. That said, there is not much there, obviously, besides yellow journalism and clickbait aimed at ultra conservatives. For a similar example of headline clickbait, aimed at liberals who wnat to justify *their* extant worldview: "Donald Trump Building Team of Racists" from November 18th, which is when Trump made his first cabinet-pick, who is a sitting senator. [3] Or maybe that is 'mainstream' liberal viewpoint, and the 'ultra' liberal viewpoint would be something harping about wealth qua wealth. [4]
What are the conspiracy-oriented-conservative stories, that are currently most popular at InfoWars, as I learned when I read the piece about human trafficking? Well surprise, surprise, the fake news controversy is MANA FROM HEAVEN for the owners of InfoWars, because all their predictions of a global conspiracy to silence them just came true. #1. "CIA Election Report Is FAKE NEWS To Attack Trump & Russia" 2315 Comments. #2. "Rogue CIA Calls For New Election, Could Lead To Trump Assassination." 1639 Comments. #3. " MSM Caught in Massive ' Fake News' Smear Against Alex Jones. 1194 Comments. #4. "Mitt Romney Is Out, Rex Tillerson Is In, I Told You So!" 986 Comments. #5. "Town Fights Back After ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Christmas Tree-topper." 904 Comments.
Three out of the top five stories, are about the fake news controversy. All of them have over a thousand comments, each. More important than government conspiracy to suppress christianity, more important than establishment-faction republicans like Romney getting a cabinet post, is the trilogy of stories about how THERE REALLY IS actually a conspiracy to censor InfoWars. Therefore, I can say with a perfectly straight face, those of you here who want to see Alex Jones become a multimillionaire, those of you that want to make the kind of rhetoric found at InfoWars more and more popular, then you should bend every wikipedia policy you can think of, and keep this list-icle with infowars at the very top of the page. To be frank, InfoWars does not need any help from wikipedia editors -- according to alexa, they are the #1 conservative-leaning political website in the world. Slate is the #1 liberal-leaning political website in the world, also according to Alexa. [5] And what is the difference between Slate, and InfoWars? About 6% from what I can tell: Slate predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 81% chance of winning, [6] whereas InfoWars predicted that Donald Trump had an 87% chance of winning.www.infowars.com/political-science-prof-trump-has-87-of-winning-the-election/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used
Thus, I strongly suggest removing InfoWars from the list here, per IAR. Yes, there are sources which claim it is 'fake news' and yes, there is some basis to that claim, but wikipedia needs to be better than "some basis" because there is also some bias to that claim. Take out InfoWars from this list, and preferably, get rid of the list-icle, entirely and forever, delete and salt. It is NOT going to help improve wikipedia, because there is no firm definition of fake news (one that will not be changing tomorrow as it morphs into something else). It is a transient slang topic, which we ought to cover by disambiguating amongst the various things it can mean. As with 'fascosphere' the definition is primarily encapsulated in the category of we-dislike-them-very-badly. It is a moving target, in other words, and under some variants of the definition, any website with conservative views or Republican party views is 'fake' news. Wikipedia is not in that business, and needs to stay out of that business. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 19:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that all the satire sites on this list need to be removed, satire always has the potential to be misinterpreted. Case in point - http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/north-korea-china-onion/ this page ought to be only for sites that have a record of publishing outright falsehoods, not for comedic purpose, we have a list of satire sites for that. Thoughts anyone? Victor Grigas ( talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Rabble.ca - an activist fake news outlet that inflates numbers to make their left wing pals look more powerful. Stories are blatantly twisted to cast them in a positive light. Violent criminals are haled as heros. Protest numbers are larger than other media reports. This website lies through omission and seldomly is ever critical of it's own faction, the extreme left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtofury ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As I know this list is purely sour grapes from the Trump election, I thought I'd find some really good sites that just make the blood boil of some Wikipedia editors. However, it would help if you just had a list with simple links to each site.
Because after all - with so much in Wikipedia being blatantly false, it's arguable Wikipedia should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Would The Clone Zone qualify for this list?
It allows users to make copies of any site, including news sites, and has resulted in fake news, but is not exclusively a fake news distributor. I'm split about whether to include it or not.
Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I object to the concept of a "Disputed" section, at least as currently framed, as it implies a false equivalence between reliable and unreliable sources in violation of our neutrality guideline as well as our verifiability policy. If reliable sources call a website a fake news website, but the website says it's not fake, then the website belongs in the "fake" category, not some wishy-washy "disputed" category that ignores bedrock Wikipedia principles. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of fake news websites has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Washington Post is not fake and is a respected news outlet. 64.138.198.65 ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverted this addition - It was a frivolous, agenda-pushing edit made without consensus.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
12:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Forbes has stated that The Washington Post pushed a news story about Russians hacking a power grid -- which went viral and created a fake news story. The article clearly lays out how The Washington Post updated the story several times with known false and misleading information. Per the definition of fake news provided by The New York Times and PolitiFact, this qualifies The Washington Post to be added to the list. -- Jdm64 ( talk) 07:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The "Sources" column is confusing and should be re-worked. The problem is that some of the sources are for the site being including on the list, and some of the sources are for the notes, and it's unclear which is which. I propose that we remove the "Sources" column and insert the refs in-text as we would for a non-list article. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the list of fake news websites within this article contain Infowars? Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember folks, we do not have to define fake news and decide what sites meet our criteria. We have to review what reliable independent sources say. If all reliable sources that discuss the fake news status of a site agree that it's fake, then we can say that in Wikipedia's voice. If some do but others analyse the claim and dispute it, then we attribute the categorisation and discuss the dissent. That is policy. Guy ( Help!) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)