Talk:List of fake news websites: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
DrFleischman (talk | contribs) →RT: better |
KalHolmann (talk | contribs) →RT: restore original wording |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::Two of them come pretty damn close, and all of them discuss RT in the context of fake news sites. While I'm with the good doctor on this, these stories are giving me reason to believe that it'll only take a little time or elbow grease to find such a source. Unless and until then, we need to leave this out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::Two of them come pretty damn close, and all of them discuss RT in the context of fake news sites. While I'm with the good doctor on this, these stories are giving me reason to believe that it'll only take a little time or elbow grease to find such a source. Unless and until then, we need to leave this out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::I've been reading about RT and participating in its article since Julia Ioffe came out with her expose a year or two ago, and I'd be surprised if such a source exists. It's only quite recently that journalists seem to be in a rough consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. They're very cautious about the language they use, perhaps because there many of their colleagues have worked there. One thing is for sure, RT is very different from the fake news sites on this list. They have a real newsroom and a number of respected journalists. It's odd for me to write that since I'm the last person to defend RT. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 00:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
:::::I've been reading about RT and participating in its article since Julia Ioffe came out with her expose a year or two ago, and I'd be surprised if such a source exists. It's only quite recently that journalists seem to be in a rough consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. They're very cautious about the language they use, perhaps because there many of their colleagues have worked there. One thing is for sure, RT is very different from the fake news sites on this list. They have a real newsroom and a number of respected journalists. It's odd for me to write that since I'm the last person to defend RT. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 00:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::RT is biased and a mouthpiece for the russian government, but pointing that out implicates that it is somehow unique. there's no difference between Russia Times and the New York Times, they say the other publication is propaganda and that they are the true bastion of journalism while doing the exact same thing they criticize the other side for. If Russia Times is Fake News, it also means that the New York Times is fake news by the exact same standards [[Special:Contributions/75.98.102.151|75.98.102.151]] ([[User talk:75.98.102.151|talk]]) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::::RT is biased and a mouthpiece for the russian government, but pointing that out implicates that it is somehow unique. there's no difference between Russia Times and the New York Times, they say the other publication is propaganda and that they are the true bastion of journalism while doing the exact same thing they criticize the other side for. If Russia Times is Fake News, it also means that the New York Times is fake news by the exact same standards [[Special:Contributions/75.98.102.151|75.98.102.151]] ([[User talk:75.98.102.151|talk]]) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::No, it doesn't. |
::::::No, it doesn't. Next! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Please let each editor revise & extend his own remarks. Thank you. [[User:KalHolmann|KalHolmann]] ([[User talk:KalHolmann|talk]]) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:53, 2 February 2018
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fake news websites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fake news websites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
RT
Alex Blokha, you will need to find a reliable source identifying RT as a fake news website (not just propaganda) before we can add it to the list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Propaganda _always_ contains fake news about other side.
- 2)
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/magazine/rt-sputnik-and-russias-new-theory-of-war.html
- http://www.newsweek.com/twitter-ban-rt-sputnik-election-693942
- http://fortune.com/2017/09/17/russia-network-rt-propaganda/
- https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/russia-fake-news-reality/index.html Is it enough? --Alex Blokha (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- None of those sources identify RT as fake news. We are not expanding the scope of this list to include sites identified as propaganda, at least not without a broad consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two of them come pretty damn close, and all of them discuss RT in the context of fake news sites. While I'm with the good doctor on this, these stories are giving me reason to believe that it'll only take a little time or elbow grease to find such a source. Unless and until then, we need to leave this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've been reading about RT and participating in its article since Julia Ioffe came out with her expose a year or two ago, and I'd be surprised if such a source exists. It's only quite recently that journalists seem to be in a rough consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. They're very cautious about the language they use, perhaps because there many of their colleagues have worked there. One thing is for sure, RT is very different from the fake news sites on this list. They have a real newsroom and a number of respected journalists. It's odd for me to write that since I'm the last person to defend RT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- RT is biased and a mouthpiece for the russian government, but pointing that out implicates that it is somehow unique. there's no difference between Russia Times and the New York Times, they say the other publication is propaganda and that they are the true bastion of journalism while doing the exact same thing they criticize the other side for. If Russia Times is Fake News, it also means that the New York Times is fake news by the exact same standards 75.98.102.151 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Next! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please let each editor revise & extend his own remarks. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Next! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Two of them come pretty damn close, and all of them discuss RT in the context of fake news sites. While I'm with the good doctor on this, these stories are giving me reason to believe that it'll only take a little time or elbow grease to find such a source. Unless and until then, we need to leave this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- None of those sources identify RT as fake news. We are not expanding the scope of this list to include sites identified as propaganda, at least not without a broad consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- List-Class Internet articles
- Unknown-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- List-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- List-Class Websites articles
- Unknown-importance Websites articles
- List-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
- List-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- List-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles