Talk:List of fake news websites

This list will turn into nonsense if a clear inclusion criteria isn't set

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:

• Every site on the list must be accompanied by at least one reliable source.
• Every site on the list much either:
  • have its own Wikipedia article, or
  • be supported by no less than 3 reliable sources (this is a high bar on purpose).
• Sourcing must support the site being a "fake news site" or otherwise be noted for its pattern of publishing "fake news". Until this concept develops, this is a neologism, and including a site just because it has a pattern of publishing deceptive or misleading content is not at this point sufficient.

How's that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, Victorgrigas, and Jfhutson:Unfortunately, I think maybe Rhododendrites is correct here. We already discussed this a bit at Talk:Fake news website, and I was quite hesitant about this new page, or even a list of same at the main article page at Fake news website. Perhaps the best thing for now is redirect back to Fake news website and keep improving and discussing in-text in a paragraph format. What do others think here? Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My thought is that we should wait a week, try to fill in everything we can, and then any fake site that doesn't have 2 sources (I think 2 is enough for a pattern) should be included, and the others should be in a list on the talk page that we all can keep filling in until we have enough sources on each fake site to migrate to the article. Thoughts? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List vs. table display

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)

How do you sort descriptions and citations (why would you?)? There was a table with one column that violated WP:ELNO and another that was effectively a text description that inappropriately took the place of citations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe something like this, shown below, with no external links. Or you can put the citations in the notes and forget about the citations column altogether. Evking22 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

example

Website name Notes Citations 70 News Published a false news story, stating that Donald Trump had won the popular vote in the 2016 United States presidential election, which the Washington Post reported rose to the top of Google News hits for "final election results". ABCnews.com.co This website mimics the URL, design and logo of ABC News. It is owned by Paul Horner. AmericanNews.com Published a false story claiming actor Denzel Washington endorsed Donald Trump for president. The fictional headline attracted led to thousands of people sharing it on Facebook, a prominent example of fake news spreading on the social network prior to the election. References

I think Evking22 has a great idea here, this would make the article page look much better. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a purpose to doing this, other than personal aesthetic preference? The citations don't need their own column (and doing so is where we use direct quotes, which need the citation immediately following the quote), but otherwise my objections are only minor. So, first, on the aesthetic end of things, the amount of content tends to vary considerably, so we have ugliness like this:

example

70news Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. [1][2][3][4][5] Othersite [1] Othersite2 [1] Somesite Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.[1][2][3]

Second, having everything in a table makes it harder for users to add/remove/modify things without breaking things. Third, it makes it a little harder to organize later (like breaking into sections, for example). In general I weakly oppose tablefying lists unless there's a lot of standard information (like specs for a comparison of cameras) or a need to sort by multiple elements (author vs. book, say). Here I don't see any of that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

According to breaking news story one of top stories, right now, on Google News, will be helpful in the future to organize the sites by country of origin, especially ties to government of Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried it as a table earlier today, and I'd like a table too, but I think the sites/page/references need a bit more work first.Victor Grigas (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a valid source?

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)

I'd suggest this source instead:

• Rachel Dicker (14 November 2016), "Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs", U.S. News & World Report, retrieved 16 November 2016

Hope that's helpful. Sagecandor (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally wondering if the website http://realorsatire.com/ is good enough for sourcing. It's a searchable database of news websites that are listed under several categories, including whether or not if they are real or satire. Evking22 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for a start on research externally. Then to confirm with secondary sources. But not to use in article space itself. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Center for global research?

Can anyone find anything about this site? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GlobalResearch Victor Grigas (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

While "Centre for Research on Globalisation" and its author himself both fail reliable sources and should not be themselves used as references (promotion of conspiracy theories, etc.) -- I also haven't yet found sources calling either "fake news", so far. Would be interested to hear updates if that changes. Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of fake news websites

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":

• From Natural News: Novella, Steven (2010-12-14). "H1N1 Vaccine and Miscarriages – More Fear Mongering". Neurologica (blog). New England Skeptical Society.
• From Alternative medicine: Novella, S. (2010-08-04). "Acupuncture pseudoscience in The New England Journal of Medicine". Science-Based Medicine. Archived from the original on 2013-09-28. {{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)

I think it's the first one so have copied that into the article. Robert Walker (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Another list - from 2015

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)

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/websites-can-create-outrageous-lies-just-for-clicks-but-why-and-how-is-this-legal-10379088.html

Adding this article too, because it sums up a few sites Victor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Another list from 2014 http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/handy-rundown-internets-fake-news-sites
• more quotes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/21/did-facebook-just-kill-the-webs-burgeoning-fake-news-industry/

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart.com

I just removed this:

Breitbart.com

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)

• There's also IB Times (basically Zimdars, though), Vox (but known for being a bit left-leaning, I think), The Intercept (but says they "in many cases [produce] fake stories..." rather than call them a "fake news site")... BBC on the other hand, draws a distinction between Breitbart and "fake news", which seems like it's probably going to be the consensus view: Breitbart exacerbates and profits from fake news, but despite having a poor record for fact-checking, it is a quasi journalistic enterprise and probably shouldn't be on the list without other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 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)

so I think that the current list is a strict one, if we add others that vary in content, we need to create new sections, as Zimdars did. Victor Grigas (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't just start adding categories, though. If it's not called a fake news site by some decent number of sources (TBD here), it shouldn't be included in a list of fake news websites (different section or otherwise). After all, there are separate concepts about, say, sensationalist news, partisan news, gossip sites, and sites with poor editorial oversight and fact-checking. "Fake news website" has things in common with all of them, and there's obviously no bright line distinction, but there does seem to be a consensus that fake news sites intentionally publish false or misleading stories and should be distinguished from the others. They play a role in this that should be covered in the main article, but I don't see a way to include it here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

thus we need to make a new LIST article, such as "List of unreliable news websites", and put BreitBart at the top of the list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! I'd say go for it :) Victor Grigas (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Infowars.com

• Infowars.com has been removed - there was a reference to it, but if I recall, it was only one reference, and there seems to be a heated discussion on the page for Alex Jones (radio host) about the issue currently. Are there other sources for this? Victor Grigas (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Should propaganda sites be included?

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)

Too low standard for inclusion, specific gripes please

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)