Talk:NewsGuard

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Start‑class

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Start‑class

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Publish News Sources as List; Include "Reliable" News Sources

I think a detailed, standalone list of "Reliable" and "Unreliable" new sources should be given, vs the linear, "in sentence" format being used now. At this time the Article does not include any "reliable" news sources. Also great attention to should be given to exactly how this determination is made, particularly since there is a "license" component, which to me implies that a news source can purchase their "reliability" at the time they pay for their "license". Also, given the recent maneuvers by the SPLC and ADL, I would not be surprised that a News Source's "reliability" would also be determined by their political orientation, and this new quality called "hate".Tym Whittier (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion is not wanted. You start "I think". I don't "think" you understand. I left you a note on your talk page. Eschoryii (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard for reliable source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_Guard_%2B_Media_Bias_Fact_Check_Redux FrederickZoltair (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally

Finally, this has been needed for decades now. The truth will start to be relevant again. And the far right will need a new game. 2600:100F:B133:828B:B95A:FBAC:66B7:D6C3 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms?

This desperately needs a criticisms section.

The tool is heavily criticized on the right/middle for favoring left-wing outlets. Whether you agree with the criticisms or not, that seems relevant.
The design flaw is assuming sites and not articles are the correct fidelity on what to trust.

E.g. a bad/erroneous article at CNN will get a better rating than a good/accurate article on Breitbart. The same article will get different ratings depending on who the aggregator is. That might be inferred to the technical folks by saying "site rating", but the average users/readers should probably have that flaw called out by someone that's better at writing in the correct tone. David Every (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism needs to be cited to a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My neutral statement would be something like,

"Newsguard uses a site based scoring system, instead of article or content based. This means erroneous articles from approved sources are flagged as trustworthy, while a completely accurate articles from unapproved sources will be flagged as untrustworthy -- based on the cites, and not the content. Aggregated articles can be flagged as both depending on whether they were found on an approved or unapproved source."

That seems important tidbit for a layperson to understand. But I'm not sure how to prove it. It is an obvious design/logic flaw to assume everything by a credible source is good, or a non-credible source is bad. We know that's a logical fallacy. But how do I find an approved source that will admit it? (In a citation that's relevant enough to allow an addition?).

I was hoping someone could put in a better worded (approved edit) that got the message across, so I could learn from it.

As for the perceived bias point, ("some believe that Newsguard favors left leaning and mainstream sources in the U.S."), I assume a citation like this: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/joseph-vazquez/2021/12/13/study-newsguard-ratings-system-heavily-skews-favor-left won't meet with approval, even though they are using a simple scoring of Allsides?

Why I don't contribute is that I had watched a lot of discussions on talk. Wikipedia seems to use the same whitelist/blacklist as Newguard: based on sites instead of contents/merits of the article/points, so there's "appeal to authority/pedigree" bias, that turns some areas into echo-chambers.

Of course, I'm not going to try to fight/change the standards. Wikipedia gets to set the rules for their site, so you're fine by explaining/moderating them. e.g. I'm not arguing with you. But I don't know how to lay out a neutral argument that a source is perceived by many as biased -- even though I know that it is. But all the sources that say as much, won't get "approved" as reliable.

NOTE: This is a problem with many textbooks/etc, or anything that tries to offer certainty of consensus/authority instead of the reality of conflicting interpretations of the same data. David Every (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]