Talk:Fake news website

Possible page move

Should this be called Fake news or Fake news article with content about the sites in a section within? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah it's big enough for its own independent article. Sagecandor (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sagecandor. Okay, fair enough. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anna Frodesiak ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for the feedback, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Anna Frodesiak. Say, we're having trouble coming to a good compromise resolution down on this page at Talk:Fake_news_website#Paul_Horner_quote, maybe you could weigh in with your wisdom for us. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I don't know what to say about that. Well, you are all fine at that thread. I'm sure you'll work it out. Sorry I can't help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak:Do you want to revisit after the article has now been expanded and see if the title still fits of if there is a wider title that could work? Sagecandor (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sagecandor. Well I'm pretty out of touch with this article. You and others who have been working on it should decide. Best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright no problem. Sagecandor (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Paul Horner quote

I cut this yesterday with User:Snooganssnoogans's agreement, but User:Sagecandor has added it back - what does the article gain by telling the reader that one particular fake news writer claims to make $10,000 dollars a month and believes that "Trump is in the White House because of me"? It's not a useful figure on the profit from fake news because the next paragraph has a secondary source for Balkan teenagers making ten times that much, and it's all WP:NEWSPRIMARY - a secondary source commenting on one liar's impact might be worth mentioning, but that liar's self-aggrandising assessment of his own work seems inappropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand how you feel and it is certainly most upsetting information. But it has been re-quoted and re-reported by many many secondary sources, three of which I cited in the article text itself, including "According to Business Insider, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Plain Dealer ..." before the quoted text itself. Sagecandor (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Inside Edition
2. CBS News
3. TODAY
4. WHDT

Lots and lots of coverage in searches verbatim for "Paul Horner" and "Fake". Whether we like it or not, it is getting lots and lots of analysis from secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSPRIMARY, interview quotes are considered primary sources, not secondary. --McGeddon (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, but we've got listed above secondary sources reporting on it, and we avoid using the primary source, The Washington Post, in the article for that particular piece of information. Instead, we now rely upon three other secondary sources -- Business Insider, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Plain Dealer. Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NEWSPRIMARY explicitly considers "interviews and reports of interviews" to be the same thing. The real problem here is that most of the quotation is redundant - we already have a stronger secondary source on fake news revenue (giving a higher number), and a secondary source on the BLP claim that members of Trump's staff reposted fake stories. All this quote adds is a self-confessed hoaxer telling us how influential he believes himself to be. --McGeddon (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should remove Horner's quote on his supposed influence on the election. The man is not a political scientist, expert on politics or notable politician, and he shouldn't be quoted on that topic. Its' not a particularly interesting quote either. I'm neutral as to whether we should include Horner's claim as to how much he earns a month on fabricating news. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed all the quotations from that person, Better? Sagecandor (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidently others feel the quotes should be included. After my edit, another user, Thunderforge, added it back as a new paragraph about the quotes, and I removed that in the spirit of collaboration from this talk page here. I've asked him on his talk page to come here to share his views. Sagecandor (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And, it was added back, again, this time by Volunteer Marek at here. Sagecandor (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My main reason for adding it was that there was nothing regarding this widely reported interview (I found it in an Ars Technica article) in the section for the 2016 Presidential election. It didn't even occur to me to look for it elsewhere. I do think that it's worth mentioning that he believes he influenced the election (because so many news sites are repeating that claim), but regardless, I think something needs to be in the 2016 US Presidential election section. -Thunderforge (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So far we appear to have Sagecandor, Thunderforge, and Volunteer Marek for keeping some version of the quotes, and McGeddon and Snooganssnoogans against. Can we come to some sort of compromise resolution somehow? Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, some of the quote is useful. I thought my version was a "compromise resolution" already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I can live with the current version, since my main concern was having something in the 2016 U.S. president section. I would still like to have Horner's claim that he influenced the election, but I think that the existing quote is acceptable. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thunderforge:I'm okay with that too, but I'd like to come to a conclusion that makes the article more stable. Sagecandor (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker re-quoted the quotes, at "The Failure of Facebook Democracy". Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Russia removal

I've removed the reference to Russia, as the claimed source on Buzzfeed claims to source that statement from another article (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.olllYk8vO#.teBLGAVYN) yet if you click that article, there is no mention of Russia. I assume this is anti-Russian rhetoric. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. The other citation does (this) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-read what I said please. On your Business Insider link, click the link to the source, it goes to Buzzfeed, but the Buzzfeed article doesn't mention Russia at all. I've reverted your edit, if you wish to remove it please clarify on my Talk page first to avoid an edit war. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. Used many other different secondary sources. Now extensively documented in its own separate subsection in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:Incredibly revealing investigation by two separate expert research groups as reported by The Washington Post:

• Timberg, Craig (24 November 2016), "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say", The Washington Post, retrieved 25 November 2016

Added and incorporated into the article and the introduction section. Sagecandor (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I misunderstood the IP's original objection, but it looks like you've addressed it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Glad you approve! Sagecandor (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Over-reliability on single source

This article relies heavily on Buzzfeed citations. Is this considered a 'reliable' source to use anyway? The irony of criticising false news and citing Buzzfeed isn't lost on me. Given that it's predominantly left-wing, is it safe to assume that Buzzfeed is fine to quote? (I jest) 151.229.53.102 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed does widely respected investigative reporting, in addition to the lists, gifs and other nonsense on the site. See, for instance, this piece by the Poynter Institute about Buzzfeed's investigative journalism[1]: how it has won and been nominated for journalism awards and how its journalists are highly esteemed. Or this piece about how CNN hired an entire investigative journalism team from Buzzfeed[2]. The stories that were broken by Buzzfeed in this article have been widely reported on elsewhere in reliable sources. So we're not being overly reliant on a bad source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker significantly relied upon the investigative reporting by BuzzFeed News, at "The Failure of Facebook Democracy". Sagecandor (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

respected by whom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.11.118 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 

Classifying Politifact.com as a biased and satirical website

There seems to be an unsolicited, not sourced and incorrect claim that Politifact.com is a fact-checking website. Please justify this claim, or keep my edit on there, or let's compromise by not mentioning the website.

It needs a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If you need evidence that PolitiFact.com is a fact-checking website....try clicking on the link and reading the article itself. Please stop making politically motivated edits and pretending you are reverting trolls. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think that "source" includes an article from the website itself I think you are deluded and politically motivated. http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/12/epic-humiliation-politifact-makes-13-errors-in-a-single-clinton-cash-fact-check/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither are reliable sources, and hurling political invective will lead to a block. GAB^gab 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither is sourcing a claim about an organisation ... from the organisation itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said the organization should reference itself. I invited you to read the Wikipedia article on PolitiFact.com which has over 30 references. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Justeditingtoday:Multiple secondary sources identifying PolitiFact.com as a fact-checking website were already provided in the article. Including the text:

Fact-checking website PolitiFact.com was praised by its colleagues at FactCheck.org and recommended as a resource for readers to check before sharing a potentially fake story.

References

Lori Robertson and Eugene Kiely (18 November 2016), "How to Spot Fake News", FactCheck.org, retrieved 19 November 2016

Praise from their competitors and colleagues over at FactCheck.org. Sagecandor (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Overabundance of images

There are frankly just too many unnecessary and redundant images in this article, that mostly seem like a way to imprint the 'message' of this article into the mind of someone who will just skim it, and look at the pictures. The images of Russia on the map, and the Russian flag, are just ridiculous. They don't add anything to the article, and only serve to make more transparent the POV of the cadre of editors in control of this article. Likewise the images of Obama, or of the logo for a website, are superfluous. I know my recommendation will be ignored because it goes against the bias of the editors-in-chief, but hopefully others who see this absolute mess of an article, and go to the talk page, will find some encouragement in knowing they are not alone in their outrage at this abuse of Wikipedia. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What sources do you have to support your claims of bias and POV of this article, please? Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior comment by same user appears to show support for White nationalism at link. Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There were ten images in the article on 25 November 2016. The Current version has 12 images and only one (town of Veles, Macedonia) is not USA or Russia related.

And that's not proof that the IP supports White nationalism (as if that were a bad thing). He is simply pointing out racism and sexism against certain group (White/European males). Emily Goldstein (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I was interviewed by Vice about fake news

I don't know if this is useful for the media section? I certainly won't add it, but wanted everyone to know it's here: http://www.vice.com/en_se/read/a-wikipedian-told-us-how-wikipedia-stays-reliable-in-the-fake-news-era Victor Grigas (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, great job Victor! And thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

In an article about the reliability of Wikipedia, it's somewhat less-than reassuring to see the words: "How deep is the Mariana trench? Forty-three miles." --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone on my facebook feed mentioned that too. Want to reach out to the writer for a correction? I don't think I should, and a Wikipedian doing it would have more weight and would further prove the point of the article.Victor Grigas (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Geographic Bias

I added a couple of templates to the article because, after reading it, I noticed a very strong geographic bias. That's not necessarily surprising given how many US-based contributors there are on Wikipedia (myself included), but writing an article using primarily US-based research and sources gives a US-slanted article.

For example, in the lead section alone, the following sources are mentioned: BuzzFeed, US News & World Report, PropOrNot and Foreign Policy Research Institute, GWU, RAND, and President Obama. All quite clearly American sources, and no viewpoints from any countries outside the United States. The article itself does provide a greater diversity of sources, but they too are limited to pretty much just the United States and Western Europe.

I'd also like to point out that "fake news" is a broader concept than just the US presidential election, so it's not fitting (and US-biased) for the lead section to solely focus on that topic. --Slon02 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The article cites issues involving Russia, Macedonia, Romania, Sweden, Germany, Indonesia, and Philippines. Slon02 has provided zero secondary sources to back up his spurious claims of bias. The article presents a global focus already. Sagecandor (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. You'll need to show some sort of evidence other than your own research/belief to support that. This has been a major story in the United States recently, so a large number of available sources will be based in the US. It's also a neologism that, while it refers to something broader, is specific enough and contentious enough that we'd need sources specifically calling things "fake news" (rather than simply incorrect, sensational, conspiracist, etc.). You may be right, but there needs to be a better justification/explanation for placing a tag like that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhododendrites, for your helpful explanation here. In addition, I've taken care to make some edits to improve the global and worldwide focus on multiple different countries of the article. Hopefully this shows, right from the introduction itself, that this is a global issue impacting multiple different countries throughout the world, and that the article now covers this. Sagecandor (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot

This is a great article. It really needs an example image of some fake news website to document the problem - this would be acceptable under fair use. Any suggestions for a really blatantly false story? I looked for "Pope Endorses Trump" pages but they all seem to have been deleted now their purpose has passed. Blythwood (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone has added a screenshot of endingthefed.com. I don't think it's accurate to say it's a valid fair use claim to take any example of a site listed as a fake news site. It would need to be the subject of critical commentary in the article. To that end I grabbed PolitiFact's screenshot of 70news, which is explicitly covered in this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's preferable to have all images on the page be under a free use license. Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded this screenshot from realtruenews. ^Falling_Gravity 19:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Free is preferable indeed, but screenshots typically don't work that way. :) Except, of course, when there's nothing copyrightable (as is probably the case with this Realtruenews screenshot, which is just text, not laid out particularly creatively). When it's just text, however, it's unclear how much it adds in terms of illustrating the subject (unless it's e.g. a logo of a company in an article about the company). More options is better, and it doesn't hurt to have, but it looks like Realtruenews is another that we don't talk about at all in the article. That matters for non-free rationales, but also just insofar as images connect to the text. Also, the subject is just as much the fake news stories as it is the sites, which is why the 70news screenshot seemed ideal (mentioned in the text, well covered by sources, displays the site along with a well-known headline). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Realtruenews was covered here when some online communities passed a fake Hillary speech transcript as a real one. Additionally, the screenshot contains the admission "Everything on RealTrueNews Was A LIE", illustrating the article's subject. Maybe it could use some more cropping, though, to focus on that text. ^Falling_Gravity 22:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much to user:FallingGravity for the suggestion. Replaced the fair-use-asserted picture with the Free-Use-Licensed picture. Sagecandor (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:Thanks for that valuable source. I've added it to the article. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The free option doesn't automatically take precedence if it doesn't actually serve to illustrate the subject. You've replaced an illustration of the subject via an actual fake news story headline that has received extensive coverage such that it's representative of what the entire article is about... with an image of a header we could just as easily describe in article text (i.e. the caption says everything the image says -- very little is actually illustrated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say I agree here with the suggestion by FallingGravity and I think we should try to have the entire article be Free-Use-Licensed-Pictures-Only, if at all possible. Sagecandor (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: You didn't reply to anything I said. Being free isn't sufficient justification. It needs to be free and actually illustrate the subject. Non-free is perfectly acceptable if you cannot otherwise illustrate the subject that way. Again, you've removed an illustration of a well-covered fake news story in a fake news site with text taken from a site intended to mock fake news sites. If a huge caption that makes the image redundant is necessary, it's not the best way to illustrate the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I gotta go with the recommendation by FallingGravity on this one — this is a website that was actually reported by a major media source, The Kelly File on FOX News, as if it were completely a factual source. That is remarkable. And unique for this particular fake news website, where the other story was a high Google search result, but was not falsely picked up by a major news outlet as factual. That is a major feat. Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's funny cause the contents of this website were supposed to be so obviously fake that no one could possibly accept it as true. A similar thing happened the same month, though I don't think that's within the scope of this article. Another thing I might add is that the "Everything on RealTrueNews Was A LIE" message was only recently added to the site. ^Falling_Gravity 00:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As comment, I think the 70news screenshot is worth having. It's good to have a specific example of a specific fake news website making a specific fake story that we can show to people a case study. Blythwood (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Blythwood, and I like where you added it to the article in that location. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I still say the Realtruenews screenshot is a terrible one to lead with. That's not to say it shouldn't be anywhere, but we start off saying "it's distinct from satire" and then show a picture of a site "intended to show reader gullibility" that's pointing out its own lies. I still say it doesn't actually illustrate anything, and seems contrary to the entire lead it accompanies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about that -- because in one picture we have represented the idea of being labelled as "news" and also pointing out to the reader it is a "lie" on the same picture. Seems to be a basic summary of the whole idea right there in one image. Sagecandor (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump vs. Clinton

Pretty much every source I've seen emphasizes that the fake news purveyors tried out both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump stories but it was only the former that took off. This should be reflected in our article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that reported on by lots of secondary sources also. It's already in the article in multiple places. Quite strange times, I wonder why that pattern was? Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment, but fake news websites are specialists in telling people what they want to hear. You shouldn't necessarily believe them when they speak to a liberal newspaper and tell its liberal journalists how smart they are. Although it is certainly true that they particularly seem to have targeted Trump voters. Blythwood (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I wonder why that was. Sagecandor (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

This article urgently needs a criticism section. The unfortunately named propornot site is analysed by one of its targets at Nakedcapitalism.

An echo chamber for The Washington Post? The irony! Shtove (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested source fails WP:Identifying reliable sources as it appears to be someone's personal blog that calls itself admittedly "commentary" with no editorial review. Sagecandor (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a "criticism section" is appropriate here (it's just the criticism of one group), but here's some better sources: The Intercept, Fortune. This information should be added per WP:WEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, FallingGravity, those are better sources. Added new highly critical content from both sources to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article still does a lot to promote PropOrNot, despite this new section. For example, Footnote A includes three sources that mostly parrot the Post's report rather than look into the matter themselves. ^Falling_Gravity 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the footnote, fixed it with attribution to the secondary sources that describe it. Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but my problem with the footnote is that it ignores the criticisms of PropOrNot and instead focuses on WaPo's favorable coverage, violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Valid suggestion, thank you. Added that info into the Footnote as well. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This term/article definitely needs a criticism section, as I've seen almost nothing but regarding this newspeak. With that said, I don't think PropOrNot should be cited, as it cannot be independently verified, and may very well be 'Fake News' itself. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that we should not cite PropOrNot, and we don't, we stick to WP:SECONDARY sources only. Disagree about having a "criticism" section, per discussion we already had about this, above in this section itself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason given for why a criticism section should be excluded gleaning from the above statements. I continue to endorse a 'criticism' section, and will push for one on this page, hopefully going to a vote. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I hear you and your opinions are valid and important. However we've already in response directly to suggestions in this section, incorporated "criticism", directly into the article content itself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What would a criticism section even look like? Fake news is easy to criticize because it's fake. ^Falling_Gravity 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree here with FallingGravity. Separate sections for such things are discouraged, per "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - this is a new article on a controversial subject and is being heavily edited by an editor who has little track record on wikipedia, although with much skill. A criticism section is appropriate, and as the concept of this article becomes clear that section may be distributed into the main text. Shtove (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What else would you like to incorporate that is "criticism" into the main text? Sagecandor (talk) :56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No idea - editors will work it out over time. I expect this article will be deleted as a piece of crystal-ballery.Shtove (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of this can be mentioned but there's no reason to repost Ingram's column here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek, for your recent improvements to the article. As you can hopefully see, here on the talk page, my recent edits were in direct response to suggestions, above, to add more "criticism" to the article. I tried to do so by incorporating suggested sources, above. Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wake up please

I would issue a challenge to the editors of this website, and the editors of articles like this one in particular, to examine their own biases and reality bubbles.

Look, this article is currently full of slanted sources which are viewed by your own confirmation biases as "reliable", such as Full Frontal, PropOrNot, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, among others.

Your own article states "PropOrNot is a nonpartisan foreign policy expert group composed of persons with prior experience in international relations, warfare, and information technology sectors." A rephrasing of a quote right on their own website. The fact is we just cannot say that this website is nonpartisan until we know who these "persons" running it really are. But they do have a clear detectable agenda: to list and condemn as "propaganda" all sites and media which do not bow to the narrative presented by western governments and NGOs.

This article reads like a conspiracy theory, only one which supports the western establishment and paints the Russians as a secretive, all-controlling cabal. Neo-McCarthyism at its finest.

So this is my advice, you may take it or leave it: always question everything. This includes the western establishment's narrative, and especially your own, sometimes subconscious, biases. Keep your reality bubble permeable.

May you find the Love and Light of the Infinite Creator whom you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.158.251 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article uses WP:SECONDARY sources for that information. None of those WP:PRIMARY sources mentioned above are relied up on as sources for this article.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

exactly, looking at the amount written of this article and how it is poping out from nowhere makes it obvious people are getting paid for writing these articles. Its really questionable lately and this article is not neutral at all, it was created in 20:00, 15 November 2016‎ just some days ago. Who has so much free time in their hand writing all this out of no where, and why now all of the sudden for such vague and random term like Fake News which could mean a lot of things?--Crossswords (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

PropOrNot called 'experts'

Who can independently verify that PropOrNot are actually 'experts', as opposed to Fake News themselves? So far, Washington Post is refusing to reveal the identity of anyone behind this shadowy, mysterious group that popped up overnight, has claimed endorsements that have been rejected, and has been trashed by respected journalists like Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept as "Garbage journalism".

Until then, I don't think we should refer to these people as 'experts', and DEFINITELY not non-partisan, as they have done nothing to prove any such claims except their own word, and widely-discredited story by the Washington Post. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Already being discussed here on this page, above. Please see Talk:Fake_news_website#Criticism. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Praise and a topic to consider

In my school's journalism class, I'm learning about the integrity of news sources, and I found this Wikipedia article to be extremely informative to my work. Nice job to all who have contributed to this page!

However, there should probably be a section about traditional fake-newspaper websites like The Onion. It's mostly a fake newspaper but has transitioned to a web-only paper in recent years. "Although satire sites like The Onion are not the target of the policy, it is not clear whether some of them, which often run fake news stories written for humorous effect, will be inadvertently affected by Google’s change."

epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:Thank you very much for the praise and thank you for the helpful copy editing. As for The Onion -- Is that not already covered by the top note link to News satire ? Sagecandor (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Yes, it's linked from news satire. But the recent crackdowns on fake news may also affect "traditional" news-satire sites, which is the only reason I'm suggesting this. I'm just suggesting this, but if it's not included, I think the "news satire" Wiki page covers this topic. epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What would a suggested title for such a section be, and what order should it appear as a section? Sagecandor (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually just integrated some information on this in the "Responses" section. Although it's a start, I think we should mention satire sites in the "Responses" section if applicable. Otherwise, we can create a whole new section near the bottom, in regards to how fake news and news satire differs. epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good as integrated version so far. Sagecandor (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website discussed by Wikipedia news

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/In the media.

Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

the article states "After journalists from National Public Radio identified Coler" if possible it would nice to make it clear that it was "a journalist from National Public Radio and an independant software engineer identified coler" To our knowledge this is the first such identification of someone who has deliberately hidden their identity, to the extent that I was required to forensically analyse present and past data from many sources.

It seems relevant since fake news creators go to immense trouble to hide their identities

Thank you for your consideration John Jansen (software engineer and the one who found Coler) 71.202.158.81 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. It is verified by this source, but I worded it a little differently. Let me know if you want to change the wording; I had to fix the grammar a little bit. epicgenius (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:Maybe we could discuss this edit, here, as that material was in direct response to above, and was change made by Epicgenius ? Sagecandor (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations in introduction of Fake news website

@Crossswords:, thank you for your interest in Fake news website !

Previously every single sentence in the introduction was cited with a citation.

But Epicgenius moved those citations out of the introduction.

This conforms with WP:CITELEAD.

Everything is cited lower down in the body text of the article.

Hope that explains it okay !

Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Previous version had citations for every single sentence in lead section, then removed by Epicgenius who cited the page WP:CITELEAD with this edit [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And again by Crossswords (talk · contribs) at [4]. User also appears to be engaging in subtle vandalism by removing mentions of Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

what has a single country to do with anything for it to deserve its own links below? And if you did it before why not making it back to it again? And it doesnt conform with CITELEAD at all, you dont see any article written this way unless its extremely short where the introductions are so short that it is next to the sources.--Crossswords (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all points. The article explains in detail the particular importance of Russia. Moreover, citations are often omitted in the lead when the content is sourced in the body. Neutrality^talk 05:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see [5], temporarily added back all citations to the introduction section pending further discussion. Due to the topic of this article being contentious perhaps by those representing the Russian government, might be best to keep in all the citations in the introduction section to avoid such complaints in the future? Sagecandor (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Neutrality^talk 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)