Talk:World News Daily Report
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World News Daily Report 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 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Should WNDR be listed as fake news, satirical news, or both?
[edit]There is presently a discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites as to whether World News Daily Report is fake news, satirical news, or both. WNDR's newly created Wikipedia page presents sources relevant to this discussion. Only one outlet (National Report) now appears on both the List of fake news websites and the List of satirical news websites, probably because such a dual listing defies (or at least stretches) the stated definitions presented in the lead paragraph of each list. Any feedback will be appreciated. KalHolmann (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
| Term | Bing hits | Google hits |
|---|---|---|
| "World News Daily Report" "fake news" | 842,400,000 | 12,000 |
| "World News Daily Report" "satirical news" | 42,100,000 | 642 |
- This (above) is a non-scientific survey of web search results. Take it for what it's worth. For my money, they clearly define themselves as satire: "WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content" [1], so I'd go with that. Oddly, snopes.com says in their list of fake news sites that another purveyor "neither identifies its fake news items as “satire” nor carries a disclaimer to that effect" in deciding they are "fake" yet makes no such distinction with WNDR [2]. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think a Google web search of this type should carry any weight at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not to forget Bing! I listed the table semi tongue in cheek knowing well that WP:GHITS is problematic. But it does show that there are nonzero sources of its being a satirical site. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would define this site simply as a fake news site. It defines itself as satire because it wants the protection of free speech laws, but I don't see what is being satirised. The owner ran another site which apparently did try to satirise a real Canadian newspaper, but WNDR seems to only be interested in writing stories that appeal to confirmation biases to make money, so I don't think we should take it seriously as a 'satirical' site. What is it satirising exactly? Nothing. It's just trying to make money from advertising revenue. Jwslubbock (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not to forget Bing! I listed the table semi tongue in cheek knowing well that WP:GHITS is problematic. But it does show that there are nonzero sources of its being a satirical site. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think a Google web search of this type should carry any weight at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @KalHolmann:@Bri:Hello both, I've added significantly to the page, with one particularly good source which interviewed one of the founders (Radio Canada, in French). I'd say that the content of that article, in which the reporter says to the guy "Personally, I do not see humor in the stories you make", and the response doesn't really try to defend the site as a satirical site, is pretty good evidence that we should remove the classification of the site as satirical. The site also says it's an 'American Zionist' publication, which is clearly false, so I don't think we should take anything the site's owners say about it seriously. The satire claim seems legal to me, to protect it under free expression laws. Please let me know what you think.Jwslubbock (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jwslubbock, the article you cite at the Radio-Canada website is by Jeff Yates, who introduces himself thus: "I have spent the last two and a half years of my professional life combating fake viral news on the web. Maybe some of you have already heard of the viral inspector? Well, it was me." In the body of the piece, Yates declares about WNDR: "There is no humor or satire here. This is pure false news, misinformation." That does not constitute an editorial judgment by Radio-Canada, but is rather the singular opinion of a professional debunker clearly out to discredit WNDR.
- By contrast, we cite ABC News calling WNDR "a satirical entertainment news site," PolitiFact and the Burlington County Times each calling WNDR "a satirical news site," and the Toronto Star calling WNDR an example of "satirical sites posing as real news outlets."
- Categorizing WNDR as satire in Wikipedia's voice should not depend on opinion—either yours or that of "the viral inspector," Jeff Yates. It must be determined by editors relying on WP:RS. KalHolmann (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I'm asking for your opinions. If you think it's satire, what is it a satire of? I personally agree with the guy from Radio Canada. The site is clearly a commercial enterprise farming clicks to make advertising revenue. It's not a satire of anything as far as I can see, and that claim by the site itself should not be taken at face value, just like WNDR's claim that it's an 'American Jewish Zionist' publication based in Tel Aviv. Do you think it's satire?Jwslubbock (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jwslubbock, as I wrote in my preceding comment, "Categorizing WNDR as satire in Wikipedia's voice should not depend on opinion…. It must be determined by editors relying on WP:RS." Your focus on your own opinion, or mine or any other editor's, is pointless. KalHolmann (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- User:KalHolmann I wasn't relying on my opinion. I presented a new source, and sought others' views on it. You chose not to comment on it but just said 'well, this other source says it's satire'. It's still up to us as editors to use our brains to decide what the truth is, but if you don't want to engage with what I've said, there's not much point continuing this discussion.Jwslubbock (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jwslubbock, the source you presented ("the viral inspector," Jeff Yates) is biased and worthless. I'm relieved you're discontinuing this pointless discussion. KalHolmann (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- User:KalHolmann I wasn't relying on my opinion. I presented a new source, and sought others' views on it. You chose not to comment on it but just said 'well, this other source says it's satire'. It's still up to us as editors to use our brains to decide what the truth is, but if you don't want to engage with what I've said, there's not much point continuing this discussion.Jwslubbock (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jwslubbock, as I wrote in my preceding comment, "Categorizing WNDR as satire in Wikipedia's voice should not depend on opinion…. It must be determined by editors relying on WP:RS." Your focus on your own opinion, or mine or any other editor's, is pointless. KalHolmann (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I'm asking for your opinions. If you think it's satire, what is it a satire of? I personally agree with the guy from Radio Canada. The site is clearly a commercial enterprise farming clicks to make advertising revenue. It's not a satire of anything as far as I can see, and that claim by the site itself should not be taken at face value, just like WNDR's claim that it's an 'American Jewish Zionist' publication based in Tel Aviv. Do you think it's satire?Jwslubbock (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Follow the sources. Snopes.com says WNDR is fake news – nothing about satire.[3] Radio Canada allows that the previous website Journal de Montréal was satirical, the WNDR stuff is hoax and fake news.[4] (The machine translation says "There is no humor or satire here. This is pure false news, misinformation.") CTV News in Canada says WNDR is a "hoax site"... nothing about satire.[5] Reuters says that Journal de Montréal was satire, but the later WNDR is just fake news.[6]
- Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, which define the topic. That's why we must say that WNDR is fake news, not satire. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also, Columbia Journalism Review calls WNDR fake news, not satire. In fact, they say that fake news sites such as WNDR are nothing like The Onion which is pure satire.[7] This is an extremely reliable source on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Newspaper
[edit]Is World News Daily Report really a print newspaper, or is it just a website? The independent reliable sources describe it as a website. The source we give for it being a newspaper is WNDR's own website, which I don't think is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)