Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent edits concerning CNN

With edits like this one, I'm going to propose that Guy Macon obtain consensus in advance for any proposed edits. Am I going too far out on a limb here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Four sources: Gateway Pundit, The Guardian, The Atlantic, and Eurasianet. Eurasianet is not one I'm familiar with. Guardian and Atlantic are both good sources, of course, but the Guardian piece is in the opinion section. Ultimately it doesn't seem like it really matters because the only one of the four that mentions "fake news" at all is Gateway Pundit, which is not a reliable source. Given Guy's evident passion on the matter of reliable sourcing on this page and the proposed inclusion criteria above, it's surprising (assuming good faith that it wasn't WP:POINT) to see the addition of one that clearly fails that inclusion criteria and which uses sources which are either unreliable or don't verify inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would add to that the question of whether CNN should be added to the list has come up over and over and over and over and over and over again on this page. I don't think I need to say what the overwhelming consensus has been. Editing against consensus is disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's completely unacceptable. The edit was not supported by any reliable cited source that that should be obvious to anyone taking a modicum of care. Neutrality^talk 06:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Double standard concerning what is and what is not acceptable sourcing compared to other sites on this list duly noted. Authority of Dr. Fleischman to give me orders denied. WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior noted and ignored. Dispute resolution is available; a good place to start is at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't give you any orders; I was asking other editors for their thoughts. No offense, but you're not exactly making a good case for yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think. It does not matter what the other editor's thoughts are. They don't have the authority to give me orders either, and in particular no local consensus proposal on this talk page can overturn WP:BOLD. I made a good-faith attempt to follow the "accept low-quality sources" inclusion criteria that you have insisted on multiple times in other sections, and I made a bold edit according to those inclusion criteria. As with most of my edits on this page, I have not edit warred, I have explained my rationale when asked, and I have refused to get into a long, drawn out debate with someone who will clearly never change their position. Now that I have concluded from my experiment using your inclusion criteria that you do not apply your stated inclusion criteria consistently, I will return to using the inclusion criteria that I listed earlier, which is based upon my good-faith understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines considering sourcing. If you wish to stop me from attempting to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines considering sourcing, you can try ANI or Arbcom, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG if you do. Again. I am not going to argue with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy, the attempt to add CNN is just plain ridiculous, and looks particularly bad when combined with the rather strained arguments you made for removing other sites above. What's more, your comment about a "double standard" suggests that you're editing to make a WP:POINT, which you know very well is not cool. I'm not going to tell you not to propose or make further edits (BOLD edits are fine, and can be reverted if they're problematic) but it does seem pretty clear that you've lost perspective here. Please don't dig yourself in too much deeper. Fyddlestix (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who edit-wars to add CNN to the article should be topic-banned IMO. Plainly a sign that they're here to push a fringe agenda. ValarianB (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen anyone edit-warring to add CNN to the article? I certainly didn't. Feel free to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you disagree. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source for such claims, and it's the only one that directly labels CNN "fake news". Even if an RS that does so can be found, we as editors have brains, and we are expected to use them to judge whether an RS is stating a fact (as they see it) or making an accusation. Guy, I have a ton of respect for you as an editor and as an intelligent and thoughtful person in general, but this edit and your responses in this thread are bad. You've all but admitted to editing to make a point, and you've explicitly admitted to knowingly using low quality sources. I agree with you that the subject of fake news is hyper-politicized, with the left using it as a sledgehammer against the right, but there are two massive hurdles to us 'correcting' this:

1. The reliable sources are almost completely devoid of instances of labeling mainstream news outlets with a reputation as being left-leaning as fake news. This is really not all that remarkable because there are very few instances of mainstream news outlets with a right-leaning reputation (WSJ, Fox news, etc) being labelled as fake news. In fact, the only mainstream right-leaning outlet I'm aware of that is regularly labelled fake news is Breitbart. So for us to follow the reliable sources, we have to let this article lean to the left, as it were. Otherwise, we're proselytizing and misinforming (see the next point).
2. There's very little or no evidence that the first point is the result of the politicizing of this issue. When one starts researching this subject, it becomes quickly and overwhelmingly obvious that the market for fake news is much larger among right-leaning individuals than among left-leaning. This is not to say that left-leaning media is inherently more trustworthy (consider the prominence of alt-med woo in outlets like HuffPo), but that left-leaning news media is far less willing to invent politically-charged events or facts and then publish them with complete credulity. This is simply one of the difference between the political right and left in the US; The left is willing to believe grand claims about the healing power of crystals. But they're not willing to believe that 3 million illegal immigrants voted in the election. Similarly, the right tends to be willing to believe in a conspiracy of liberal media to suppress The Truth™, but they're not willing to believe that vaccines cause autism and doctors are covering it up. (Of course, there are people on both sides who defy this characterization, but it holds true as a rule of thumb).

I just can't see how we could give this article anything but a left-wing slant, and not be violating policy after policy, while simultaneously painting what appears to me to be a completely inaccurate picture of reality. The claim that CNN is fake news has been popular since Trump made it, but the popularity of a claim has no bearing on it's truth value. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to make a point. I was making a good-faith effort to follow the local consensus, which so far has been to allow low-quality sources when determining what to include on this list. I see now that this was a mistake, and that I should have continued following the sourcing guidelines of the larger Wikipedia community and ignoring the WP:LOCALCON on this page. Lesson learned. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been somewhat withdrawn from this discussion in the past few days. Do you think you could make a list of the sources (and the sites each are labeling fake news) which you believe to be unreliable? It would be much better to resolve the underlying problem than to address the symptom, as it were. I, for one, am very open to pruning this list to something which is impeccably sourced, but in all honesty, I truly think the main issue is a disagreement over the precise definition of "fake news". I think if we can work our way to a congenial discussion about the precise definition, and come up with one that we can all agree to (ideally, it would be one we all agree with but we both know how likely that is), then we can all get on board with what should and shouldn't be included. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My criteria for inclusion, which I believe is firmly based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding sourcing, are as follows:

To be included, a site must:

1. Be called "fake news" by reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. Claim to be or appear to be a news site, not a blog or an editorial opinion. This isn't "list of blogs that say things that are not true".
3. Not be included based on headlines alone, which are often added/changed as different outlets publish the exact same material.
4. Not be an obvious parody or humor site. Parody sites have their own list.
5. Not be based on a citations to otherwise reliable sources that merely report or repost claims from an unreliable source.
6. Receive significant coverage in the sources cited, not just a mention in passing. See WP:WEIGHT.
7. Not be shut down. This is "list of fake news websites", not "list of former fake news websites". (A separate section for former fake news sites would be acceptable.) This is a basic usability issue. What good does it do the reader to read about a fake news site that was shut down within days after it first appeared?
8. Not be solely based upon a criteria which could be used to include many thousand sites, allowing editors to cherry pick the sites that they don't like. (Example: listing blogs or editorials that say things that are not true).

Previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard showed strong support for requiring two or three sources, but I have chosen to not make that part of my inclusion criteria.

This list could be a very useful resource if only it contained what the title says it contains; fake websites that might fool a reasonable person into thinking they are legitimate news outlets. By expanding the criteria to include blogs, editorials, conspiracy theory sites, etc., we have turned that useful resource into a list of pages that say incorrect things on the Internet. See [ https://xkcd.com/386/ ].

Essentially, we are not following the definition that is at the top of the page. From List of fake news websites#Definition:

"Fake news websites deliberately publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media. These sites are distinguished from news satire (which is humorous) as they mislead and profit from readers' gullibility. While most fake news sites are portrayed to be spinoffs of other news sites, some of these websites are examples of website spoofing, structured to make visitors believe they are visiting trusted sources like ABC News or MSNBC. The New York Times pointed out that within a strict definition, "fake news" on the Internet referred to a fictitious article which was fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers, generally with the goal of profiting through clickbait. PolitiFact described fake news as fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination."

References
References

Is it too much to ask that we use the definition at the top of the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of numbering your list to help simplify the reading of my response. Feel free to revert.

1. I think we can all get on board with that one, and anyone who can't should get lost.
2. This actually contradicts with the first in many cases. RSes use the term somewhat more loosely than our provided definition, occasionally applying it to blogs which are often passed around like news and the like. There seems to be a very vague understanding of what fake news is, with different sources (and indeed, even at different times for the same source) using the term in different ways.
3. Again, I agree with this. I believe it's even policy somewhere, though I can't remember where. If not, then it probably should be.
4. This one can get tricky. Parody and humor sites are fake, naturally. The ones that present the image of news sites are, technically speaking "fake news", though they are certainly distinct from outright hoaxes such as abc.com.co. To further complicate things, some "parody" sites go out of their way to make themselves look legitimate, with legitimate sounding names and a disclaimer buried in an about page or in extremely small text at the bottom of the pages.
5. This is a problem. Sources we might normally consider unreliable are sometimes cited by reliable sources. I have seen a lot of reliable sources which cite otherwise unreliable sources used in a lot of articles on WP. In addition, there are sources which aren't unreliable in the vernacular sense, but which don't meet our standards, yet we actively and explicitly permit claims within them to be used when they are covered by third-party sources (who meet our criteria, of course). There seems to me to be (as their should be, IMHO) the presumption than a reliable source will have vetted the claims of the otherwise unreliable source before using them. This is not to say that inaccurate claims become accurate, but that a source which prizes its reputation for accuracy would strongly tend to avoid engaging in such endorsements. I feel quite strongly that this is an unenforceable and unnecessary restriction.
6. Again, no disagreement here.
7. This could be problematic in the case of prominent fake news sites which have been shut down. I see the primary purpose of our articles as documenting the phenomenon of fake news, not being a current list of news sites the reader should avoid, because the latter is proscriptive; somethign we should avoid at all costs.
8. I agree with this one as well, but I see it as more of a summary of several of the other criteria.

All in all, I see several hurdles to using the entire list of criteria you supplied, though it's immediately obvious what the purpose and intent of those criteria is (and no, I'm not accusing you of POV pushing or OR, but saying that I completely understand why you settled on those). In all honesty, we have policies that directly answer the question of what we should include. WP:RS says that the first criteria applies, (I believe) there is a policy somewhere that states the third applies, and WP:WEIGHT covers the sixth. The rest of the criteria you outlined could be problematic as I mentioned above. Instead of applying those criteria to the question of whether to include an entry, I think we would be best served by using those criteria to sort the entries. Even Zimdar sorted her list based on the different types of sites, because, I believe, she recognized that there's a world of difference between, for example, abc.com.co and theonion.com. Currently, we don't do anything of the sort. We have the "notes" column which sort-of helps with that, but it isn't very clear. SO what do you think? Would you be amenable to using the first, third and sixth criteria for inclusion, and using the rest for sorting? I think if we can all get on board with that, we can add a great deal of useful information to the article, in a way that makes a great deal of sense. We can, also, go through this list and prune it up, because I suspect it's still a bit longer (and more poorly sourced) than it ideally should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Classification makes a lot of sense. I am with you on everything except #5. Here is what I am seeing on this page: [reliable source] says "Site A is fake news [several paragraphs about site A]. Other fake news sites are sites B and C [a paragraph on site B, no further mention of site C]. Unreliable source X lists the following sites: [list of sites A through M]." Then, based upon the above, this article includes site J but not site K. I would be fine with the above-described source being used to include site A, site B, and I wouldn't even complain about site C, although a WP:WEIGHT argument could be made. But I do not see how including site J is supported by WP:RS, and I don't see how including site J while excluding site K is supported by WP:NPOV. In particular, in cases where unreliable site X has no way of knowing whether a claim in true or false and the reliable source does not indicate that they researched whether a claim is true or false but appear to be simply reporting what unreliable source X says, I really don't think that the claim is supported by the reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What you're saying here tracks with what I said in the section above this. When the RS merely presents the nominally non-RS source, that doesn't imply that they've vetted it in detail, only that they've vetted it as being overall reliable, and vetted the particular details they comment upon (that still doesn't translate to us, though: the RS is the source we should use, their endorsement doesn't confer any qualities that would let the original source meet our standards). What I was referring to were situations where an RS presents a nominally non-RS, then says "Look at site A from this non-RS source, which has posted stories such as A₁, A₂ and A₃." WRT your hypothetical site C, I would make the weight arguments you referenced. The hypothetical text you gave is as clear an example of passing mention of site C as I've seen. I'm sure I've mentioned my heuristic about WP:DUE to you before: If a fact doesn't change the narrative of the article in some way, it's undue to mention it in the article. Well, I apply a similar heuristic to sources. If a specific claim they make doesn't change their narrative in some way, it's not enough weight of coverage for us to include it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we are basically in agreement. You asked about specific sources, so let's consider this one:US News which mentions one site on our list, then reprints a list of sixteen sites from unreliable source fakenewswatch.com, which we then use to place eight sites on our list, only one of which is mentioned in the body of the source. So the rest are mentioned only in passing, there is no reason to believe that the auther (Rachel Dicker, Associate Editor, Social Media for US News), checked every site on the list she reposted from fakenewswatch.com to see whether in her opinion it was actually fake news, and every reason to believe that she simply reported which sites from the fakenewswatch.com had a lot of facebook followers, which would be her area of expertise as the Associate Editor of Social Media. Furthermore, it is highly probable that she is only talking about the facebook pages of the sites on her list. (Some organizations/individuals mainly use facebook, and any website they have is a low-traffic adjunct to their main facebook efforts. Other organizations/individuals focus on their website and treat facebook as an adjunct.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this. The exact same issue and exact same source was discussed above, and consensus there was that it's fine. How many times are you going to raise this? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Fyddlestix, and I think Guy is quite familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no need to explain to such an intelligent and experienced editor how they work over and over again; all we need to do is tune out the disruption and enforce them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Fyddlestix and DrFleischman on these particular cases. The US News source intros that list with a sentence which reads:

"Here are several fake news sites that have become popular on Facebook, and which should be avoided if you're looking for the facts:"

...and then goes on to present a very limited selection from the (understandably non-RS) source they based the article on. I think in these cases, the presumption would have to be that the writer (Rachel Dicker) hand-selected those sources as examples they were willing to stake their reputation on (to the extent that a single article can affect it), and that the US News editorial board gave them a thumbs up. Indeed, The Borowitz Report (the second entry) doesn't even appear on the original list. As far as it being in passing, the nature of the list and the intro is such that the intro can be applied to every item. So in each case, the author is stating "Here [is a] fake news site that has become popular on Facebook, and which should be avoided if you're looking for the facts." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN needs to definitely be put up on this list. Allanana79 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

Please add http://www.kqrl2.com to the list of fake news sites. This is not a real news source and has stories catered to specific cities saying Star Wars or other movies are being filmed there, when they are not. 70.183.218.52 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

 Additional information needed Please provide a reliable source indicating that kqrl2.com is a fake news site. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This appears to be a satire website, as indicated by both the nature of the stories and the disclaimer page. Satire sites are excluded from this list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove Philippines section

Some items in the list are opinion blogs and satire sites. As mentioned above, satire sites are excluded from this list. Worse, op-ed blogs are not even news sources so can't be considered "fake news". Furthermore, the list presents a completely one-sided list betraying its politically colored motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminal coder (talk • contribs) 12:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Philippine section was a recent addition, and I agree that the focus and listing criteria seem to be murky and not in line with what other editors have done with this article so far. @Object404: should partake in this discussion but should not just re-add that massive section without consensus of other editors here first. I removed the section pending this discussion, fyi. ValarianB (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I spent an entire day sourcing links and formatting that section, so please don't delete it just like that, especially since the entries are properly cited and sourced. The list of Philippine fake news websites was so massive, I felt it deserved its own section separate from the main one already since it had so many entries. We can probably remove the satire links from the table as per discussion, but now I'm leaning towards creating an entirely separate standalone article on Fake news in the Philippines with the list of Philippine fake news websites since they're so prolific. As for the citation sources, please read the individual links and check the meat of the articles for muster. Question: Does snopes pass WP:RS, because Memebuster.net lies in the same vein. -Object404 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is a reliable source and this has been established by other reliable sources (just look at the Wikipedia article on Snopes.com). While I appreciate Memebuster.net's effort to replicate Snopes' idea in the Philippines, unfortunately we can't consider it to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. —seav (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Terminal coder, the Philippines is a peculiar animal, given its being one of the social media capitals of the world (top 3, and #1 in most time spent on social media) - and a very large portion of the population now gets its news from social media sites posting from blogs/fake news website links. Given these, in dealing with the Philippines, these sites are considered news sites as they generate large amounts of discussion and spreading as news on social media. -Object404 (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Also, Terminal coder, the motive of the Phgilippine section list is absolutely not politically-motivated. The list of sites were the only ones I could find reliable sources on. Feel free to add to the list if you can source reliable citations for them if you think the list is too unbalanced. It's just really a very interesting phenomenon. -Object404 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I agree -- I recommend that this section on the Philippines be kept. The influence that social media and fake news sites have in this developing country is immense, and deserves a section of its own. Moreover, the proliferation of these sites is a continuation of the country's tradition of creating black propaganda for political opponents. Thus, deleting this section will mean the loss of a highly-valuable reference which other wikis that focus on the country's history and current political situation can use. SarazadeCruz (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• The listing criteria are fine. If the site is identified as fake news by a reliable source, and is not identified as satire by a reliable source (and is not obviously satire), then it belongs on the list. It doesn't matter if the site has some opinion content. Object404, yes, Snopes.com is generally quite reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - @Object404: didn't just willy nilly put any random site on it. It's not a hitlist. Tagasilab (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - As per the points of Dr. Fleischman. I'll also express support for the creation of similar sections for other countries, should sources merit it. (The US comes to mind.) -Alternativity (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternativity, The trick when it comes to country-specific websites is, when is a site specific to a country? A large number of fake news stories about U.S. politics last year were written and hosted in other countries. Would those count as "for" the U.S.? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, like these:

* https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html

Maybe the target of fake news could count as "for" a particular country... -Object404 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman and Object404, methinks the problem there is the existence of actual "international news" relevant globally, which wouldn't be an actual problem except that US sites (and sometimes Canadian and European sites) tend to be conflated with supposed "global media." In which case, you're right. That's a problem. But surely other countries have fake news sites specific to their national consciousnesses? There's the question of whether "national identity" is still conceptually important, of course. But I think we'd be jumping the gun on human cultural development if we applied that can of beans this early in global history.- Alternativity (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I read and re-read your comment three times and I'm still having trouble puzzling out what you're talking about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sites Discontinued

Many of these sites are not loading up anymore such as the Bloomberg site or the CNN-Trending site. Please could these be removed from the list? Nibinaear (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I believe there is consensus to keep defunct sites. Keeping them on the list serves a variety of purposes, such as directing readers to reliable sources discussing the fake news phenomenon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

10news.one

10news.one is an Islamophobic fake news site that emerged in May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C083:8400:58DE:496B:3431:404E (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that 10news.one is a fake news site. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by IP editor

(Moved from top of page. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC))

WHY IS INFOWARS ON HERE BUT CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, HUFFPOST, ETC.. ARE NOT?! LOOKS LIKE WIKI IS TURNING INTO (EXTREMELY BIAS) FAKE NEWS TOO! :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 23, 2017 (UTC)

Because Infowars has been identified by reliable sources as a fake news website, whereas those media outlets have not. That's just how Wikipedia works, nothing fake about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the IPs will be happy until literally every media outlet is listed here. Well, except for the far-right-wing ones, that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Guardian

www.slguardian.org is being used by Nilantha Ilangamuwa to spread lies and criminal defamation against his former employer. He also makes up sources and quotes. However, at other times he posts various 'news' articles and commentary.

Should The Sri Lanka Guardian, on account of its use to spread lies, be added to the list of fake news sites? Hera100 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that slguardian.org is a fake news site. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of a 'news' story where the editor, Nilantha Ilamgamuwa, has made up the story and the sources: https://www.slguardian.org/2017/07/honorary-doctorate-phd-scam-in-sri-lanka/

The Sri Lanka Guardian is not referred to by other sources. However, as the proprietor is writing outright lies and making up sources, would his website - claiming to be a news site - it still appears to be fake news.

Additionally, Twitter appears to have removed the criminally defamatory article tweeted by ilangamuwa1 yesterday, where Nilantha Ilamgamuwa uses the legal response to John Stewart Sloan as a way of attacking his former employer:

https://www.slguardian.org/2017/07/regional-ngo-overly-sensitive-about-queries-regarding-misuse-of-funds/ Hera100

Neither of those sources state that slguardian.org is a fake news site. Please read WP:V and WP:IRS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

New York Times

Trump blasts Clintons, NY Times, 'fake news' in lengthy Twitter rant - Published July 22, 2017 Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/22/trump-blasts-clintons-ny-times-fake-news-in-lengthy-twitter-rant.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignycom (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider adding 'common' domain names for sites as an extra column?

Some webistes are known by their domain names, many others use obscure domain names. Would it be worth adding the (current) domain name for a fake news site as this may help to unambiguously identify the site? The down side is that this may get quickly out of date or require aliases, but domian name is a good way to tie a site to an entry in this list? another option to include this in column one, but may make the table harder to follow. Some sites have domains names already, but would be good to be consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.83.77 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative News Network

Dumaka, regarding this addition, when I go to the cited sources (here, here) I don't see anything about an "Alternative News Network." Please tell me what I'm missing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for Philippenes list

Gintong pluma, please remove all entries that do not have sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS are fake news sites 162.253.46.132 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

The website http://reverepress.com needs to be added to the list of fake news websites. I've submitted it to snopes but the entire thing is a shill site that's been up since January inciting racial tensions and making antifa look like boy scouts which they are decidedly not. I believe it goes alphabetically in the list. Memenonymous (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The website needs a Wikipedia page before we can proceed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what Jd22292 is talking about, but the real reason we cannot include this website is because there is no reliable source indicating that it is a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominating this article for deletion

I don't feel this article represents WP quality standards and the list will almost certainly always remain controversial. Further, it's unclear what this article adds compared to the main article Fake News. The recent adding of a ton of Philippines website with no proper justification supports this. I suggest to delete this article and focus on the main Fake News article (and Fake news website). Thibaut Lienart (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fake_news_websites , result was to keep as it was similar to List of satirical news websites. I feel a satyrical website is more likely to self-define itself as satyrical unlike a "fake news" one but I'll go with the WP decision.. Thibaut Lienart (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As you mention, there has already been a consensus to keep this article. Why do you think it would change? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thibaut Lienart is right that the list itself is bound to be controversial, and that it simply adds another article to our coverage of the meme "fake news" to our article Fake News.

Using either article to establish whether an article is reliable enough to support a statement made in other wikipedia articles is only allowed (under WP:CIRCULAR) in some circumstances:

"An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should make it clear that the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is made aware of the potential bias."

These articles don't represent the consensus of the Wikipedia project on what fake news even is. They represent a local consensus on talk pages like this one in some cases, and individual editors' judgment (which may or may not be supported by a reliable source) in others. Can you see the issue here? A consensus among four or five of us in a talk page could be used by others in the project to define what fake news is throughout the project.

We may wish to consider deleting this article merely on the grounds that the Wikipedia project has not yet given us guidelines to judge what "fake news" is. At present it depends on primary sources (this article and our article Fake News) or a secondary or tertiary source which the editor may not be citing according to the WP:BIASED guideline.

You don't have to be after WP:THETRUTH to see how much disagreement there is on what sources are "fake news" in the outside press. I'd prefer that the Wikipedia project decide for itself what fake news is, because the term's already being abused here in Wikipedia to describe sources such as The Nation which are no more or no less reliable than, say, Huffington Post or National Review. loupgarous (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Over-coverage tag

V2Blast, I removed a slew of unsourced Filipino entries. Can we remove the over-coverage tag now? As far as I know, the emphasis on Filipino websites is a reflection of the reliable sources. There's a discussion in the archives touching on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The article as a whole still seems to lend undue weight to the list of Philippine fake news sites; it seems odd to have one general list under the section heading "List", and then a list that's essentially the same length under a Philippines subsection. Most of the entries in the section also cite the same few sources; I'm not sure most of them are particularly notable other than that. (I haven't checked out the pages linked from each citation, and I'm not from the Philippines so I don't know how widely know they are.) Then again, that's sort of a problem with the rest of the list as well (though at least some of the non-Philippine entries cite specific fake news stories spread by some of the sites)... There's no clear list of inclusion criteria for this article other than that the sites intentionally publish hoaxes/disinformation. V2Blast (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria we've been using: any website that (1) has been identified by one or more reliable sources as fake news, and (2) is not obviously satire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Owner Listed for World News Daily Report

The page names Jestin Coler as the owner of World News Daily Report. The site is owned by Janick Murray-Hall . The current citation being used () does NOT name Jestin Coler as the owner of the site.

UserMcUserFace (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Get Real Philippines is NOT a fake news site and should be removed from this article

Get Real Philippines (listed under the "For Philippine Audiences") section is NOT a fake news site. The full defense of our position can be found in the following blog post: The CBCP became a source of ‘fake news’ when it published a list of ‘fake news’ sites

Text of this article provided as follows:

This is in response to the list of “fake news” sites published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) which included GetRealPhilippines.com. We did not respond to this initially because we thought it was too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The lack of a sound basis and coherent set of criteria applied to coming up with this list led us to assume that people would not easily fall for this propaganda stunt.

Evidently, however, we underestimated the influence these men in robes exert on many Filipinos as we had, in the last few days, been receiving requests to comment on our inclusion in this list. Many of these requests come from university students that had seemingly been instructed by their teachers to write papers on “fake news” sites and had used the CBCP list as reference for their work.

It is quite interesting that in this day and age when information is so easily accessible that Filipinos continue to rely on an antiquated institution that has, for centuries, sought to suppress the evolution of society from one imprisoned by ignorance and superstition to one enlightened by science and evidence-based problem solving. The CBCP has exhibited neither the transparency nor the humility to subject itself to the same critical scrutiny that Filipinos demand that their other leaders be subject to. The hypocrisy in the way the CBCP conducts itself and regards the public in this regard is nothing short of astounding.

It should be noted that the CBCP list included only sites perceived to be critical of the Liberal Party and the broader Opposition to the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. No sites associated with the Opposition camps were included in this list. This is particularly relevant today in light of recent revelations surrounding certain characters associated with the Yellow and Liberal Party camps alleged to be orchestrating the operations of a large number of anonymous sites many of which are known publishers of unfounded opinions, downright false information, and even seditious material meant to undermine the Philippine government and slander it before a global audience. The people behind these treacherous disinformation campaigns should be held accountable for the damage they had done to the welfare of the Philippine state. More importantly, Filipinos should demand that the CBCP, at the very least, reveal the process with which it decided which sites to include in its “fake news” list.

GetRealPhilippines.com is not a “fake news” site. How can it be when we do not even presume to be a producer of news? What we do publish are opinions. Our work is subject to public scrutiny and our comment threads are open to anyone who wishes to challenge the positions any of our writers take on any issue. We have yet to see anyone successfully debunk any of our views and discredit any position we have taken. Nonetheless we continue to encourage all who find our views disagreeable to prove us wrong. We are one of the oldest political sites in the Philippines. Our longevity attests to the strength of our brand as a trusted source of insights on Philippine society. We were a blog long before posting on Facebook was referred to as “blogging”.

To those who are quick to believe certain “thought leaders” who insist that the CBCP are right to include us in a document no different to those medieval lists of banned books they hold a tradition of issuing over the last 1000 years, we ask that you challenge yourselves to be better than that. Be better than what mainstream media profiles you as. Be better than the politicians who expect you to vote for the same status quo that has not served Filipinos well over and over again.

Most important of all, be better than what those men in robes in the CBCP think you are. BenIgnZero (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Posting an anti-religious screed does not demonstrate any compliance with the identifiers of Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, do not bite. This is a brand new contributor who cannot be realistically expected to know the ins and outs of the rules before their very first edit. The fact that they disclosed their affiliation up-front is admirable and more than can be said of most COI editors. BenIgnZero's reasoning has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, but their request is actually valid. The cited source isn't CBCF but Rappler, and it does not say that any sites are fake news, including Get Real Philippenes. And the CBCF source it links to isn't reliable. Failed verification, so...  Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-one need know the in and outs of the rules to know that comparing the Phillipine conference of Catholic bishops to medieval censors and calling them old men in robes and forces of ignorance and superstition is an anti-religious attack. A brand-new user that doesn't know the rules needs to be informed that this is unaccceptable behavior and further needs to be pointed to the rules on sourcing. That's not biting, it's honesty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Infowars

Editors: take down the listing of Infowars. Infowars is not fake news. That's a biased, libelous claim the site would deny. Yes, it sometimes runs controversial material; but that's just hard-hitting alternative media. Winners Aren't Losers (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We have been over this many times before. Over the winter there was a Request for Comment that did not result in a consensus to remove Infowars. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Infowars should be removed from this list

Infowars in not a fake news website. I've been following them for some time now and most of what they have to say is true. Yes, sometimes it is overdone by Alex Jones and I'm not saying that he is flawless but time and time again, so-called conspiracy theories have been proven correct. With regards to the conspiracy theories listed in the Notes for Infowars. All of them have either been fabricated by the Mainstream Media or came as a result of false information provided to Infowars such as the Pizzagate conspiracy. Does Infowars belong on this list while MSM outlets like New York Times and CNN can disseminate false information with full knowledge that they are publishing fake news, don't belong? Of the criteria for being called fake news is not following the mainstream agenda, then this list is completely useless and serves only to promote the sites listed as alternative media outlets. StrikeDog (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

First, the "New York Times and CNN" do not "disseminate false information with full knowledge that they are publishing fake news." They always try to get it right.

Next, one of the marks of a fake news website is its lack of fack checking and disregard for truth, only sensationalizing whatever fits with their world view. That's exactly what Infowars does. If it fits Alex Jones's POV, he'll blast it out there, magnify it, dramatize it, all without fact checking. Your mind has been poisoned by watching them. Stick to professional journalists (Jones is not) who actually make a serious effort to get it right, and if they make a mistake, they apologize and make it right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

StrikeDog, the inclusion criteria we've been using: any website that (1) has been identified by one or more reliable sources as fake news, and (2) is not obviously satire. Of course no one has contended that Infowars, The New York Times, or CNN are satire. But Infowars has been identified by one or more reliable sources as fake news, and The New York Times and CNN have not. You can rail all you want on the MSM, but no amount of original research will take Infowars off the list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@ DrFleischman , CNN or NYT are not a reputable reliable news source, and propogate knowingly falsehoods (ie russiagate) , and we will get infowars off this list and CNN added so at least this wiki article is honest and true so no amount of obfuscation of the truthy will keep infowars on this list. First, the "New York Times and CNN" do not "disseminate false information with full knowledge that they are publishing fake news." _ this is incorrect , CNN willfull and knowlingly do this "disseminate false information with full knowledge that they are publishing fake news." and eveidence from Project Veritas with CNN staff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE, someone tidy and cite this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.65.43 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2017‎

Seriously? Project Veritas? Our article James O'Keefe makes it pretty clear that they should never be trusted, which might explain the lawsuits and restraining orders they've had this year. Their videos are not to be trusted.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that InfoWars should be removed from the list though not for the reason the OP gives. Fake news is not the same thing as false news. Fake news is news that is deliberately untrue. The motive is usually to make money through advertising or part of a misinformation campaign. The people at InfoWars genuinely believe the crap they write. We should be careful to distinguish between sites that intentionally publish untrue stories and sites which have a terrible reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. These are two entirely different things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, A Quest For Knowledge. Alex Jones's attorneys essentially admitted that Alex Jones fits your definition of fake news:At a recent pretrial hearing, attorney Randall Wilhite told state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that using his client Alex Jones’ on-air Infowars persona to evaluate Alex Jones as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in Batman. “He’s playing a character,” Wilhite said of Jones. “He is a performance artist.” What Jones says about "110 percent" believing what he says on his show can't be punished by perjury but what his attorneys tell a judge in court can. When he is compelled to be truthful, he admits (or has his attorneys admit on his behalf) that he isn't being honest with his audience. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And you've never known an attorney to lie? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have multiple attorneys in my family, so you can probably guess my answer. My point is: this attorney, if he was lying, was doing so in a setting that can result in serious sanctions that would have restricted or ended his earnings. If Jones, on the other hand, is lying, he does so in a setting that results instead in an increase in his earnings. It's a significant difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It is strange to me that people seriously believe CNN doesn't deliberately spread misinformation to comparable degree to InfoWars. I mean if 91% of Hillary winning is not deliberate misinformation, then what qualifies? 92%? 79.116.221.242 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading comprehension, maybe? CNN didn't make up a story that Hillary Clinton was nearly certain to win, CNN allowed people to bet on who would win and then reported that they were betting on Clinton. Characterizing that as "deliberate misinformation" is either (dare I say it?) deliberate misinformation or deliberate misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion is beside the point. U.S. News and CBS both call Infowars a fake news site. If people have a problem with that, they can write to those outlets' editorial boards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

The Onion is another Satirical Fake News Site. 173.79.17.86 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As the second sentence of the article explains, satirical sites are expressly omitted. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Left fake news sites

This is HEAVILY biased towards the right. If we as a community are to make this unbiased/less biased, we NEED to add some left wing fake news sources: occupy democrats is a good example of left wing fake news. Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have examples of left-wing news sites that meet the article's criteria by all means please bring them forward. Note that like all information on Wikipedia this characterization must be supported by reliable sources. Your and my opinions as to whether the sites are "fake news" do not suffice. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Geekynerdyguy1996, that is just not how our neutrality policy works. Neutrality means reflecting the existing reliable sources. It does not mean parity between left and right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Change the /6/ in the URL for footnote 84 to /5/ which is the correct page referring to this fake news website. 70.27.31.134 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The American Mirror

(Originally posted to User talk:DrFleischman#Revert_of_American_Mirror)

Hi! I'm the editor that added the American Mirror to the list of fake news websites. While I appreciate your contribution and trust your expertise (I even thanked your edit!), I'm confused as to why I was reverted specifically.

I checked the edit summary and it said that my sources were unreliable and did not verify the content. However, I think they're all reliable (MB/FC, one of the sites I presume you think is reliable, approves of Fake News Codex) and my addition to the article was composed mostly of direct quotes or faithful summaries of those sources.

What am I missing here? If I still believe The American Mirror is a fake news website, what should I change to make my edit accepted?

Thanks! --Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly that an issue is that of notability. List-class articles commonly link to existing articles (which cannot subsist if they lack the expected notability for encyclopedia inclusion). I just read this article which also refers to it as an obscure website, although it also suggests that the site indeed echoes disinformation through aggregation. —PaleoNeonate – 15:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Hmm. I think a majority of the sites listed here are pretty obscure anyway. Only a few have individual articles. Even the article you linked shows how influential the site is.--Reason is Immortal (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right that many sites don't have articles, this appears to be the type of list where items must be referenced instead... Let's see what other editors think, the above source I posted is considered reliable, but still doesn't say that it's generally a fake news site (so using this alone may be considered WP:SYNTH). As for the sources you included, I'm not familiar with those sites (except Snopes) and would need to spend more time doing verification. —PaleoNeonate – 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Media Bias/Fact Check is somewhat reliable, but not enough to make the call. I don't think it should be included unless there's a more reliable source calling it fake news. Thanks for the help! --Reason is Immortal (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Neither MB/FC nor Fake News Codex are reliable sources. And neither MB/FC nor Snopes.com say that The American Mirror is a fake news site. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017

Raaomoka (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Globalresearch.ca

Globalresearch.ca is a hoax site that perpetuates holocaust denial, 9/11 "trutherism", nuclear hysteria, Illuminati and New World Order conspiracies and a host of unfounded conspiracies as fact. Intermixed are real articles on real news taken from other websites to dilute the large amount of hoaxes and conspiracies. There are alleged claims that they are Kremlin tied due to the incessant pro-Moscow and pro-Putin articles. The founder has been hired by the Russian government to make articles for Russia Today and other Russian state institutions (https://www.rt.com/op-edge/authors/michel-chossudovsky/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Hammond (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a link to a reliable source that says that Globalresearch.ca is a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman:

• A Wikipedia search for "GlobalResearch" redirects to Michel Chossudovsky, identified in the lead as "president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories." Three consecutive citations to WP:RS support that claim.
• According to the body of that Wikipedia page, the Centre for Research on Globalization "promotes a variety of conspiracy theories and falsehoods," a claim supported by half a dozen references to WP:RS.
• Globalresearch.ca is the Centre for Research on Globalization's principal website, as shown by its contact page.
• RationalWiki devotes an extensive page to debunking GlobalResearch, declaring in its lead, "Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong." (I offer this not as a WP:RS but for informational purposes only.)
• As for a specific WP:RS saying Globalresearch.ca is a fake news website, The Globe and Mail (Canada's most widely read daily newspaper) just today features an article, bannered under "MEDIA and 'FAKE NEWS'" and headlined "Canadian website in NATO's sights for spreading disinformation." As the story reports, "What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media…."
  
  

In light of this background, I request that you reconsider Globalresearch.ca as an addition to the List of fake news websites, as suggested by Earl Hammond on Nov. 11. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of this is original research and shouldn't be considered; however the Globe and Mail source is interesting, and thanks for the link! While it does not call globalresearch.ca a fake news site, it does say that it has "from the beginning espoused conspiracy theories". It cites multiple unreliable sources (specifically, NATO and Janis Sarts) describing globalresearch.ca as disseminating disinformation. It says that the website spreads false information from obscure sources, but remember that false does not necessarily mean fake. It also describes at least one instance in which the site republished what it called a "hoax story." Basically does all but say that globalresearch.ca is a fake news site. I'd like to solicit comments from other editors on this issue. I do think we're on a slippery slope when we start relying on sources like this one to say that a site is fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I do not understand. As I pointed out, The Globe and Mail banners its story "MEDIA and 'FAKE NEWS'". Do the scare quotes suggest to you that The Globe and Mail does not really deem Globalresearch.ca a fake news website? Also, I fail to grasp your distinction that false does not necessarily mean fake. Perhaps you mean some outlets inadvertently spread false information, while others do so deliberately. Globalresearch.ca's reputation for fake news is well established and well deserved. They do not by accident consistently mine such gems of clickbaiting disinformation as these from their Most Popular Articles in the past month:

• "Chemtrails: Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War"
• "HAARP: Secret Weapon Used For Weather Modification, Electromagnetic Warfare"
• "America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group"
  
  

Naturally I shall abide by your decision, but for the record I beg to differ. KalHolmann (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are not considered reliable in general--and the category heading of "Media and 'Fake News'" isn't even a headline. An editor at G&M presumably dropped this into the "Media and 'Fake News'" bin because that was the most appropriate subject. It doesn't mean that G&M was saying that the website is fake news. On another front, you should know that I'm not the arbiter of what goes in this article and what stays out. That decision is made by the community. Of course you're free to defer to me, but if you disagree you're always free to seek additional input from others (within our guidelines, of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, please forgive my frustration, but I do wish Wikipedia maintained a list of reliable sources so that editors would not waste time wondering whether or not to cite a published story. For example, is The Economist a WP:RS? Here's what that publication wrote on April 15, 2017: "This idea was then picked up by several websites, including the Centre for Research on Globalisation, a hub for conspiracy theories and fake stories." The Centre's principal website is Globalresearch.ca. KalHolmann (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no official list of reliable sources for a variety of reasons. The best resource for this purpose is the WP:RSN archives. But I don't need to check there to confirm that The Economist is almost always going to be a reliable source, since it's an established, reputable, widely cited outlet. Thanks for the link, and with that, yes, I think we can say that globalresearch.ca is verifiably a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added Globalresearch.ca to list. KalHolmann (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

We should create redirects to this page for each of the websites that it lists, if they don't have their own article. Some have already been made; YourNewsWire, World News Daily Report, and NewsWatch33 all redirect here. Lizard (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Add the fake news site http://lakeforestnews.org/ It is a political website pretending to be a "Premier news site" in order to manipulate people to believe what they say is true. LauraGardner (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify a reliable source that describes lakeforestnews.org as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

other fake news sites

Shouldn't alex jones' other fake news site Prison Planet be added? And what about left leaning fake news sites? I see conservative sites, but no liberal sites, shouldn't there be some left-wing fake news sites to maybe give this a more balanced view?Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliably sourced characterizations of left-wing sites as fake news we'd love to have them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What Boris said. We are including all sites that have been described by reliable sources as fake news and are not clearly satire. There may be some left-wing sites on the list, I don't know. But there has also been some reporting that the large majority of U.S. political fake news sites targeted conservatives during the 2016 election cycle. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should distinguish between websites which intentionally publish fake news articles and those that don't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How would we do that? I don't think the reliable sources make that distinction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Propornot

Before making edits based on their information, I wanted to include propornot.com as a discussed source of reliable information. It was cited by the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_propaganda-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.389a611be033) as reliable.

A review of their list raises a couple of initial red flags. RT.com is certainly an instrument of propaganda, but would we call them "fake news?" Ron Paul Institute is even more concerning as it appears they labeled an article noting Russia's increased military capability as "absurdely pro-Russian." Given Russia's well known military build up this is more an example of biased reporting on the Ron Paul Institute's part than "fake news" or propaganda.

Thoughts? Am I conflating two categories here? Squatch347 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Squatch347, in its lead, Wikipedia's article PropOrNot states, "PropOrNot's methods and its anonymity have received criticism from many publications, including The New Yorker, Harper's, Fortune, The Intercept, and Rolling Stone." Based on some vague "combination of manual and automated analysis," PropOrNot's initial set of "Sites That Reliably Echo Russian Propaganda," first published 30 Nov 2016 and now updated to v0.0.7, lists 200 outlets "being used by Russia as conduits for propaganda." This is painting with an extremely broad brush. I'd hesitate to support even one citation, much less 200, to PropOrNot. KalHolmann (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Kalholmann, I think that is a valid point. The criticism seems relatively warranted as well. I have continued to do some research and, you definitely nail it, with the vague mechanism reference. Some sites have excellent examples of obvious fake news, while others seem far closer to "annoying analysis" which isn't the same thing.

Squatch347 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

More sites

Pending discussion on propornot.com below, I would suggest the following additions to the page as instruments of fake news in accordance with the definition:

Naked Capitalism Black Agenda Report Consortium News Truthdig Truth Out Squatch347 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources indicating that any of those sites are fake news? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Fleischman, I posted the link for discussion below. Another editor brought up some great points about its reliability. Given that we both now have reservations about its methodology, I think we can hold off on adding them. Squatch347 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

NationalReport.net

In conjunction with our ongoing discussion of whether or not World News Daily Report should be listed as a fake news website, we should not lose sight of National Report, which is likewise listed here, under its website NationalReport.net. As noted in our entry, and supported by citation to a WP:RS, "In 2013, the nonpartisan FactCheck.org deemed NationalReport.net a satirical site." (Emphasis added.) Any consensus concerning WNDR should also encompass National Report. KalHolmann (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

World News Daily Report

The About page at this site says it is a satire site, so it should be moved from this article to the satire site article. Jkolak (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC) On the other hand, the matrix box incorrectly lists the URL as worldnetreport.com, which is currently not a news site. Jkolak (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because the site it's satire, doesn't mean it is satire. Is there an independent reliable source that says it's satire? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I edited the article to include worldnewsdailyreport.com, which is the correct URL; worldnewsreport.com redirects to http://www.lifehealthdental.com/.

• http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ lists World News Daily Report as a "satire website" but other sources call it fake news. KalHolmann (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Fakenewswatch.com isn't a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Following the example of bizstandardnews.com in this list, I cited disclaimer published on WNDR's About page (footer). KalHolmann (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that WNDR is currently listed in this entry on the back of a Buzzfeed reference; while Buzzfeed's use as RS seems to be somewhat controversial, according to the RS Noticeboard they've made vast editorial improvements in recent years and may, indeed, be considered RS in some cases. If one feels so inclined, abc news states that WNDR is satirical in this article, but it relies heavily on the proclamations made on the aforementioned WNDR About page linked from the footer. This 'news' site should definitely be listed on satirical - but should it be listed on both? Pegnawl (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Pegnawl, thanks for your comment. I concur that ABC News provides a source to justify moving WNDR from List of fake news websites to List of satirical news websites. The article to which you link is headlined "Woman Says Newborn Photo Stolen for Satirical Fake News Story," and its body identifies WNDR as "a satirical entertainment news site." The lead of this Wikipedia page states, "These sites intentionally, but not necessarily solely publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire." Since ABC News clearly accepts WNDR's own satirical stated purpose, we should do likewise. KalHolmann (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm vexed by this. We have a generally reliable source saying WNDR is satire, but it certainly looks more like fake news than like satire. Snopes.com analyzed WNDR alongside other sites that were marked as satire but didn't say anything about WNDR being satirical. I read a few stories and didn't pick up on the satire. Maybe my sense of humor is lacking. Would others care to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I'm vexed by your vexation. You wrote above, "Is there an independent reliable source that says it's satire?" Now that we have one, thanks to Pegnawl, you insinuate the standard should be the individual sense of humor of Wikipedians. (It is my observation that most have none.) KalHolmann (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about your parenthetical. I asked the question about the reliable source because I didn't expect Jkolak (or anyone else) to find one. Now that we have one, I looked a bit closer and found myself in one of those rare situations in which the secondary source (ABC) appears to me to be at inconsistent with the primary source material. This sort of thing does happen from time to time, and every once in a while a consensus forms that the secondary source is unreliable. My concern is that the ABC source took the satire disclaimer at face value, months before the whole "fake news" thing blew up into a big deal. I'm not saying we should leave WNDR on the list. I'm saying I don't know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, you misrepresent the case. The secondary source is not inconsistent with the primary source. To the contrary, ABC News accepts WNDR's stated purpose. And there's nothing rare about this situation. It's commonplace for a Wikipedia editor to disregard sources and substitute his own opinion, which I thought we're trying to avoid here. Perhaps I can turn the table and paraphrase your question to Jkolak: "Is there an independent reliable source that says WNDR is not satire?" KalHolmann (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some sites that apparently attempt to avoid scrutiny or perhaps liability by describing themselves as satire. This is pretty well documented in the Snopes article. Regarding your comment about our verifiability policy, yes, you are largely correct. However, there are times when ordinarily reliable sources are deemed by consensus to be unreliable, and this might be one of those times. Or it might not. I would like to hear from others on this. Exemplo347? MjolnirPants? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Satirical" news sites are often considered a subset of fake news. Even the Onion has been labelled fake news, and the Onion is perhaps the ur-example of "satirical" news (I use scare quotes because the vast majority of this stuff is not actually satire, but simple base humor, though the Onion does occasionally write actual satire). So the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive. Also, Dr. Fleischmann; it's not you. WNDR is simply not funny. It honestly looks more "blatantly racist" to me.

(Don't expect much more out of me on this or -really- anything else; I'm pretty much retired and only saw this ping when I logged in to use my watchlist to find an article. I only responded because Dr. Fleischmann is one of a very small number of editors about whose opinion I actually care.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope we can stay focused here. The question is not, "Is WNDR funny?" It is rather, as Dr. Fleischman framed it, "Should the ordinarily reliable source ABC News in this instance be deemed unreliable?" In my opinion, no matter how many editors chime in that WNDR is not satire, such a subjective consensus, unsupported by WP:RS, is worthless. KalHolmann (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What in the ever loving fuck did you read? It sure as hell wasn't my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Is WNDR funny" is a relevant inquiry, since it speaks to whether WNDR is satire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, the lead's first paragraph in Wikipedia's article states, "Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society." (Emphasis added.) WNDR does not have to be subjectively funny to qualify as satire. The onus is on you and whatever other editors you canvass solicit out of retirement to demonstrate, via WP:RS, that WNDR fails to meet the "greater purpose" defined by Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, I do not appreciate the canvassing accusation. Also, please do not ping me with every comment. I'm watching this page so there's no need to ping me at all here. As for your substance, I am not saying, "If not funny, then not satire." I'm simply saying that the funniness of the site isn't wholly irrelevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, Gizmodo calls WNDR one of the "9 Worst Fake News Sites" and puts "satire" in scarequotes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Is there harm in including WNDR in both entries? I think the redundancy may actually benefit the project in this case, as WNDR could clearly be argued as either fake or satire (depending, perhaps, on the article in question). Pegnawl (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pegnawl, the lead's first paragraph in Wikipedia's List of fake news websites states, "These sites intentionally, but not necessarily solely publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the lead's first paragraph in Wikipedia's List of satirical news websites states, "This is a list of satirical news websites…. They are not to be confused with fake news websites, which deliberately publish hoaxes in an attempt to profit from gullible readers." (Emphasis added.) By definition, WNDR cannot be in both lists. KalHolmann (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It can be if there's a dispute among reliable sources as to whether WNDR is satire. Or, technically, if a consensus on each article's talk page says the site belongs there, as inconsistent as that may be. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting... the way I interpret it then, based on the List of fake news websites wording "not necessarily solely," is that a fake news site can also be a satirical news site, but a satirical news site cannot be a fake news site. If you agree, then this may be an important distinction for our discussion. Pegnawl (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pegnawl, in comparing the two lists, I find that only one outlet (National Report) appears on both. But this does provide a precedent for the dual listing that you and Dr. Fleischman suggest. KalHolmann (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a dual listing. I'm merely saying that it's hypothetically possible. I have little personal interest in what's included at List of satirical news websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another relevant source is The Independent. Referring to a list of sites including WNDR, it says: "They also carry barely noticeable disclaimer pages explaining that the stories are intended for “entertainment purposes” – but it’s not immediately apparent who’s being entertained. There are few of the belly laughs that you might get from satirical news sites such as The Onion or The Daily Mash; indeed, if confusion is the goal, there’s little incentive to be funny." (This is why a site's funniness is relevant.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• The plot thickens... Here are three more sources saying WNDR is satire: Burlington County-Times, PolitiFact, Toronto Star. Then we have the Columbia Journalism Review, casts doubt whether fake news sites like WNDR are really satirical ("the kind that say they’re satirical but are nothing like The Onion"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that a site must be "like The Onion" in order to qualify as satire. What a dreary, one-size-fits-all restriction that would be. KalHolmann (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting yes or no. I merely laid out all of the relevant reliable sources I could find. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw those same sources when trying to put together an answer at Talk:World News Daily Report. Listing it as both, or as satire-only is fine with me. IMO it is just as satirical as The Onion and we shouldn't be making a judgment call as to what is satirical "enough". ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like we're getting a whole lot of participation from outside editors. I'm inclined to remove WNDR from the list, despite my reservations. We have 4 sources calling it satire and I believe zero sources expressly contradicting that assessment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please wait a few more days before removing WNDR from the list. In the past 24 hours, we've had input from two editors (MPants at work and Bri) who were not previously involved. Plus, yesterday you yourself contributed four helpful sources (The Independent, Burlington County-Times, PolitiFact, Toronto Star) that no one had previously cited. I feel this discussion has not yet run its course. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• If I may be permitted to alter my position, I'm now persuaded by the conflicting, more or less equally reliable sources, that World News Daily Report is both a fake news website and a satirical news website, and should (like National Report) be retained in both lists. By way of comparison, the lead at Wikipedia's The Onion page says that outlet's articles "cover current events, both real and fictional, satirizing the tone and format of traditional news organizations." As I read it, WNDR uses fake news to satirize the tone and format of fake news. I initially argued for moving WNDR from the list of fake news websites to the list of satirical news websites because I thought the lists were by definition mutually exclusive. However, I now consider that a false premise. Given the sources' split opinion, there is no reason WNDR cannot appear on both lists. KalHolmann (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, now I'm the one who's confused. Ha! If the site is verifiably satire then we shouldn't include it here. This is a list of non-satire fake news sites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You have obviously bought into the false premise I identified in my preceding comment. I checked the references for List of fake news websites, Fake news website, and List of satirical news websites. Nowhere did I find a definition holding that a fake news website cannot also be a satirical news website. Only Wikipedia, unsupported by references, blithely presumes that the two types are mutually exclusive.

I did find, in the List of fake news websites, a reference to Business Insider alluding to "an assistant professor of media studies, Melissa Zimdars," who "created a list named 'False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical 'News' Sources.'" The only relevant thing I found by clicking the embedded link was Zimdars's comment that some websites "take pieces of accurate information and then packaging [sic] that information with other false or misleading 'facts' (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy)." By her definition, then, certain sites purvey fake news for the purpose of satire. This is exactly what I meant in writing, "WNDR uses fake news to satirize the tone and format of fake news." As I now see it, to justify removing WNDR from the List of fake news websites, you (or some other editor) should in fairness cite at least one WP:RS unambiguously stating that a fake news website cannot also be a satirical news website. KalHolmann (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, FWIW: At a common sense level it seems to me that a website can provide both satirical and fake news. Each article can be spun to either effect. At an RS level we can easily pull in references to cite that WNDR is deemed one or the other – in some cases both. At this point in the discussion I think it's imperative that we consider the end users seeking encyclopedic information; I believe that, if a user arrives at an entry to examine a list of fake news sites, the WNDR should be on that list. If they arrive at an entry to examine a list of satirical news sites, the WNDR should be on that list. Pegnawl (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two serious problems here. First off, what you (KalHolmann and Pegnawl) are proposing is a change in our selection criteria, which at present specifically say that we're only listing non-satire sites. This shouldn't be done under the guise of a discussion about WNDR, especially when the selection criteria were so heavily debated early on by a much wider group. If we're going to change the selection criteria so fundamentally then I think we should get a lot more people on board, perhaps through an RfC. Second, I'd strenuously oppose removing the satire exclusion. The sources we rely on most heavily come from late 2016 when the fake news phenomenon received so much news coverage. This list was created at the same time to list sites of the same phenomenon. Satire sites were definitely not part of this phenomenon. And as a practical matter, most satire news sites are also reliably described as fake news sites (e.g. The Onion), which would mean this list would swallow up nearly everything in List of satirical news websites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, thank you for reminding us that selection criteria were debated earlier by a wider group. Thus prompted, I searched for "satire" in the archives for both this talk page and that associated with Fake news website. If a clear consensus emerged from those messy discussions, I missed it. As for your suggestion of an RfC, I note that there were two previous Requests for Comment:

• Inclusion of Infowars in this list
• Merges of related pages

Both were closed with a finding of no consensus.

Please clarify what wording you would use in your suggested RfC, and help us understand why you think it might result in consensus. KalHolmann (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying there was a consensus specifically to exclude satire. I'm saying the selection criteria were heavily debated by many editors, and the current criteria came out of that. It's not really my job to propose RfC language since I think the selection criteria are fine, but why not as simple, "Should we include satire sites in our selection criteria?" Again I think you're misunderstanding me here as well; I never suggested an RfC like this would or would not result in any consensus, just that if you want to change the selection criteria, I think it should have the support of significantly more than 2 editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you contend it is impossible to retain World News Daily Report and NationalReport.net on the list of fake news websites without changing the selection criteria? If so, perhaps your position should have the support of significantly more than 1 editor (yourself). KalHolmann (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're getting at. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. KalHolmann (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing where we're at in this discussion:

• Two editors (Jkolak and Dr. Fleischman) support removing WNDR from this list.
• Two editors (Pegnawl and myself) support retaining WNDR both here and on the List of satirical news websites. Additionally, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants said "the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive," implying he'd be OK with keeping WNDR on both lists.
• One editor (Bri) said "listing it as both, or as satire-only is fine with me."
  

Obviously, we are at a stalemate. Until other editors weigh in, we ought to keep things as they are. KalHolmann (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Per the ping from Dr. F, I wanted to respond to the two problems cited:

Problem 1/Change in Criteria: I actually don't think a change in selection criteria is necessary. Instead I stand by my statement on December 6th, that the current lead already provides us with a loophole for just this occasion: "but not necessarily solely".

Problem 2/Separating Fake and Satire: So, if that's the case, why wouldn't this list swallow up the satire list, or vice versa? That's a tricky matter and a fair concern. Based on the references we've discussed here (and my own eyes), WNDR churns out heaps of fake news, as so defined: "hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media," with the occasional satirical story (honestly I had to look pretty hard to find an example.) It would seem to me (and I have no metrics to back this up, as I don't imagine this has been or ever will be written about in RS) that WNDR is primarily fake, and only every so often dabbles in satire.

There's a third, as yet unmentioned problem. This thread has become a bit long to be inviting to other editors; I'm overwhelmed by its length, and I'm already a participant! Since this is an issue far bigger than WNDR, and we really could use some other opinions, I would highly recommend we create a new section devoted to discussing this "and/or" grey area, but keep it slim and to-the-point with only the pertinent facts. Certainly we can reference this section as a case study of sorts, but I'm afraid that the number of editors willing to wade through all of the WNDR arguments to-date AND have enough energy left to participate will be severely limited. Pegnawl (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards the Philippines

I wanted to find out if I may add perspectives from other countries, since the notice states there's disproportional coverage towards the Philippines. Saw this article about the affect it's having in Australia, and how the government is trying to investigate it; this is happening in many other countries too, may be good to add how this problem is affecting other countries. AspiringCheetah (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

References

We are listing all sites that meet our selection criteria. The reason we have so many Filipino sites is because there just happen to be reliable sources listing that country's fake news sites (and, for social/political reasons, there happen to be a lot of them there). If you want more Australian sites to make the list, then you'll have to find reliable sources that name them. The source you linked to is interesting, but it doesn't list any Australian fake news sites so it's not particularly useful for this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for listing

The definition of fake news according to the Wikipedia article Fake news websites in the United States states that it "Fake news websites deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media". My question is if the fake news websites believe what they write to be true does it indeed count as fake news? Some of these sites like InfoWars, Globalresearch.ca, Natural News, etc might be better classified as alternate theory/conspiracy theory websites, pseudoscience websites, or biased websites instead if it is clear that the news they publish was not necessarily true but not published to deliberately disinform.If they are indeed guilty of knowingly publishing disinformation it would be good to find a source that proves that they did it intentionally as opposed to a source that simply identifies them as fake news based on what they publish.--Underneaththesun (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Underneaththesun, since your question relates to the definition according to Fake news websites in the United States, it belongs at Talk:Fake_news_websites_in_the_United_States, not here. KalHolmann (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Our inclusion criteria for this list are not based on Fake news websites in the United States. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I should have used the definition for this page which I assume is what is stated in the opening sentence, however my point remains the same for the reasons that I stated I'm not sure that some of the sites listed should necessarily be classified as fake news, I suppose my question is more related to the criteria for listing on this page rather than the definition of fake news--Underneaththesun (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't determine a publisher's intentions. For all we know, Alex Jones' lawyers were absolutely right when they told a divorce court that he was "playing a role" with his public persona. It could well be that Jones doesn't believe a bit of the conspiracy theories he popularizes. We can't determine that.

What we can determine however, is how such sites react to being proven wrong. If they react by retracting the false claim and publishing a correction, then we can assume they made a mistake. If they react by deleting the false claims and pretending like they never made them, we can assume they got caught failing to do their own due diligence. If, however, they simply ignore the fact check and continue to insist upon the false claim, then we can presume they are deliberately spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories whether they realize their claims are false or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I completely agree with Underneaththesun for exactly the reasons they provide. Keep in mind that many of the sources we use for this article are puff-pieces, lists of websites with little or no evidence of analysis of each website listed on the part of the author. We could possible eliminate the non-fake fake news sites on this list by insisting on stronger sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, when you assert that "many of the sources we use for this article are puff-pieces," are you referring to section 2, subsection 2.1, or both? It would be helpful if you'd identify these puff-pieces so other editors can better understand what you mean. KalHolmann (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what you (AQFK) mean by the cited sources being puff pieces. Are they not reliable? If not, then why not? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let each editor other than User:MPants at work revise & extend his own remarks. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) @KalHolmann: You do realize that the note you added to my comment was far more defacing than the link? It made it very difficult to tell what was being said, and by whom. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but in the future, please try to ask the "offending" editor about it, first. If you had, you would have seen that I had already indicated quite clearly that I was perfectly fine with it. And for the record, you, the good doctor and every other editor on WP have my express permission to add a link to any wiseass remark I make which -in the views of any reasonably funny person- would increase how funny said wiseass remark is. Or to add a photo with a humorous caption referencing me next to one of my comments. In fact, so long as it's not overtly mocking me (like posting a photograph of a micropenis and saying or implying that the image is my reason for doing something flashy, bossy or overtly masculine). Or to, in any other way, play off of anything I have said with any trace of wit or humor (or even bitter sarcasm) in order to make a funny joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC) KalHoffman, it has already been explained to you that conduct disputes do not belong at article talk. If you had raised the issue on my user talk, then I would've explained that I was 99.9% sure MjolnirPants would be cool with my edit, and he had already confirmed that he was cool with my edit. And we all could have moved along happily on our way without disrupting this incredibly enlightening content discussion in which I learned that The New York Times is exactly the same as RT. (Silly me!) Now, please grow a funny bone and drop the stick before I'm forced to say something obnoxious about panties. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Your disdain for my opinion is duly noted. KalHolmann (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

fake news outlet in ph: 1. abs-cbn (owned by cojuangco-aquino) 2. gma (cojuangco-aquino owned some stocks here) 3. tv5 ( theyre somewhat neutral, but some stories are a bit biased) 4. rappler (not a registered news outlet, yet they call themselves legit)

if u want some proof or evidence, ask an ordinary citizen of ph, he/she would agree with what ive said. 49.149.71.58 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 09:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Philippine Bias

The Philippine section will probably need to be spun off into its own article. -Object404 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sooner this happens, the better. As it stands, the subsection "For Philippine audiences" includes 94 sites—nearly twice as many as the table of non-Filipino sites (59). This creates an overall bifurcated, unbalanced, disorienting inventory that does not well serve the reader. KalHolmann (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Make a WP:SPINOFF subarticle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why spinoff? The Filipino section reflects the reliable sources. I don't see the balance problem, and there certainly isn't a size problem. I don't think we should be creating a U.S. bias. The fact is that, as I understand it, fake news is a particularly big problem in the Philippines, and that's something readers will have to learn. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You do have a point there. Fake News is such a huge and pervasive problem in the Philippines, that a 2-day international conference was just held on it by the biggest media outfits and top schools in the country, as well as 2 Senate hearings already. Maybe it's a fact that readers need to be made aware of? -Object404 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Please remove "RAPPLER" from the Philippine Fake News sites because they don't report fake news. The president simply want them gone as he wants to limit press freedom. 122.55.8.106 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done feminist (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FHM and Rappler

FHM and Rappler are Fake news

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.58.212.62 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC) 

 Not done Do you have a reliable source for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Rappler

This was proven in the Philippine senate that rappler made fake news about the frigate deal and Bong Go. This is not about the President of a republic limiting press freedom. This is about fake news and no more Zantets (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Bong Go (a corrupt politician) accused them of making fake news, because he was pissed that Rappler reported his less than honest behavior. 124.106.132.236 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a reliable source saying that Rappler is a fake news outlet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

GRPundit

Request: Please remove our site GRPundit (grpshorts.blogspot.com).

It is part of the network of political blogs under GetRealPhilippines.com under which the site Get Real Post (GetRealPhilippines.com/blog) belongs. The latter (Get Real Post) was also the subject of a previous request to have removed from this list which was acted upon favourably. I paste below again the justification we used for Get Real Post that is also applicable to GRPundit. The URL to the Get Real Post site where this justification was originally published as a blog article is included after the text:

This is in response to the list of “fake news” sites published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) which included GetRealPhilippines.com. We did not respond to this initially because we thought it was too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The lack of a sound basis and coherent set of criteria applied to coming up with this list led us to assume that people would not easily fall for this propaganda stunt.

Evidently, however, we underestimated the influence these men in robes exert on many Filipinos as we had, in the last few days, been receiving requests to comment on our inclusion in this list. Many of these requests come from university students that had seemingly been instructed by their teachers to write papers on “fake news” sites and had used the CBCP list as reference for their work.

It is quite interesting that in this day and age when information is so easily accessible that Filipinos continue to rely on an antiquated institution that has, for centuries, sought to suppress the evolution of society from one imprisoned by ignorance and superstition to one enlightened by science and evidence-based problem solving. The CBCP has exhibited neither the transparency nor the humility to subject itself to the same critical scrutiny that Filipinos demand that their other leaders be subject to. The hypocrisy in the way the CBCP conducts itself and regards the public in this regard is nothing short of astounding.

It should be noted that the CBCP list included only sites perceived to be critical of the Liberal Party and the broader Opposition to the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. No sites associated with the Opposition camps were included in this list. This is particularly relevant today in light of recent revelations surrounding certain characters associated with the Yellow and Liberal Party camps alleged to be orchestrating the operations of a large number of anonymous sites many of which are known publishers of unfounded opinions, downright false information, and even seditious material meant to undermine the Philippine government and slander it before a global audience. The people behind these treacherous disinformation campaigns should be held accountable for the damage they had done to the welfare of the Philippine state. More importantly, Filipinos should demand that the CBCP, at the very least, reveal the process with which it decided which sites to include in its “fake news” list.

GetRealPhilippines.com is not a “fake news” site. How can it be when we do not even presume to be a producer of news? What we do publish are opinions. Our work is subject to public scrutiny and our comment threads are open to anyone who wishes to challenge the positions any of our writers take on any issue. We have yet to see anyone successfully debunk any of our views and discredit any position we have taken. Nonetheless we continue to encourage all who find our views disagreeable to prove us wrong. We are one of the oldest political sites in the Philippines. Our longevity attests to the strength of our brand as a trusted source of insights on Philippine society. We were a blog long before posting on Facebook was referred to as “blogging”.

To those who are quick to believe certain “thought leaders” who insist that the CBCP are right to include us in a document no different to those medieval lists of banned books they hold a tradition of issuing over the last 1000 years, we ask that you challenge yourselves to be better than that. Be better than what mainstream media profiles you as. Be better than the politicians who expect you to vote for the same status quo that has not served Filipinos well over and over again.

Most important of all, be better than what those men in robes in the CBCP think you are.

Link to blog post where the above was first published: http://www.getrealphilippines.com/blog/2017/10/cbcp-became-source-fake-news-published-list-fake-news-sites/ BenIgnZero (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We've done this one before haven't we? WIkipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sourcing not on arguments The Catholic Bishop's conference has absolutely nothing to do with this and bringing them up time and time again is a red herring. The listing of GRPundit is sourced to GMA News Online and their reporting is sourced to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. If you want to change how your site is perceived, then you need to persuade them, not us. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Like last time, BenIgnZero's reasoning is total bunk, but this is an odd one. The cited source doesn't say in the text that GRPundit is a fake news site, but it does discuss a fake news blocker plugin that has been published by the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP), and the published video shows some sort of an NUJP blacklist that includes GRPundit. The article doesn't quite say that the NUJP-blacklisted sites are fake news sites. I don't really know what to make of all this, but I lean toward saying GRPundit should stay on our list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The NUJP and GMA News reports reference the CBCP list which is unsubstantiated. Repeated requests directed at the CBCP to cite the specific criteria they applied yielded nothing. They have no basis for including GRPundit in their list of "fake news site" and have not provided specific examples where GRPundit claims to publish news reports then deliberately publishes misinformation. No misinformation is published on GRPundit and no attempt is being made by GRPundit to present itself as a news site. GRPundit is a blog and primarily publishes OPINIONS. You also need to consider that the CBCP is a part of the Roman Catholic Church which refuses to subject itself to critical scrutiny and sees itself as EXEMPT from it. That, by itself, makes it unfit to be an authority on "fake news". You need to be honest with yourselves also and ask: What makes the NUJP and authority on "fake news"? They use the term loosely and apply it to GRPundit. But accepted definitions of fake news, say from the Collins Dictionary which states it as "false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting" are very clear. GRPundit is an opinion blog that does not pretend to be a news site. You cannot siumply "lean toward" a judgment on GRPundit when (1) there is no compelling evidence and (2) the site itself does not fall within the accepted definition of "fake news". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No new information from COI editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

BenIgnZero, I hope it has been made clear to you between this request and your last one that no one here cares about the CBCP. What I would like to know from you is, who is the NUJP and what is your take on their reliability aside from asking rhetorically what makes them "an authority on fake news?" It seems obvious that if anyone is an authority on fake news, it would be an organization of professional journalists, assuming the organization is legitimate and reputable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The NUJP and CMFR are legitimate and reputable journalistic organizations in the Philippines. -Object404 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The NUJP or National Union of Journalists of the Philippines is a *trade union* of journalists and, as such, does not necessarily represent the industry -- only its employees and professional practitioners. There are other professional bodies in the Philippines such as the National Press Club (NPC). The NUJP is also known to be a left-leaning organization and, therefore, is not necessarily representative of the broader community of journalists. An important point to make too is whether or not they have jurisdiction over judging the nature of a blog site such as GRPundit. Even if they were, as you postulate, a "reputable" organization of professional journalists, they would wield authority over the practice of journalism but not necessarily over blogging. For that matter, as I pointed out earlier, the emerging definition of "fake news" (the term already being problematic as it is) does not cover blogs in general but is specific about publishers who/that *pretend to be news sites*.

You should also consider the conflict of interest involved here. The profession/industry is currently suffering a crisis of relevance across the board and many media companies are struggling to remain profitable. As such, their attempts to put blogging and other alternative forms of media based in the Internet is suspect as these alternative entities are, in essence, *competitors* of traditional organisations in a struggling industry. I'd like to request that you consider that the nature of what motivates traditional media firms to mount this so-called "fake news" campaign practically in concert could possibly be seen as a form of collusion against an emerging competing community. Granted that some members of this community abuse the new platform (and, as such, gave rise to the notion of "fake news") you will need to consider too, for the sake of fairness, that there are also abusive elements in the established traditional news media industry.

Hopefully this provides you a bit more perspective and context in evaluating your options regarding GRPundit. If I may, I will take copies of this discussion and post them in our site GetRealPost to share this experience with the rest of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 21:15, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

@BenIgnZero:, stop changing the indicator. You've been given an answer by three experienced editors. That you don't like the answer doesn't mean that you haven't received an answer. Nothing you posted above sheds any light on the reliable source status of the citation given. Political views you disagree with are not evidence of a source with ...a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Before acting on your implied threat to "share this experience" with the rest of your unspecified community please read the the policy against legal threats and the policy against exposing editors. Before re-posting anything, you should also read the Content License Content License. These are part of the Terms of Use you agreed to follow when you created your account. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to consider your reliance on consensus (appeal to popularity) and on "authoritative" references (appeal to authority). Both are logical fallacies though, perhaps, logic as you point out does not apply in Wikipedia and is trumped by both of these. Journalists, last I heard, don't write something us truth just because someone said so (even someone perceived to be in a position/role of authority). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@BenIgnZero:, we explicitly rely on WP:CONSENSUS and use of authoritative sources as parts of our Core Content Policies. Calling these policies logical fallacies impresses no-one and shows a lack of understanding that your sophist arguments do not "trump" policy. It also shows that you should read this which says, in a nutshell, that the project doesn't care about "The Truth"^TM but about what can be substantiated through sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

BenIgnZero, if you're not interested in making arguments based on our community standards then can you please leave the discussion to editors who are? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) As mentioned earlier, I wrote an article about the above experience dealing with you editors. Below link for reference. Happy reading! [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 01:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I've added a new About page that clarifies GRPundit is NOT a news site nor pretends to be one. Check it out here: http://grpshorts.blogspot.com.au/p/about-grpundit.html Please remove it now. Note too, that we have updated our article (see link below) on Get Real Post where the above is being monitored as an on-going story of our experience dealing with Wikipedia editors. [REDACTED - Oshwah] Thanks. You may remove GRPundit NOW please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: So your argument newest for removing your blog after all the above is that you complained about how your blog was being treated on your blog? That helps, how? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does help. That's what blogging is all about -- expressing one's self. This is why you people ought NOT to be presuming to be maintaining lists of "fake news sites" -- because you guys actually do not understand what blogging is and how blogs falls OUTSIDE of the definition of "news sites" and therefore are not sensible members of sets that are given the label "fake news sites".

Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See, the thing is, it is now becoming evident that pride is at work here and *INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY* has gone out the window. This whole "debate" about GRPundit is no longer sensible -- because you people prefer to defer to imagined authoritities on "fake news" arbitrarily plucked out of the air by one of your folk and yet you all collectively fail to remain consistent to any sort of definition of "fake news" much less the one I cited. As evident in the manner above with which you respond to my request, you are starting to fall below any semblance of professional integrity as an "editor" of this venerable collective project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenIgnZero (talk • contribs) 06:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Go whine on your blog, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

since when did the catholic church became a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.165.10 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well this wiki page is not reliable to begin with,what do we expect. They have taken control and decide what is right or wrong. The one who fight fake news are now providing us fake list. Eyeofskadi (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thinking Pinoy

Kindly remove Thinking Pinoy from your list of fake news sites. Thinking Pinoy isn’t a news site but a blog site. Ctflessen (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As per CBCP list on peddling fake news, Thinking Pinoy is classified as a fake news site. ERAMnc 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Three of the four cited sources did not expressly support the claim that Thinking Pinoy is a fake news website. However the fourth source (Rappler citing the CBCP list) did. Do you have a reliable source saying that Thinking Pinoy is not a fake news site? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

is CBCP reliable enough to tell what is fake news or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeofskadi (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not but Rappler is, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So after rappler cited CBCP it now becomes reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeofskadi (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How can we now be sure that the list is genuine and not fake list. A reliable source cited unreliable source turns unreliable source into reliable source? Eyeofskadi (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

is that how fake news works,the irony is too heavy here. Eyeofskadi (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not constructive. If you have an issue with our guidelines then you can take it to another forum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Evening Post

Not sure what criteria y'all use for inclusion, but this seems a likely candidate: Fake news? Chicago website lists 5 Calgary city councillors as journalists. Resolute 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Fails verification. We'd need a source explicitly saying that the Chicago Evening Post publishes fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Philippine section

I think we need to make this part encyclopedic. "Some of the links below are now dead, under construction, redirect to other URLs, or have morphed, but are maintained in the list to show how prevalent fake news sites for Philippine audiences are. Another problem is that satire sites are being passed as real news by Philippine social media audiences, or have now lost their satire disclaimers and are being passed off as real news. Exercise caution when visiting some of the URLs below as anti-virus software have tagged some as containing malware."

Also, I think the tables would be more informative if we can add a column that will display the organization/individual who is claiming a fake news website. SciPunk (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the offending content. It was mostly unverifiable, and even if sources were somehow found, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. Dead links can be revived. Malware links should be removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your second proposal would be difficult to apply in practice. In most cases there is one or more subject matter experts. They are then cited by one or more reliable sources (news media etc.). In most of these cases there is no one single organization or individual who "claims" a site is fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)