Talk:StopFake

Sometime uses sources with wrong info

On this website they sometimes use sources with erroneous or manipulated information. A while ago I saw an article where their source (twitter a non RS) used an inverted map (south-north)just to make their point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.93 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference ideas

Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Kuleba's statement

From this article[1]: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs supported Stopfake after the scandal with Zaborona, saying that Russia is trying to undermine the reputation of fact-checkers. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said that his ministry is observing coordinated, systematic attempts by Russia to undermine the reputation of Ukrainian fact-checkers, in particular the Stopfake organization. "StopFake obviously interferes with Russia as a country that is the world's largest machine for creating and spreading fakes," the diplomat said."
From what the article says, it seems that Kuleba is claiming that this attack on StopFake is 'organised' by Russia. Or am I wrong? Mhorg (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is implying that the Zaborona article is part of a Russian operation to "undermine the reputation of fact-checkers". Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So the first part of that is from a headline, not to be used per WP:HEADLINES. But even including the headline he doesn't say the accusations are organized by russia, he just says that Russia is trying to undermine the reputation of the fact checker. It's ambiguous whether he is saying the accusations themselves are part of that. He might just be saying Russia is amplifying or taking advantage of them (personally that's how I read it). We definitely shouldn't be implying or saying that he's accusing Zaborona of something like that if the article doesn't actually say that Tristario (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The current wording I've put in the article reflects what is in the source. It's up to our readers, really, to decide what he means by that Tristario (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm reliant on machine translation, but I'd agree with your reading Mhorg. Could quote the "coordinated, systematic attempts" phrasing. Possibly also noteworthy in the article is the claim of Russian cyberattacks on StopFake. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Tristario is right about the headlines. Do we have any other sources that mention Kuleba in connection with this case? Perhaps he said something else that is not reported here. Mhorg (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The text is in English on the FB page of Hromadske International but without the headline, making the link to Zaborona even less clear.[2] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking again per Tristaio, the direct linkage to the Zaborona article is in the headline, and it's not clear the minister is being specific about this article or just stating the context. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba supported StopFake, saying that his ministry observed co-ordinated, systematic attempts by Russia to undermine the reputation of the fact-checking project. is an excellent summary of what we can safely say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an implication in the statement but it is not an outright declaration. As mentioned by Tristario, there may be an alternative explanation. I think it would be too much of a stretch to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Zaborona of working for Russia. Where there is some uncertainty, it would be prudent to either leave it out or stick closely to the source, e.g. by directly quoting it. The version quoted by Bob above is close enough to the source to be suitable. Burrobert (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all above. I also made a couple of fixes per my comment about StopFake on another page [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

[4] - OK, thank you guys for fixing my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would avoid using personal opinions of Lev Golinkin who is mostly known for publishing his own biography, "A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka" [5]. If someone really insists on using them (he is probably a legitimate journalist), this should be done with explicit attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Lev Golinkin

Part of the following text was recently removed:

In 2022 The Nation published an article by Lev Golinkin which said that, in 2018, "StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes". According to the article, StopFake defended S14, which it described as a "community organisation", on Twitter and in a press release. It also defended the Azov Battalion, tweeting that Azov "doesn’t profess #Nazi views as official ideology".

The reason was "the context is important here. The article is mostly about Nina Jankowicz. This is also a personal opinion/article by left-wing commenter Golinkin"

Some comments:

- The article was published in The Nation, a green tick source

- The part of the text that was removed does not contain any opinions of Golinkin. It contains quotes from StopFake. The part of the text which contains opinion was left in the article.

- The opinion has been appropriately attributed

- Does Golinkin being "left-wing" (assuming it is true) matter? Are we only accepting articles from right-wing commentators?

- The editor who replaced this text with a mention of Mary Poppins had earlier removed a mention of Ekaterina Sergatskova because it was "all about Sergatskova, not about StopFake (where she does not belong). If we had a page about Sergatskova, this could be included there"??? Burrobert (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. First of all, this is not "The Nation published an article by Lev Golinkin", but Lev Golinkin published an article in Nation. For example, when scientist X published an article in Science, this is him who published it. He is responsible for the content, should retract it if necessary, etc.
2. Secondly, just mentioning Sergatskova is good, she should be mentioned, I never objected. I objected only including the unnecessary details about the alleged harassment, threats, and personal information of her and her son posted online because that is not on the subject on this page. But again, her article should be explicitly attributed to her.
3. Third, the article by Golinkin was primarily about criticizing Nina Jankowicz, including her connection with StopFake, so that should be mentioned for context.
4. Yes, I would suggest not using personal opinions by Lev Golinkin who is mostly known for publishing his own biography, "A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka" [6]. But I did not remove anything sourced to him yet. If someone really insists on using his articles, this should be done with explicit attribution.

This is all. There is nothing special here. What's the problem? My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• In addition, your text above is not logical. For example, why someone claiming S14 (Ukrainian group) to be a community organization would be problematic? An organization can be a community organization and profess political views (neo-Nazi/communist/whatever) at the same time. And yes, it appears from reading various sources that "Nazi views" is not an official ideology of Azov; the detachment has no official ideology. If StopFake publications are mentioning this, why is it problematic? My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that if we want to include an opinion by someone like Golinkin that "StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes."[7], then (a) we must explain how exactly did it whitewash these organization (neither your text nor the source does it), and (b) we must be sure they are indeed outright neo-Nazi (this is less than certain in the case of Azov). My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

- The point about whether a journal publishes an article by someone or whether someone publishes in a journal is rather esoteric hair-splitting.

- Regarding the harassment, threats etc. to Sergatskova (calling them "alleged" minimises their severity), these are in fact in the article: "StopFake also signed a statement by media workers calling for a defence of Sergatskova from death threats ...". What is not explained for some reason is that these threats came in response to the publication of her report about StopFake.

- "I did not remove anything sourced to [Golinkin] yet. If someone really insists on using his articles, this should be done with explicit attribution". You removed the quotes from StopFake that were in his article. The opinion we quote from Golinkin has already been appropriately attributed.

- Your views about the terms "community organisation" and "Nazi views" are not relevant. The relevant points are StopFake's views about Azov and S14, which is what the quotes illustrate.

- "I do agree that if we want ...". Who are you agreeing with here?

Burrobert (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"StopFake also signed a statement ..." - yes, it is directly related. Any relevant statement by StopFake can be included, I agree. As about strong opinions that are disputed and can be viewed as a defamation, I think they better be avoided or at least be well written and carefully explained. The text above is not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• OK, there is a better source on StopFake controversies including the alleged far-right connections, i.e. an article in NYT, but it does not mention anything about the alleged support of neo-Nazi. It only says: "StopFake, like all of Facebook’s outside fact checkers, signed a pledge to be nonpartisan and not to focus its checks “on any one side.” But in recent weeks, StopFake has been battling accusations of ties to the Ukrainian far right and of bias in its fact-checking.", etc. Based on that, I would be inclined to remove the opinion by Golinkin, and use this NYT article instead. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

- Which statements can be "viewed as a defamation"?

- We have not yet mentioned StopFake's "bias in its fact-checking" for Facebook so that would be a good inclusion.

- Do we rank NYT above The Nation in terms of reliability? Not sure why both can't be included as both are green-tick sources.

Burrobert (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here is your recent inclusion of this material [8]. I reverted it per WP:BRD for reasons explained above and in my edit summary. Now, please get consensus for including this material. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The “published” thing isn’t the main issue but MVBW is wrong I believe. An author submits or is commissioned to write a text and the periodical publishes it, ie prints or puts it online to make it public. Just as you’d say “Penguin published a book by Stephen King” not the other way around. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think that the opinion by Golinkin should be included to this page, i.e. there are two people for inclusion and no one else except me objecting, let's consider this a consensus to include. But I am not sure if this is your position. My very best wishes (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm still unsure. Golinkin's piece should be considered an opinion piece and therefore used only with attribution (as it is now). His being left-wing is not relevant. He does represent a minority viewpoint within RSs: one that is mainly found in The Nation and Jacobin and broadly sympathetic to the Russian side in the conflict. His piece in The Nation about Jankowicz, which uses a fairly small StopFake connection as a stick with which to beat her, seems to note that the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources have praised StopFake, so he is self-consciously taking a slightly fringe position. Per NPOV, some mention is DUE if his viewpoint is a "significant" one (on which I am undecided), but it should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", i.e. should not take up much space here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I would simply remove it, but what you say seems reasonable to me. So, I am just leaving this to you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this:

I think we should include information about the harassment of sergatskova because it is quite relevant (but carefully, we don't want to imply that stopfake themselves did the harassment, and we shouldn't give it too much weight)

I don't think we should include the Golinkin piece. It is an opinion piece, the piece is dedicated to setting out his opinion on something. The entry for The Nation in perennial sources notes that opinion pieces need to be handled under the appropriate guideline, and that care needs to be taken that content from the nation constitutes due weight and complies with WP:BLP. In this, case per WP:RSEDITORIAL we treat the piece as a primary source for Golinkin's views. So some questions here are, does Golinkin's piece constitute due weight, is it strong enough for the claims it is making, and do we need to be concerned about WP:BLPGROUP, since Stopfake is a small organization.

Golinkin writes some quite deliberately provocative opinion pieces, often on topics relating to nazis and ukraine, and also nazis generally. He is quite critical of Ukraine, often, and can take some fairly contrarian views. Here, for instance, he refers to Euromaidan as "the US-backed Maidan project", which is not a manner you would see Euromaidan referred to in mainstream reliable sources. He also does not have any appropriate subject matter expertise, so it can't be argued his opinion is reliable or due in that regard.

In the context of these considerations (lack of expertise, general provocativeness), given the strength of the claims, and the WP:BLPGROUP issues since Stopfake is small and the claims are so strong and contentious, I don't think it's strong enough for those claims or that it constitutes due weight. Tristario (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If attributed, I see nothing problematic in Golikin's statement, published in The Nation, an RSP. Mhorg (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Her criticism of StopFake is of course relevant, and it is included. However, everything else would belong only to a page about her, because this is her personal life. Yes, this inclusion, as written, implies very clearly that her harassment was arranged by StopFake. Do sources say it? If so, this can be included. If not, then no, because there is no connection. This is a variety of WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant to the controversy and the notability of the story. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, however I will say that if it's included it needs to be carefully phrased so as not to imply it was stopfake that arranged the harassment Tristario (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted for discussion. Such text does imply that StopFake has been involved, although it does not say it directly. Same in sources. I think such implicit unproven accusations do not belong to WP and therefore would still be inclined to remove. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to rewrite it soon so hopefully it doesn't give the impression stopfake was involved Tristario (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote that part in this edit, I hope it's an improvement. I included some detail on who did the harassment, and included that Stopfake condemned the threats, so hopefully it's less likely to give the impression Stopfake themselves were involved Tristario (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Description of Suprun alleged far right connections

The description of this part has been changed back and forth a couple of times so I figured I should open a talk page discussion on this. Essentially, different sources offer similar but differing accounts of his alleged far right connections. Since this is a WP:BLP issue and WP:NPF says we should focus on the higher quality sources I think we should use or stay close to the version given by the New York Times, which is the strongest source. It's similar to what's currently in the article Tristario (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this.My very best wishes (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)