Talk:Fake news/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

this article should not exist

It takes an imaginary concept that is being used to do great harm, and validates it. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia should not affirm politicians. This partticu;lar phrase is very dangerous and the article is straight-faced totalitarian stenography. Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPOV. This is not the place to discuss your theories about "totalitarian stenography". The article does exist, and it is based on reliable, published sources who have used the term for quite a few years now. Wikipedia editors did not invent the term, and the job of Wikipedia editors is to reflect what reliable sources say about the concept, not what they or you say or think about it. Unless you have suggestions for improving the article (versus simply asserting it should not exist), please refrain from sharing your personal opinions on this article talk page. General Ization ^Talk 02:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course if you truly believe the article should not exist, the proper venue is to propose its deletion (though I have little reason to think it would be deleted). The procedure is not for you to simply state that you don't think it should exist, but for you to propose it for deletion via one of the several processes established for that purpose. General Ization ^Talk 02:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Note however, that the deletion of this article was proposed twice before (in 2005 and in 2019), and both failed. The most recent conclusion was snow keep -- meaning that unless you have some new and novel arguments to make, you probably shouldn't waste your time (or ours). General Ization ^Talk 02:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, you've been around here long enough to know that this subject passes all the criteria for the creation of an article, so you shouldn't even suggest deletion. Just don't do it. The edit summary you used when restoring your comment is also misleading, so be more careful.

Have you even read the article or noticed the section Fake news#Usage of the term by Donald Trump? We deal with his gross and dangerous misuse of the term. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that something meets a minimum standard does not mean that doing it is a good idea. Let's look at it this way. What exactly is the topic of the article? Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It far more than meets the minimum standard, but editors are not allowed to arbitrarily decide to prevent the creation of articles on notable topics. That's a serious NPOV violation. RS, not editors, make that decision.

The topic of the article is readily apparent if you just read the lead. Start there. Read the whole lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have, believe me, read the lede. Have you read the history of the article? Apart from the equation in the lede of fake news with yellow journalism, which is clearly anachronistic, the definition given there is not in current use. I think. It is hard to put one's finger on that definition. It talks about anti-vaxx, it talks about clickbait, it taks about information warfare. These are all important things to talk about but are they fake news? Maybe the title should be "List of inaccurate information," hmm?

BTW, I actually had not seen the section on Donald Trump, which has been added since the last time I tried to do something about this article. It does somewhat improve the issue that I am trying to describe -- I was told at the time that the best thing to be done about Donald Trump's use of the term was to ignore it, which.. yeah. But there are still big weight issues here. At the time this article was created, Hillary Clinton was using the term "fake news" to describe teenagers in Macedonia and the like. I was around at the time trying to deal with it on the NPOV noticeboard, so please stop with the sneers, mm? This definition no longer corresponds to the is way the phrase is being used today, and yet the existence of the article validates the term's existence, even though it is talking about something completely different, fake news in the 2016 US election, and trying to cobble together some related history that gives weight to the term, and not the "fake news" label used by Donald Trump. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD it then, and see how far it goes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that suggestion, but hope that Ruby is wise enough to not go down that disruptive road. That's a newbie mistake, not one an experienced editor should ever make. There are enough timesinks around here without AfDs filed against well-sourced existing articles which are about obviously notable subjects. We should fix, not AfD, such articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to edit

I would like to place a request to edit the Fake News article to speak on the importance of Memes being used as a vehicle for spreading fake news. We would like to place our edit under the, “How fake news spreads and goes viral” section. We will draw on sources from Christopher A Smith's research article, Weaponized iconoclasm in Internet memes featuring the expression Fake News.(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1750481319835639#articleCitationDownloadContainer) Along with citing Lexico dictionary (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/meme) and FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/accounting-for-net-worth-of-trump-clintons-and-obamas/).

I would not like to remove anything but instead add the following:

"Memes are one of the most influential vehicles for spreading fake news. With just a picture and a handful of words a message can be spread across the world in seconds and allows the viewer to come to their own opinion and understanding of the message. A meme is “an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means, especially imitation.”[1] Most memes are made as photos with limited words allowing much room for interpretation. Davison argues “the speed of transmission for change is far greater in memes than in genes – where the latter can take generations to effect change, the former can occur instantaneously.”[2] This explains why memes can be so effective. The simplicity allows users to view and immediately jump to a conclusion. The power behind most fake news is that the first piece of knowledge to enter the viewers brain will be ingrained in their memory with no authentication if anything being viewed is true. This is why memes are such influential vehicles for spreading fake news. Someone can post a comedic photo claiming one thing that is not valid and the viewer sees this meme and get a chuckle along with the memory of false news in which one will go on to believe and spread.

The word “meme” translates to “that which is imitated” in Greek. The once self-replicating examples of culture have deteriorated through the internet. Now, memes are pieces of media spread rapidly through the internet. Memes can be used to circulate false, misleading, and debunked facts in order to push public ideology one way or the other. One way that memes are especially effective in misleading the public is through the use of statistics to prove a point. Millions of statistics plastered on top of an interesting photo drive social media users to disseminate memes that contain false information on them.[3] Such memes are made to look more commanding through numbers, graphs, or quotes.

Plan to add this photo here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2240909632869427&set=a.1385747511718981&type=3&theater

Above is a viral meme that circulated the internet in 2017. It is a misleading claim that the Clinton’s net worth sits between $10-$50 million. Once the Obama’s left office, they had accumulated between $15.6-$20.5 million. [4]

[1] Smith, C. A. (2019). Weaponized iconoclasm in Internet memes featuring the expression ‘Fake News.’ Discourse & Communication, 13(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481319835639 [2] Meme Definition . (n.d.). Meme. Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/meme [3] Leetaru, K. (2017, February 3). Lies, Damned Lies And Statistics: How Bad Statistics Are Feeding Fake News. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/02/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-how-bad-statistics-are-feeding-fake-news/#e1afd3e50ca1 [4] Spencer, S. H. (2020, February 26). Accounting for Net Worth of Trump, Clintons and Obamas. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/accounting-for-net-worth-of-trump-clintons-and-obamas/

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I am entirely confused by what you want to be changed. Can you maybe reopen your request by indicating what you want to be added, changed, or removed? For example: Can you please add X to section W of this article? Feel free to reopen this edit request once you have made the request clearer. Aasim 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Very odd page

I don't understand this page at all. It is all at sixes and sevens. That means it has no consistency. What is one supposed to do with it? Are these requests, and why do they seem to run into each other? Thanks for replying, but even better would be an improvement to the organization of this page. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you looking for WP:TP? DarthFlappy (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Shall we split this article?

Since there is a proposal to split the article, this would be a good time to address its fragmented nature. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that discussion of a split was in 2018, and is now in the archives. Here's what I wrote back then:

I see Trump's gross misuse of the term, which is concentrated in the 21st Century section, and a section about his misuse of the term. His name is scattered about a few other places. Should we split the article, so this one only deals with real fake news, and then another devoted to his misuse? Would that be a good idea? Suggested titles...hmmm.... Fake news (Trump misuse), Fake news (negative to Trump)? -- BullRangifer 02:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still open to the idea, and if that would meet some of your concerns, I sympathize, so let's begin that discussion again. Accordingly, I'm going to give this a section heading. I hope that's okay with you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me as a bit forky.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly a legitimate concern to guard against. Say more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not sure that we need to give over much coverage to Donnies use of the term. In the great scheme of things it will be a five minute wonder that will be forgotten about when the next US president says the same crap. Personally I think we give it way too much coverage here anyway. Splitting it off so we can give it even ore coverage just looks too forky.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources and references given are clear and concise. They don't necessarily need editing. I know this because I have clicked on most of the reference words to see where they have come from and how accurately they portray the info and they are more accurate than not. Some of the sources are a bit out of date. For example a few from 2005. Fake news has changed over the past years so the sources might not be as accurate. Along with this, the organization could be a little bit better, especially for changing the first paragraph and the second. These sources are not all bias but more factual. The article gives examples of the different types of fake news and the source and another article that gives information on the specific types of fake news rather than the overall picture of it. An example of one of the bias facts is in the reference of propaganda. Where it states, “ This article is about the biased form of communication” and it gives another reference to a more unbiased source. Some of the bias references are references that involve actual bias within the topic they are talking about. Nfreddo (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

YES!!! Get on with it! You can start by splitting out a Fake news by country article. If you were proper editors you will just get on with what needs doing!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This article should rather be merged with the yellow journalism article.

Possible, make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nah - they're related, but different. Yellow journalism is making up silly stories to attract attention and generate sales; fake news is spreading intentional disinformation. There's overlap, but they're not the same thing. Put me in the 'no it shouldn't' camp. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A see also then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with that. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also a distinct historical context each is used in. The Wikipedia article doesn't make it clear, but yellow journalism is primarily (not exclusively, but mostly) used to refer to the journalism of questionable integrity during the late 19th and early 20th century. There absolutely was a propaganda/intentional disinformation aspect to it (Remember The Maine!) but it mostly applies to that particular era only. Fake news is applied only to (admittedly similar) concept during the 2010s to today, and conflating the two terms confuses their usage and history. If somebody said "Yellow Journalism", I'm thinking William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. If someone says "Fake News" I'm thinking Alex Jones and Steve Bannon. Two totally different contexts. Also, we don't need a See Also. Per WP:MOS, see also links are only for items not already linked in the article itself. Yellow journalism has links in the text, we don't need a see also. --Jayron32 14:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, you beat me to it. I agree with you entirely. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - didn't realise it was already linked, happy to leave it as it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

IFLA Graphic

This otherwise great meme fails to fully illustrate the points it espouses. The meme is undated, and as a reference, "IFLA" is overly broad at best. Page Notes (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

   Fake News

     This article needs more information on how to detect fake news. For example, where is fake news most likely found? I will be adding sources and examples of how to evaluate fake news. I will also be adding information that gives examples on how fake news is derived in many different topics although mostly seen in politics. A Lot of the sources of fake news examples are older, I will be adding new sources  of news coverage for examples to keep up with society and the different news being put out. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/detecting-fake-news-takes-time-11582212682

https://theconversation.com/us/topics/fake-news-33438

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/search_engine_bias

https://nymag.com/tags/fake-news/ Nfreddo (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Fake News

Fake news can be easily detected if you know some of the different ways to spot it. Looking at the different platforms that you find it on, for instance, is it a reliable website? Looking up the author to see if the author or publisher is credible. Is the information given in any way reliable and is too organized in a clear way to get the message across?

https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-tips-spotting-fake-news-story

https://theconversation.com/us/topics/fake-news-33438

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/search_engine_bias

https://nymag.com/tags/fake-news/ 2601:181:C480:A930:5057:24B0:2044:A2ED (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Fake News

Fake news can be easily detected if you know some of the different ways to spot it. Looking at the different platforms that you find it on, for instance, is it a reliable website? Looking up the author to see if the author or publisher is credible. Is the information given in any way reliable and is too organized in a clear way to get the message across?

https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-tips-spotting-fake-news-story

https://theconversation.com/us/topics/fake-news-33438

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/search_engine_bias

https://nymag.com/tags/fake-news/ Nfreddo (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

    The news should be found from websites and blogs that are reliable sources. Fake news will not be found in different platforms like scholarly articles and reviews. An example of how to look is to see what the credentials of the author are to see if the author is even credible in the first place. The article might have links, check the links to the article to see if they are credible as well. Websites like the onion are fake news websites that are purposefully made for parodies and hoaxes.  

https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-tips-spotting-fake-news-story

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/search_engine_bias

https://nymag.com/tags/fake-news/ Nfreddo (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

cnn

If this is an article about CNN, why no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.222.17 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

its not, if it was it would be titled CNN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly should be. There's been numerous occasions where cnn has pushed a narrative that has gone on to have been proven false. Does that not qualify as fake news? Yashamaga (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, wp:rs saying it is would.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Russia

The stated source is VOX, I mean come on now. Why not go all the way and get some opinions from the Mary Sue and Buzzfeed while you're at it? Yashamaga (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The source cited is VOX. A source with an extremely left-biased POV. Come on now. Why not use buzzfeed or the Mary Sue while you're at it? Yashamaga (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but the opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is that it is generally reliable. If you aren't happy with that you're unlikely to be happy here. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are these opinions and pot-shots allowed?

I was under the impression that wikipedia was at least attempting to be unbiased. I know it's hard in such a political atmosphere as 2020 but you need to take some responsibility and be aware that people of varying education levels and intelligence are reading these pages and make sure that your own left leaning political biases don't spill over into something you're claiming to be fact or informational."

Exanples like these :

---

"Donald Trump popularized the term "fake news" in this sense, regardless of the truthfulness of the news"

"Some, most notably United States President Donald Trump, have broadened the meaning of "fake news" to include news that was negative of his presidency.[32][33]

---

Appear to show that Wikipedia is pushing an agenda and are not a neutral source. Once you lose your reputation as a neutral source you lose all credibility. Yashamaga (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Because that is what RS has said is happening.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a little hard to be politically unbiased in all subjects when the right politicizes reality (climate change cough cough) Derwos (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Drudge Report 5/31/20 fake news photo of LA police station in flames

A screenshot of the photo, presented as news, but possibly edited from a frame of a film, can be viewed here: http://media2.kgov.com/files/fake-news-drudge-report-los-angeles-riots-20200531.jpg I'm not sure if this article would be improved by referencing this. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fake news, fake newspeople, fake newspapers, fake everything

From this Daily Beast investigative piece:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-suspends-19-accounts-tied-to-middle-east-propaganda-network?ref=wrap

The Arab Eye describes itself, ironically enough, as a bulwark against “‘Fake News’ and biased narrative” with a mission that “now more than ever it is crucial to hear opinions from the other side of the aisle on matters pertaining to the Middle East.”

It is more than astroturfing.

-> Let us mention such fake-all meta-chutzpah here.

Zezen (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

trumps "misuse" of the word

how is it a misusue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

- Anything on coinage/who first used the term? Should that be added? Origins of term could be its own section.Nirvimeetsneo (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

@Dream Focus: The WaPo article cites Wikipedia, thus not a reliable source. ImTheIP (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is about conspiracy theories against America and Israel. The most common faunal conspiracy theories in the Middle East have to do with birds, and they implicate not only the United States but, at least as often, Israel It does not use Wikipedia as a source, but just mentions Wikipedia has an article listing these conspiracy theories. You tried to delete the article Israel-related animal conspiracy theories, and several times you have removed a link to it from this article. Other opinions please. Dream Focus 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The context makes it clear that the journalist is merely paraphrasing Wikipedia: "The most common faunal conspiracy theories in the Middle East have to do with birds, and they implicate not only the United States but, at least as often, Israel. There is even a Wikipedia entry' for “Israel-related animal conspiracy theories,” with bullets for pigs, rats, and a variety of bird species including griffon vultures, kestrels, and European bee-eaters." Think for yourself, how on earth would Wesley Morgan know that Middle Eastern bird conspiracies are more common than "faunal conspiracy theories" involving mammals, rodents, anthropoids, or molluscs? Guy is just mixing stuff pulled out of his bottom with what he found on Wikipedia.ImTheIP (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Because they've seen more news about birds perhaps? Maybe wrote some or someone at their newspaper did. https://www.insider.com/animals-spy-espionage-country-2019-4#militaries-of-several-countries-have-trained-dolphins-for-reconnaissance-2 https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/its-a-bird-its-a-shark-its-a-mossad-spy also cover this. Dream Focus 02:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source with a reputation for robust fact checking. The phrase "There is even a Wikipedia entry" does not imply that the author is using such a page as a source of his information. It is merely commenting on how widespread such conspiracy theories are. As an analogy, if you said "The shape of the Earth is so well known that even first graders know that it is round" would not imply that first graders are where you got the information that it is round. It is just an example of how well known it is. If a journalist said "This event was so widely reported that even the New York Post covered it" that would not indicate that the New York Post was the author's source for their article. I find statements such as "Guy is just mixing stuff pulled out of his bottom with what he found on Wikipedia." to be rather absurd, and based on nothing but your own assumptions. "Think for yourself, how on earth would Wesley Morgan know..." has an easy answer. He is a journalist who does research. That's how he knows. It is not our place to second guess the research done by Wesley Morgan. If his facts were wrong, the robust editing and fact checking apparatus at the Washington Post would have caught it. We don't second guess top-tier reliable sources because editors think that they "know" what research a journalist has or has not done. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/10/the-strange-history-of-animal-related-israel-conspiracy-theories.html https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/israel-training-birds-to-spy-on-turkish-farmers-says-new-conspiracy-theory/257380/ But this might be better in Conspiracy theory rather than fake news.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the thing that makes it appropriate here is the fact that, as described in the sources, these particular conspiracy theories are often started and spread via news organizations, which is generally not the case with most conspiracy theories. Not all conspiracy theories are fake news, but some fake news is conspiracy theories. NonReproBlue (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Are they described as fake news?Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked every source, but it seems that if that is the qualification than a substantial portion of the information in this article would have to go, a quick glance over the sources list shows quite a few that were written well before the term became common. I would imagine many things here are included because they fit the definition, rather than specifically including the phrase, but that could very well be inaccurate. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This however are not "before the invention of the term". It is reasonable to substitute Lie or faslhood. This is about deliberately fake news, not errors or bias. So sources would have to say these were known to be lies when published.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is that accurate? Not to be too semantic, but per our description of fake news as "false or misleading information presented as news" it seems there are only two necessary qualifiers: That it is false or misleading, and that it is presented as news. Nothing about that description implies knowledge of the falsehood as a prerequisite. Indeed, in particular with regards to American fake news where the term arguably originated, or at least became widely used, the "fake news" was being disseminated in large part by people who believed the lies they were promoting. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is that means mistakes are fake news, and no one would say they are. So I would say we mean "deliberately misleading".Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that mistakes are fake news if they continue to be reported after being proven false. Reputable sources often issue corrections and retractions. I think that a news organization consistently reporting incorrect information and not issuing retractions or corrections would cause most people to view them as a source of fake news. I would also argue that news organizations have aa responsibility to fact check the information they disseminate, and a consistent failure to do so is functionally the same thing as knowingly disseminating falsehoods. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree if it can be shown the story was false, and it was widely published as demonstrably false.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The argument "than a substantial portion of the information in this article would have to go" is invalid. It is quite possible that this article has accumulated lots of information that has nothing to do with "fake news" and should be axed. Wikipedia policies used to be more lenient but have become much more restrictive in the last decade as editors realized lots of crap were accumulating. Wikipedia doesn't have any definition of "fake news" - it only follows what reliable sources say. If no reliable source says that X is fake news then X does not belong on this page. ImTheIP (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The reliable sources state that it is common for them to report this in the anti-Israel news, and the reliable sources also present it as clearly false, then it counts as fake news even if they don'use the exact term "fake news". They make up stories about Israel using animals to attack people for their newspapers and whatnot, that's fake news, even if also qualifies for inclusion on the conspiracy list article. Dream Focus 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Wikipedia policies requires the sources themselves to designate the information as "fake news". Otherwise every April's fools joke in this article would also have to be added to this article. ImTheIP (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. You can tell the difference between a joke and a news article about fake news. Editor discretion has always been part of Wikipedia. Dream Focus 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fake News - Person Reading Fake News Article.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate word choice

It is sometimes generated and propagated by hostile foreign actors, particularly during elections. "hostile foreign actors" sounds relative and may depend on the perspective. Maybe a better wording could be choosed.--Visnelma (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is well supported by the sources, one of which describes it as "often financed by deep-pocketed and hostile governments". I disagree that it is subjective, any government promoting fake news in an attempt to sow discord in another country is by definition hostile. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

“Fake News in social media Fake news and disinformation is spread all over social media, such as Twitter, everyday.” Should “everyday” read: “every day”—Thanks for checking! MagicMastadon (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That whole paragraph should probably be trimmed to be honest. It's entirely US-centric (I assume 'the 2016 campaign' refers to the US presidential election, rather than, say, the UK Brexit referendum, or any other campaign going on that year...), it's vaguely worded, and it's supported by a single source which doesn't look reliable to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

fakenews.com

@Governmentofjoeland: Regarding your recent edits (e.g. Special:Diff/1010835112): as a group blog (a type of self-published source), fakenews.com is not a reliable source. All content in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources, according to the verifiability policy. Original research and promotion are not allowed. If you disagree that fakenews.com is not a reliable source, feel free to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: In that case, may I use one or more of the following sources to support my statements?

• https://live.axs.com/the-best-fictional-news-sites/
• https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/apr/20/fake-news-what-it/
• https://www.webwise.ie/teachers/what-is-fake-news/
• https://www.energise.co.nz/blog/internet-news/fake-news-best-news-satire-websites/

If not, please point to a way to include this important information about fake news on the page. Governmentofjoeland (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Governmentofjoeland. Here is my analysis of these four sites:

1. N "Fake news is funny: The best fictional news sites" from AXS: The is the blog of a company that sells sports and entertainment tickets. I would not consider this site reliable, since it is unlikely to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the reliable sources guideline.
2. Y "Fake News" from The Spokesman-Review: As a longstanding local newspaper, this source is reliable and can be cited in the article.
3. ? "Explained: What is False Information (Fake News)?" from Webwise.ie: Webwise is an "internet safety initiative", which is the equivalent of an advocacy organization. It's not the highest-quality source, but is probably okay to use with in-text attribution. I would prefer better sources (e.g. reliable news coverage), if available.
4. N "Fake News: 7 Of The Best News Satire Websites" from Energise Web: This is a blog post from a marketing company, which is considered unreliable because it is self-published.

The piece from The Spokesman-Review was a good find, and I've cited it in the article at Special:Diff/1010883060. I'm fairly certain your claim is true:

Although most fake news websites are to design to either persuade people or make money from ads while drawing more people to their site from persuading people of fake news, some recent websites claim they have created news that is obviously so ridiculously fake that simply amuses people instead of trying to convince them of something untrue.

However, I think the article already covers this information in Fake news § Definition:

In some cases, what appears to be fake news may be news satire, which uses exaggeration and introduces non-factual elements that are intended to amuse or make a point, rather than to deceive.

Is there something you would like to add to the existing text in the article that is supported by at least one reliable source? — Newslinger talk 21:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't realize that news satire was already mentioned, so I will not add anything else. Governmentofjoeland (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The recent roots of fake news in the United States

One of the biggest factors recently affecting the reliability of news in the United States was the passage of H.R.5736 - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. Introduced in House (05/10/2012) - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. (Under current law such authority is restricted to information disseminated abroad, with a limited domestic exception.)

Authorizes the Secretary and the Board to make available in the United States motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to such Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States. (Under current law such provision applies to the United States Information Agency [USIA].)

Applies such prohibition only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency.

Requested move 2 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus that fake news has taken on a fundamentally new meaning or about common name issues. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Fake news → False news – As the article states in the lead section, the term "fake news" has become a loaded term due to Trump's use of the word, and even the British government now avoids using the term. Even sites such as Google Translate have started to avoid the term (for example, "假新闻" used to be translated as "fake news", but now it is translated as "false news"). Félix An (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Félix An (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per my reasons above. Additionally, since Donald Trump's use of the term is very notable, we could start another article such as Fake news (Donald Trump) or Donald Trump's use of the term "fake news". Félix An (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support move. This is about false news in general, not the "fake news" associated with Trump's usage. O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Given the controversial nature of Trump usage of the term. 180.243.211.196 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Do not support. It is too early to change the name as there is still a lot of scientific debate about this topic, and its architecture, and that ultimately determines the name, and not political behaviour, such as that by Trump (even though temporarily dominating, though now less of a problem as Trump is no longer President). For example, an influential review by Lazer et al. (2021) is called The Psychology of Fake News, and this and other recent influential papers suggest the term as a useful broad construct. See the Criticism of the Term section. In any case, "false news" is too broad, and could, for example, include minor gossip passed on in a newspaper column, rather than deliberate falsification of facts. Kookaburra17 12:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Do not support As I am not sure the term False news is much better given this [[1]]. It seems to me fake news is what most RS call it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [RS? Research Scientists?]
• Oppose the move rationale appears to explicitly want to move away from the COMMONNAME. An article split may be called for, but I can't support this as a pure move. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong but conditional support - As per argument of User:Old Naval Rooftops, provided there is a split to another article such as Fake news (Donald Trump), as suggested by User:Félix An. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• If a split is to occur, I would suggest Fake news (term). This almost certainly qualifies for a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article, and such an article should cover more than just the term's usage by Donald Trump. Colin M (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While the orange man may have certainly liked the term a lot, he hardly has a monopoly on it. We here at Wikipedia deal with fake news all the time in the form of non-reliable sources. Fake news is overwhelmingly the COMMON name. I had never even heard the term "false news" before now. When people google fake news, this is what they're searching for. I am also opposed to the idea of having a page dedicated to Trump's usage of the term, we aren't a Trumppedia. A section discussing that he liked the term and perhaps popularized it is enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion, a single page for this term seems fine, and this form of the named concept seems the overwhelmingly common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I call fake news! Yeah, Trump used it. So what? He’s far from the only one. It’s a very common term used to refer to fake news stories all the time; nothing to do with Trump. It’s the common name. —В²C ☎ 08:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose clear WP:COMMONNAME - Trump's controversial usage of the term is explained in the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This term is strongly associated with Trump, as the article was created on 15 January 2017, right at the start of his presidency. The older version of "fake news" was moved to Managed and planted news on 21 April 2005, which was in turn moved to Distorted news on 21 April 2005. Distorted news moved to News propaganda on 3 July 2005‎. The 16 November 2006 version of "fake news" was merged to News satire. The current version of Fake news (disambiguation) also points to Disinformation. What's the difference between disinformation and false news, a redirect that didn't exist until February 2017‎? Hell if I know. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose creating more content forks such as Fake news (Donald Trump) and Fake news (term). This concept is as old as the hills (the only thing new is the platforms used for dissemination) yet now you want to move it to yet another neologism. What's wrong with disinformation and news propaganda? However, the article has grown to the point where there should be at least one WP:Summary style split, and I would support creation of subtopic article(s) that focused on "fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign" and/or "fake news during the Trump presidency". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. No one uses the word "false news" except the nominator, the government of the United Kingdom and Google Translate. 122.61.79.86 (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, for many reasons already described above, but also there is a difference between fake and false. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article seems out of focus in certain areas

While I realize that Former President Trump played a significant role in the popularization of the term "Fake News", this article seems to spend an unnecessary amount of time focusing on bashing him. It devotes nearly a paragraph in the introduction, as well as a whole section later in the article to him. In order to promote the integrity of Wikipedia, this article would be better off without as much political bias against him.

Pblanch2001 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 73.81.146.143 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

ma se moer

RS covers it a lot, and in fact he is now very heavily associated with the misuse of the term.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

After "Trump has carried on a war against the mainstream media, often attacking it as "fake news" and the "enemy of the people."[254][255][256][257][258]", I wanted to add "Trump described an example of a fake news smear that omitted the word "fake" from his criticism to misconstrue his comment as applying to all media." I wanted to cite:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210710061021/https://media-exp3.licdn.com/dms/document/C561FAQF8TA3l-R36nQ/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1625535790707?e=1625986800&v=beta&t=tiUdKgkzsZUTcky75SajVvk_7NrmUQdnbI9QmgPDAwo https://www.c-span.org/video/?424395-1/president-trump-gop-party-american-worker https://web.archive.org/web/20170224220522/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/24/remarks-president-trump-conservative-political-action-conference

It's ironic, all of wikipedia runs on the sources alot of these media outlets provide- some are even considered reliable sources themselves. If the news is fake, what happens to wikipedia? does it became a replica of what the news says? Some of these statements and articles cited are blatantly biased. Take the following for example: "Every few days, Trump issues a threat against the press due to his claims of "fake news". There have been many instances in which norms that protect press freedom have been pushed or even upended during the Trump-era.[258]" One source, one article, and that article cites multiple other articles in it's statements, some of which is poisec as facts, when in reality they are written opinions from a different article. This statement is blatantly incorrect, donald trump has not "issued a threat against the press" in some time. But it doesn't matter, does it? The article says it so it's allowed to be copy-pasted into wikipedia, exclusively just to smear. Maybe in the context of when the article was published makes it valid, but this edit was obviously made in bad faith. HoadRog (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Deepfake Technology

Adding information about the advancements in video editing technology may be important for this fake news article as anyone can be a victim to this technology. For example, political figures could have videos of them surface, where it seems they are talking about something inappropriate, but the video was made using deepfake technology. Lizzypassanisi (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Lizzypassanisi

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/10/18659432/deepfake-ai-fakes-tech-edit-video-by-typing-new-words

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

Please change

and also by high-profile individuals to apply to any news unfavourable to his/her personal perspectives.

to

and also by high-profile individuals to apply to any news unfavourable to their personal perspectives.

"individuals" is plural and needs a plural pronoun. 64.203.186.106 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021 (3)

This sentence has two problems:

Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the Minister of Defence of Pakistan, threatened to nuke Israel on Twitter

First, "nuke" is too informal, and second, it sounds like nuke-Israel-on-Twitter (like a cyber attack on their Twitter account), not actual warfare. It should become:

Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the Minister of Defence of Pakistan, threatened on Twitter to attack Israel with nuclear weapons

Thank you. 64.203.186.106 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021 (2)

In this phrase:

Tech companies have utilized two basic counter strategies: Down-ranking fake news, and warning messages.

"Down" should be changed to "down" because you don't use a capital letter after a colon, there's a missing hyphen, and the comma should be removed. This could sound like "down-ranking fake news and down-ranking warning messages", so the end result should be:

Tech companies have utilized two basic counter-strategies: down-ranking fake news and adding warning messages.

64.203.186.106 (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

wrong word

By late 2018, the term "fake news" had become verboten .... verboten is german for forbidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.241.193.42 (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Deepfake Technology

In the year 2017, the internet gained new AI technology that made it possible to create realistic-looking photos and videos of people saying and doing things that they did not actually say or do. We first saw this in a State Farm TV commercial that has become one of the most widely discussed ads in recent memory. It was made to show footage from 1998 of an ESPN analyst making “shockingly accurate” predictions about the year 2020. We later found out the clip was generated using this new AI technology. [2] This technology is known as “Deepfakes”, the name comes from a combination of the phrases “deep learning” and “fake”. [1]This technology has also made it seem like prominent figures in the world are saying or doing negative things, when in fact they have not done or said those things, which could potentially cause damage to their reputation as it is very hard to tell if the video is real or fake.

Dack, S. (2019, July 11). Deep fakes, fake news, and what comes next. The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. Retrieved from https://jsis.washington.edu/news/deep-fakes-fake-news-and-what-comes-next/. Toews, R. (2020, May 26). Deepfakes are going to wreak havoc on society. we are not prepared. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/05/25/deepfakes-are-going-to-wreak-havoc-on-society-we-are-not-prepared/?sh=1b8a74a27494.

Lizzypassanisi (talk)Lizzy Passanisi — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to organization I think that the example of a deepfake would fit in better after you explain what a deepfake is instead of before. The last sentence starts to use works like negative and damage which are accurate to what you are saying but could be said in a better way. Instead of saying that the videos are of negative things say that they are of just things the person never did. It is tricky because deepfake technology is used so often in a bad way but also saying that is leads to misinformation instead of damage would be a good way to go. Both of your sources look reliable but we did need to have four of them. Lastly the first sentence is a little wordy. Good job though!LaurenAnn1979 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GutmKate.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amillard. Peer reviewers: Amillard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkkarner. Peer reviewers: Dkkarner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psconway. Peer reviewers: Addisonmmccormick, Cameron Rumley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZaneNorris15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dwang0821.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcallahan01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexyoung1999. Peer reviewers: Chickels84.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliazapata.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henry Guan, Siddkumaran, Erikay677. Peer reviewers: Hannahdobrott, Cxndyoh, CanKaya1, Angelacaooo, Nicgonzie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Types of fake news

I can't seem to find a source that Wikipedia regards as reliable, but this is an example of a type of fake news.

Here's the edit I started to make.

Another type of fake news is a mock article created for system testing and not intended to be read by the public. The New York Times mistakenly published such an article on June 8, 2021 but quickly removed it and replaced it with a correction.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Poosibly because a mistake and fake news are not quite the same? So no I do not think this fits the definition of fake news.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You think it has to be intentional?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

MAybe not the initial story, but a refusal to retract or appoligise, yes that has to be deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lizzypassanisi. Peer reviewers: LaurenAnn1979.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Concerned with the lead section of the article, it indicates the definition of fake news, and it guides readers to generate their opinions about fake news. Also, the passage provides readers with an overview of its content. Furthermore, the article's content majorly covers key aspects of false news, and it lists several fake news from different countries as examples. All examples are clearly stated, and they are posted with a close connection to the topic. Moreover, the article is written from a neutral point of view, and its content is not biased. It is an objective exposition of the facts. The information sources of the article are reliable, and the reference is very detailed and comprehensive. Overall, the content for the passage is easy for readers to understand, and the structure is simple and clear. What attracts readers is that the article is interspersed with an illustrative summary chart and some images, which keeps readers from being bored. The only fly in the ointment is that the passage is not concise enough, and it presents some superfluous or unnecessary examples in its history and by country parts. Jiani Yang (Nina) (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jojijoj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nfreddo. Peer reviewers: Amanda.vitello.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MKhope22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mkareken, Rodgod08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

POV and uncited content

The para. "Multiple strategies [through to] to counter the broad scope of fake news." contains multiple Point Of View statements. It also depends on uncited content, i.e. Original Research. Both attributes contravene Wikipedia policy. Do others agree? If so, I will excise the paragraph. Humboles (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I cant find this paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's at the end of the lead. Fences&Windows 11:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahh do you mean "Multiple strategies for fighting fake news are currently being actively researched, and need to be tailored to individual types of fake news.", which is not the same as what is being objected to. That was why I could not find it. Yes it does seem to be editorialising.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the lead should not have references (or a minimal number) as it summarises the main text of the topic. In this case, this last paragraph of the lead is expanded at length (with numerous references) later in the section "Tackling and Suppression Strategies". Of course this key section is open to evaluation by other Wikipedians in case some POV is unreferenced. Kookaburra17 10:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if it ain't in the body it should not be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven,Humboles if you mean the last part of the lede, I have refactored it, to make it less PoV-y and tagged the most egregious examples of "whom". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from lede

I have wp:BOLDLY removed the following paragraph Multiple strategies for fighting fake news are currently being actively researched, and need to be tailored to individual types of fake news. Effective self-regulation and legally-enforced regulation of social media (such as Facebook) and web search engines (such as Google) are needed. Access to the owners of anonymous websites is needed so as to prosecute sources of fake news for libel. The information space needs to be flooded with accurate news to displace fake news. Individuals need to actively confront false narratives when spotted, as well as take care when sharing information via social media. However, reason, the scientific method, fact-checking and critical thinking skills alone are insufficient to counter the broad scope of fake news. Overlooked is the power of confirmation bias, motivated reasoning and other cognitive biases that can seriously distort mental 'immunity' (public resilience to misinformation, and the development of psychological 'herd immunity'), particularly in dysfunctional and polarised societies. The problem is that new misinformation – and its darker cousin, intentional disinformation – keep popping up all the time. Therefore, it is much better timewise to inoculate the population against misinformation, rather than to continually having to debunk each new claim later. Inoculation theory shows promise in designing techniques to make individuals resistant to the lure of fake news, in the same way that a vaccine protects against infectious diseases. from the lede, as it appears to be prescriptions on combating fake news, or the desirability of combating fake news, made without attribution to their sources. There are useful tidbits there that I'll try to re-work into the lede however, but in a manner that adheres to the style guide. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 22:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an example of fake news

Wikipedia often enters bias and unfair entries in their articles to sway public opinion against conservatism and in favor of progressive liberal ideals. 2600:1700:8641:ED00:5C25:D09B:DED4:9ED6 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We are not a news site (see wp:notnews). Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Fake News

I would firstly like to establish that I do not agree with Donald Trump on almost all accounts. However, if Wikipedia truly is to maintain its 'non-biased' appearance, then something has to be done about the section detailing Trump in this article. The section seems to be a means of detailing fake news in recent American (USA) history, but it is focused entirely on the former president. Surely other significant US politicians have spread false information too?

Again, I do not agree with Donald Trump almost all of the time, but this seems to me to be stretching the 'non-biased' foundation that Wikipedia is built on. Owco (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Our section is discussing his misuse of the term. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly true that most US politicians exaggerate the truth etc. That is called political spin. But Donald Trump has gone further than most, and that is worth a separate section on Trump. Note that Trump is also mentioned in several other sections of Fake News as well, and I feel that all or most of these comments on Trump could gradually be moved to this special section.

Specifically, here we are interested in documenting his actions to redefine the term "fake news" as any news unfavourable to himself.

Another purpose of the Trump section is to document the extraordinary amount of fake news produced by Trump, as aptly done by the Washington Post database. Then the question becomes: should we try to explain why Trump done this? Several sources have identified him as a narcissist, but should we document this here, or rather in the page "Veracity of Statements of Donald Trump"? User: Willbb234 has recently deleted two paragraphs of mine discussing Trump and narcissism, which I probably could re-word better. Kookaburra17 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, Trump's (mis)use and popularization the term warrants mention, but the current section goes off on a lengthy tangent to push the view that the orange man is actually the liar, and therefore anything he calls fake news is in fact impeccable journalism. 172.58.160.81 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

push the view that the orange man is actually the liar Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and they all agree that he is. That is not a "view", it is a fact.

and therefore anything he calls fake news is in fact impeccable journalism I could not find that in the section. It seems to be your own conclusion. (Of course, it is false.) Trump does not care if what he says is true, only if it serves his own interests. For him, truth is not a meaningful concept. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

the 'non-biased' foundation that Wikipedia is built on You got it wrong. Wikipedia has a bias towards what reliable sources say. That excludes that loser and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minzhe Qi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Xinyi Zhu, YasmineSaad, Mroge062.

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Include new insights from research in section "Defining fake news"

I hereby suggest to insert the following text block under the heading "Defining fake news":

"Beisecker, Schlereth, and Hein (2023) summarize the use of the term fake news in the Information Systems discipline. Here, fake news is mostly defined as fabricated content that intends to manipulate or shape opinions. The studies use a binary operationalization of fake news (either true or false) based on the mere availability of facts. The authors demonstrate that this definition may be too narrow and that the perception of information as fake news is also influenced by the use of a manipulating argumentation technique. They study in particular fallacies, a commonly employed subset of deceptive rhetorical devices. A major challenge here is that not every fallacy is equally detectable (Beisecker, Schlereth, & Hein, 2023)."

It should be inserted directly following this section of the article: "Media scholar Nolan Higdon has defined fake news as "false or misleading content presented as news and communicated in formats spanning spoken, written, printed, electronic, and digital communication. Higdon has argued that the definition of fake news has been applied too narrowly to select mediums and political ideologies. Fake news also refers to stories that are fabricated that obtain little to no verifiable facts. Even more broadly, some people, most notably former United States President Donald Trump, have broadened the meaning of "fake news" to include all news that was negative about their personal beliefs and actions."

The cited source is a scientific article published in the European Journal of Information Systems (VHB: A, ERIM: P). As such, it has undergone a rigorous review process preceding publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Beisecker (talk • contribs)

@Sven Beisecker: Since the article/study is not available freely online, I am not able to read it to verify the content you wish to be added. Since you are using a username which matches the primary author, maybe you can email me a copy and I will take a look at your request. Question: Why did you select the date "2023" as the publication date in your proposed text when the date in the abstract seems to be 2022? Grorp (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Grorp Thank you for your quick reply! I have sent you access to the article via e-mail, as requested. I hope it was well received. Regarding the publication date: The study has as yet appeared online first, but was not assigned an issue and volume number yet. We foresee this being the case in 2023, which is why I used this date for the citation. Sven Beisecker (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, hi Sven Beisecker! Please reply here (and ping me) if you are still available to share the article; I am closing this request pending source verification. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Actualcpscm, I am still awaiting response from @Grorp after sending him access to the article. I can also send it to you if you would like to verify the source instead of @Grorp. If you prefer that, please let me know your e-mail and I will share the article with you. Sven Beisecker (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sven Beisecker That would be much appreciated, you can email me here. Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: As Sven Beisecker told me by email one can download it from researchgate, which I presume is a functionally identical copy to the one at Taylor & Francis (which he provided a link to, but which would use up one count of the available free copies, so I didn't download from there). Grorp (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sven Beisecker and Actualcpscm: After reading some of the publication (mostly the Discussion and Conclusions section, pages 37-40), I see that your research was more about identifying when people perceive something as fake news. The paper starts with its own definition of fake news, which is then researched. And per the diagram (Fig 1, page 16) it looks like you were focused on a small subset of all fake news -- that subset which intersects with fallacies and rhetorical devices. Also, the study was based on an online survey of less than 500 German participants only. For these reasons, I think the study is of limited use as a citation under the section "Defining fake news" because it is a self-definition of 'fake news' rather than a researched or broadly-used form of 'fake news'. Grorp (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Grorp Sven Beisecker

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you have provided does not meet some of the guidelines; it is not yet published, it is unclear where it stands in the peer-review process, and it could be considered an isolated study until the scientific community reacts to it. The technical limitations brough up by Grorp are also quite relevant. Remember that Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of the academic community. Where there is no single consensus, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

I will close this request pending peer review, publication, and reception in the field of the source in question. Please ping me if the situation changes. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Actualcpscm,

unfortunately, I do not understand your conclusion here. As I have written in my initial request, the article is already accepted for publication and has been published online in the European Journal of Information Systems, one of the most reputable journals in this discipline (please consult official VHB and ERIM rankings). That means it has undergone a rigorous review process, which is fully completed at this point, unlike what your comment insinuates. It is common practice that an article appears online first and thereafter in the printed version. I therefore strongly ask you to reconsider and not close the request.

As to @Grorp's concerns, I would like to point out that extant definitions of fake news are also derived from people's perceptions. The referred-to Fig 1 is illustrative in nature, as discussed in the paper, and does not convey the actual percentage overlap between fake news and fallacies. Fallacies do play a bigger role, as there are over 200 different fallacies documented. Sven Beisecker (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done:

I'm sorry, I must have confused this with something else I was working on. It is correct that it was published, and I apologise for the mistake. However, a key point continues to stand: This is a Wikipedia: Fringe theory. The abstract itself mentions this indirectly: "So far, fake news has been mostly associated with fabricated content that intends to manipulate or shape opinions", a perception that the authors explicitly set out to change. I will add a mention of this research, but your original proposal is a bit too long (Wikipedia: Undue weight) and technical. The weight given to this research in the article should reflect its place in the academic field, and it does not seem to have received much attention (yet). Sorry again for the confusion, I messed that up!

(On an informal side note, I personally think that this is a really interesting perspective on the issue of fake news; the psychology of why and how false or misleading information spreads so rapidly is certainly a relevant field of research that can make for great additions to this article, when properly sourced.) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"the psychology of why and how false or misleading information spreads so rapidly" I haven't read the new research, but I would expect confirmation bias to play a role. The new "information" is added to pre-existing biases. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Actualcpscm for the correction! I am looking forward to seeing a shorter version of the proposed abstract featured in the Wikipedia article. Please let me know once this is integrated. Afterwards, we can gladly close this request. Thanks again for taking the time to consider our contribution! Sven Beisecker (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It has already been implemented, and the request has already been marked as answered.

"Media scholar Nolan Higdon has defined fake news as "false or misleading content presented as news and communicated in formats spanning spoken, written, printed, electronic, and digital communication. Higdon has argued that the definition of fake news has been applied too narrowly to select mediums and political ideologies. While most definitions focus strictly on content accuracy and format, current research indicates that the rhetorical structure of the content might play a significant role in the perception of fake news." Actualcpscm (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the compound „fake news“ an oxymoron?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

News is defined as „newly received information“. (New) information is verified by the recipient as to whether it is true (fact) or false, not whether it is fake. A person who knowingly spreads untruths is a liar. The compound „fake news“ makes no sense and should hence be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A200:0:80D:78F5:9A80:807:F8D1 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced as to the use of the term. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a reason for deletion. A seahorse is not a horse either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

„Horse“ and „seahorse“ refer to distinct entities (animals). „Fake“ is an adjective preceding a noun with a fixed use/ definition. Compounding with other random and nonsensical adjectives - e.g. „blue news“ - surely would not merit a re-defining entry in a dictionary either. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And News and fake news refer to different things,

News

news

/njuːz/

noun

newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.

a broadcast or published report of news.

Fake News

noun

UK /ˌfeɪk ˈnjuːz/ US /ˌfeɪk ˈnuːz/

false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke:

Differnt dictionary entries. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be make „fake news“ redirect to „disinformation“, as this is strongly implied in the current Wikipedia article. I do not agree it is „spread […] as a joke“ as the current definition implies. What is spread as a joke is a joke. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contact the Oxford English dictionary and tell them they are wrong. I also suggest you read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the original poster, I agree to this thread to be deleted. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

Dimitri De Rada (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

to add at legal and criminal sanctions

In the Italian legal doctrine it has been stated that Fake News constitute on the one hand a form of abuse of the right of expression and on the other an infringement of the right to be informed which has as its corollary the right to objectivity and the impartiality of the data provided, both to their completeness, correctness and continuity. In this sense, Fake News could constitute (in the event that all the elements envisaged pursuant to article 2043 of the Civil Code exist) a civil offence.Dimitri De Rada (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Dimitri De Rada, “Fake News”: tra diritto soggettivo ad essere informati e ricerca di una regolamentazione", Giustizia Civile, 5-2021, https://giustiziacivile.com/soggetti-e-nuove-tecnologie/approfondimenti/fake-news-tra-diritto-soggettivo-ad-essere-informati-e

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Clinton / Jones photo

Intentionally deceptive photoshopped image of Hillary Clinton over a 1977 photo of Peoples Temple cult leader Jim Jones

It should read "doctored" or "altered" rather than "photoshopped". There's nothing here to indicate any particular brand of software was used, if any, or if this manipulation was the result of conventional photographic techniques. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)