. I find consensus to delete has emerged after the relist, and that is further strengthened by some who prefer retargeting in some form also expressing a second preference for deletion. A few retargeting options were discussed, notably to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources, but neither of which has found favor among participants. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Wikipedia:FAKENEWS }} → :Fake news (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FAKENEWS&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2017-08-05&end=2017-09-03&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3AFAKENEWS stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:FAKENEWS|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:FAKENEWS|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:FAKENEWS|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
So here I am looking over WP:NFRINGE, and surprise surprise, we have an essay on fake news? Well, no we don't; we have a strange XNR to Fake news.
I get the history here. I realize some have taken serious issue with Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, the original target, but this is just asking for people to drop WP:FAKENEWS in discussions as if there were a policy on it. There is no such policy, or essay, or anything, and the only place I can see this redirecting is RS, which itself makes basically no sense, since the two are basically perfect antonyms. If this isn't going to Zimdars' then I don't see any particular reason why it should exist. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Thanks! Notification very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget to WP:Zimdars' fake news list otherwise delete. I created this redirect under the hopes that Zimdars' fake news list would eventually develop into a community-driven list of "potential" fake news sites. I still think that's worth pursuing, especially if people are questioning the original list. Either way the XNR seems unhelpful and Zidmars' list seems like the only other fitting target — MusikAnimal talk 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, which seems like a useful resource and is apparently the only discussion of the term in the Wikipedia namespace. The question of the utility of that page or the accuracy of Zimdars' conclusions is separate from the question of the utility of this redirect, so I find it hard to understand Guy Macon's March edit summary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete, and strongly oppose any retarget to Zimdars (Stricken because I revoted in the relisting) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC))
:* Zimdars herself has completely repudiated the version of her list that we have enshrined on that particular page. Her current list[https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/preview] has a completely different list of categories and organizations, and she has asked everyone to instead use her current list, which she says is more accurate.
:* Zimdars has publicly acknowledged that the list that we have made part of Wikipedia was just a handout to her students listing unreliable sources she came across in her students' papers. Seriously. That was her criteria for inclusion.[http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/17/fake-news-sites-list-melissa-zinders/]
:* Zimdars also said that the list "wasn’t intended to be widely distributed" and that "people are taking it as this list of 'fake' sites, which is not its purpose."[http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/17/fake-news-sites-list-melissa-zinders/] She also said "I see where it’s reported with the headline "List of Fake News Sites," and that’s a completely inaccurate headline. It’s a list that includes several fake-news sites, but also sites that do offer regularly good journalism but rely on clickbait-style headlines on Facebook or sometimes exaggerated descriptors to reel people in. But to lump all of those sites as fake has me worried"[http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Professor-Who-s/238441]
:* Zimdars offers no no real explanation of the methodology used other than "I looked at it and decided", nor is there any peer review of the list. Clearly Zimdars herself never intended to present it as if it was actual academic research.
:So, one might ask, why don't we update our version? Because her old version was reproduced in the Los Angeles Times but her new version has received zero coverage from any reliable sources, and any such updated page would not survive MfD. The existing page should not have survived MfD, but it did.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Zimdars%27_fake_news_list] Anyone feel like taking another crack at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given what Guy has just said, my first choice would be to delete outright... my second choice would be to create an actual (new) essay on the topic. I think it would be inappropriate to relink it to Zimdars list given that she herself has repudiated it . Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- For those who don't know, Guy Macon has argued against Zimdars' list in several discussions. While I've disagreed before, I find {{GENDER:Guy Macon|his|her|their}} arguments in this discussion reasonably convincing. Assuming that all the statements above can be backed up (such as the statement that Zimdars has repudiated the original list), I would probably support deleting WP:Zimdars' fake news list. But that's a separate issue from the discussion here. In terms of what to do about the redirect, I think it should be retargeted or deleted—keeping it in its current form is confusing and unhelpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:* Re: Zimdars repudiating the original list, I can confirm that what she deleted from public view is the list we have on our page. (I don't know of any archive of deleted docs.google.com material, but when I first checked the doc was pretty much a word-for-word copy of what is on our page. I checked it carefully back when I asked her to put a Creative Commons Attribution license on it so it wouldn't be a copyright violation, which she did.) Now it has been replaced with a new list at the same URL with new categories and many of the originally listed sites removed.[https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/preview] This article from the daily Dot[https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fake-news-facebook-deleted-alt-right/] confirms that she deleted the original list and vaguely hints that she was working on what she considers a better version. The fact that she later uploaded that better version to the exact same URL where she had deleted the original list makes it pretty clear that she has repudiated the original list and would like everyone to use the new list. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::*The question probably is: is any Wikipedian using one of these lists for their wikiwork, and would these people appreciate the existence or not of another redirect there? —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose re-targeting to Zimdars per Guy Macon and also because Zimdars lists The Onion as a "Fake News" site. (There's a big difference between fake news and satire, even if they sometimes struggle with Poe's law.) I also think the cross-namespace redirect is problematic, so count me down as a Delete with no bias toward somebody creating a meaningful essay in the future. It could also redirect to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:* Well I couldn't find a single inaccuracy in The Onion's article about Wikipedia... [ http://www.theonion.com/article/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen-2007 ] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::* It actually is listed as satire (category 4) — MusikAnimal talk 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::* That's the problem with calling something a "fake news list" when it contains 121 items, only 24 of which are labeled "fake news" (this is another strong argument for deleting the FAKENEWS redirect, BTW). Not that Zimdars' didn't label other parody sites as fake news; she lists creambmp.com, which has stories like "New York Mayor Approves Replacing Statue of Liberty with Giant Timberland Boot" and "Chris Brown: 'Everybody Worried About Rihanna, Nobody Ever Asked How My Hand Felt' ". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The current situation is clearly nonsensical. This should probably redirect to an appropriate subsection of WP:IRS. Failing that, redirecting to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list seems better than nothing (but we should have our own curated list of fake news sites). —Kusma (t·c) 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:* Actually, redirecting to Zimdars' fake news list is worse than nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::*If we don't have a better list of fake news sites, using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing. —Kusma (t·c) 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::* Hey! I just had an idea! Donald Trump keeps calling various news outlets like CNN "fake news". Let's list them and redirect FAKENEWS to that list! After all, "using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing", right? Better yet, I think I have a list somewhere of sites that the Church of Scientology says should not be trusted... (...Guy M. ducks as everyone else throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::*Redirect to Special:Mypage/List of websites whose bias I don't like then? —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, no suitable target for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I have boldly redirected the page to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources since the cross-namespace redirect to Fake news was problematic, and because whatever consensus might be developing here doesn't seem to have emerged yet. I figure it's better than the status quo, and the redirect can always be deleted or redirected again when this is closed. ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::I'm good with it. TJWtalk 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: The redirect was retargetted to
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources late in the discussion so it will be worth seeing whether there is consensus for this action (as the discussion prior to that point was heading towards no consensus).
Thryduulf (
talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: The current redirect ( Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources ) is a big improvement on the former cross-wiki redirect, but "questionable sources" and "fake news" are different concepts. Better to just delete the redirect. The current redirect already has a perfectly acceptable shortcut (WP:QUESTIONABLE) and does not need another, more misleading one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as the redirect is currently targeting an article, but the recommended retargeting option is an essay of sorts. A shortcut with such a recognizable name should target a guideline or a section of a guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- :Not trying to sway your opinion, but it looks like you're still under the impression FAKENEWS goes to Fake news? — MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I guess? I don't see a compelling reason not to. I disagree that FAKENEWS is unsuitable for the current target. Fake news certainly constitutes a questionable source, no? :) Frankly however I have no strong opinions, it's just a redirect. What I want to see is a community-built list of sites that are questionable, misleading, satire, or outright fake, and categorized as such, just like Zidmars' did. Something like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Questionable sources (subpage, not a section). I understand there are some concerns with the original Zidmars list, which is perfectly understandable. So why not build our own? Let's do it the wiki way! This to me would be very useful and I can see it growing into a valuable resource for the editing community. If we do create it, WP:FAKENEWS I think would still serve as a logical and handy redirect, even though the list may contain more than just outright fake news. Maybe the fake news list would be it's own section...? I don't really care about the silly redirect, I was just excited to build off of the Zidmars' list but then it was shot down. It wasn't our list anyway, so that's fine :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. FAKENEWS is a reasonable search term, and the current target provides information we want to show to editors. feminist 14:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to policy, since there's no other appropriate target. Take our old copy of the Zimdar list to WP:MFD, since it has been repudiated and serves no purpose. If this redir were kept at all, send it to WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, or some other page on sourcing reliability in general. I've suggested at WT:Fictitious sources that the essay be updated to also address fake news; that might some day be an appropriate topic. However, if we're not already directly addressing fake news in policy, we obviously need to do so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The meme "fake news" needs to be explicitly discussed. Both sides of the political divide use it about the other side's media. The project actually has no definition of "fake news" as policy - we have an article on it which cannot (as a regular Wikipedia article) be cited as an authority in other Wikipedia articles. It's time to decide whether or not WP:NPOV is an actual ethic or an advertising slogan. If we mean it when we say it, we need to either define "fake news" for policy purposes or deprecate its use in content discussions. loupgarous (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per the arguments by {{u|Guy Macon}} and {{u|Vfrickey|loupgarous}}. They certainly are different concepts, as Guy pointed out. It would be both confusing and harmful for editors looking for guidance on fake news to find guidance on dealing with websites and publications that aren't part of the public consciousness. And as our hairy, moonlit friend pointed out, redirecting permanently to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources would be a disservice to the glaring hole in WP policy that needs filling. We should try to make a PnG level page called WP:FAKENEWS that gives real, firm guidance on how editors should deal with fake news, both in terms of sourcing and coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage essay creation, as this topic deserves a discussion in projectspace. Per Guy Macon, I oppose retargeting this to Zimdar's. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
