Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to News management. – ABCD 20:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fake news

[edit]
  • del. original research and antibush propaganda. Mikkalai 23:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content and redirect to Propaganda. Same reasons. If there is anything helpful in this article, it should be added to the propaganda article. BoomHitch 23:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All sources are primary sources using renowned newspapers articles. The issue is obviously relevant, as Googles gives 420,000 hits to "fake news". The content may be changed at any time by Wikipedians, adding new examples of "fake news" from around the world, from all political parties, wings and schools of thought. The reference to the Bush Administration is merely illustrative and may be dwarfed in the future if Wikipedians are able to add new content. Note that there is also a reference to the Clinton Administration. Paulo Andrade
    • Just to point out to those who didn't check the history here, the above comment signed by Paulo Andrade was posted by 200.167.38.94 (the creator of this article). The article is now more NPOV as you state, 200.167.38.94. Still, it remains to be seen why "fake news" deserves its separate article when we already have one on propaganda (since October 2001). BoomHitch 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • 200.167.38.94 - In fact, I am Paulo Andrade. For some unknown reason my IP address has changed since I logged in for the first time as Paulo Andrade, although I'm still using the same computer. If I log in again with this same name, the system won't accept it. Paulo Andrade
        • I'm not sure I understand the difficulty you are having here. I regularly use more than one computer to use Wikipedia, and I never have any problems logging in. android↔talk 02:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I understand. The mismatched signature and off-handed way in which your edit (addition of the Clinton administration) was mentioned just seemed to be a little curious to me. That does seem odd that you couldn't log in. We could continue discussion on this issue on your (Paulo Andrade's) talk page if you want. BoomHitch 03:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not decided yet, but leaning towards Confirming vote to Delete. Thinly-veiled jab at the Bush administration in the middle of what basically amounts to a link farm. (BTW, I'm guessing many of those Google hits for fake news are references to The Daily Show, other satire, or something else completely unrelated. I don't think the Google test can be easily applied to this article.) android↔talk 01:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Daily Show - A search for "The Daily Show" + "fake news" shows 20,000 hits, so if you take this from 420,000, you still have 400,000 hits. Paulo Andrade
      • In other words, over 4% of the hits can be discounted by identifying one other common occurrence of the phrase "fake news". A search for "fake news" satire yields 26,400 hits, another 6%, and that's just for satirical fake news sites that identify themselves as satire somehow. android↔talk 02:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • However, some of the results for "fake news" satire overlap "fake news" "The Daily Show". And on the other hand, "fake news" journalism for instance brings alone 218,000 results. Paulo Andrade
  • Undecided This phenomenon seems to be getting some press lately, and seems like a worthy topic for an article. But the current title is awful, and the article mostly just links. Might be better to delete and start from scratch. I would reconsider if really cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 02:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - If an article has too little links, it has no sources, if it has too many links, it is a collection of links! Come on. Paulo Andrade
      • Only one source is actually being used. android↔talk 04:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with propaganda... I fail to see how this provides any additional info (if it were expanded from just the current incident..) that wouldn't belong there. Dunro 02:52, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to propaganda. This article is redundant with the far superior propaganda article. DaveTheRed 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Propaganda is about advertising, ads, TV commercials. It is not about news. No one searches for "fake news" looking in "propaganda". Fake news are a deturpation of news, but they are not propaganda per se. Paulo Andrade
      • Propaganda is not limitted to advertising, ads or TV commercials. It is, to quote the propaganda article, "a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda." Please read the article in full to get a better idea of what constitutes propaganda. DaveTheRed 05:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please make the distinction clear in the article itself. BoomHitch 04:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Propaganda - I agree that there may be an intersection area between fake news and propaganda, but there are portions of "fake news" that have nothing to do with propaganda, and many parts of "propaganda" that are not about fake news. Languages are not perfect, and words commonly overlap their meanings, as you can see in Wikipedia if you compare for instance entertainment with fun or amusement, or when you compare the word Muslim with the word Arab. Each word has its own singularities : you can't force one content into the other. Paulo Andrade
      • New sections - Read sections "journalistic fraud" and "fake news satire". They have nothing to do with propaganda. Paulo Andrade.
        • Comment, ok now the article seems to cover several different definitions of "fake news." All of them seem to be covered better elsewhere. For instance, the parts on fake news as propaganda are better covered in the propaganda article. The part on fake news as journalistic fraud is better covered by the journalistic fraud article. Furthermore, inserting a section on fake news as satire contradicts the intro sentence: "Fake news ...[is] a deturpation of traditional journalism in which false facts, or government official propaganda are deliberately presented by the mass media as genuine news reports." For what its worth, I've also never heard of journalistic fraud seriously referred to as fake news. DaveTheRed 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Reply - The quality of the article is not being judged. Its existence is. Articles that the Editor judges as not having good quality receive a specific seal of non-quality (see amusement, for instance), but they are not deleted for this reason. Paulo Andrade
          • Dave took the words right out of my mouth. The additions have actually made the article less coherent; nearly everything in it is more thorougly covered in another article. I've changed my vote above. android↔talk 03:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • Spockpedia - If Wikipedia was Spockpedia, all words could be deleted through arguments. All words have something in common with other words, but this is not an argument for deletion. Plane, aviation and helicopter, for instance, have something in common. Water, ocean, sea, lake, river and waterfall have something in commmon, but they all exist as separate words. Video news release, propaganda, public relations, fake news and Bush administration payment of columnists have also something in common, but they should all exist as separate words, as they present different angles and unique perspectives. Paulo Andrade
          • Selection of reality - Every word is a selection of elements of reality that presents a unique perspective. Words are like mathematical sets with multiple intersection areas. You redirect A to B when all elements are equal. You merge A with B when A contains B or vice-versa. Neither of these happens here. Paulo Andrade
          • Censorship - Note that you can also censor ANY word by dissecting it, slicing it in different pieces and rearranging the slices in different places. The word love, for instance, could be censored by merging it with feeling (once love is a kind of feeling). It could also be censored by slicing it into several types of love and rearranging the slices (e.g. to friendship, sex, marriage, solidarity, compassion and spirituality, for example). This is a very dangerous possibility, as deletionist censorship can be carried out intentionally by any individual or group of individuals at any time, bringing serious doubts about the credibility of Wikipedia as a true "free Encyclopedia". I'm not talking about technical deletion or POVs, I'm talking about censorship. Paulo Andrade
          • Rewriting main definition - Now there is a new and more clear main definition, that probably may avoid further confusion. Of course anybody can perfect it at any time Paulo Andrade.
            • Comment We are not arguing that fake news should be redirected because it is similar to propaganda. We are arguing that it should be redirected because it is a subset of propaganda, with the exception of satire, and that can be covered in the satire article. We are not censoring fake news, merely saying that everything in the article can be covered better elsewhere. It would be like having an article on curtains, and another article on green curtains. DaveTheRed 19:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Reply - First, you can only talk for yourself - who is "we" ? do you represent someone else ? Second, it is clear that what you say does not correspond to the present reality of the article. The article has now at least three different topics and only one of them has some degree of relationship (not equality) with propaganda. Third, you implicitly admits to be attempting to censor the word "fake news", saying that "we are not censoring ... because of this or that"Paulo Andrade
            • Stalinism - In the Soviet era, Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader (who was a dictator) used to censor articles in Encyclopedias. Just a reminder. Paulo Andrade
            • Diversity - Personally, I believe in concepts like diversity, multiplicity and complementariness. Orange is not simply a combination of yellow and red, it's another color.Paulo Andrade
              • Firstly, comparing us to Stalinists constitutes a personal attack, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Secondly, while I only represent myself, I can make a fair guess as to the motives of the other wikipedians who are pushing for a redirect. Thirdly, the three definitions of fake news don't seem to sit well together. The inclusion of satire completely contradicts the intro sentence, and fake news as satire is better covered in the satire article. I've never heard journalistic fraud refered to seriously as fake news, but if it was, the definition is better covered in the journalistic fraud article. Which leaves the propaganda side of fake news, which is better covered in the propaganda article. The fact remains that fake news is not a concept radically different from any of the topics it purports to cover, and having a sepearte article on it is redundant. This is not censorship, merely improving Wikipedia.

DaveTheRed 19:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Reply - I see your point. I never meant to attack you personally, my dear friend. However, the rules of Wikipedia allow Stalinist censorship, that's my point. And in my humble interpretation what is being carried out here is a kind of censorship. While deleting an article is a right assured by the rules, the abusive use of this right may constitute censorship. Please read again sections "Spockpedia" and "Censorship" above and section "Mr. Editor" below. Paulo Andrade
  • Satirical fake news and journalistic fraud - The inclusion of satirical fake news does not contradicts the intro sentence, once webzines, portals and other producers of satire are also media outlets. Secondly, satirical news contain facts known to be false presented as real news - that's the definition (although in this case the public usually knows about the satirical aspect, but this detail was not specified in the intro sentence). Thirdly, journalistic fraud is a broad term but it applies to fake news every time the reporter or journalist knows the facts are false (e.g. when he/she invents the report) or knows for instance that the source is lying but presents it as genuine. Please reread the intro sentence, it covers well the three aspects of fake news, and maybe new aspects to be added in the future.Paulo Andrade
    • Mr. Editor - Please may I use this space to grab your attention for a few seconds to focus something else (I don't know other way of doing this). Of course it is your decision to keep or delete this article, but whatever is your decision here I ask you - or should I say I beg you - to talk to other Editors or to your superiors if they exist, about something very serious : Wikipedia can be used by a group of people to deliberately censor words, masquerading censorship as technical deletions. In a literal interpretation, these people are following the rules. But do rules permit censorship ? If they really do, this is a flaw, IMHO. I strongly suggest that certain users should be closely watched. User Mikkalai for instance created this page of VFD only 25 minutes after I added the first scratch of the article. He didn't wait to see if there would be new updates or developments. In his User Page, he admits to be a professional observer of pages, with purposes of deleting or merging them. How did he know about a new page so fast ? On the other side, user android seems to be eager to delete the article. Of course I'm also an enthusiast because I have created the article, it took me several hours of patience and work. But he alone interfered five times in only two days. This is really odd, to say the least. I suspect some of these users are not "technical purists" trying to defend the "integrity" of an Encyclopedia. They act more like censors, in the Stalinist style. Please pay attention to their future moves not only here but in all other words. And thank you for your time. P.S. If you wish, you can send me an e-mail using my user page.Paulo Andrade.
            • See that Recent changes link over on the left side of the page? That's how one can find new articles "so fast." I'm "eager" to delete the article for the reasons I've laid out above. You would be well-advised to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't take kindly to inferences that I'm some sort of "Stalinist censor." android↔talk 12:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
            • Reply - Again I must say that I understand your point and that I never meant to attack nobody. As for the "Recent changes", I didn't know this button. However, you really seem to be anxious to delete this article (or at least that's my sincere impression). Notice that you came back once more and now this is your sixth participation in three days. Frankly, this sounds really odd to me. I did understand your point, but I have doubts if you understood mine : I do believe that the rules of Wikipedia allow censorship whenever there is an abusive use of the right to delete, and that this is an opportunity to discuss also this point. Reread sections "Spockpedia" and "Censorship" above. If you have a suggestion, take the opportunity to leave it. Paulo Andrade
              • You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is a VfD discussion, meaning that participants respond to arguments. You seem to have no problem doing this yourself. If you think my behavior is odd, take a look at any contentious VfD discussion; you will see the same pattern from regular VfD contributors. If you have a problem with deletion policy, this is not the place to make such arguments; this discussion should be for the article in question only. I don't care if you "meant" to attack or not — it was a personal attack, plain and simple. android↔talk 22:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I sincerely don't see the things this way, Android, but anyway it's your interpretation. With respect to the deletion policy, you're right, this is not the place to discuss it, but I don't know any other place, and I still think it is a relevant issue to be discussed. Maybe at least you agree with me that someone (not necessarily you, but someone else) may potentially want to delete words with the deliberate intention of censoring certain ideas or angles of study over a subject, alone or guided by organized groups. Technically, any word can be deleted through arguments, if you distort them far enough. 29 Mar 2005, 01:20 GMT Paulo Andrade
      • Mr. Editor (2) - I take this opportunity to suggest the introduction of some sort of mechanism to avoid the abusive use of deletion rights by an individual or an organized group. Notice that in the present model not only individuals but organizations, companies and governments may interfere directly in Wikipedia with the purpose of censoring it, Stalinist style, once logical arguments may be twisted to delete any word. Perhaps an Ombundsman could be introduced in Wikipedia, or some kind of Council to oversee polemical deletions and cut the excesses, interfering every time the right to delete is transformed into a right to censor, Stalinist style. I thank you in advance if you pass these suggestions away or discuss them with other editors or superiors of yours. Paulo Andrade
            • Diversity again- Once more I want to emphasize the concepts of diversity, multiplicity and complementariness between different words, and suggest that everybody reread the article in its present state before emitting new opinions. The main definition was changed and is now more clear, precise and inclusive.Paulo Andrade
  • I've read through the article and fail to see any significant distinction between the concept of "fake news" and "propaganda". Redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, new main definition, Spockpedia, censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
      • Comment: I have read all of the above. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Covers the same ground as propaganda. Feco 08:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, Spockpedia, Censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
  • Merge with News management, which is more relevant than Propaganda. Also, Propaganda is quite long enough already without something merging with it. --Angr 10:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See above - (each word has its own singularites, new sections, Spockpedia, censorship and new main definition) Paulo Andrade
    • News management is an ideal place IMO. Mikkalai 04:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The editor will decide - That's it. I have no other points to add, unless someone wants to discuss a new point. I need to rest and it was a pleasure to discuss with you. 29 Mar 2005, 01:20 GMT Paulo Andrade
  • One way could be to turn this into a disambiguation page with links to different uses of fake new (hoaxes of exposure, journalistic fraud, satire, propaganda, what have you). As for Andrade's comments, he is not winning any friends with that worn-out rhetoric - Skysmith 09:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Securiger 13:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed your vote table. Please see this page (specifically the part that says Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes...) No offense intended; it's just generally regarded that such tally boxes are actually harmful to the process -- keep in mind that it's not about the votes, it's about the discussion. android↔talk 13:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm... - Thank you, Skysmith. Just a last thought : Do robots have hearts ? Do Encyclopedias have a soul ? If so, what soul ? Are they user-friendly ? Does Wikipedia have a soul ? Paulo Andrade 30 Mar 2005, 21:56 GMT
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Wow. I can't believe that Wikipedia has decided to suppress information about such an important, well-established global phenomenon. The term fake news has been used for years to describe the exploitation of public trust in the news media to further an agenda.94.222.189.97 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fake_news&oldid=1080166682"