Jump to content

Talk:Fake news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Marc Bloch

[edit]

As you probably know, fake news was a topic this historian dealt with while he was in the trenches in the World War: as a historian he considered that it was not enough for his profession to dismiss them as "okay they are not true, so we are not interested in them," but that they themselves should be the subject of study. Perhaps this item could be related to "fake news" topic ? 151.49.40.45 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Library 100 Critical Approaches to Information Research

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2025 and 11 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviafanta (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IsabelleK925 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ROHIT KUMAR

[edit]

Missing case in jakyas 106.205.150.107 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

suggest deletion

[edit]

This Fake News Wikipedia entry was created after Donald Trump popularized the term in a press conference in Jan 2017 when he called a CNN reporter 'you are fake news.' (Hillary Clinton used the term first in a speech on Dec. 8 2016 and then Trump used it months later, but who's counting.) Let's take a look at the first time it had some content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fake_news&oldid=760201443 - January 2017. The article was literally made right after Trump made use of the term.

I see that the Wikipedia entry has been nominated and voted down for speedy deletion. I still think it was clearly created after it was branded by Trump, and then a bunch of history for the term propaganda was slathered on the page to justify it as something that should stick in the annals of history. Jawz101 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To recap: Hillary says it Dec. 8 2016 https://time.com/4596151/hillary-clinton-fake-news/

Trump says it Jan. 11 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004865825/trump-calls-cnn-fake-news.html

Wikipedia entry created Jan. 15 2017 followed by feverish edits to flesh out a whole story https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fake_news&oldid=760200952

Wikipedia gods keep it even though it's probably copypasted from some other Wikipedia but with a Trump section to maintain its original intent.

Definition of fake news

[edit]

For an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, the definition of fake news needs clarity, precision, scientific accuracy, and depth. The article A Working Definition of Fake News propose the following definition: “a type of online disinformation, with misleading and/or false statements that may or may not be associated with real events, intentionally created to mislead and/or manipulate a public specific or imagined, through the appearance of a news format with an opportunistic structure (title, image, content) to attract the reader’s attention, in order to obtain more clicks and shares and, therefore, greater advertising revenue and/or ideological gain. The research article captures many key elements of the phenomenon of “fake news” and is broadly aligned with the scientific literature. @Slaterstevendid not give a convincing reason for making the definition more narrow. Wikipedia (how ironic) needs quality information. 79.22.186.141 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the only definition [[1]] [[2]] [[ https://libguides.solent.ac.uk/fakenews/FakeNews]], we cannot give only one sources definition. As such, we give the one that covers all the sources. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you the same editor as Potebik55? Wikipedia articles are not supposed to copy and paste (or closely paraphrase) content from other web pages (e.g. "A Working Definition of Fake News") that do not have a compatible license, as that would be a copyright violation. Additionally, that page is from Encyclopedia, which is a journal published by No consensus MDPI (RSP entry) – a publisher that has a spotty history; I would hesitate to base an article's definition on a quote from an MDPI journal article. — Newslinger talk 13:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that "A Working Definition of Fake News" is licensed under CC BY 4.0, which is a compatible free license that requires attribution to be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article, which can be done with the {{Source-attribution-CC BY 4.0}} template. However, even if the attribution issue were resolved, there is still the question of the source's reliability and due weight, considering that other cited sources have also provided definitions of fake news. — Newslinger talk 13:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger I knew from the beginning that the article is licensed under CC BY 4.0, otherwise I would not have copied and pasted the definition into a Wikipedia article. I know the history of MDPI but articles have to be read, analyzed and verified. If there are good quality articles why discard them?
First of all it's peer-reviewed and for Wikipedia, this source offers three specific advantages:
1) it provides an authoritative synthesis of the academic landscape that can contextualize the other definitions already cited in the entry;
2) being published in open access format, it is easily verifiable by other editors;
3) the systematic methodology ensures that their analysis is not selective but inclusive of the main currents of thought.
This definition of fake news can be supplementary to the others, not a substitute. Potebik55 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to incorporating the Baptista (2022) definition into the article, but I do oppose replacing the first sentence of this article with it, as it is too cluttered for that purpose. The scope of the article's definition should not be limited to "online" content, which would disregard other types of media, including print and especially broadcast media. Much of the Baptista (2022) definition is already included in the lead section, although the lead section as a whole needs improvement. I do not consider MDPI journal articles to be authoritative due to the questionable reputation of their peer review process. Unpaywalled content is not prioritized over paywalled content on Wikipedia articles, as that would introduce a FUTON bias. — Newslinger talk 23:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger In what does the lead section as a whole need to be improved? Potebik55 (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prose of the lead section is unfocused and jumps back and forth between different topics without coherent transitions, e.g. "Because of this diversity of types of false news, researchers are beginning to favour information disorder as a more neutral and informative term.[citation needed] It can spread through fake news websites." It also does not summarize portions of the article body (e.g. the Special topics section and most of the By country section). A rewrite of the lead section can incorporate the definition Bapitsta (2022) in some way, but that should also be accompanied with more thorough coverage of that definition in the Defining fake news section. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger here my suggested draft revision genereted by Claude Sonnet:
Fake news is a type of online disinformation characterized by misleading and/or false statements that may or may not be associated with real events, intentionally designed to mislead and/or manipulate a specific or imagined public through the appearance of a news format with an opportunistic structure (title, image, content) to attract attention and obtain more clicks, shares, and therefore greater advertising revenue and/or ideological gain. This definition, proposed by Baptista and Gradim (2022), distinguishes fake news from related phenomena such as misinformation (unintentional false information), satirical news, propaganda, and journalistic errors by emphasizing three key dimensions: producer intent to deceive, the news-like format of presentation, and the presence of misleading or false content.
The phenomenon has evolved significantly since the term's first use in the 1890s during the era of sensationalist "yellow journalism." While false information has circulated throughout history, contemporary fake news is characterized by its online distribution, rapid viral spread through social media platforms, and sophisticated mimicry of legitimate news formats. The rise of social media, particularly platforms like Facebook, has accelerated both the creation and dissemination of fake news, allowing it to reach massive audiences and sometimes generate more engagement than authentic news stories.
Fake news operates through several psychological and technological mechanisms. It exploits cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, while social media algorithms can amplify its reach by prioritizing engaging content regardless of accuracy. The content often targets emotionally charged topics and exploits societal divisions, making it particularly effective during periods of political polarization or social uncertainty.
The impact of fake news extends beyond individual deception to broader social consequences. It can undermine public trust in legitimate journalism, interfere with democratic processes, and create confusion about important public issues. The term itself has become politically weaponized, with some public figures using "fake news" to dismiss unfavorable but accurate reporting, further complicating public understanding of the phenomenon.
Combating fake news requires multifaceted approaches spanning individual media literacy, technological solutions, fact-checking initiatives, and platform regulation. Research suggests that "prebunking" strategies, which inoculate people against misinformation techniques before exposure, may be more effective than traditional debunking methods that respond to false claims after they spread.
Obviously this is a starting point to edit it further and add the necessary sources. It would also be necessary to expand the "Defining Fake News" section to include more in -depth coverage of the definition of Baptista & Gradim, as you rightly noticed. Potebik55 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No LLMs, please. The first sentence is copied and pasted from Baptista (2022) and the entire first paragraph gives undue weight to Baptista (2022), so I don't support the use of this LLM-generated output. The fact that the source articles aren't identified in the LLM-generated output is a huge problem with respect to the verifiability policy. The English Wikipedia community generally opposes the use of LLMs for this type of content generation, and this type of proposal is unlikely to be accepted in any content dispute. — Newslinger talk 17:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fake_news&oldid=1305542628"