Talk:Stop Funding Misinformation

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... This is a notable campaign as evidenced by the person who created the red link. Thankyou. Article enhancement in progress --Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC). CSD A3 does not apply.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) I observe the CSD has been removed by elseone. ✅. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Image
I've removing the image, as it is neither a SFFN logo or a picture of any entity related to SFFN. It may be illustrative of the concept of fake news, and thus relevant at that article, but SFFN is a concrete entity, and should not be illustrated with a generic image. If you disagree with this removal, please discuss it here, instead of just reverting again. -- The Anome (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) SFFN was at ... The image is perfectly acceptable until an improved one can be found with a better license then I'lll go with consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * is a possible alternate for the logo (I understand is fair use) but I have just spent 10 mins failing to achieve the relevant uploads as I am doing something wrong and I am now back on the road.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded and to my best belief correctly licensed a logo file. Should there be a issue with the new I will re-instate the previous image (or as best available) then will attempt to upload a low resolution screenshot on a difference license basis.  I normally don't do Wikipedia file images / logo's only working from commons.  My purposes are essentially to have at least a logo or an image in the infobox with preference leaning towards a logo with the best available image as a secondary option.  Other images can come and go per consensus etc.; I will take similar views as per train images.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have had some compliance issues with the logo but I have attempted to resolve same and will continue to do try to do so. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You still have compliance issues. You haven't established ownership of the image, so fair use as a logo is out. I've removed it for now. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @{U|Yappy2bhere}}: You seem intent on attacking the article. I've put back my previous as I've done my best effort on the logo to sate others and failed so stuff the logo.  It's orphaned so I'll let some other mug sort it out.  An attack from quarters was always likely, as I was putting the thing together the mostly sources do seem to have have Jewish related connections so pragmatically it would seem the group of friends are likely mostly having Jewish connections but I am unaware of there being any bias in the campaign from the sources I've seen but I may be incorrect.  The only reason Frot was quoted in the lede was went I rapid built the article under a vexacious[ CSD A3. Oh .. yes that image is relevant and you've just removed it but I see your intend on edit warring .//// Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have not "attacked the article". In fact I've made no substantive changes to it. I've merely trimmed the hyperbolic prose to fit the cited sources, your cited sources, and removed inventions that they don't support, constraining the article to be factual. No sources were removed, nor any statement that they could support. Specifically, I
 * replaced an organisation with "a small group of friends", quoting the cited source;
 * replaced targeting the advertisers to such sites with "targeting hyper partisan websites", quoting the cited source to correct a misstatement of fact;
 * removed your WP:OR explanation of Sleeping Giants' success -- the cited source says that Breitbart had been "accused of stoking division through disinformation" but not that Sleeping Giants made that accusation nor that they used it to dissuade advertisers or succeeded because of it;
 * removed your fabrication that the JC "celebrated" The Canary 's financial problems, which the cited source in no way supports;
 * removed your WP:SYNTHESIS of Frot and Doherty to link SFNN to The Canary 's money woes;
 * replaced right-wing fake news websites with Breitbart, the only "find" credited to SFNN by Creagh in the cited source;
 * removed the superfluous "United Kingdom" subsection which suggests, falsely, that this "small group of friends" has influence beyond the UK -- none of the sources support that.


 * I don't understand what you mean by "Jewish connections", "bias in the campaign", "an attack from quarters", or how a crop of an 18th C. political cartoon belongs in this article. Much of what you wrote is gibberish. I also don't understand how you could tell The Anome that no suitable image was available and then upload one eight hours later. Do you have a personal connection to this topic? Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested my disputed attempt at the logo is under discussion at Files for discussion/2020 February 3 which is probably what should have happened rather than a probable red-mist vexacious removal.08:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledgements
Given this has survived an WP:CSD without being Croydoned and has not been dragged to WP:AFD (yet) so I must acknowledge to for identifying an article and others for supporting it. I abhor WP:REDLINKs and resolvement of one was my only reason for creating this article. As everyone knws I am useless at grammar and the content has been a little rushed so the sources may not have been well utilitised as I've been concentrating on AfD defence ... so Thankyou and its probably over to others to improve for now.....Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

UK or international?
When looking at the website I seen a quote from "Barrack Obama" and assumed this might be international ... however in practice from sources found seem to indicate UK based, including most "success stories" on there website being UK organisations or organisations doing business in the UK. I did not indicate in the article it was UK based as I was not certain I had WP:V to assert that claim. In passing I also note stub and category additions may need refinement and some may need removal as I've taken some better examples from similar articles. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

in re neutral point of view
Djm-leighpark's only overt complaint, communicated in edit summaries, is that the source he cited in the lede to support his own description of SFFN is now quoted in the lede ("Quoting in the lede indicates extreme bias", "The use of the cite in the lede is non-neutral in my opinion per discussion on talk" ). There's no support for this of course in either MOS:LEAD or WP:NPOV.

Content doesn't seem to be the issue. In fact each time Djm-leighpark reverted my changes he revised the lede himself to make it more like the article text without actually quoting the article:
 * " an organisation campaigning to stop funding of fake news on websites by targeting the advertisers to such sites " [pre-revision]
 * " an organisation initially formed by a small group of friends campaigning to stop funding of fake news on websites by targeting the advertisers to such sites "
 * "a campaign targeting hyper partisan websites by actively discouraging advertisement on those sites. The campaign was initiated by a small group of friends. "
 * " a "small group of friends ... targeting hyper partisan websites" by actively discouraging advertisement on those sites " [my revision]

If content isn't the issue then there's no case for editorial bias. idk whether the editor misunderstood WP policy, misapplied it, or invented his own, but the template should come off. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @: There is an extreme issue with the lede with the quote being used to shame the article of this size. The plagarism allegatation is balderdash .... there is only a small number of ways one can say that amount of words ... and I have been more watching superbowl than match of the day.  If the quote is used for article body ... then that is OK.  But as it is the POV stands unless removed by a neutral consensus.  You wasted enough of my like at Talk:Relational database and ran me round the house so I expect probably nothing less here.  You probably need to take me to WP:ANI or call up some other noticeboard I think.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Only you have an issue with quotes in the lede. Consult MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV, prove me wrong. Anyone can see that my revision, which you reverted, and your replacement of it differ by just one word, "campaign". That's plagiarism.


 * - Given your contribtion history there is some possibility on what is probably one of your watchpages may have triggered this WP:HOUNDing but there's probably insufficient evidence to make that stick, possibly back of a source mentioning DB2 for an Oracle COI person given the external links you have previously added per mentioned on your talk page?Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Really? You comb through my edit history looking for dirt, whine that you haven't found it, then accuse me of hounding you? You're one sick puppy. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And what is the idea of the logo attack? Attempt of WP:OUTING people behind the campaign? Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And how would that work, exactly? Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Its reasonably pragmatically obvious most if not all of the people in the organisation, I note from your link to the GoFund'ing page they may wish to employ people, may wish not to explicitly expose their identities for behaps understandable risks of being targeted. however it is sometimes common for authorised people associated with a logo to place it on Commons, which in this case would risk exposure even if in an email to OTRS.  Now the chance of that is rare but possible.  Now I myself usually like to add an image to an article where possible, and usually will simply take an image from Commons where possible, or sometimes from commons, or sometimes an upload from my camera.  But I usually avoid dealing with English Wikipedia logos etc and leave that to others.  The only reason I've done tried that logo was due to dislike of the image I selected by  and I think its use was also appreciated by .  Now while my incompetency may have resulted in licensing and other issues (possibly now removable) the situation is obviously best resolved by someone correcting it, uploading their own or bringing to WP:FFD like I have not done.  But straight removal is obviously vindictive.  I probably could use an image of a prominent supporter of the campaign who has in your face support of it on their twitter account but I judged that too problematic.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Funding
I've done my good faith best to try and make it clear the campaign is not about fund-raising which the previous statement on Campaign raising £2000 did not seem to make clear. Because of the dispute above I didn't want to remove it completely, but I'm happy see it go completely but if retained it needs to be in proper context.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

POV removal
A couple of issues re: the funding issues have been resolved, the logo licensing where my incompetency has been sorted, and the context of the funding issue I have done some editing to address. I remain opined the quotations used in the lede is disprotionate WP:POINTy and will attempt an alternate at some point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article intro to avoid the quote and add more details. It was quoting a third party description without attribution in the text, so if you don't read the footnotes it made it seem like it was coming from the group itself. I also removed the POV tag; I don't see any neutrality issues in the article, especially after I attributed the partisan nature of the targets as an opinion of the group. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Its website states that from 4 May 2020 the campaign became a project of the "Center for Countering Digital Hate"
has removed a ref to the site for the above sentence and replaced it with a citation needed tag, and has disputed this. (See this revert) The website literally says "From 4th May 2020, Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate." The sentence attributes the site. It is true that it would be better to have an independent reliable source so that we don't need to attribute, so a primary source inline tag might be appropriate, but a citation needed tag is unnecessary and the ref to the website is necessary. has restored it and this is correct in my view. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Major "trimming"
In this bold edit, an awful lot of apparently sourced, noteworthy information seems to have been deleted, including: In March 2019, The Jewish Chronicle reported that Rachel Riley was abused by trolls on Twitter apparently due to her work with the SFFN campaign.

In March 2019, SFFN said that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's far right TR News, which SFFN had targeted, gave up on advertising to rely solely on donations.

In October 2019, MP Mary Creagh credited SFFN with identifying advertisements for tours of the Houses of Parliament on Breitbart. The campaign has also targeted the right-wing Politicalite and Westmonster, and left wing Dorset Eye and Evolve Politics. SFFN reported that Zero Hedge and The Federalist were among websites promoting racist fake news in the wake of the George Floyd protests; according to Gizmodo this led to Google removing Zero Hedge from its AdSense platform in June 2020.

I think at least some of that should be included here and don'tunderst and the rationale for removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of it are trivia, just bragging about the project's impact: SFFN saying they beat TR News, a MP briefly mentioning the project, etc. All of those bragging points have virtually zero encyclopaedic value IMO. Hence my removal.
 * Frankly, Wikipedia is not there to brag about the impact of the myriads projects implemented by different NGOs worldwide. Yes, many of them get to be mentioned in the news at one time or another; yet this does not mean they must go into an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)