Talk:Upworthy

Since CT school shooting Upworthy has turned into anti-gun rights left wing propaganda site
As can be noted on their Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/Upworthy) as well as their rapidly dwindling "Like" count and accusations of their politicizing the tragedy to push a left wing political agenda. This fact should probably be reflected in their wiki page. BillyTFried (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon a deeper investigation of their actual website http://www.upworthy.com/ it is clear they are a left wing political site as nearly all of their content falls under such liberal political themes. BillyTFried (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hijacked article - serious, not "left wing"
The site is clearly focused on advocating serious, vs. shallow, issues, as described in their own informationa and elsewhere, e.g. In this New York Times article http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/new-site-wants-to-make-the-serious-as-viral-as-the-shallow

However the Wikipedia article has quickly been hijacked to try to portray it as left wing. Ironically, the reference used to try to justify the cliam in turn references the above mentioned NYT article!, which says something quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.13 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They're self-admittedly left-wing . Co-founder is founder of MoveOn, a famously left-wing site .  Others call it progressive, left-wing, and liberal (,, and ).  EvergreenFir (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"viral" content?
THAT IS NOT WHAT VIRAL MEANS! it does not mean "popular"! it means "under the pretense of being unofficial" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.74.199 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
I added cleanup tags here because the article relies a lot on quotations of primary sources like Upworthy's own statements, and frequently strays into taking opinions on the correctness of criticisms levied against it. The article needs significant rewriting work so that it documents the significance of the site and what reliable secondary sources are saying about it. FalconK (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has recently gone in and scrubbed/softened all the criticism and added a lot more Upworthy PR speak to the article. The article now reads like a press release off their website. Zaqwert (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)