Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake"

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus is pretty clear that most participants think ZIMFF should be deleted. Although there were suggestions to delete ZIMF as well, I am not comfortable deleting ZIMF as a result of this MfD, because it has been through its own MfD and was kept, and it is not formally part of this MfD. If someone wants to re-nominate ZIMF, no prejudice against that. This close is not an opinion on whether or not ZIMF should be kept and should not be taken as precedent or an argument for or against. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake"


Came to this via an WP:RSN discussion. It's a few hairs away from an attack page, explaining why the list, as well as Zimdars herself, are not credible. ...And then it quotes some of the worst sources one could source politics-related BLP material to: WorldNetDaily, The Daily Caller, Shawn Hannity, etc.

It is also effectively an editorial about fake news and a list that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no policy or guideline about fake news that this is commenting on; it's just about the general concept of fake news and Zimdars' list. That it's a reaction to hosting the Zimdars list doesn't change that Wikipedia is not a web host for hosting opinions on various topics that aren't actually related to Wikipedia (I don't know if the Zimdars list is appropriate to host here, either, but I don't think one is dependent on the other, and that has already been to MfD).

No opposition to including caveats galore along with the actual list, but this seems problematic both as a projectspace essay and for BLP. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus that this is too polemic for a WP space essay, what about just userfying? VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like userfying would just mean WP:UPNOT would become an issue. I mean, userfying is certainly better, but it would also take considerable effort to resolve the BLP and NOT issues, I think. Again, I think criticisms of the list should go with the list, if we're going to host the list in projectspace at all, but it would have to be framed as such rather than a compilation of unreliable partisan sources that go after the person and not just the list. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the essay now I see a couple of sentences that potentially should be removed per BLP. Beyond those, specifically how do you see that this would violate UPNOT if moved to user space? VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wouldn't object to userfying if the BLP issues are resolved. I certainly wouldn't have MfDed it in that scenario. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to userfy WP:ZIMFF without userfying WP:ZIMF. If, as you seem to be implying, ZIMFF calling Zimdars' fake news list web page "fake" is a BLP violation, then ZIMF calling all of those other web pages "fake" is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is deleted or userfied, please do the same to List of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" is fake. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  23:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good lord I hate this place sometimes. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we need List of lists of lists of reasons related to the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is a list of "fake" lists of ... ah, now I've forgotten what I was saying &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't even get me started... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: (for now). Besides the obvious problem with this nomination (Wikipedia essays are not required to meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements) In the spirit of WP:DTR and WP:TR, this page is a response to Zimdars' fake news list. Everything the nominator claims about WP:ZIMFF is equally true about WP:ZIMF. Both are arguably "a few hairs away from an attack page" (in the same sense that our our page on Alex Jones (radio host) is). Both explain why a particular web page is not credible (as does our page on Alex Jones (radio host)). Both "quote some of the worst sources one could source" -- but ZIMFF contains one source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (reason.com) while ZIMF contains none. This page and Zimdars' fake news list page should be held to the same standards regarding reliable sourcing. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to delete WP:ZIMFF while keeping WP:ZIMF, so after I finish writing this I intend to create a MfD to delete WP:ZIMF, WP:ZIMFF, and WP:ZIMFFF, and will post the link here. After I do that, I would encourage Rhododendrites to post a procedural withdrawal and would encourage everyone to concentrate on the three-essay MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all 'Zimdar' pages (WP:ZIMF, WP:ZIMFF, and WP:ZIMFFF) per the always-insightful MjolnirPants. Do not delete ZIMFF without deleting ZIMF per Staszek Lem and many others. This all started with an obvious ploy to take a source (Zimdars' list) that would never be able to pass the requirements of WP:RS and sneak it in the back door as a subpage to a policy page. After an AfD moved it to essay space, efforts continued across Wikipedia to use the essay a a backdoor source, and now we see another attempt to game the system with this very MfD -- an attempt to keep the Zimdars' list essay while deleting the essay that was written as a response. to it. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to delete WP:ZIMFF while keeping WP:ZIMF. This would be like deleting WP:TR while retaining WP:DTR. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia essays are not supposed to conflict with basic community norms and do have to follow BLP. While I would also !vote to userfy ZIMF, I'm not going to close this so that you can combine them. They are not dependent on one another. One is a reproduction of a list that has appeared all over the world, including in reliable sources. The other is your own opinion about that, combined with terrible sources. They're not equivalent. ZIMFFF is already linked to this one unofficially by virtue of Moe's comment above (and because its basis would cease to exist). ZIMF has already gone to MfD and was kept. Consensus can change, and you're welcome to nominate that again, but they're not actually linked. There's a big difference between a source used by Wikipedia (or, as the case may be, duplicated by Wikipedia) and an editor's opinion about a living person and their work (combined with sources that add to, rather than help, the BLP issue). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide a direct quote to the Wikipedia policy that extends BLP protection to web sites containing editorial opinions. Also, please explain in detail why it is not a BLP violation for unreliable source Melissa Zimdars to label the web pages for Private Eye, Project Veritas and Blue Nation Review as being "fake", but it is a BLP violation for Reason (magazine) and Shawn Hannity to label the web page Zimdars' fake news list as being "fake". Why the double standard? You should either place all web pages with editorial opinions under BLP protection or place no web pages with editorial opinions under BLP protection. You shouldn't only extend BLP pprotection to editorial web pages that you like. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you really not see the difference between (a) posting a list of websites, with no commentary about a living person, that has been republished by mainstream sources, and (b) posting your own opinion about not just websites but the author of the list of websites, and presenting, shall we say, "alternative" sources to support your argument -- sources that also talk about not just the list, but the person? The reason this attracted my attention is because you repeatedly make this about Zimdars and her credibility, in a way that seemed axe-grindy. I appreciate that may not be true, and that it's very likely more accurate to say you're just frustrated with Wikipedia's handling of the "fake news" concept in general. But it's weird to me that an editor whose judgment I typically find to be quite good is arguing that these pages are somehow equivalent and doesn't see any problem with creating a page that includes claims -- some of which are about a living person -- made by e.g. WND. That WP:ZIMF was kept at MfD (whether right or wrong) does not mean any response you write (or anyone writes) must be kept or else the original needs to be deleted, too. I have to say, though, I'm surprised nobody else has commented here. Maybe I'm off the mark. I'll wait for others to chime in before getting into it any further. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on the glaringly obvious fact that Melissa Zimdars has no academic qualifications as a source for what is and is not fake news. I am surprised that, in the middle of telling me that I cannot say that sort of thing about Melissa Zimdars, you say the exact same thing about Scott Shackford, Chelsea Schilling, Shawn Hannity, Kira Davis and Ethan Barton. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either criticizing a source because the author has no qualifications as a reliable source is allowed in all cases or forbidden in all cases. You can't just apply BLP to editorial pages written by people you like and not to editorial pages written by people you don't like. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I started to type a longish response to this, laying out more or less what I've already said in other terms, but knowing that you're quite familiar with wikipolicy, I have to think this is purely a rhetorical exercise. I do hope if these are both deleted, thus righting this great wrong, that others note this bizarre demand that ZIMFF and ZIMF be considered on equal policy footing or otherwise that the deletion of ZIMFF is unacceptable without the deletion of ZIMF. But, as I've said, I don't oppose the deletion of ZIMF, so I suppose WP:STICK applies. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - In an effort to attract more participation, I've posted brief notices to the RSN thread and to the ZIMF talk page. These seemed directly relevant enough and neutral enough venues IMO. If I've overlooked/omitted another logical page for a notice, please let me know (or post it there). &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both this and the WP:ZIMF and WP:ZIMFFF. Unless we are being clear that these are sources that would not be included as reliable sources on WP (and at which point it would not be buried within an essay, and more reasonably would be linked to via an appropriate policy page as an external link to review), there's no reason for us to be documenting these and having the two "debate" pages about this. That's not helping to build the encyclopedia. And between not only Zimdar's name but all the various commentators named, there's far too much mudslinging that is going on in this outside WP that we should not be documenting this in essay form. --M ASEM (t) 06:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Note to closer: Mark me down as supporting deleting all three or keeping all three. Not sure how to fit that into a !vote... --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since in my reply to Guy above it may not be totally clear, I'll just say that I would support userfying or deleting ZIMF, but object to the idea that deletion of this page is contingent on deletion of that one. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This amounts to an attack page on a respected academic, and a totally unwarranted one at that. All of the criticisms are red herrings. They all say that Zimdars' "fake news list" is not a should not be used a list of fake news sites. Well, no shit. Zimdars publicly stated that her list wasn't just a list of fake news. Yet somehow we have critics, including some Wikipedia editors, compiling lists of all of the fringe attacks on Zimdars published in unreliable sources. Not helpful to the project in any way, shape, or form. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both this and WP:ZIMFFF. If people want to debate the merits of a given source, go ahead - but I am not comfortable with what is essentially an attack page on a person. Yes, it's an essay, and yes, essays can reflect minority views, but this doesn't aid to project. More to the point, it is astonishing, to say the least, to cite Sean Hannity, Zero Hedge, WorldNetDaily etc. to make a point &mdash; all of these sources have spread fringe conspiracy theories, fake news, outright falsehoods, whatever you want to call them in the past. So of course they would attack an academic scrutinizing the topic. (As for WP:ZIMF, that should be discussed separately.) Neutralitytalk 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all 'Zimdar' pages in wikispace. The list published by Zimdar herself might be useful as a guide to editors in evaluating sources, but that's not enough to enshrine it in wikispace the way it has been done. The remaining two pages simply demonstrate the contentiousness of politics on WP, rather than contributing anything useful to the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" should be retained for as long as Zimdars' fake news list is deemed fit for existence. I'm neutral in regard to the userfication or deletion of all three (the third being List of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" is fake). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all three per Hammerpants and others. The only thing these pages bring to the project is partisan bickering, it seems. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Consider our guideline at WP:SCHOLARSHIP:
 * "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper."
 * Zimdar is a primary source, and she does not list any sources for her list. The few details she gives on how she decided whether to include a site on the list basically boil down to "I know it when I see it".
 * Zimdars' list has not been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, but rather was published by providing a link to a Google Docs page. Google Docs lets anyone put pretty much anything up that isn't actually illegal. To her credit, she never claimed that it was a published research paper, saying "I am an assistant professor of communication & media, and this resource started as a tool for teaching my students about journalism/social media/media literacy. All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author(s) and are for educational purposes only."
 * "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
 * No reputable peer-reviewed source has vetted Zimdars' list. Instead it has been talked about in the popular press, most of which are reports based upon the original Los Angeles Times coverage. I would also note that Zimdars has repudiated the list published by the LA Times and reproduced on Wikipedia, saying that it was a handout to her students and was not meant for publication. She has since self-published a new, highly modified list with a completely different set of categories and sites. This new, updated list has received zero coverage by any source.
 * Therefore, based upon the above and upon years of evaluating claims made by academics, I must conclude that Zimdars list is not a reliable source. I am convinced that the reason it (or rather the old, repudiated version of it) was posted to Wikipedia -- first in a policy page the later moved to as essay -- is a blatent attempt to game the system and bypass our policies on sourcing.
 * As for the other two, they make zero sense without the Zimdars' list essay, and the authors of both have !voted to delete all three as a set. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another straw man from Guy. (No, Wikipedia is not a corn field! Do we need to add that to WP:NOT?) No one is contending that the list is a reliable source. And what does it have to do with this discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an MfD of ZIMF. While, again, I would've supported kicking it out of projectspace at least, it already went to MfD and was kept. And it isn't tagged for deletion currently nor nominated here, so it seems like it would be pretty out of process for the deletion of that page to come out of this discussion. You don't like that it was kept and don't think she's a reliable source. We get it. Repeating the claims about her says nothing about this MfD, however. The deletion rationale is not "delete because I disagree" such that an argument echoing the content of the page is relevant. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - nothing pointy and no battleground, and more so no attack. And especially no personal. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion in essays. If anything, in should be merged into Zimdars' list essay. I am strongly opposed to give undue weight to Zimdars' list kept without any counter-argument, especially expressed in equally reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Staszek Lem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * seriously? -- Well after you wrote your previous comment, you went back just to add "and now we see another attempt to game the system with this very MfD". Back up your aspersion and try to stop ratcheting up the toxicity on these pages. I didn't even know about, nevermind participate in, the other XfD. I came across this page before I even saw the Zimdars list was hosted in projectspace -- and only saw it because you've been crusading against Zimdars and her list in multiple fora, making statements about a living person, and summoning terrible sources to support your claims in ways that led me to nominate. Where is the WP:GAME? If anything, it's in wikilawyering to somehow demand that deletion of your problematic page be dependent upon deleting another page that does not have the same problems and was just kept at XfD. Again, I wouldn't have argued to keep it, but that's besides the point. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement. Both ZIMF and ZIMFF have equally reliable sources (not reliable at all, which is OK because RS doesn't apply to essays). Both ZIMF and ZIMFF make the same sort of "statements about a living person" (none, unless we accept your batshit crazy claim that saying bad things about a website or questioning whether a person is a reliable source are covered by BLP). I will AGF and entertain the possibility that you are unconsciously gaming the system, but I stand by my statement that trying to delete an essay written as a response to another essay without trying to delete the original essay is an attempt to game the system. It may be a well-meaning attempt to game the system, and it may be that you don't realize that you are trying to game the system, but it is still an attempt to game the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Equally reliable sources"? So Sean Hannity is just as reliable as an assistant professor of communications on the subject of fake news? You must be joking. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not kidding at all. The reliability of both sources is "zero". Sean Hannity has never attended a class that taught him anything about classifying whether a website is fake news. Has never done any scientific scientific research on fake news websites. He has never conducted a double-blind test, published a methodology, on in any other way given us a reasonable answer to the question ""how does he know that a website is fake news?" Instead, he eyeballs the website and offers his personal opinion, filtered by his bias (and we know from his other writings that his bias is strongly pro-republican). Melissa Zimdars has never attended a class that taught her anything about classifying whether a website is fake news. She has never done any scientific scientific research on fake news websites. She has never conducted a double-blind test, published a methodology, on in any other way given us a reasonable answer to the question ""how does she know that a website is fake news?" Instead, she eyeballs the website and offers her personal opinion, filtered by her bias (and we know from his other writings that her bias is strongly anti-republican). Both are only reliable sources on their own opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlike Sean Hannity, Zimdars has a PhD and assistant professorship in communication studies. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone wishes to user her as a source about anything that is taught in any classes relating to communication studies, I would look favorably on her as a source, just as I would for Sean Hannity as a source for anything related to nationally syndicated talk radio shows. Alas, expertise in one area does not make you an expert in an an unrelated area. And before you argue that communication studies is communication and building fake news websites is also communication, keep in mind that having a nationally syndicated talk radio show is communication as well. Unrelated experience in a different field of communication does not make you an expert on fake news websites. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of journalists have degrees in communication studies, as do media managers and public relations representatives. In addition, it's a focus on the act of communication, making someone with a PhD in it quite arguably an expert on who is lying and why. I'm fine with not using her self-published material as an RS as she's not established in her field (she seems more focused on teaching than publishing, so she may never hit that milestone), but that's a far cry from saying she's not an expert on Fake News. Odds are, she's got quite a bit of expertise, due in part to her degree, but also due to the time she's obviously spent researching the issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this one, and agree with that WP:ZIMF should be discussed separately. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.