Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list

 __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. There was significant back and forth discussing alternative ideas, but the resulting consensus is that this page as it currently exists should be deleted on the grounds that it is inaccurate and redundant to other places where information about unreliable sources does or should exist. RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list

 * – (View MfD)

We have taken the personal opinions of Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, and enshrined them as a wikipedia essay, despite the author never expressing any desire that such an essay should exist on Wikipedia.

Zimdars herself has repudiated the version of her list that we have made part of Wikipedia. She deleted that list and replaced it with a new list at the same URL with new categories and most of the originally listed sites removed, and she has asked everyone to stop using the list we have enshrined on Wikipedia and instead use her current list, which she says is more accurate.

I can confirm that what she deleted from public view is the list we have on our page. (When I first checked the doc was pretty much a word-for-word copy of what is on our page. I checked it carefully back when I contacted here asked her to put a Creative Commons Attribution license on it so it wouldn't be a copyright violation, which she did.)

This article from the daily Dot confirms that she deleted the original list and vaguely hints that she was working on what she considers a better version. The fact that she later uploaded that better version to the exact same URL where she had deleted the original list makes it clear that she has repudiated the original list and would like everyone to use the new list.

Zimdars has publicly acknowledged that the list that we have made part of Wikipedia was just a handout to her students listing unreliable sources she came across in her students' papers. Seriously. That was her criteria for inclusion. Zimdars offers no real explanation of the methodology used other than "I looked at it and decided", nor is there any peer review of the list. Clearly Zimdars herself never intended to present it as if it was actual academic research.

Zimdars also said that the list "wasn’t intended to be widely distributed" and that "people are taking it as this list of 'fake' sites, which is not its purpose." She also said "I see where it’s reported with the headline 'List of Fake News Sites,' and that’s a completely inaccurate headline. It’s a list that includes several fake-news sites, but also sites that do offer regularly good journalism but rely on clickbait-style headlines on Facebook or sometimes exaggerated descriptors to reel people in. But to lump all of those sites as fake has me worried"

I would have no objection if someone created an article (in mainspace, not Wikipedia space) about her list as opposed to containing a copy of an old version that she herself has repudiated.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment That Zimdars has created such a list has made news in Fake news website and similar articles. It's in an inactive part of this site, but perhaps it can be explained when it was posted or updated and when it was later removed by the author. The question then becomes whether the archived version of Zimdars' original list exists and is accessible, and also the newer list.   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Wayback, the list was started around December 2016 and had a lot of activity in 2017 with disclaimers that she isn't maintaining this list. It then had another surge in activity in March 2019.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated Fake news website so that it has links to an archived version of the list that is copied on this page and to her current list. I also added a bit of background about the history of how a class handout went viral. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Meh. Probably a weak not delete, but indifferent where it's located. Whether or not she stands by it, it was a useful source to get people talking about this, identified a bunch of problematic sites that led to a lot of Wikipedia activity (editing and discussion) on this topic, and seems fine to have on Wikipedia somewhere, whether or not it's replaced by the newer version, and whether or not it's tagged to make it clear this isn't intended as a real Wikipedia guide. Another alternative is to, say, host a pdf on Commons or something, but I'll refrain from expressing an opinion on the best outcome beyond not delete. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Further reading, where this was discussed in many places, many times, and at some length, a couple years ago. Consensus can indeed change, but you didn't even mention this is the second time bringing it to MfD:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Zimdars' fake news list
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake"
 * Wikipedia talk:Zimdars' fake news list
 * archives of Talk:List of fake news websites &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. So, is the list useful?
 * https://abcnews.com.co/ Replaced with an e-commerce page.
 * https://americannews.com/ Times out with a 522 error.
 * https://associatedmediacoverage.com/ Another e-commerce page.
 * https://baltimoregazette.com/ No longer a news website. Now a blog about food and coffee.
 * https://bigamericannews.com/ Dead/misconfigured server. SSL record exceeds the maximum permissible length.
 * https://bigpzone.com/ "Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to bigpzone.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details."
 * https://www.youtube.com/bigpzone Seriously? A million unreliable Youtube sites and this is the one tha makes the list?
 * https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report A New Yorker column with "humor" in the URL and "satire" in the title.
 * https://christwire.org/ Another dead/misconfigured server.
 * https://conservativeoutfitters.com/ Dead. 403 Forbidden error
 * https://wideawakeamerica.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://creambmp.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://dailycurrant.com Redirects to "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." site
 * https://derfmagazine.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://drudgereport.com.co/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://duffleblog.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://duhprogressive.com/ site shut down in 2015
 * [deleted]embols.com Tried to install malware on my computer.
 * https://empireherald.com/ Another e-commerce page.
 * https://empirenews.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://endingthefed.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://fprnradio.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://indecisionforever.com Redirects to Comedy Central main page.
 * https://jonesreport.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://libertyunyielding/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://libertymovementradio.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://megynkelly.us/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://msnbc.com.co/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://msnbc.website/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://nahadaily.com/ Dead. Connection timed out..
 * https://ncscooper.com/ redirects to linkedin.com
 * https://newcenturytimes.com/ Times out with a 522 error.
 * https://news-hound.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://newsmutiny.com/ Dead. Server error.
 * https://newswatch28.com/ Now an Indonesian language online poker site
 * https://newswire-24.com / Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://politicalblindspot.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://politicalears.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://www.prisonplanet.tv/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://realnewsrightnow.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://redflagnews.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://rilenews.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://satiratribune.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://sprotspickle.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://thebostontribune.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://thereporterz.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://thestatelyharold.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://thenewsnerd.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://theuspatriot.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://unconfirmedsources.com/ "Buy this domain" page
 * https://wakingupwisconsin.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://winningdemocrats.com/ Dead. Connection timed out.
 * https://witscience.org/ Dead. Connection timed out.


 * Users who have complained about a bad link: ZERO.
 * Conclusion: nobody has an use for the list, and nobody tries to go to any site listed. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think there would be less objection to just removing the actual list portion, retain the essay, and providing links to the different versions that were "published". As with Time 100 stuff, the list itself isn't important, but the methodology would be useful to help educate editors. There is already a note saying to use WP:RSP and other Wikipedia RS project pages as the real guidelines. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the list to be very problematic but the prefatory advice to be much more useful. I made an attempt to fork the original text into an essay (w/o list) at: User:Mu301/Sources. --mikeu talk 00:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Very useful essay. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am scratching my head to understand the policy guide here (and the nom should also think about the WP policy this violates). This cannot be an essay as its author, per the nom, denies that it is a correct version (and it is a list)? I therefore can't see how this is hosted in Wikipedia-space at all, and there is a whiff of "gaming the system" here to post something on WP but outside of the scrutiny of mainspace (e.g akin to NOTWEBHOST, and possible POLEMIC)?  I think the solution is to re-cut this into an article (it would only take a few minutes); the media attraction of this list means there are RS on it (which the past and above MfD comments are interested in preserving), and propose it for article-space, thus removing the need for a Wikipedia-space version, AND, testing whether it is sufficiently notable to be in WP (or should be merged into another article).  In any event, I cannot see how this could survive in Wikipedia-space. Britishfinance (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "This cannot be an essay", the only reason it is an essay is that the editors who first posted it posted this -- a handout by an associate professor to her students that "wasn’t intended to be widely distributed" and was later deleted -- as a Wikipedia policy. (!) It was made an essay as a compromise because so many people wanted it to remain a policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Her list is already discussed in Fake news website AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And the Fake news article doesn't give the actual list (or even an RS to it). Even though the sourcing for this list is obviously primary, given that we accept it above (and assuming it was well scruitinised by editors), we should add the same reference to the Fake news website. Or, is it that the list was (also) rejected by the editors on the Fake news article as being incomplete/inaccurate?
 * Ultimately, this object is not an essay but a list, and one that is considered out-of-date and redundant by its author. If we can't justify an article on this list, or merging this list into the Fake news article, then the default cannot be that it remains in Wikipedia-space? Am I missing something? Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated Fake news website so that it has links to an archived version of the list that is copied on this page and to her current list. I also added a bit of background about the history of how a class handout went viral. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful for source analysis by editors. Add disclaimers and caveats to its header.  Add dates to the information, when written, when copied. Mention historiography.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But as I showed above, ZERO editors have ever actually used the list for the purpose you claim it is "useful for". If they had, they most likely would have [A] written something about the results of their source analysis. and [B] made some comment about how many of the sources bear zero resemblance to what the list says they are. A site that tries to download malware to your computer when you access it is rather attention grabbing. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would use it, for reference, when evaluating notability for a reference bombed page, but I had never seen it. It contains more than Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It could be merged into that.  The issue seems to be that the source author doesn’t want it preserved, live, and that’s something I agree with, but it does not necessarily mean deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are far better lists by far better sources you can use, including:
 * Zimdars' list (the list Zimdars actually stands behind and wants you to use instead of the one she deleted)
 * Snopes’ Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors
 * Here are all the ‘fake news’ sites to watch out for on Facebook -- Dailydot
 * Misinformation Directory By FactCheck.org
 * Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs --US News
 * Politifact/Punditfact guide to fake news websites and what they peddle
 * Top 50 Fake News Websites And Blogs on the Web in 2019 -- Feedspot
 * And of course our own List of fake news websites and Fake news websites in the United States.
 * Given the wealth of lists that do a far better job -- including one by Zimdars -- I find it inexplicable that you think that this one low-quality list full of dead sites (and one site that tries to take over your computer) might be useful enough to have its own Wikipedia page. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , given your list above, should that be the content of this article and the actual list removed? I still believe it would be educational to include Zimdars' reasonings and categories for her list and then refer to her current list and a copy of her original list. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think an article about Zimdars' list in mainspace would be a great idea. The whole story -- a class handout going viral, a bunch of conservative sites claiming that Zimdar only sees liberal fake news, Zimdar doing her level best to retract the list that went viral and replace it with a better version -- is itself fascinating. We certainly have enough sources to meet the requirements on WP:GNG. I started out by objecting to her list being made into an official Wikipedia policy. I won that argument, but at the time enough people wanted to keep it as an essay (later a marked-historical essay) that I didn't try to delete it at the time. As time has gone on, fewer and fewer reliable sources even mention that original list, many of the sites listed are dead or have been taken over by domain squatters, and one site on the list makes a Windows PC display a convincing error message that leads to giving someone compete control of your computer. (The usual reason is to make it part of a botnet, scan it for info useful in identity theft, send spam with your name on it to all of your contacts, or all three). I think the time has come to nuke the list in Wikipedia space and create a new article in mainspace about Zimdars' list as opposed to containing (an old version of) Zimdar's list.
 * If somebody creates that article, could we please not call it a fake news list? As Zimdars said, "I see where it’s reported with the headline 'List of Fake News Sites,' and that’s a completely inaccurate headline. It’s a list that includes several fake-news sites, but also sites that do offer regularly good journalism but rely on clickbait-style headlines on Facebook or sometimes exaggerated descriptors to reel people in. But to lump all of those sites as fake has me worried".
 * Full disclosure in case it wasn't clear for the post at the top of this MfD; I had personal contact with Zimdars when the list first went viral and posting it on Wikipedia was a clear copyright violation. I found her to be very pleasant and knowledgeable, and she readily agreed to release that list with a compatible CC license. As I recall, we chatted a bit about how weird it was having something you handed out to one class ending up republished all over the Internet. All in all, I have a very positive opinion of Melissa Zimdars. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, you have me persuaded that this page shouldn’t continue as is, which is a little short of it needing deletion. I am not interested in arguments that it can go in mainspace, that is a red herring.  The question for me is whether it contributes to Wikipedians being able to classify sources, from worthless to difficult to good.  Is there *anything* in this part of the history in this page?  There could be, a tiny bit, but I expect you to say “no”.  If “no”, then I don’t oppose deletion.  I am particularly influenced by the author having published an updated better list. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just went through the entire history of the page. Most of the history would be of no interest to anyone, but at first I did see one thing that I thought (but see below) might be usable. What if, some time in the future, someone wants to write an article about how this page was created as a student handout and made into a Wikipedia policy, how the counter-essays were deleted (I believe that this is the only essay on Wikipedia where the essay was retained at MfD but the counter-essay was deleted), etc? At first I thought that being able to access the history of the page would be useful for that. However, thinking about it, if I was the one writing that future page about the history of this page, I would really want to also look at the history of both deleted counter-essays. Thus I would have to ask an admin to restore those deleted histories and move them to my userspace. Doing that with three histories instead of two isn't a lot of extra effort. Besides, it is unlikely that anyone would want to create the history article I just described. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposal. A fascinating situation. Whether a full article is needed on Zimdars list or not (and whether we have soneone to do it), why doesn't  just insert a short paragraph into the Fake news article (given it already briefly covers her list), giving more of the fact-base around her various lists, AND the links to the actual lists for reference (even if primary)?  If we had that, then we definitely don't need the Wikipedia-space list, and I would support Deleting it. Would that work for, , and  too? Britishfinance (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fake news article updated per your suggestion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice job Guy Macon on that – there should now be no further reason now to keep this Wikipedia-list object, so I would delete it. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that Zindars spoke at WikiConference North America 2019 November 8–11 Do we have transcripts? (We should, considering how much we are paying for these sort of conferences...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it's an essay, not a policy. It can be improved upon boldly, but I see no basis for deletion. Doug Mehus T · C  21:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not an essay, but an abandoned list that its author, Zimdar, no longer considers accurate; Guy Macon has now updated the Fake news article that has the full history of this list, gives a good source for it (so readers can still access it), and why it is no longer useful. If anybody's abandoned list can be hosted on Wikipedia-space, then we have a long backlog of stuff to come? Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove list, rewrite essay, and change title. (ie. delete without prejudice and start over) There are a number of problems that I see:


 * The title in the original doc is given as 'False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources' The current title is at best a misleading representation of the items and at worst we appear to be attributing the title to the original author. (Against the author's intent.) Perhaps remove Zimdars' name from the title and replace with attribution text in the body. Rewrite the title to be closer to the original.


 * The top of the list in the source includes disclaimers stating that many of the entries are no longer available or have changed, that this is an inherent problem with any list of this kind, and that it will not be updated. The whole list should be removed from the page.


 * As noted above Zimdars is not a wp contributor, so this can't be considered an essay by a participant here. But it could become one. I would support someone writing an essay followed by extensively quoting the advice at top (only above the list) with proper CC attribution. That information could be quite useful but perhaps needs wp context on how this might be of use in considering sources for improving wp. See User:Mu301/Sources for a rough draft.


 * I strongly oppose including the unmaintainable and highly problematic list itself. --mikeu talk 15:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: "it's an essay, not a policy", (and ignoring the previous concerted effort to keep it a policy), this is a very (cough) special kind of "essay".
 * Every Wikipedia essay has this at the top:
 * "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors.".
 * In this case, that's a lie. This is not the work of any Wikipedia contributor. Zimdars never logged on to Wikipedia and posted this. She even deleted it from the place we copied it from. Someone copied it, and a bunch of editors fought tooth and nails to retain it on Wikipedia, first as a policy then as an essay. So this "essay" is special; unlike any other essay, this one hosts a deleted page from google docs -- a clear WP:NOTWEBHOST violation.
 * Wikipedia essays in Wikipedia space can be edited by any editor. Thus the "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" language. If someone wants an essay to be uneditable by other people or to have the final say over other people's edits to the essay, they need to put the essay in their namespace. Examples: WP:1AM, WP:CANCER. This "essay" is in Wikipedia space but cannot be edited. Those who are fighting for Zimdars' 2016 list to be retained will not tolerate any content that isn't a direct copy from Zimdars' 2016 list. So this "essay" is special: it violates our core "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" principle and is a direct violation of WP:USERESSAY, which says
 * "According to Wikipedia policy, essays that the author does not want others to edit belong in the user namespace"
 * and
 * "If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment. However, essays placed in the User: namespace are often—though not always—meant to represent the viewpoint of one user only. You should usually not substantively edit someone else's user essay without permission".
 * So this "essay" is special: it cannot be modified.
 * Normally, if you don't agree with a Wikipedia essay, you are free to write an opposing essay as a response. Example: WP:DTR and WP:TTR. Even extremely popular opinions like WP:BRD are allowed to have essays disagreeing with them: See WP:BRDWRONG.
 * I tried going that route. The result may be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake". So this "essay" is special: unlike every other essay on Wikipedia counter-essays disagreeing with it are not allowed.
 * When an "essay" violates our core values, it should be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Guy Macon and User:Britishfinance. Doug Weller  talk 14:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as per User:Guy Macon and User:Britishfinance, but where does it say that the list or the essay cannot be edited? The list may be historically notable, but, if so, it isn't an essay in itself.  Also, Melissa Zimdars may be notable, but as long as we don't have an article, she is a Woman in Red.  Where does it say that the list cannot be edited?  The list probably is notable, but doesn't belong in project space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While there has been pushback to previous attempts to edit the list,, , The main problem with editing the list would be the issue of lying. It would be a lie to label something "a list of sources compiled by Melissa Zimdars" if the list is actually "a list of sources compiled by Melissa Zimdars and then modified by the following Wikipedia editors." Besides, we already have a list that is regularly edited by Wikipedia editors at Fake news website. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Guy and BF. We have RSP and RSN; this is like a fork, and it's outdated, and it's a copy of something someone else wrote on another website. NOTWEBHOST and so many other NOTs apply. – Levivich 04:44, 1 December 2019 (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.