New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Report links to add/remove here! #53

Closed
selfagency opened this Issue Nov 29, 2016 · 75 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@selfagency
Collaborator

selfagency commented Nov 29, 2016

Please use this ticket to report any new links to add or to dispute any links that exist in the B.S. Detector dataset.

@BillyBender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyBender

BillyBender Dec 2, 2016

Good move. Technology can help in this issue.
I guessed that your list began with the WashPost article, so I checked to see if truthdig.com and counterpunch.org were on your list.

They are, but they don't belong on the list. Both are Seriously Lefty and present themselves as Opinion Journals, much in the tradition of leftist newsletter watchdog publishers like I.F. Stone, The Nation, etc.
I haven't read either in the past few months, but have looked at them for years. I don't often agree with them, but they seriously try to be honest. Check Wikipedia on them.

I noticed that Truthdig has a piece about the WashPost story. You should look at it and follow the links. There's probably a least one that goes to a site you trust. The Post kinda screwed up on this ...

Good luck. BS Detection needs to be done. We need technology, but we also need education.

BillyBender commented Dec 2, 2016

Good move. Technology can help in this issue.
I guessed that your list began with the WashPost article, so I checked to see if truthdig.com and counterpunch.org were on your list.

They are, but they don't belong on the list. Both are Seriously Lefty and present themselves as Opinion Journals, much in the tradition of leftist newsletter watchdog publishers like I.F. Stone, The Nation, etc.
I haven't read either in the past few months, but have looked at them for years. I don't often agree with them, but they seriously try to be honest. Check Wikipedia on them.

I noticed that Truthdig has a piece about the WashPost story. You should look at it and follow the links. There's probably a least one that goes to a site you trust. The Post kinda screwed up on this ...

Good luck. BS Detection needs to be done. We need technology, but we also need education.

@ultramancool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

ultramancool Dec 2, 2016

{"url": "wikileaks.com", "type": "rumors"},
{"url": "wikileaks.org", "type": "rumors"},

Wikileaks does not publish rumors, they publish leaked information which is accurate. Though some people generate rumors from this information, Wikileaks itself is not at fault for that. This should be removed.

ultramancool commented Dec 2, 2016

{"url": "wikileaks.com", "type": "rumors"},
{"url": "wikileaks.org", "type": "rumors"},

Wikileaks does not publish rumors, they publish leaked information which is accurate. Though some people generate rumors from this information, Wikileaks itself is not at fault for that. This should be removed.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency
Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 2, 2016

wikileaks publishes unconfirmed rumors and innuendo like dnc staffer seth rich was murdered by hillary clinton https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

@ultramancool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

ultramancool Dec 2, 2016

@selfagency That WaPo article you linked doesn't seem to cite any official source at Wikileaks, let alone an actual link to wikileaks.org.

ultramancool commented Dec 2, 2016

@selfagency That WaPo article you linked doesn't seem to cite any official source at Wikileaks, let alone an actual link to wikileaks.org.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

ultramancool Dec 2, 2016

@selfagency That link just says "information leading to a conviction". Nothing about hillary clinton being responsible.

ultramancool commented Dec 2, 2016

@selfagency That link just says "information leading to a conviction". Nothing about hillary clinton being responsible.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 2, 2016

Collaborator

who are you kidding? they posted this while rumors were swirling that rich was behind the dnc leaks and was whacked for it.

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 2, 2016

who are you kidding? they posted this while rumors were swirling that rich was behind the dnc leaks and was whacked for it.

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

@ultramancool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

ultramancool Dec 2, 2016

So basically it's exactly like I said - WikiLeaks themselves does nothing to spread rumor, only other people implicate them in it. You yourself are doing it right now. You evil rumor spreader you.

ultramancool commented Dec 2, 2016

So basically it's exactly like I said - WikiLeaks themselves does nothing to spread rumor, only other people implicate them in it. You yourself are doing it right now. You evil rumor spreader you.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 2, 2016

Collaborator

sooooo julian assange can go on tv and imply that rich was a source while rumors are swirling that he was murdered but he's not implicated? this is your idea of critical thinking?

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 2, 2016

sooooo julian assange can go on tv and imply that rich was a source while rumors are swirling that he was murdered but he's not implicated? this is your idea of critical thinking?

@ultramancool

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ultramancool

ultramancool Dec 2, 2016

You got a link for that? I'm interested to see if he actually said that or if you've extrapolated.

ultramancool commented Dec 2, 2016

You got a link for that? I'm interested to see if he actually said that or if you've extrapolated.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 2, 2016

Collaborator

it's the newsweek link i posted above

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 2, 2016

it's the newsweek link i posted above

@blobblobbed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@blobblobbed

blobblobbed Dec 3, 2016

Sorry these aren't alphabetized. Made this list on my phone. should all be fresh entries ; )
Add more later if i can. File all of these under "conspiracy" except for the first entry, mediaite.com which i've marked as rumor mill because they'll post pretty much anything.
TO ADD:
mediaite.com RUMOR MILL
conspiracyplanet.com
henrymakow.com/
oathkeepers.org
farmwars.info
globalresearch.org/ (arm of globalresearch.ca)
newsbud.com
corbettreport.com/
scientologynews.org
fitzinfo.wordpress.com
tarpley.net
rightwingwatch.org
newsbud.com
alternet.org
crooksandliars.com
morningliberty.com/

Last thing. Judging by the criteria you appear to be going by what constitutes "extreme bias" I would also reccomend adding The Huffington Post to this list. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

blobblobbed commented Dec 3, 2016

Sorry these aren't alphabetized. Made this list on my phone. should all be fresh entries ; )
Add more later if i can. File all of these under "conspiracy" except for the first entry, mediaite.com which i've marked as rumor mill because they'll post pretty much anything.
TO ADD:
mediaite.com RUMOR MILL
conspiracyplanet.com
henrymakow.com/
oathkeepers.org
farmwars.info
globalresearch.org/ (arm of globalresearch.ca)
newsbud.com
corbettreport.com/
scientologynews.org
fitzinfo.wordpress.com
tarpley.net
rightwingwatch.org
newsbud.com
alternet.org
crooksandliars.com
morningliberty.com/

Last thing. Judging by the criteria you appear to be going by what constitutes "extreme bias" I would also reccomend adding The Huffington Post to this list. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@blobblobbed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@blobblobbed

blobblobbed Dec 3, 2016

Whoops! Hey I just realized scientologynews.org is in that list I posted! For the sake of accuracy, they def wouldn't fall under conspiracy. Extreme Bias, I suppose would be more sufficient. State Sponsored, perhaps? I'd hate to just lump them in here automatically due their reputation, but that site is quite propagandaee

blobblobbed commented Dec 3, 2016

Whoops! Hey I just realized scientologynews.org is in that list I posted! For the sake of accuracy, they def wouldn't fall under conspiracy. Extreme Bias, I suppose would be more sufficient. State Sponsored, perhaps? I'd hate to just lump them in here automatically due their reputation, but that site is quite propagandaee

@BillyBender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyBender

BillyBender Dec 3, 2016

Propornot, whose list seems to be at the core of your list, has revised their list. It is available here.
At the bottom of the page, they list the changes

List v0.0.6: Initial Release
List v0.0.7:
Removed following constructive conversations with outlet operators: aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk, abovetopsecret.com, counterpunch.org, nutritionfacts.org, russia-direct.org
Added: 4thmedia.org, nsnbc.me, presstv.com, theunhivedmind.com, sana.sy

BillyBender commented Dec 3, 2016

Propornot, whose list seems to be at the core of your list, has revised their list. It is available here.
At the bottom of the page, they list the changes

List v0.0.6: Initial Release
List v0.0.7:
Removed following constructive conversations with outlet operators: aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk, abovetopsecret.com, counterpunch.org, nutritionfacts.org, russia-direct.org
Added: 4thmedia.org, nsnbc.me, presstv.com, theunhivedmind.com, sana.sy

@BillyBender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyBender

BillyBender Dec 3, 2016

The New Yorker, one of the most reliable sources of newsy information, has its own analysis of the WaPost/ProporNot controversy here.

BillyBender commented Dec 3, 2016

The New Yorker, one of the most reliable sources of newsy information, has its own analysis of the WaPost/ProporNot controversy here.

@justic4all

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@justic4all

justic4all Dec 3, 2016

Sites which should not be on your list:

  1. Counterpunch
  2. Truthdig
  3. Truthout
  4. Consortium News
  5. Films For Action
  6. Wikileaks
    Truthdig and Consortium News in particular are run by well-respected, award-winning investigative journalists. All of the above except Wikileaks fall into the category of op eds, in the same way as publications like HuffPost Politics, The Nation, The Guardian, etc.
    I also agree with ultramancool above re: Wikileaks. In the many thousands of emails and other documents they’ve published, not a single one has ever been proven to be false. If only mainstream media could withstand that level of scrutiny ...
    And as far as the single incident you cited of Wikileaks offering a reward for information related to Seth Rich’s murder, seeking actual evidence (as part of their normal course in the pursuit of truth) is exactly the nature of their business. If only mainstream media would go to such lengths before they report stories! At least Wikileaks is going to the bother of trying to gain actual evidence first before they publish, unlike the political pundits at Fox, CNN and MSNBC. In fact, Fox News went one step further this week and actually ALTERED evidence to make it fit a narrative. They circulated a highly (and obvious intentionally edited) video of Barack Obama which they said showed him condoning undocumented immigrants voting during the general election. They intentionally cut off the rest of the video that showed him saying just the opposite. So if you’re going to apply a “one strike you’re out” criteria regardless of how many thousands of published pieces in a site are legitimate, then I’m afraid you will also have to add MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC and Fox News, Washington Post, NY Times and virtually every single political op ed site to your category of “Fake” or “Rumors”, which would water down and defeat the entire purpose for having your list, which in my mind should only be to identify the most egregious and obvious offenders.
    Just in closing, I must say that I am very disturbed by how YOU, by your own acknowledgement, are engaging in the very same practices that you are negatively labeling other sites for doing: unfairly labeling sites before you even have the evidence to support your claims. You appear to only be relying on rumors and bias to negatively brand some of these sites, something I feel is bordering on slander when you land up unfairly tarnishing the reputation of credible sites before you even have evidence to support your claim or label of them. Moreover, I am wondering who is behind what you’re doing, and am concerned that this is a slippery slope on the way to even more media censorship than already exists. If you’re not already aware, the U.S. has fallen significantly in freedom of press ranking world-wide, in particular because of the government’s effort to silence whistleblowers – such as the ones who provide information to Wikileaks in order to hold power accountable and bring truth to the people.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/politics/u-s-press-freedom-ranking-obama-administration-leaks/

justic4all commented Dec 3, 2016

Sites which should not be on your list:

  1. Counterpunch
  2. Truthdig
  3. Truthout
  4. Consortium News
  5. Films For Action
  6. Wikileaks
    Truthdig and Consortium News in particular are run by well-respected, award-winning investigative journalists. All of the above except Wikileaks fall into the category of op eds, in the same way as publications like HuffPost Politics, The Nation, The Guardian, etc.
    I also agree with ultramancool above re: Wikileaks. In the many thousands of emails and other documents they’ve published, not a single one has ever been proven to be false. If only mainstream media could withstand that level of scrutiny ...
    And as far as the single incident you cited of Wikileaks offering a reward for information related to Seth Rich’s murder, seeking actual evidence (as part of their normal course in the pursuit of truth) is exactly the nature of their business. If only mainstream media would go to such lengths before they report stories! At least Wikileaks is going to the bother of trying to gain actual evidence first before they publish, unlike the political pundits at Fox, CNN and MSNBC. In fact, Fox News went one step further this week and actually ALTERED evidence to make it fit a narrative. They circulated a highly (and obvious intentionally edited) video of Barack Obama which they said showed him condoning undocumented immigrants voting during the general election. They intentionally cut off the rest of the video that showed him saying just the opposite. So if you’re going to apply a “one strike you’re out” criteria regardless of how many thousands of published pieces in a site are legitimate, then I’m afraid you will also have to add MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC and Fox News, Washington Post, NY Times and virtually every single political op ed site to your category of “Fake” or “Rumors”, which would water down and defeat the entire purpose for having your list, which in my mind should only be to identify the most egregious and obvious offenders.
    Just in closing, I must say that I am very disturbed by how YOU, by your own acknowledgement, are engaging in the very same practices that you are negatively labeling other sites for doing: unfairly labeling sites before you even have the evidence to support your claims. You appear to only be relying on rumors and bias to negatively brand some of these sites, something I feel is bordering on slander when you land up unfairly tarnishing the reputation of credible sites before you even have evidence to support your claim or label of them. Moreover, I am wondering who is behind what you’re doing, and am concerned that this is a slippery slope on the way to even more media censorship than already exists. If you’re not already aware, the U.S. has fallen significantly in freedom of press ranking world-wide, in particular because of the government’s effort to silence whistleblowers – such as the ones who provide information to Wikileaks in order to hold power accountable and bring truth to the people.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/politics/u-s-press-freedom-ranking-obama-administration-leaks/
@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 3, 2016

Collaborator

A few points:

  1. As I have repeatedly stated in the press, on our repo, and on our homepage, the dataset was somewhat indiscrimintely compiled and we are slowly making our way through it. We are also looking to partner with media watchdog groups to provide research to back up our inclusions and classifications so that it is neither arbitrary nor the decision of a sole authority. That said, I agree Truthdig, Truthout, and Consortium News do not belong on the list and will remove them. However, Counterpunch publishes more white supremacists and antisemites than it does progressives.
  2. Wikileaks has far more than one strike against them. For example: There's the time they faked a New York Times story. There's Wikileaks' failure to verify and redact documents. There's Wikileaks' open hostility towards fact checkers as Robert Mackey notes. It adds up to a source that cannot be relied upon without additional research and verification, which is why it's flagged as Rumor Mill.
  3. This plugin does not promote censorship, it promotes media literacy. We do not filter out articles, we do not block links, we do not deny access to content. We simply provide warnings to keep your guard up while reading. No one is behind this plugin but me and the volunteer contributors to the repo. I myself am a donor to the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, as well as the EFF and ACLU, and have given to both Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning's defense funds. I'm also, in fact, a former donor to Wikileaks. Thus your insinuations are kind of hilarious to me.
Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 3, 2016

A few points:

  1. As I have repeatedly stated in the press, on our repo, and on our homepage, the dataset was somewhat indiscrimintely compiled and we are slowly making our way through it. We are also looking to partner with media watchdog groups to provide research to back up our inclusions and classifications so that it is neither arbitrary nor the decision of a sole authority. That said, I agree Truthdig, Truthout, and Consortium News do not belong on the list and will remove them. However, Counterpunch publishes more white supremacists and antisemites than it does progressives.
  2. Wikileaks has far more than one strike against them. For example: There's the time they faked a New York Times story. There's Wikileaks' failure to verify and redact documents. There's Wikileaks' open hostility towards fact checkers as Robert Mackey notes. It adds up to a source that cannot be relied upon without additional research and verification, which is why it's flagged as Rumor Mill.
  3. This plugin does not promote censorship, it promotes media literacy. We do not filter out articles, we do not block links, we do not deny access to content. We simply provide warnings to keep your guard up while reading. No one is behind this plugin but me and the volunteer contributors to the repo. I myself am a donor to the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, as well as the EFF and ACLU, and have given to both Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning's defense funds. I'm also, in fact, a former donor to Wikileaks. Thus your insinuations are kind of hilarious to me.
@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 3, 2016

Collaborator

@BillyBender PropOrNot's list is neither at the core nor even included in our list. This plugin launched a full week before the Washington Post article even came out. Any overlap is purely coincidental. I will review your other recommendations but I can tell you offhand that Alternet, Mediaite, and CrooksAndLiars do not belong.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 3, 2016

@BillyBender PropOrNot's list is neither at the core nor even included in our list. This plugin launched a full week before the Washington Post article even came out. Any overlap is purely coincidental. I will review your other recommendations but I can tell you offhand that Alternet, Mediaite, and CrooksAndLiars do not belong.

@joeblackwaslike

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joeblackwaslike

joeblackwaslike Dec 3, 2016

I think much of this list belongs, however I find incredibly odd that sites such as:
guccifer2.wordpress.com, wikileaks.com, wikileaks.org are included. Wikileaks is not a source of bias, they publish what they can confirm. Their twitter can turn into a dumpster fire at times(no arguable), but that's a much different url so why not include that one instead? Including wikileaks is delegitimizing the kind of service that only wikileaks provides (mass data dumps in searchable form) just in time for a certain president elect to take full advantage of that. I don't see that as advantageous for our future. Additionally, delegitimitizing a private blog with only a few posts that is obviously such really hurts the credibility of the lists as existing to fight fake news.

It seems this should be a time where we need to put our political differences aside and allow for dissenting opinions and not silence people simply for embarrassing Hillary Clinton with the truth at an inconvenient time. Your expectation of privacy is almost nonexistent when you seek the highest public office in the nation so anyone doing so is fair game and always has been. Glenn Greenwald has had much to say about this, but among them one in particular of relevance. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/

The spirit of journalism has sought to expose the truth about powerful people and to kill it with a browser extension represents everything that can go wrong with technology. I would love to see this browser extension become something great and not turn into a red herring such as propornot, but first I would just like to see it be something I feel comfortable promoting others to use.

I'm well aware that this was kind of compiled together and that you're sifting through everything, so I'm not implying any dishonest intentions, just pointing out what seems to be the bias the project is looking to promote the awareness of. :)

joeblackwaslike commented Dec 3, 2016

I think much of this list belongs, however I find incredibly odd that sites such as:
guccifer2.wordpress.com, wikileaks.com, wikileaks.org are included. Wikileaks is not a source of bias, they publish what they can confirm. Their twitter can turn into a dumpster fire at times(no arguable), but that's a much different url so why not include that one instead? Including wikileaks is delegitimizing the kind of service that only wikileaks provides (mass data dumps in searchable form) just in time for a certain president elect to take full advantage of that. I don't see that as advantageous for our future. Additionally, delegitimitizing a private blog with only a few posts that is obviously such really hurts the credibility of the lists as existing to fight fake news.

It seems this should be a time where we need to put our political differences aside and allow for dissenting opinions and not silence people simply for embarrassing Hillary Clinton with the truth at an inconvenient time. Your expectation of privacy is almost nonexistent when you seek the highest public office in the nation so anyone doing so is fair game and always has been. Glenn Greenwald has had much to say about this, but among them one in particular of relevance. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/

The spirit of journalism has sought to expose the truth about powerful people and to kill it with a browser extension represents everything that can go wrong with technology. I would love to see this browser extension become something great and not turn into a red herring such as propornot, but first I would just like to see it be something I feel comfortable promoting others to use.

I'm well aware that this was kind of compiled together and that you're sifting through everything, so I'm not implying any dishonest intentions, just pointing out what seems to be the bias the project is looking to promote the awareness of. :)

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 3, 2016

Collaborator

@joeblackwaslike I'm an independent, muckraking journalist, and I obviously agree with you about the importance of the press as a check-and-balance on powerful institutions and the importance of leaks in achieving this goal. However, Wikileaks is not the only source through which one can leak info. It is merely the most irresponsible one, posting everything online without verifying its legitimacy nor accuracy and without redactions to protect the innocent from recrimination. Secure drops are offered by Propublica, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and many more. Flagging Wikileaks as unreliable is not the same as taking a stance against either investigative journalism nor whistleblowing.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 3, 2016

@joeblackwaslike I'm an independent, muckraking journalist, and I obviously agree with you about the importance of the press as a check-and-balance on powerful institutions and the importance of leaks in achieving this goal. However, Wikileaks is not the only source through which one can leak info. It is merely the most irresponsible one, posting everything online without verifying its legitimacy nor accuracy and without redactions to protect the innocent from recrimination. Secure drops are offered by Propublica, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and many more. Flagging Wikileaks as unreliable is not the same as taking a stance against either investigative journalism nor whistleblowing.

@BillyBender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyBender

BillyBender Dec 3, 2016

Oops, after posting. I'd noticed that you hadn't absorbed PON's list.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1an3ACDMKaJofo8PlJUKGMZ_jfQibNgVouMPTcv5bl_0/edit?usp=sharing

Seems like — at some point — you'll need to link back to the justification for your rankings. Take a look at how rationalwiki does it ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news
... a judgement, supported by examples. Note that their examples implicitly show the readers some of the "tells" of BS.

Ultimately, there would be many advantages if your judgements and justifications could be crowd-sourced ... like a more structured version of, say, Amazon's product reviews. (Interesting to note that PropOrNot seems to spring from the pages of Jeff Bezos' Washington Post. I see from their site that PropOrNot is developing some kind of app.)

Any crowd-sourced approach, of course, raises the possibility of fake reviews ... :) ... but you're going to have to deal with BSD's credibility/authority/honesty/even-handedness no matter how you do it. Just a couple days in, and you're already having to deal with challenges to your judgement. (Fwiw, I agree with you about Wikileaks).

BillyBender commented Dec 3, 2016

Oops, after posting. I'd noticed that you hadn't absorbed PON's list.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1an3ACDMKaJofo8PlJUKGMZ_jfQibNgVouMPTcv5bl_0/edit?usp=sharing

Seems like — at some point — you'll need to link back to the justification for your rankings. Take a look at how rationalwiki does it ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news
... a judgement, supported by examples. Note that their examples implicitly show the readers some of the "tells" of BS.

Ultimately, there would be many advantages if your judgements and justifications could be crowd-sourced ... like a more structured version of, say, Amazon's product reviews. (Interesting to note that PropOrNot seems to spring from the pages of Jeff Bezos' Washington Post. I see from their site that PropOrNot is developing some kind of app.)

Any crowd-sourced approach, of course, raises the possibility of fake reviews ... :) ... but you're going to have to deal with BSD's credibility/authority/honesty/even-handedness no matter how you do it. Just a couple days in, and you're already having to deal with challenges to your judgement. (Fwiw, I agree with you about Wikileaks).

@NewsThump

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@NewsThump

NewsThump Dec 3, 2016

Hi, you have correctly flagged our site (NewsThump.com) as fake news, but not yet included the reason. Is there any chance you could update the reason as Satire? I love the idea of this plug-in, and I have no problem at all with our site be flagged (as we genuinely don't want people believing what we write, we want them laughing with us, not angrily sharing something they've read on our pages). Snopes have classified us as satire twice, and we have a clear disclaimer on our site explaining everything is made up for humour purposes (you can see it here: http://newsthump.com/about-us/). I'm sure you'll get to all the unclassified entries eventually, I just thought I'd try and politely jump the queue - hope that's ok!

NewsThump commented Dec 3, 2016

Hi, you have correctly flagged our site (NewsThump.com) as fake news, but not yet included the reason. Is there any chance you could update the reason as Satire? I love the idea of this plug-in, and I have no problem at all with our site be flagged (as we genuinely don't want people believing what we write, we want them laughing with us, not angrily sharing something they've read on our pages). Snopes have classified us as satire twice, and we have a clear disclaimer on our site explaining everything is made up for humour purposes (you can see it here: http://newsthump.com/about-us/). I'm sure you'll get to all the unclassified entries eventually, I just thought I'd try and politely jump the queue - hope that's ok!

@BigMcLargeHuge

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BigMcLargeHuge

BigMcLargeHuge Dec 3, 2016

Contributor

Hi @NewsThump thanks for alerting us to this. We've been scrambling to get all these additions in place. I'll add that right now. It will take until the next release for the changes to carry over. Cheers brother (or sister)!

Contributor

BigMcLargeHuge commented Dec 3, 2016

Hi @NewsThump thanks for alerting us to this. We've been scrambling to get all these additions in place. I'll add that right now. It will take until the next release for the changes to carry over. Cheers brother (or sister)!

@NewsThump

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@NewsThump

NewsThump Dec 3, 2016

@BigMcLargeHuge - thank you. I can also help you identify a few other UK based satire sites if you'd like, but obviously happy to let you follow your own process. Just let me know...

NewsThump commented Dec 3, 2016

@BigMcLargeHuge - thank you. I can also help you identify a few other UK based satire sites if you'd like, but obviously happy to let you follow your own process. Just let me know...

@hachre

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hachre

hachre Dec 6, 2016

@danhklein: Alright, thanks for the info!

hachre commented Dec 6, 2016

@danhklein: Alright, thanks for the info!

@fcurella

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fcurella

fcurella Dec 6, 2016

A couple of Italian national newspapers are classified as 'satire', when they are actual legit newspapers. They might be biased, but I wouldn't categorize them as satire.

The specific cases are:

fcurella commented Dec 6, 2016

A couple of Italian national newspapers are classified as 'satire', when they are actual legit newspapers. They might be biased, but I wouldn't categorize them as satire.

The specific cases are:

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 6, 2016

Collaborator

thanks @fcurella — we are looking for qualified folks in europe to review the european dataset. i will remove those two entries based on the info you've provided.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 6, 2016

thanks @fcurella — we are looking for qualified folks in europe to review the european dataset. i will remove those two entries based on the info you've provided.

@Syberpathetic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Syberpathetic

Syberpathetic Dec 6, 2016

I would like to submit gazeteman.com to be filed under Clickbait and Junk Science. http://www.gazeteman.com/

Syberpathetic commented Dec 6, 2016

I would like to submit gazeteman.com to be filed under Clickbait and Junk Science. http://www.gazeteman.com/

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 6, 2016

Collaborator

@Syberpathetic definitely clickbait, thanks

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 6, 2016

@Syberpathetic definitely clickbait, thanks

@doggie015

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@doggie015

doggie015 Dec 6, 2016

@selfagency Still awaiting a response

doggie015 commented Dec 6, 2016

@selfagency Still awaiting a response

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 7, 2016

Collaborator

@doggie015 we'll be reviewing those links and your references as part of our process of classification. please be patient as it is taking some time.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 7, 2016

@doggie015 we'll be reviewing those links and your references as part of our process of classification. please be patient as it is taking some time.

@mschenk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mschenk

mschenk Dec 7, 2016

Can you remove http://thedailywtf.com from the list? It is just a humor site where programmers post IT horror stories. Doesn't have anything to do with politics, pseudoscience or extremism at all...

How the site got included in the list is probably a good story for The Daily WTF actually... :-)

mschenk commented Dec 7, 2016

Can you remove http://thedailywtf.com from the list? It is just a humor site where programmers post IT horror stories. Doesn't have anything to do with politics, pseudoscience or extremism at all...

How the site got included in the list is probably a good story for The Daily WTF actually... :-)

@raichiss

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@raichiss

raichiss Dec 7, 2016

Not sure why corbettreport.com made the list - I would love some elaboration on your criteria.

raichiss commented Dec 7, 2016

Not sure why corbettreport.com made the list - I would love some elaboration on your criteria.

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 7, 2016

Collaborator

@raichiss as stated on our website and readme, our initial dataset was compiled from existing lists of questionable news sources, is imperfect, and is currently under review. we are planning to remove sometime today all sites that have not yet been reviewed. however, a quick glance at corbettreport.com reveals that he is a 9/11 truther, which is justification for listing him under conspiracy theory.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 7, 2016

@raichiss as stated on our website and readme, our initial dataset was compiled from existing lists of questionable news sources, is imperfect, and is currently under review. we are planning to remove sometime today all sites that have not yet been reviewed. however, a quick glance at corbettreport.com reveals that he is a 9/11 truther, which is justification for listing him under conspiracy theory.

@AvangionQ

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AvangionQ

AvangionQ commented Dec 8, 2016

Please check this site ... http://www.palmerreport.com

@HolmesInOz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@HolmesInOz

HolmesInOz Dec 9, 2016

please remove theage.com.au it's mainstream news, not even owned by murdoch

or alternatively you could add the murdoch papers

thedailytelegraph.com.au
theaustralian.com.au

HolmesInOz commented Dec 9, 2016

please remove theage.com.au it's mainstream news, not even owned by murdoch

or alternatively you could add the murdoch papers

thedailytelegraph.com.au
theaustralian.com.au

@BigMcLargeHuge

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BigMcLargeHuge

BigMcLargeHuge Dec 9, 2016

Contributor

@HolmesInOz theage.com.au has been removed from our recently revised list of sources. Should be merged with PR #117

Contributor

BigMcLargeHuge commented Dec 9, 2016

@HolmesInOz theage.com.au has been removed from our recently revised list of sources. Should be merged with PR #117

@anddman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@anddman

anddman Dec 9, 2016

http://dietagespresse.com/
"dietagespresse.com": {"language": "de", "type": "satire", "notes": ""},
Official disclaimer: "Die Tagespresse ist eine österreichische Satirezeitung. Alle Artikel sind frei erfunden."
Google translation: "The daily press is an Austrian satire newspaper. All articles are fictitious."

https://www.unzensuriert.at/
"unzensuriert.at": {"language": "de", "type": "bias", "notes": ""},
Strong bias toward right-wing party FPÖ of Austria. German Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unzensuriert.at) goes into more detail. very slightly corrected Google translation can be found here: http://pastebin.com/n5VW43qU

anddman commented Dec 9, 2016

http://dietagespresse.com/
"dietagespresse.com": {"language": "de", "type": "satire", "notes": ""},
Official disclaimer: "Die Tagespresse ist eine österreichische Satirezeitung. Alle Artikel sind frei erfunden."
Google translation: "The daily press is an Austrian satire newspaper. All articles are fictitious."

https://www.unzensuriert.at/
"unzensuriert.at": {"language": "de", "type": "bias", "notes": ""},
Strong bias toward right-wing party FPÖ of Austria. German Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unzensuriert.at) goes into more detail. very slightly corrected Google translation can be found here: http://pastebin.com/n5VW43qU

@Sputnikian

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Sputnikian

Sputnikian Dec 10, 2016

http://www.bayonpearnik.com/
fake news, rumor mill, conspiracy theory, extreme bias

Sputnikian commented Dec 10, 2016

http://www.bayonpearnik.com/
fake news, rumor mill, conspiracy theory, extreme bias

@cdome
@peppersgc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@peppersgc

peppersgc Dec 14, 2016

https://www.wikileaks.org/ - Is NOT a news site. It releases verified information gathered in the public interests. The only information site in history that throughout its entire existence (10 years) has never had to retract disseminated information for being proven false.

http://drudgereport.com/ - A news aggregate site. Almost everything listed there are links to other sites. If any story linked is proven to be false, it is quickly removed and denounced as fake. The very definition of a good news site.

peppersgc commented Dec 14, 2016

https://www.wikileaks.org/ - Is NOT a news site. It releases verified information gathered in the public interests. The only information site in history that throughout its entire existence (10 years) has never had to retract disseminated information for being proven false.

http://drudgereport.com/ - A news aggregate site. Almost everything listed there are links to other sites. If any story linked is proven to be false, it is quickly removed and denounced as fake. The very definition of a good news site.

@peppersgc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@peppersgc

peppersgc Dec 14, 2016

Lies embedded in stories also constitute heavily biased fake news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html

peppersgc commented Dec 14, 2016

Lies embedded in stories also constitute heavily biased fake news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html

@peppersgc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@peppersgc

peppersgc commented Dec 14, 2016

Lies embedded in stories also constitute heavily biased fake news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-booed-hamilton_us_582fbe42e4b030997bbf9782?

@OlivierLabbe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@OlivierLabbe

OlivierLabbe Dec 14, 2016

Salon.com :: Extreme Bias
HuffingtonPost.com :: Clickbait
Buzzfeed.com :: Clickbait

OlivierLabbe commented Dec 14, 2016

Salon.com :: Extreme Bias
HuffingtonPost.com :: Clickbait
Buzzfeed.com :: Clickbait

@sleslie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sleslie

sleslie Dec 14, 2016

This page (http://fusion.net/story/375283/belle-fourche-pipeline-spill-belfield-north-dakota/?utm_source=fusiondaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12122016) was flagged for "Satire." There is definitely nothing satirical about this story. I can't speak to the site as a whole, but if important unbiased stories like this are getting flagged simply because of stories on another part of the domain, it does throw some of the plugins overall logic into question.

sleslie commented Dec 14, 2016

This page (http://fusion.net/story/375283/belle-fourche-pipeline-spill-belfield-north-dakota/?utm_source=fusiondaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12122016) was flagged for "Satire." There is definitely nothing satirical about this story. I can't speak to the site as a whole, but if important unbiased stories like this are getting flagged simply because of stories on another part of the domain, it does throw some of the plugins overall logic into question.

@MakePublic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MakePublic

MakePublic Dec 14, 2016

MakePublic commented Dec 14, 2016

@sleslie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sleslie

sleslie Dec 14, 2016

So it's not a site I frequent a lot but I just took some time to go through it. It looks to me to be reporting factual stories in a non-hyperbolic or biased way. It certainly is curated to report stories of interest to "progressives" but if you're flagging sites simply for having a target audience, I'm not sure what to say. There is no evidence at all that this site is either "satire" or "fake news" and indeed I'd ask anyone making that claim to point me to specific stories as evidence.

N.B. I have ZERO relation to this site, and don't have a dog in this fight other than the fact that I work supporting public libraries and so am keenly interested in literacy and education, and do see people's apparent ability to detect "fake news" as troubling. I submitted this because I came across what I felt was an inappropriate flagging and was interested to learn about the process through which the plugins flagging rules are creted and maintained. Cheers, Scott

sleslie commented Dec 14, 2016

So it's not a site I frequent a lot but I just took some time to go through it. It looks to me to be reporting factual stories in a non-hyperbolic or biased way. It certainly is curated to report stories of interest to "progressives" but if you're flagging sites simply for having a target audience, I'm not sure what to say. There is no evidence at all that this site is either "satire" or "fake news" and indeed I'd ask anyone making that claim to point me to specific stories as evidence.

N.B. I have ZERO relation to this site, and don't have a dog in this fight other than the fact that I work supporting public libraries and so am keenly interested in literacy and education, and do see people's apparent ability to detect "fake news" as troubling. I submitted this because I came across what I felt was an inappropriate flagging and was interested to learn about the process through which the plugins flagging rules are creted and maintained. Cheers, Scott

@tomlutzenberger

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomlutzenberger

tomlutzenberger Dec 14, 2016

Contributor

Announcement

The handling and maintenance of site data is a very large task that is separate from developing code.

For this purpose, a work-group has been founded where experts like professors and librarians may review the submitted sources in a neutral and nonbiased way using their professional experience. That group is named Open Sources and is accepting volunteers at this time.

When those sites get added, B.S. Detector will load them through an API and use them in the browser extension(s).

Please submit your links to OpenSources.co.

Contributor

tomlutzenberger commented Dec 14, 2016

Announcement

The handling and maintenance of site data is a very large task that is separate from developing code.

For this purpose, a work-group has been founded where experts like professors and librarians may review the submitted sources in a neutral and nonbiased way using their professional experience. That group is named Open Sources and is accepting volunteers at this time.

When those sites get added, B.S. Detector will load them through an API and use them in the browser extension(s).

Please submit your links to OpenSources.co.

@bs-detector bs-detector locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 14, 2016

@selfagency

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selfagency

selfagency Dec 15, 2016

Collaborator

B.S. Detector is no longer responsible for maintaining the dataset powering our flagging engine. To suggest or dispute entries, file an issue with OpenSources.

Collaborator

selfagency commented Dec 15, 2016

B.S. Detector is no longer responsible for maintaining the dataset powering our flagging engine. To suggest or dispute entries, file an issue with OpenSources.

@selfagency selfagency closed this Dec 15, 2016

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.