User:Mu301/Sources

This rough draft is a work in progress. The clunky working title is:
Advice on Assessing and Categorizing Sources That Might Lack Credibility.

This page is based on a document titled False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical "News" Sources[1] that was compiled by Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College. The original work, and later revisions, contains: 1) Tips for analyzing news sources and websites, 2) a list of descriptive labels for categorizing these sources, 3) and a working list that classified sites. It came to the attention of Wikipedians after it was widely circulated in the Internet during the surge of discussions about fake news.

This advice on assessing the credibility of sites may be of interest to contributors at Wikipedia. The categorization and labeling system is perhaps less useful but is included for reference. It could, for example, be used as a shorthand vocabulary for discussing potentially problematic sources. Zimdars herself noted that the list of sites portion of the document was merely a guideline for her students and never intended to be comprehensive, authoritative, or widely published. For these reasons the list was excluded. Wikipedia itself has the articles: List of fake news websites and List of satirical news websites.

The content here is not intended to form the basis of a Wikipedia policy or guideline. These suggestions are merely offered as examples of how to critically think about and evaluate sources. It provides a reference point for discussions about sites that may be lacking in credibility.

False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical “News” Sources

The content below is based on the original Zimdars document, but some text has been modified. It will likely be necessary to update and expand this advice periodically.

Tips for analyzing news sources

• Avoid websites that end in “lo” (for example Newslo, which is now found at Politicops.com.) These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).

• Watch out for common news websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources. (Remember, .co is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) assigned to Colombia!)

• Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

• Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.

• Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

• Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).

• Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.

• Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.

• If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue. Thanks to Ed Brayton for this tip!

• If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.

• It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Sources such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.

• For more tips on analyzing the credibility and reliability of sources, please check out School Library Journal (they also provide an extensive list of media literacy resources), the Digital Resource Center, Media Literacy Now, and the News Literacy Project. See also: Fake news and the spread of misinformation: A research roundup.

Steps for analyzing websites:

• Title/Domain Analysis. If words like “.wordpress” or “blogger” are in the domain that usually signifies it’s a personal blog rather than a news source. If slight variations of well known websites appear, such as “.com.co,” this is usually a sign that the website is fake version of a source. However, remember that foreign reputable news organizations may have these country-specific domains.
• About Us Analysis. Search every title/domain name/anyone listed in the “About Us” section to see if anyone has previously reported on the website (snopes, hoax-slayer, politifact, factcheck.org, etc.) or whether it has a wikipedia page or something similar detailing its background. This is useful for identifying and correctly interpreting lesser known and/or new websites that may be on the up-and-up, such as satirical sources or websites that are explicit about their political orientation.
  Then look for information about the credentials and backgrounds of affiliated writers (is it a content mill or do they pay their writers?), editors, publishers, and domain owners (who.is etc.). It’s also useful to see if the website has a “Legal” or “Disclaimer” section. Many satirical websites disclose this information in those sections.
  A total lack of About Us, Contact Us, or any other type of identifying information may mean that the website is not a legitimate source of information.
• Source Analysis. Does the website mention/link to a study or source? Look up the source/study. Do you think it’s being accurately reflected and reported? Are officials being cited? Can you confirm their quotes elsewhere? Some media literacy and critical scholars call this triangulation: Verify details, facts, quotes, etc. with multiple sources.
• Writing Style Analysis. Does the website follow AP Style Guide or another style guide? Typically, lack of style guide may indicate an overall lack of editing or fact-checking process. Does it frequently use ALL CAPS in headlines and/or body text? Does the headline or body of the text use words like WOW!, SLAUGHTER!, DESTROY!? This stylistic practice and these types of hyperbolic word choices are often used to create emotional responses with readers that is avoided in more traditional styles of journalism.
• Aesthetic Analysis. Like the style-guide, many fake and questionable news sites utilize very bad design. Usually this means screens are cluttered with text and heavy-handed photoshopping or born digital images.
• Social Media Analysis. Look up the website on Facebook. Do the headlines and posts rely on sensational or provocative language --aka clickbait-- in order to attract attention and encourage likes, clickthroughs, and shares? Do the headlines and social media descriptions match or accurately reflect the content of the linked article? (this step isn’t particularly good at helping us find fake news, but it can help us identify other misleading news sources)

By considering all of these areas of information we can determine which category or categories a website may occupy, although all categorizations are by necessity open to discussion and revision.

News source or website categorization:

Note: These categories were intended for use in a list compiled at opensource.co which is no longer available.

• Fake News: Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or grossly distort actual news reports.

• Satire: Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events.

• ‘Extreme’ Bias : Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.

• Conspiracy: Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories. Ex: 9/11 conspiracies, chem-trails, lizard people in the sewer systems, birther rumors, flat earth ‘theory,’ fluoride as mind control, vaccines as mind control etc.

• Rumor Mill: Sources that traffic in rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.

• State News: Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.

• Junk Science: Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims.

• Hate News: Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.

• Clickbait: Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, OR questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images. These sources may also use sensational language to generate interest, clickthroughs, and shares, but their content is typically verifiable.

• Proceed With Caution: Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification or to be read in conjunction with other sources.

• Political†: Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.

• Credible†: Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism (Remember: even credible sources sometimes rely on clickbait-style headlines or occasionally make mistakes. No news organization is perfect, which is why a healthy news diet consists of multiple sources of information).

• Unknown: Sources that have not yet been analyzed.

† The credibility and degree of politicization (of information and of organizations) exists on a continuum.