Talk:Fake news

Donald Trump and Fake News

I would firstly like to establish that I do not agree with Donald Trump on almost all accounts. However, if Wikipedia truly is to maintain its 'non-biased' appearance, then something has to be done about the section detailing Trump in this article. The section seems to be a means of detailing fake news in recent American (USA) history, but it is focused entirely on the former president. Surely other significant US politicians have spread false information too?

Again, I do not agree with Donald Trump almost all of the time, but this seems to me to be stretching the 'non-biased' foundation that Wikipedia is built on. Owco (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Our section is discussing his misuse of the term. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly true that most US politicians exaggerate the truth etc. That is called political spin. But Donald Trump has gone further than most, and that is worth a separate section on Trump. Note that Trump is also mentioned in several other sections of Fake News as well, and I feel that all or most of these comments on Trump could gradually be moved to this special section.

Specifically, here we are interested in documenting his actions to redefine the term "fake news" as any news unfavourable to himself.

Another purpose of the Trump section is to document the extraordinary amount of fake news produced by Trump, as aptly done by the Washington Post database. Then the question becomes: should we try to explain why Trump done this? Several sources have identified him as a narcissist, but should we document this here, or rather in the page "Veracity of Statements of Donald Trump"? User: Willbb234 has recently deleted two paragraphs of mine discussing Trump and narcissism, which I probably could re-word better. Kookaburra17 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, Trump's (mis)use and popularization the term warrants mention, but the current section goes off on a lengthy tangent to push the view that the orange man is actually the liar, and therefore anything he calls fake news is in fact impeccable journalism. 172.58.160.81 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

push the view that the orange man is actually the liar Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and they all agree that he is. That is not a "view", it is a fact.

and therefore anything he calls fake news is in fact impeccable journalism I could not find that in the section. It seems to be your own conclusion. (Of course, it is false.) Trump does not care if what he says is true, only if it serves his own interests. For him, truth is not a meaningful concept. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

the 'non-biased' foundation that Wikipedia is built on You got it wrong. Wikipedia has a bias towards what reliable sources say. That excludes that loser and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minzhe Qi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Xinyi Zhu, YasmineSaad, Mroge062.

— Assignment last updated by YasmineSaad (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Include new insights from research in section "Defining fake news"

I hereby suggest to insert the following text block under the heading "Defining fake news":

"Beisecker, Schlereth, and Hein (2023) summarize the use of the term fake news in the Information Systems discipline. Here, fake news is mostly defined as fabricated content that intends to manipulate or shape opinions. The studies use a binary operationalization of fake news (either true or false) based on the mere availability of facts. The authors demonstrate that this definition may be too narrow and that the perception of information as fake news is also influenced by the use of a manipulating argumentation technique. They study in particular fallacies, a commonly employed subset of deceptive rhetorical devices. A major challenge here is that not every fallacy is equally detectable (Beisecker, Schlereth, & Hein, 2023)."

It should be inserted directly following this section of the article: "Media scholar Nolan Higdon has defined fake news as "false or misleading content presented as news and communicated in formats spanning spoken, written, printed, electronic, and digital communication. Higdon has argued that the definition of fake news has been applied too narrowly to select mediums and political ideologies. Fake news also refers to stories that are fabricated that obtain little to no verifiable facts. Even more broadly, some people, most notably former United States President Donald Trump, have broadened the meaning of "fake news" to include all news that was negative about their personal beliefs and actions."

The cited source is a scientific article published in the European Journal of Information Systems (VHB: A, ERIM: P). As such, it has undergone a rigorous review process preceding publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Beisecker (talk • contribs)

@Sven Beisecker: Since the article/study is not available freely online, I am not able to read it to verify the content you wish to be added. Since you are using a username which matches the primary author, maybe you can email me a copy and I will take a look at your request. Question: Why did you select the date "2023" as the publication date in your proposed text when the date in the abstract seems to be 2022? Grorp (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Grorp Thank you for your quick reply! I have sent you access to the article via e-mail, as requested. I hope it was well received. Regarding the publication date: The study has as yet appeared online first, but was not assigned an issue and volume number yet. We foresee this being the case in 2023, which is why I used this date for the citation. Sven Beisecker (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, hi Sven Beisecker! Please reply here (and ping me) if you are still available to share the article; I am closing this request pending source verification. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Actualcpscm, I am still awaiting response from @Grorp after sending him access to the article. I can also send it to you if you would like to verify the source instead of @Grorp. If you prefer that, please let me know your e-mail and I will share the article with you. Sven Beisecker (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sven Beisecker That would be much appreciated, you can email me here. Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: As Sven Beisecker told me by email one can download it from researchgate, which I presume is a functionally identical copy to the one at Taylor & Francis (which he provided a link to, but which would use up one count of the available free copies, so I didn't download from there). Grorp (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sven Beisecker and Actualcpscm: After reading some of the publication (mostly the Discussion and Conclusions section, pages 37-40), I see that your research was more about identifying when people perceive something as fake news. The paper starts with its own definition of fake news, which is then researched. And per the diagram (Fig 1, page 16) it looks like you were focused on a small subset of all fake news -- that subset which intersects with fallacies and rhetorical devices. Also, the study was based on an online survey of less than 500 German participants only. For these reasons, I think the study is of limited use as a citation under the section "Defining fake news" because it is a self-definition of 'fake news' rather than a researched or broadly-used form of 'fake news'. Grorp (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Grorp Sven Beisecker

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you have provided does not meet some of the guidelines; it is not yet published, it is unclear where it stands in the peer-review process, and it could be considered an isolated study until the scientific community reacts to it. The technical limitations brough up by Grorp are also quite relevant. Remember that Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of the academic community. Where there is no single consensus, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

I will close this request pending peer review, publication, and reception in the field of the source in question. Please ping me if the situation changes. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Actualcpscm,

unfortunately, I do not understand your conclusion here. As I have written in my initial request, the article is already accepted for publication and has been published online in the European Journal of Information Systems, one of the most reputable journals in this discipline (please consult official VHB and ERIM rankings). That means it has undergone a rigorous review process, which is fully completed at this point, unlike what your comment insinuates. It is common practice that an article appears online first and thereafter in the printed version. I therefore strongly ask you to reconsider and not close the request.

As to @Grorp's concerns, I would like to point out that extant definitions of fake news are also derived from people's perceptions. The referred-to Fig 1 is illustrative in nature, as discussed in the paper, and does not convey the actual percentage overlap between fake news and fallacies. Fallacies do play a bigger role, as there are over 200 different fallacies documented. Sven Beisecker (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done:

I'm sorry, I must have confused this with something else I was working on. It is correct that it was published, and I apologise for the mistake. However, a key point continues to stand: This is a Wikipedia: Fringe theory. The abstract itself mentions this indirectly: "So far, fake news has been mostly associated with fabricated content that intends to manipulate or shape opinions", a perception that the authors explicitly set out to change. I will add a mention of this research, but your original proposal is a bit too long (Wikipedia: Undue weight) and technical. The weight given to this research in the article should reflect its place in the academic field, and it does not seem to have received much attention (yet). Sorry again for the confusion, I messed that up!

(On an informal side note, I personally think that this is a really interesting perspective on the issue of fake news; the psychology of why and how false or misleading information spreads so rapidly is certainly a relevant field of research that can make for great additions to this article, when properly sourced.) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"the psychology of why and how false or misleading information spreads so rapidly" I haven't read the new research, but I would expect confirmation bias to play a role. The new "information" is added to pre-existing biases. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Actualcpscm for the correction! I am looking forward to seeing a shorter version of the proposed abstract featured in the Wikipedia article. Please let me know once this is integrated. Afterwards, we can gladly close this request. Thanks again for taking the time to consider our contribution! Sven Beisecker (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It has already been implemented, and the request has already been marked as answered.

"Media scholar Nolan Higdon has defined fake news as "false or misleading content presented as news and communicated in formats spanning spoken, written, printed, electronic, and digital communication. Higdon has argued that the definition of fake news has been applied too narrowly to select mediums and political ideologies. While most definitions focus strictly on content accuracy and format, current research indicates that the rhetorical structure of the content might play a significant role in the perception of fake news." Actualcpscm (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the compound „fake news“ an oxymoron?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

News is defined as „newly received information“. (New) information is verified by the recipient as to whether it is true (fact) or false, not whether it is fake. A person who knowingly spreads untruths is a liar. The compound „fake news“ makes no sense and should hence be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A200:0:80D:78F5:9A80:807:F8D1 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced as to the use of the term. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a reason for deletion. A seahorse is not a horse either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

„Horse“ and „seahorse“ refer to distinct entities (animals). „Fake“ is an adjective preceding a noun with a fixed use/ definition. Compounding with other random and nonsensical adjectives - e.g. „blue news“ - surely would not merit a re-defining entry in a dictionary either. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And News and fake news refer to different things,

News

news

/njuːz/

noun

newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.

a broadcast or published report of news.

Fake News

noun

UK /ˌfeɪk ˈnjuːz/ US /ˌfeɪk ˈnuːz/

false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke:

Differnt dictionary entries. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be make „fake news“ redirect to „disinformation“, as this is strongly implied in the current Wikipedia article. I do not agree it is „spread […] as a joke“ as the current definition implies. What is spread as a joke is a joke. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contact the Oxford English dictionary and tell them they are wrong. I also suggest you read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the original poster, I agree to this thread to be deleted. 2A00:A200:0:81E:7118:FAFE:8F0A:D077 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.