Talk:Fake news in the Philippines

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Journalism Low‑importance Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Material from List of fake news websites was split to Fake news in the Philippines on 13 June 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:List of fake news websites.

Material from Fake news was split to Fake news in the Philippines on 13 June 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Fake news.

Some of the listed fake news websites here are actually satire websites. We also need a methodology and the original research documentation on how the cited sources (NUJP/CBCP) came up with their list. Some other websites labelled here as fake news are posting content that criticizes the Catholic Church which could be the reason CBCP (Catholic Bishops group) listed them as "fake news". This article lacks scientific and statistical credentials. RhoNuPsiDelta (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RhoNuPsiDelta: actually the list is a branch off from List of fake news websites. If you wish to delete this, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please list the websites that are clearly satire. -Object404 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see no reason to delete this article as a whole, it's clearly a notable topic. The table is probably a little bit messy though. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2: I second that motion that wee keep this article. This is a relevant issue. We need facts. No discouraging here please. --JCD ^(Talk) 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be deleted. It is not based in fact at all, merely someone's opinion. The topic simply cannot be written in an encyclopedic style. You may be able to discuss fake news in general but not cite specific examples, as this article does. They are valueless, except as examples of fake news themselves.--Murky Falls (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False. Examples of fake news/sites are of great value to disinformation researchers. -Object404 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I feel that the article is valuable and that we need to keep it. Some concepts could even be introduced or expanded. For example the article could discuss the possible impact on society and public discourse, etc. -Crisantom (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article is of important note, Fake News being especially rampant in the Philippines. If you have issues with it, then improve it Azuresky Voight, don't delete it. -Object404 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of this article is about attributing fake news to politics (particularly to the government) and is clouded with a lot of sections that can just be compiled into a section about fake news regarding politics. That too is problematic because there is enough data to prove that fake news is not a monopoly of the government as Opposition is also guilty.

I am requesting the creator of this article to rewrite it and create sections categorizing fake news into

If no response received or no revision made until September 2021 I'll take it as a queue to start rewriting the entire article. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable coverage is on political disinformation, and a significant portion, by the Philippine government. Please cite reliable sources on disinformation by the opposition. -Object404 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree. This article should cover misinformation and fake news of all sectors in the philippines, not just politics. Also, there's some instances of the opposition, or at least opposition-aligned persons (1,2, 3) spreading misinformation, yet the article also fails to mention these. Itsquietuptown t • c 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added section re Fake news related to Health issues (covid-19). I think it is a much bigger issue than that of politics related fake news. And it has a wider coverage in news outlets compared to the very few biased citations that points all fingers at duterte for all the fake news (absurdly implying that fake news has not existed in the country before 2016(!)(?)). These editorialized statements have also been redundant across sections i.e. what is written in history section is also in "structure" section which is also in reaction section. That is very problematic. And despite multiple citations all of such citations refer to the singular voice of a certain Professor Ong. And the paper has not been peer-reviewed to be considered a reliable academic material.

Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added section re Fake news related to Health issues (covid-19). I think it is a much bigger issue than that of politics related fake news. And it has a wider coverage in news outlets compared to the very few biased citations that points all fingers at duterte for all the fake news (absurdly implying that fake news has not existed in the country before 2016(!)(?)). These editorialized statements have also been redundant across sections i.e. what is written in history section is also in "structure" section which is also in reaction section. That is very problematic. And despite multiple citations all of such citations refer to the singular voice of a certain Professor Ong. And the paper has not been peer-reviewed to be considered a reliable academic material.

Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list is Wikipedia:Listcruft containing nonsensical items, links that are purportedly "deleted" but shows no trace of existence in the first place, and if it is deleted why list it? The list is useless as an encyclopedia section. If a link has been used to spread fake news it should have been significantly visited and if that is the case the links would have left traces in SERP pages. Which they did not. The citation used is also unreliable and questionable. What gave a religious organization the authority which websites are fake news or not? What is their basis or evidence for the items in the list? There have been protests against several links added to it (satire websites and political blogs are included in the list indiscriminately). The list also confuses itself and the reader which ones are actually fake news websites and which ones are echo chambers, duterte support websites, fan sites for duterte, cybersquatting domains, phishing websites, spoof websites and whatnot. These things are tangential but are not identical to each other. And listing each of them in a single unverifiable list is a misinformation by itself. Editors who insist on bringing back the list should provide more citation beyond the questionable one, should provide proof that they understand the difference between a fake news website, a satire news site, a fan site, a cybersquatted domain, a spoof, and phishing websites. As a bottomline: 1. List used citation that are unreliable, and in turn cited a source that is non-authority. 2. List contains dubious, irrelevant, or non-existent items (a.k.a. listcruft and hoax) 3. List is confusing fake news websites with other kinds of website just to come up with a long list. 4. List is too long and too trivial.

Azuresky Voight (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list of fake news sites is a researched historical list that is currently being used by disinformation researchers in the Philippines. Please do not remove it again. -Object404 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which researchers use it? Provide citation. Also the list looks like a synthesis and original research (yours?). And as stated in the raised issues it is trivial, listcruft, and has a disputed citation. Why insist on adding it? Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited the list and is indeed a synthesis. The notes added in the table are also not present in the citations given, which justifies that the table is an original research. You may keep the ones listed by Vera files, without the synthesis notes, on the section about fake news related to politics. But the ones that cite CBCP or uses citations referencing CBCP are disputable and have proven to be inaccurate for including personal blogs and satire. How would that be useful for researchers? Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]