Posted on 02/18/2021 3:05:47 PM PST by DFG
...editors with anonymous tags or usernames discussed whether or not the conservative satire site could “legally be considered ‘satire’?”
++++++++++
There’s a law that defines satire, or are Wiki editors a law into themselves? If people don’t have the smarts or sense of humor to get satire, well, c’est la vie. It’s still a free country. If they are concerned about “disinformation”, they should be going after the MSM. They won’t, because that is the kind of disinformation that is useful to them.
Just this should give the Bee at least a half a dozen new stories.
Whoever said it was right: Leftists are born without a funny bone.
Somehow, I don’t think the Wikipedia editors would consider jokes about Joek filling his adult diapers or Willie Brown dressing Kammy Harris in whiteface for Halloweenie very funny...
Meanwhile we are back to an era where “because he’s a Republican “ is considered a punchline.
ORANGE MAN BAD!
For 20 years I’ve seen Leftists share Onion articles as fact, especially when a headline references some Christian against masturbation.
Perfect, mocking themselves.
Wow. Liberals have no sense of humor.
Wikipedia is such a joke that even colleges will flunk a paper if wiki is used as a reference.
Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S.
There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable
BBC is considered generally reliable
Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts.
Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics.
Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.
There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider.
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States.
China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information.
Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change.
There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.
The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise.
The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news.
The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available.
The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited,
There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable.
Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable.
The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong,
Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.
Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight
Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.
WP:FORBESCON Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.
There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions.
In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine.
The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable.
There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements,
The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline
Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.
A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution.
HuffPost contributors. Until 2018, the US edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality.
The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information.
Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.
There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news.
The Jewish Virtual Library is a partisan source which sometimes cites Wikipedia and it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section.
Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable.
LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.
Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable.
There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published.
There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting.
Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions
There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed.
There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces.
There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable.
The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable.
There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable.
There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed.
There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news.
There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting.
There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable.
There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage.
Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines.
There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics,
Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable.
There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism.
here is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact.
In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the Daily Mail.
There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used.
Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source.
PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source.
There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.
There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue.
Religion News Service is considered generally reliable. Use RNS with caution to verify contentious claims.
Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable.
There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable.
There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
Scientific American is considered generally reliable for popular science content.
Slate is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed.
Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable.
The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.
The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject.
There is consensus that Time is generally reliable
As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT.
There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable.
There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles.
Vox is considered generally reliable
Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news.
There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims.
Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable.
There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source.
The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such.
In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that The Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether The Western Journal should be deprecated.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources.
WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Worldometer is a self-published source and editors have questioned its accuracy and methodology. It is disallowed by WikiProject COVID-19 as a source for statistics on the COVID-19 pandemic and is considered generally unreliable for other topics.
Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.
I assume they are labeling SNL as left wing disinfo...
I was nearly banned for protesting against Wikipedia’s treatment of Parler.com, also.
But I have a plan.
Want to here about it?
LOL it’s been a while since I’ve caught somebody being fooled by an Onion article.
The Party is not to be criticized or mocked!
Good satire hits the target right between the eyes, which is why the wiki editor has such a headache and no sense of humor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.