Talk:Disclose.tv

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the fake news website Disclose.tv plagiarized many of its articles when it relaunched in September 2021? Source: Logically
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my third DYK nomination.

Created by Isi96 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC).

• I think this looks good to go. New and long enough, properly referenced, no evidence of copyvio according to Earwig (only content that's flagged out is in quotes), hook is interesting (although you'd probably want to let on straight away in the hook that disclose.tv is a fake news site), and no QPQ necessary. Nice work. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, I'll update the hook as suggested. Isi96 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

All the information on this page comes from one source: “Logically”

We need more sources before we can publish the information, the current page seems more like an advert for Logically than a factual description of Discord.tv 92.237.85.13 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That is 100% correct. Some has to assume that this page was a paid for job by Logically, which is known for partisan "fact-checking" and for "fact-checking" as a service. Therealhacker (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Page is created, most content relies on only 2 sources and within a few days a "fact" from the page is put on the home page while this page gets protected just in case someone tries to add different sources and improve it

Definitely seems like a normal thing that happens and not a target operation aimed at discrediting Disclose.tv for things they did over a decade ago and for recent issues of plagiarism for which they apologized. 87.8.35.175 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No sources to label the website a fake news source

The references are biased. There are no articles that clearly display an article written by the website that could be labeled as misleading. Very sad to see this attempt on misclassify a website that behaves in the same manner as, for instance, The Spectator Index. Wikisempra (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisempra the article relies on old sources describing the old incarnation of disclose.tv as an ufo conspiracy forum, which no longer exists. For the new incarnation it relies solely on two sources which as you pointed out only label it as fake news without making specific examples other than hyperbolic headlines.

This to me feels like a clear targeted attempt to discredit disclose.tv by inaccurately bundling together the old and new incarnation of the website. It is also incredibly unusual for a very recently created page to be nominated for a "did you know" spot in the homepage.

It's rather comical (yet disturbing) that a page about a website allegedly peddling conspiracy theories is so full of suspicious activity.

The whole page definitely needs a rework and better sources and i would argue the topic is not notable enough (and lacks enough sourcing) so it might be better to delete the page entirely. However if other better more neutral sources talking about disclose.tv are found i have nothing against it being kept. But in its current incarnation this page is frankly garbage 87.8.35.175 (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, the irony in a site like Wikipedia, known globally for being grossly unreliable, a peddler of fake news and complicit in spreading misinformation, labelling another website grossly unreliable, a peddler of fake news, and complicit in spreading misinformation. Hilarious. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:9177:8EB5:A534:66FE (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well source better articles instead of what was linked Caspian Delta (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The whole page is biased and the sources are weak, based on shady opinion pieces. Therealhacker (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge -> Zerohedhe has been publishing dissinformation, missinformation, conspiracy theorists for a long time yet they call it "far right libertarian". So, Zerohedge who even posted articles talking about The Great Awakening and Trump saving the world is "far right libertarian" but Disclosetv is fake news, conspiracy theorist and far right even though: Currrently has not published anything in regards to ufos, they do not pick a side in politics (unlike Zerohedge who is absolutely pro russian pro chinese) and in regards to "dissinformation" arguing that they published two or 3 articles with wrong data even though they have write thousands of them seems to be simply a slander.

According to this wikipedia article a vast ammount of digital newspapers and mainstream communication channels spreads dissiformation and fake news.

It is obvious this article neeeds a revision. Zerohedge has done way worse things but still the article treats them with way too much respect. 176.84.229.208 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

Remove the references to this page been a fake news website. This is defamation of character PoliticsWatch14 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked and is publishing misinformation PoliticsWatch14 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This looks to be well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Explain how the website is know for posting misinformation your words are no better then mine

Also Please stop using the word "misinformation" its so cringe internet lies aren't that interesting, call it what it is Caspian Delta (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@PoliticsWatch14 and @Caspian Delta Various reputable sources say that this news site frequently publishes incorrect facts and news. There is no reliable source that says disclose.tv is a reliable news source. Wikipedia just compiles what those sources say. If you are able to find reliable sources that says otherwise, the article will reflect its current sources. Roostery123 (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roostery123 "We don't do thinking here, we just blindly repeat what The Sources™ say"

It has been pointed out that the entire page relies on only Logically's opinion and sources who repeat Logically's conclusion. This is a pretty open and shut case of one sided reporting. 2804:14D:AE83:4462:55C4:E06B:6D1E:16B7 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there definitely needs better sources than just small quotes from news articles but I'm pretty sure Politfacts is independent from Logically. In your opinion, what is the best course of action? Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why has a single source template been added? The article doesn't rely solely on one source.

In any case, I've expanded it a bit with additional sources. Isi96 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Without Attribution"

What is the basis for stating that the website posts headlines/news/information without attribution? The only source seems to be referring to the site's Twitter account, not the website itself. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 19:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone clarified that sentence now. Roost^T_C(ping me!) 01:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase or remove "fake" as of the 2021 relaunch

Based on the website now, it simply seems like a news aggregator with an obvious right shift, and no longer provides independent news or offers a forum for communication. I suggest removing the adjective fake but leaving the right lean Rosebloomfield (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Attribution as "fake news"

So, I took the effort and went through all sources calling Disclose.tv a "fake news" website currently in the article, and tried to look for additional sourcing.

- article by Allcott, Gentzkow and Yu: Disclose.tv is mentioned in one table that also includes websites such as Daily Express as "fake news". The article also is from 2019, before their relaunch

- article by Guarino, Pierri, Di Giovanni and Celestini: the article is from early 2021, so again before their relaunch which was in September of that year.

- Politifact: article from 2017

- US News: article from 2016 - which also includes The Onion in their list of fake news websites of all things

- Audacy: cites the US News article

- Snopes: two articles on incidents from pre-2021 - both long before their relaunch. The one after their relaunch isn't a good source to brandh Discord.tv as fake news, as it both points out Disclose.tv citing their source and correcting themselves later.

- AP: calls them a "media site". The article here seriously borders on original research, AP doesn't claim Disclose.tv actively promoted that incorrect COVID number.

- Daily Dot: talks about the Telegram channel and a commenter therein, not the website

- DW: pretty much exclusively sources the fake news website claims from one of the authors of the Logically.ai article. They cite other researchers, which give more general feedback and rather call Disclose.tv right-leaning than fake news

- The Spinoff: cites the DW article

The majority of sources is pre-relaunch as a news aggregator and should not be cited to describe the website's current state. For what the website is doing now, there's pretty much exclusively Logically.ai making a claim of them being a fake news website.

The article on them by Media Bias/Fact Check lists their factual reporting as "Mixed" (a category they clearly state to not mean "fake news"), and explicitly refers to Logically.ai and discusses their state post-relaunch. It would make more sense if the article rather reflects this evaluation instead of basically being a rewrite of the Logically.ai article as it is right now.

There's almost no other coverage of the website except some very old stuff like this Der Standard article from 2006. I find it somewhat questionable whether this should have an article at all. 2003:CD:EF00:2C00:ECA2:C9B0:AFEF:DE5C (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I learned about the existence of this article from the AFD discussion. In my opinion, once a reliable source reports about the subjects change, we can update the article, not by deleting what was there, but by putting it in past tense. Sources don’t become untrue over time. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the MB/FC page, I included it in the article. You could also have mentioned that the conclusion was "Questionable source" and "Right Bias", and was updated as recently as September 2022. OrestesLebt (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought Media Bias/Fact Check is a dubious source per WP:MBFC? Maybe it could be included as an opinion, not a fact. Roost^T_C(ping me!) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change that. OrestesLebt (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why use an opinion from a dubious source? As part of regular cleanup of such poor references, I've removed it per RS, NOT, and POV. --Hipal (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the Logically source, Disclose doesn't actually post fake news anymore, since they only aggregate news from various sources, some of which are dubious. I think it'd be fairer to describe them as a "former fake news forum" or "former fake news site", since the current descriptor doesn't give an accurate representation of the site as it stands today. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• The way this article's written is a little embarrassing and seems to rely strongly on a couple of sources. The single "logically" article is cited some 24 times, and the Deutsche Welle source is cited 19 times. Moreover, it appears to have stopped doing the thing that everyone was so concerned about, so it doesn't really make sense that we should go out of our way to describe it doing it in the present tense (unless "fake news" and "disinformation" etc are just badges of shame that we put on articles forever to punish people for their sins). jp×g 04:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @JPxG "it appears to have stopped doing the thing that everyone was so concerned about"

  No, it hasn't. It still selectively aggregates information from both credible and dubious sources such as The Gateway Pundit and OANN, and adds a slanted frame that appeals to far right conspiracy theorists. Its Telegram group is also still a hotbed of open Nazis. Isi96 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's also pretty telling that in this now-deleted tweet, it doesn't deny the facts in the article, instead resorting to the "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias" trope popular among the far right. Isi96 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If it "selectively aggregates information from both credible and dubious sources", that is not the same thing as being a "fake news website [...] known for publishing disinformation and conspiracy theories". I don't understand what it means to be "pretty telling" or "resort to the trope". While I agree with you that the website looks stupid, and probably lots of morons love to go on it, I do not think we should lie or exaggerate to make them look bad. I do not understand what the Telegram channel has to do with the content of the website. jp×g 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG It's misrepresented information before, e.g. in October 2021, it claimed that a German court had declared a COVID-19 curfew unconstitutional; that actually happened in early 2020 for a short term lockdown. It's also outright made stuff up: "Often they create content that doesn't look like its conspiracy-driven, and sometimes its shared by apolitical people or people on the left who don't know its true purpose," Dittrich said. from the DW source.

"I don't understand what it means to be "pretty telling" or "resort to the trope"." I meant that the site didn't actually point out anything false in the article, but instead resorted to accusing Wikipedia of having a left-wing bias and whining about its content coming from supposedly biased sources.

"I do not understand what the Telegram channel has to do with the content of the website." It posts content to its Telegram channel and other social media channels as well as its website; the replies tend to be from far right conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust deniers.

I agree that the lead could be reworded, but I'm not sure about good wording that could be used. Isi96 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a news aggregator. It shows news from newsites all over the political landscape, from far-left to left to center to right to far-right, and that is bad and appealing to conspiracy theorists?

The tweet points out things they consider false and misleading on the VERY NEXT REPLY to the tweet thread. There are 3 tweets on the linked archive, of which you seem to have ignored the two where Disclose.Tv lays down their issues to instead complain that they are accusing wikipedia of bias.

The Telegram group point seems to be a non-sequiteur, is Disclose supposed to be responsible for what users post on their social media? If a bunch of nazis start to flood the youtube comments of CNN are you gonna claim they are Nazi too? It's not relevant to the issue of their validity as a news source, and stinks of desperate guilt by association.

Also will anyone address the fact that the entire article seems to have been a smear job by Logically against Disclose.TV done at the behest of the UK government? NocturnalLizard (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"It shows news from newsites all over the political landscape, from far-left to left to center to right to far-right, and that is bad and appealing to conspiracy theorists?" It pushes a mix of selectively-aggregated actual news and conspiracy-mongering bullshit from such credible "sources" as The Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and OANN, and that appeals to conspiracy theorists.

"It's not relevant to the issue of their validity as a news source, and stinks of desperate guilt by association." See above. Also, "news aggregators" that push anti-vax narratives and pander to open Nazis do not count as valid sources of info.

"Also will anyone address the fact that the entire article seems to have been a smear job by Logically against Disclose.TV done at the behest of the UK government?" Far-right disinformation outlet hates when reporters point out that it's a far-right disinformation outlet. This isn't some grand conspiracy against it, much as they would like to pretend otherwise. Isi96 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same things without actually addressing them. You keep using "conspiracy monger" over and over without actually proving it or disproving anything that was said. You keep harping on about the fact they agregate from right wing news as proof it can't be true.

You keep insisting on the "Nazi" label and constantly harping on about how it is "anti-vax and nazi" which is a odd mix that against stinks of a guilt by association attempt, ESPECIALLY with the random pivots to Holocaust Denial out of nowhere. You do not at any point even try and prove they are anti-vax, or even show some links with proof, because apparently questioning Covid-19 narratives is the same as blaming polio vaccine for autism?

Are we gonna address the fact that we have seen proof of how the entire narrative around a "wet market outbreak" was a lie, or how the entire pandemic was a shitshow of the WHO being more worried about their reputation than helping people?

Again you just repeat yourself without actually addressing the point. We have proof that the UK government hired Logically to smear people who were questioning it, and the article on Disclose.Tv gets a massive revision and pushed full of scare mongering about how they are ltierally killing people just a few weeks later with all the sources going back to Logically. You really sound like a "It's not happening and here is why it is good!" as you repeat it over and over wihout any attempt to evn try, like with your attempt to claim Disclose "doesn't deny the facts in the article, instead resorting to the "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias" trope popular among the far right" when they addressed their Wikipedia page by purposefully being as dense as osmium and reading only the first tweet in a thread of 3 where the other 2 tweets had arguments.

This is exactly WHY people claim Wikipedia is biased. You are gladly making it worse. NocturnalLizard (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to bother responding further, as you're posting stuff that's at odds with facts and reality. Wikipedia is biased in favor of reality, not conspiratorial nonsense. Isi96 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Stuff that is at odds with facts and reality" what? You mean pointing out bad pages with NPOV violations?

"Wikipedia is biased in favor of reality" what? There is no such thing as "bias in favor of reality" that is just called truth. Slandering anything you don't like as conspiracy theories is how you make a fool of yourself.

This entire discussion started as a questioning of the opening of the article but it accidentally turned into proving wikipedia steryotypes right. NocturnalLizard (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Zerohedge writes way more dissinformation and conspiracy theories yet none edited their article to call them "fake news website" instead they just call them "far right libertarian". Apparently to this editors, far right libertarian is to write articles about Donald Trump been the savour of the world and The Great Awakening happening very soon. But oh yes, they write "analisis" (fake ones) about "the stock market" and cryptocurrencies.

This article as well as the one related to zerohedge and thegrayzone is completly biased. This one is biased against disclose.tv while those others are favouring very clearly those hooliganists pro-nationalisticchinese-russian thegrayzone,zerohedge. It is obvious why. 83.35.63.227 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Disclose doesn’t promote ufo theories

They only talk about ufos when the mainstreams do and most of the comments there dismiss ufos as fiction 217.140.207.112 (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)