Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback, Administrators
20,083
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + +
→Proposal:Reputable sources: re
::The above sources appear solid, except I'm not sure about the Daily Caller, which may be unable to criticize the [[Fox News Channel]] as appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
::The above sources appear solid, except I'm not sure about the Daily Caller, which may be unable to criticize the [[Fox News Channel]] as appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
:::This idea and list sounds good, although we might want to differentiate or outright avoid publications which are focused on correcting/rebutting other news reporting. A list of this sort seems like it should be news reporting, not news correcting. I would classify HumanEvents, and maybe NewsMax and even Breitbart as the latter. That's not to say that those are bad services, or that there is not a place for them. However, we are essentially saying "instead of reading these fake news sources, read these other news sources." It seems that our listed alternatives should be primary news sources, not secondary. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:48, 25 June 2019 (EDT)