Jump to content

Talk:NewsBreak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLAR

[edit]

Hi IP, I've restored the article. I think the subject is notable unless you're arguing for something else in your blank and redirect. I've restored the article and would be happy to start an WP:AFD for you if you still believe that it does not warrant an article. Ping me when replying or if you have any questions! Justiyaya 08:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justiyaya thanks for your response and for restoring the article temporarily. I know you were conversing with another editor but I do believe that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I appreciate your offer to start an AfD discussion. Please proceed with nominating the article for deletion. Happy to participate and share my reasoning there. Thanks again for your help! OhNoKaren (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OhNoKaren you are the creator of the page, it is interesting that you now would like to nominate it for deletion. In any case, you should be able to start a articles for deletion discussion by following the instructions there. The offer went out to IPs because only registered accounts could start a discussion. Justiyaya 00:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustiyayaI didn't actually create it, it was redirected to Jerry Yang and I removed that and then tried to add more to it. Unfortunately, there isn't much about them at all. Especially not enough to justify a page. I have tried to do AfDs before but I am somewhat inexperienced and a little newer to the Wikipedia world. Any advice or feedback on this one? OhNoKaren (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OhNoKaren Yup, that is what I meant. I think it works as an article, which is why I patrolled it and later on improved it. It seems that other users think the same way as well. Since you are new, I would recommend going to the teahouse for a second opinion instead of nominating it for deletion directly if you disagree. Justiyaya 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of found sources

[edit]
If you are patrolling pages, or are a participant at articles for deletion, this section may pertain to you.

I found the sources listed below while reviewing this article as part of the new page patrol process.

These sources may be useful in making a determination as to this article's notability, or serve to give interested editors material for article development. —Sirdog (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NewsBreak for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewsBreak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

OhNoKaren (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBreak is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they do not have enough articles/news information about them to even expand the page further than it is now. There is nothing SIGNIFICANT about this; per Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, to determine if a topic merits its own article, it requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not self-published or promotional. And so far, this article is WP:UNDUE, ONE Rueters article covers an entire paragraph. No notability.OhNoKaren (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pink Slime Journalism" sourcing

[edit]

I removed the Pima library blog again since the pink slime journalism source only seems to be found in it. Pinging the user who restored it @Iknowyoureadog: - for contentious claims, there should be at the very least something better than a blog to support it. I noted something similar on the Conflict of interest noticeboard shortly after removing, but please work towards building a consensus rather than restoring disputed material.

The restored reasoning of The claim removed by the previous editor is definitionally true, and the WP:RS takes it out of the realm of WP:OR. I didn't state it was OR in my removal, and being "definitionally true" has zero relevance when we are discussing if a RS is reliable or not. It's a contentious label and should have a high quality source, and if NewsBreak is generally regarded as such it shouldn't be hard to find another source that directly supports that. At the very least, we may be able to treat it as RSOPINION if editors can agree but it shouldn't go in the lede if only one source is stating something.

Awshort (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Awshort, I saw it pop up on my watchlist and was going to mention this but got distracted.
The NewsGuard source seems to have questionable reliability as per this RSN thread. There was rough consensus in that thread about it being generally unreliable. I'm not familiar with the source though. If no one objects I'll remove it in a bit. Justiyaya 16:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newsguard is cited by numerous journalism schools in articles. i know you're a dog (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pima County Library i know you're a dog (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort Please explain how the sources is WP:NOTRS. I do not see it as such. i know you're a dog (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iknowyoureadog There doesn't seem to be a listed editorial process, there isn't anything specific as to who wrote the post, and a contentious claim about a person or company that is from a blog should be attributed as an opinion per WP:RSOPINION (example: "In a blog post, Pima Library referred to NewsBreak as an example of a pink-slime journalism source"). If they were widely reported as such it wouldn't necessarily be an issue but if only one source is directly calling them that, it should be cited as such directly to them as an opinion.
Keeping that in mind, it doesn't seem to be WP:DUE for inclusion if only one place is stating something but I welcome input from other editors.
Awshort (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOG does say that blogs (and other self published stuff) are generally unacceptable as sources. We rarely use them even when attributed inline. Justiyaya 11:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOG is about self published sources, not blogs in general. In addition, it reads Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
Furthermore, (and I can't believe I have to defend libraries and librarians, but here we are) librarians who work on an information integrity team certainly meet the bar for experts. There is no inherent reason to expect that they are biased, and librarians are often tasked with research in order to present information fairly and accurately. Librarians are a critical asset for academics and they work hand in hand when conducting research. The Pima County Library appears to require a masters in library science for even their entry level positions (as is common in the vast majority of libraries today.)
Moreover:
As well as used as a source for:
Needless to say, WP:BLOG doesn't apply here. i know you're a dog (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort
First it should be noted that NewsBreak was added as an example on the pink-slime article by @Novellasyes which is significant.
There are numerous sources (see the references on this article) that describe the company with terms that qualify it as pink-slime, this just happens to be the only one that labels it that, as it's a newer term; these things take time to proliferate. That is why I previously mentioned that it is definitionally true, and this post takes that claim out of the realm of OR. Which is why it's of course DUE to include.
Also significant is WP:NewsBreak which concluded "NewsBreak is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources." Again, the claim is true - by definition.
Regarding the claim that There doesn't seem to be a listed editorial process, see my post here.
Regarding the claim that there isn't anything specific as to who wrote the post that is not correct; it was written by the information integrity team at the Pima County Library. That requirement is for articles coming from e.g. Pink Slime sources, not from libraries
Lastly, the claim that a contentious claim about a person or company that is from a blog should be attributed as an opinion per WP:RSOPINION...there is no policy I'm aware of that says this, NOR is this an inherently contentious claim.
Given all of that, I will re-add the sentence to the article. i know you're a dog (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others have disagreed with you that it's DUE. This really shouldn't be that big of a deal; if it is considered "pink slime journalism" and the term will take time to spread, then wait for it to be covered in a higher quality source or attribute it as an opinion directly to the library since they are a primary source for that opinion (so far). WP:NEWSBREAK has no relevance on how it's refered to in an article, since Wikipedia is not a source for anything other than about itself.
I have removed it since there is no consensus yet, there is an ongoing discussion, and the ONUS is on the person looking to include something to work towards a consensus not restore when they feel their bar has been met without addressing other editor concerns.
Awshort (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: @Iknowyoureadog: It appears you self reverted after the post; please work towards a consensus rather prior to restoring your preferred version. Further, I'm not understanding how relevant one blogs opinion is regarding this. If it's refered to as other things in sources i.e. that describe the company with terms that qualify it as pink-slime, refer to it as they do with sourcing rather than trying to push for a new term with one source.
Awshort (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Awshort you continue to try to downplay the pink slime journalism, and now claim it is an opinion shortly after I added a second source describing it as pink slime (per @Iiii I I I). Do you have a COI with NewsBreak? Your pattern of editing implies you might. i know you're a dog (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iknowyoureadog Other editors editing an article to make sure it complies with policies do not have COI's. You accused an IP editor of similar when they changed your wording a few days ago. You do know that people can request proper sourcing or try to make sure an article complies with our core content policies without having to work for a company, right?
Your wording was problematic before - you are stating 'It is considered pink slime journalism' as a fact, when it was an opinion. Everything included in an article needs to be verifiable, and the source which has it as an example of a PSJ is giving their opinion of it. Per NPOV, opinions which aren't widespread cannot be stated as facts. And in Wikivoice to state something as a fact, it needs good sourcing. Trying to turn a blog post into an expert source isn't "attacking a source", it's trying to find better sourcing or attributing it.
Your editing pattern of insisting that the article states exactly what you want while ignoring any outside input from other editors that disagree with you is starting to border on WP:OWN behavior. Aside from the fact you instantly reverted back to your prior preferred version earlier in the day with the old sourcing which you claimed was an "expert source" (with zero outside input from RSN and solely your own personal opinion that it's an expert source) and the fact this article is starting to seem more and more like an attack page masquerading as 'informative' shows that it needs material to balance it out. The only thing that seems neutral in the way it is presented is the lede (minus the pink slime statement).
Awshort (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you did not answer the question. i know you're a dog (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iknowyoureadog Good job on noting that. I don't work for this company or any company I edit articles on, and templating the regulars who try to ensure newer editors follow policy is frowned upon. But nice job at deflecting the fact that the article is essentially an attack page and ignoring everything else I stated.
Awshort (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other form of relationship that would constitute a COI? I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I read it. i know you're a dog (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are WP:STONEWALLING and did not respond to any of the points I made, just said essentially that others agree with you. You are also engaging in an edit war. Stop NOW. i know you're a dog (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a third opinion i know you're a dog (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nieman Lab also calls it pink slime:

The number of partisan “pink slime” sites across the U.S. recently surpassed the local daily newspapers they are mimicking; local news wire franchises like Hoodline have fabricated writers of color profiles to byline their AI-generated stories, and the aggregator Newsbreak recently began hallucinating crime stories, including a fake Christmas day shooting in Bridgeton, New Jersey.

Iiii I I I (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add this reference. i know you're a dog (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Pivot Fund also describes newsbreak as Pink Slime. i know you're a dog (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding self published expert, the footnote does say that an exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. Pink-slime journalism does appear to be quite an exceptional claim. That being said, from what I've seen, the self published expert portion has been difficult to apply. For example: Anthony Fantano in WP:THENEEDLEDROP.
Regardless, I don't think we should be saying this in WP:WikiVoice with only one source. If it is to be included, it should definitely be an attributed opinion. Justiyaya 03:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Justiyaya and @Awshort. I see that the person @Iknowyoureadog has been banned due to a conflictof interest and is under an investigation. I agree that the source was not correct to use on Wikipedia. Thank you RalphWRECKEDit (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RalphWRECKEDit Well that's a twist, thanks for telling me :D There should be some portions that are removed that would be helpful in the article but an editor should review it themselves before restoring. I'm quite busy right now, but will take a look in some time if no one does. Justiyaya 23:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsguard

[edit]

@Justiyaya above you stated that The NewsGuard source seems to have questionable reliability as per this RSN thread. There was rough consensus in that thread about it being generally unreliable. I'm not familiar with the source though. If no one objects I'll remove it in a bit.

A few things: first, I objected and you removed it anyway. Please restore it until we can discuss further. Second, what you reported from that thread isn't the full picture. The close note also includes "On the other hand, an editor brought fourth that it may be 'good starting points for assessing the reliability of a site', and another pointed out to 'examples of RS citing or describing NewsGuard generally as a credible source'."

Third, Newsguard has been used countless times to assess reliable sources at RSN (more 1 2 3 4 5, etc etc)

And, like I said, it is referenced by numerous universities, including journalism schools:

etc. etc.

Additionally, Newsguard is referenced by many other reliable sources:

etc etc i know you're a dog (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowyoureadog I did not remove the section and it seems to be currently on the article. Could you supply a diff showing me removing it? If I did I honestly do not remember doing so.
I do agree with some points being raised. However, I think that being a good starting point to assessing the reliability of another site does not really equate to usability in mainspace. While it has been used to access source reliability in internal discussions, that has no bearing on it being usable itself in the mainspace. I said that there was rough consensus, and you're right in that there are there's editors who said that it is usable. As I said above, I'm not familiar with the source and would much rather someone else who is familiar with RSN or NewsGuard provide an opinion. I don't feel as strongly about this and I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak, have an excellent week and happy editing! Justiyaya 02:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya My apologies. You're completely right, you did NOT remove it. I don't know why I didn't see it before. Regardless, again, my apologies. I will respond to the rest later, but wanted to say this part first. i know you're a dog (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Verifiability

[edit]

Hiya, RalphWRECKEDit. I appreciate your efforts in expanding the article. Special:Diff/1291699170 appears to be quite non-neutrally worded though. We try to maintain a neutral point of view on articles here and there's a plethora of words to watch while editing. We usually won't use wording like "honored" or "highlighted" in articles. While the mentioning of such an award could be possible given that there is a reliable, secondary source noting it in its own reporting, such a source does not appear to exist. Any organization can give an award for basically anything, for not well established awards like this, noting it could give it a false sense of legitimacy.

With similar reasoning, this IP edit (TB posted) has a similar issue with it only relying on a blog post by the company themselves. The company could post and claim anything about their own products. Wikipedia usually relies on a secondary source to filter and analyze instead of simply echoing what it says. Without a secondary source, the information is typically not included.

I've removed both paragraphs. I've also realized that the removal of the edits noted above was larger in scope that I first thought. I've added a significant portion back. Apologies for not realizing this before, I was (and am still) on Wikibreak. Some of the information that was removed was added by me in the review process when I first found the Reuters report (though later modified), others appear to be good to include. Please ping me if you would like to discuss any of this. If you would like a second opinion (or if I don't respond) feel free to go to the teahouse and ask for one. Justiyaya 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NewsBreak&oldid=1291948013"