Talk:Wikinews investigates: Advertisements disguised as news articles trick unknowing users out of money, credit card information

Research
Research will be posted here. Tjc6 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wired News Article link
Will be used in some writing.
 * http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/fake_news/

BBB References
Obtained from:
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=7132495&page=1

Fake news sites that I used in research

 * "Miracle Teeth Whitening"
 * Another teeth whitener
 * Working at home scam

Domain Name Reports
domain:                         consumernewsreporter.com created:                        06-Oct-2009 last-changed:                   06-Oct-2009 registration-expiration:        06-Oct-2010

nserver:                        ns65.1und1.de nserver:                         ns66.1und1.de

status:                         CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED

registrant-firstname:           Myrko registrant-lastname:            Thum registrant-street1:             Lenhartzstr. 22 registrant-pcode:               20249 registrant-city:                Hamburg registrant-ccode:               DE registrant-phone:                +49.15158813395 registrant-email:

admin-c-firstname:              Myrko admin-c-lastname:               Thum admin-c-street1:                Lenhartzstr. 22 admin-c-pcode:                  20249 admin-c-city:                   Hamburg admin-c-ccode:                  DE admin-c-phone:                   +49.15158813395 admin-c-email: tech-c-firstname:               Hostmaster tech-c-lastname:                EINSUNDEINS tech-c-organization:            1&1 Internet AG tech-c-street1:                  Brauerstr. 48 tech-c-pcode:                   76135 tech-c-city:                    Karlsruhe tech-c-ccode:                   DE tech-c-phone:                    +49.721913747660 tech-c-fax:                     +49.72191374246 tech-c-email:

bill-c-firstname:               Hostmaster bill-c-lastname:                EINSUNDEINS bill-c-organization:            1&1 Internet AG bill-c-street1:                  Brauerstr. 48 bill-c-pcode:                   76135 bill-c-city:                    Karlsruhe bill-c-ccode:                   DE bill-c-phone:                    +49.721913747660 bill-c-fax:                     +49.72191374246 bill-c-email:

Domain Name: CONSUMERSTRICKSWEEKLY.COM Created on: 23-Apr-10 Expires on: 23-Apr-11 Last Updated on: 23-Apr-10

Administrative Contact: Private, Registration Domains by Proxy, Inc.     DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599     Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact: Private, Registration Domains by Proxy, Inc.     DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599     Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order: NS1183.HOSTGATOR.COM NS1184.HOSTGATOR.COM

Domain Name: NEWS-6.TV     Created on: 27-Jan-10 Expires on: 27-Jan-11 Last Updated on: 27-Jan-10

Administrative Contact: Nicholas, Alex Oak Bay Van Isl, British Columbia v8r1r9 Canada (250) 913-9113     Fax --

Technical Contact: Nicholas, Alex Oak Bay Van Isl, British Columbia v8r1r9 Canada (250) 913-9113     Fax --

Domain servers in listed order: NS57.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS58.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Review of revision 1015808 [Failed]

 * I agree with Mike failing this, and it should be failed on NPOV as well. I would strongly advise a detailed review of the style guide and the standard to which other published material is held - particularly when it lays claim to WN:OR. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk' 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. The article itself is great, but you need to use a NPOV. Sorry. --Diego Grez return fire 21:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What are some things that I could do to improve it? I would be glad to work with you guys. Tjc6 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just use a 3rd person form (or whatever it is), not in first person, never. --Diego Grez return fire 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that I removed the 3rd person already...how about the NPOV? Tjc6 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WN:NPOV <-- Read that. Mike  moral  ♪♫  22:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand now...do you have any specific parts of the article that you think violate this? Tjc6 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the reviewers, though I would suggest that if you were truly "writing for the enemy" you would not use the word 'scam'. The problem here, though, is that I think even NPR or the BBC might fail the NPOV test for an investigative journalism piece on the same topic. You describe evidence that leads you to the conclusion 'scam', and so you use the word 'scam'.

The most I suggest you can do is to be scrupulously fair in presenting evidence that might support the conclusion that some (or all) fake news ads are merely creatively informing readers, and are not scams. Meanwhile you will have to endeavour to avoid tarring any innocent fake news ads with the brush of your investigation. Finally, hope that is enough to convince consensus here at Wikinews.

I am sorry your first story at Wikinews has been such a frustrating experience for you, and I look forward to reading more of your articles (and a published version of this one.)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you might find this recent debate interesting:


 * Featured_article_candidates/archive/5

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. That's sort of where I was coming from on this. As far as I was concerned on that one I did fine, but it wasn't quite good enough for FA status. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk' 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fails on first sentence, and that sets the entire tone: "Wikinews' Tjc6 has investigated how deceiptive internet ads are disguised as news articles while they scam users."
 * 1) "Tjc6" - who?
 * 2) "has investigated" - passive voice.
 * 3) "deceiptive" (sic) - spelling error a simple inline checker would catch.
 * 4) "scam"- loaded, POV term.
 * And, that is just the opening sentence. I strongly recommend learning exactly what a lede is, and how to actually write something which makes people want to read to the end. Really, original reporting is not something to try and start out on. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk' 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerns
I'm quite concerned that this is article is not meeting our style standards, and that the article was published despite very little having been actually changed since the previous (failed) review. For instance:


 * 1) "In this report, Wikinews' Tjc6 investigates news advertisement sites." = use of pseudonyms like this in articles is unprofessional. Either simply say "Wikinews investigates ..." or remove the line altogether.
 * 2) Repeated use of first person such as "we" - such is frowned upon and should not have been used
 * 3) No attempt was made to contact the owners of said websites for comment, or otherwise say anything in their defence. Of course most of the sites are scams, but we need to look neutral, and part of this is "writing for the enemy" even when one believes that point of view to be absurd.

These concerns were grave enough for me to briefly consider depublishing the article. I'm rather disappointed this was reviewed and published in this state. Open to thoughts on how this can be fixed. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think de-publishing will be a good move at this point. 'Publish' tags are granted by consensus: peer review is not an auction where one person should pass it when two others have already failed it.  Despite disagreement, there is a balance of opinion that suggests that this article needs more work.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Articles should not vanish. We should have the balls to admit mistakes like this one. Stick a big Correction on it saying that it does not meet our standards on x, y and z. Some of the more minor concerns can be copyedited out as non-content changes, but the main bulk of the mess cannot be fixed - contacting sites, for example, ain't gonna happen under WN:ARCHIVE. Please don't make me go through the WN:DR archives to produce the consensus against censorship. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As a contributor to the article, I do not agree with it being published in this state. It does have these concerns, and I was working to address them while it was published. Please accept my apologies for any harm this may have done. Tjc6 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tjc6: at some point you posted the review tag . Perhaps you accidentally hit the button?  I think I understand Sandman's warning about putting a published story, however troublesome, into a memory hole, but it doesn't weigh strongly with me in this case of accidental publication where we move it back to the Newsroom, rather than delete it altogether.
 * I have been away from WN for many months: I recall that once (before flagged revisions) it was common to un-publish a disputed article. While I hate to suggest someone trawl archives, it would be great if we could refer to a summary of consensus on such cases on a policy/guideline page.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The page in question was Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared - which turned out to be 100% fictitious. The archive is at Deletion requests/Archives/2009/Q2. It's long because there were some issues with regulars and newcomers not understanding each other; both sides actually agreed once they worked out what had happened IIRC. That case is even worse than this; the article was entirely false but consensus was still to keep.
 * Yes, I do remember the pre-FR days. Back then, it made sense to depublish since any old whack could publish any old crap. Even established editors would bugger it up entirely on occasions. It happens. In fact, we recently had to scramble around removing an article that spent a few minutes published and should not have been; that was, to me at least, acceptable since the aticle stayed around less than five minutes (I believe it was brought up to standard and republished anyway, which means the public still got to see it). However, now that we do have FR things have generally changed. It's a content management system, to use the jargon. Once things are published, that's it. They go out on the feeds, they are spammed via Twitter and Facebook, they are indexed on Google News.
 * In short, we run a much more professional show. When the world's media was taken in by Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls, most of it later simply deleted the story. I know for a fact both the Daily Fail and the BBC literally pulled their online stories without the slightest explanation to readers. Wikinews not only kept the article, we published a second one reporting that we'd been amongst those taken in. Looking at the sources, I see the Telegraph and Deutsche Welle have done likewise; Pakistan's Daily Times has kept the article without any notice it was false.
 * Out of all those publications, only Wikinews can hold up its head and say it did the right thing. Accuracy and honesty should always come before PR. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, this has been sitting on the top lead for several hours. May we at least remove it from there? I tend to agree with BRS about the honesty part, a correction notice is warranted - we should admit our errors - but can we blank as well? The content of the article doesn't meet our standards to the point that it really pains me to have it even displayed, for that reason I'm not flatly opposed to depublishing. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you: long explanation appreciated. We have learned to do things differently since headlines started going out in feeds. The Flight 447 Deletion Review shows a convincing consensus, which I would be unwise to re-open, despite my instincts. I think we should update our guidelines.
 * Right now, since we can't really unpublish, can we whack a dispute banner onto the top of the page again? If and when an updated/improved version appears, we can replace a dispute banner with a red Correction banner.  I was initially confused by your comment about the archive policy, but I see now that any response or non-response from the accused sites will come in after the 24 hour deadline.
 * Meanwhile, thanks to TDV for removing it from the main page lead.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; I was very annoyed that nobody had thought to do this before and frustrated that it stayed up as long as it did. Probably should have removed it yesterday, but was too tired to think properly ...
 * Anyways. As far as the dispute tag is concerned, we almost never put them on published articles, as it doesn't make us look any more professional, but in this case I'm not sure what else to do. Does the article contain any outright factual inaccuracies, or is the main difficulty NPOV? If so, then perhaps correction isn't warranted since it's used primarily for the former. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) The wording isn't perfect for this situation on either option. I prefer the Correction notice as at least written with articles that have been published in mind. Otherwise, this will permanently look like a work in progress. Perhaps we should subst Correction, and tweak the wording? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry of the publishment. I thought the article was okay, and it touches a great topic. I tried to do my best copyediting it. And please excuse me. --Diego Grez return fire 17:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So you live and learn, and you'll try not to make the same mistake again. I had to look this up to find out who said it &mdash; Niels Bohr as quoted by Edward Teller &mdash;
 * An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this as a possible notice for the top of the article:

I suggest we include, on the theory that it is in the close penumbra of that category. --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add a "For details, see here". 'See here' would link to this section - that both demonstrates the consensus and lets people look up what these problems are. Otherwise, looks good to me. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Pi zero has captured the mood of the consensus.

My remaining concern is a principle that is held over at our sister site, Wikipedia: don't bite the newcomers. My own first efforts at English and French Wikinews were treated much more gently by the communities. I think we have, between us, put a new contributor through the wringer, and for that I am sorry. As I said earlier, this story would be fine on many news sites that I respect: it just does not fit on Wikinews in its current form, and that is no reflection on Tjc6's evident talent for writing and research.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What's more, had the article failed review, it would likely have been fixed up. Good work had been done to that end so far; in fact, the hard stuff had been done. Tjc could have gone straight in with an FA; instead, he probably feels responsible for a big blemish on our professionalism. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the notice to the article, with a 'see here' link to this section. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have to make the banner so... ugly? It's one thing to draw the attention of the reader to issues with the article, but the WP principle at least is that they're not used as a "badge of shame" (though granted, due to the different models, such tags are much more common over there). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?   20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion might be a little more aesthetically pleasing (it's also easier on the markup and slimmer):

--HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?   20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm going to be bold and add it. Feel free to revert. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?   20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it; might be good to have a date, though. C628 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (two edit conflicts)Not eye-catching enough for me. Casual readers will pay little attention to most banners. I do agree it could be played with a bit, though. That's something for the Water Cooler really; it's that way to be close to Correction, so if we were to make a change we should change the template and not just this notice. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the theory that, whatever we decide about the exact appearance of the correction banners, we want this banner to be consistent with the others, I souped up the correction template a bit so it could handle this case, and made this article use the upgraded template. I used HJ Mitchell's version of the message, which I thought was an improvement on mine.


 * My general thought on the aesthetics is that this notice ought to be an eyesore. It needs to grab the attention of anyone who happens on the article.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies
Sorry to all for the hardship that this article caused. Feel free to un-publish if necessary. Tjc6 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize too, for reviewing it. I really like the article, it's really good, but may not meet WN's standards. And that's really, painful. --Diego Grez return fire 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys shouldn't blame yourself for this. Nobody's to blame- it's just unfortunate that such a good quality piece of journalism isn't quite up to technical standards and it's unfortunate that it ended up published prematurely, but that's not anybody's fault. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?   21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just parachuted in from en.WP and noticed that it's a front-page feature and has been failed. Why then, is it still a front-page feature? I don't mean to criticise any one contributor. Tony1 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was published, but it was cancelled by community decision. --Diego Grez return fire 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by 'front-page feature'. It isn't on any of the leads. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on the original reporting side. --Diego Grez return fire 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... That's not a 'feature' Tony. All our published OR goes through there automatically. A misunderstanding, 'tis all. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)