"I cannot vouch for the process or criteria Sieradski used when compiling this list but it is one of the largest lists I’ve come across and I believe it serves

"I cannot vouch for the process or criteria Sieradski used when compiling this list but it is one of the largest lists I’ve come across and I believe it serves well here to put on display… the look of fake news." @alva ^ I put this statement right up front for this very reason. This discussion was already taking place around B.S. Detector Chrome Extension and I agree that one person compiling a list (even if it's open to Pull Requests) is no where near the ideal process of identifying potential fake news sources in a fair, transparent manner. Since I made this site, Facebook (in large part as a response of the discourse around the issue of fake news) has put in plans a coordinated effort to label potential fake news on its news feeds. They will have a much more fair, transparent, and documented process for this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/media/facebook-fake-news-warning-labels/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/media/facebook-fake-news-war... This was largely an experiment born out of curiosity and the idea of focusing on the visual aspect was in efforts to give visitors a "gestalt" of the visual "feel" of fake news more than anything. I think further discussion and research around this problem is important. Not everyone will get it 100% right the first time but catalyzing efforts towards more ideal solutions is a good thing, overall.