3 ms·
I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references. While this might be comparing apples to oranges, here's the list of the most cited websites by Wik
by saltvedt 8y ago
I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references. While this might be comparing apples to oranges, here's the list of the most cited websites by Wikipedia:
https://cited.news/domains https://cited.news/domains
It's still a bit buggy, so the "blank" domain is ranked #1, followed by NY Times, BBC and The Guardian.
Fox News is ranked at #93 at that list: https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations
- burfog 8y agoWikipedia itself is quite biased. Some domains are even banned despite providing real news with original reporting.
- thundergolfer 8y agoKnow where to find that list? I googled around and couldn't get it.
- cooper12 8y agoNo sources are actually blanket "banned". Some exceptionally bad ones like the Daily Mail are "deprecated", but that does not mean it can't be used anywhere ever. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... (there's a legend at the bottom)
- burfog 8y agoThey are banned. Search your list for "blacklist". Note that the blacklisted sources are only on one side of the political spectrum -- not one thing on the other side got blacklisted.
- cooper12 8y agoOh, you meant Breitbart and Infowars? Those can still be used, but require whitelisting; so still not a ban. You can read the linked discussions for more information. Not gonna rehash and spell it all out for you here. I wouldn't say two instances are a pattern of anything, but going by your logic, guess that side of the spectrum just has more history of spam and persistent abuse on the English Wikipedia.