The list of trustworthy and untrustworthy sources seems to have been manually compiled in a prior paper. >For that purpose, we use a widely-used and publicly a

The list of trustworthy and untrustworthy sources seems to have been manually compiled in a prior paper. >For that purpose, we use a widely-used and publicly available list of English news media Twitter accounts provided by Volkova et al. (2017) and Glenski, Weninger & Volkova (2018a), which contains 424 English news media sources categorized in unreliable (satire, propaganda, hoax, clickbait) and reliable, following Rubin, Chen & Conroy (2015). The list is linked in the referenced paper, but unfortunately doesn't seem to be available anymore outside of a few examples given in the paper, such as the Drudge Report being under the hoax category. The list seems to have been compiled based on Propornot's list[1], which doesn't seem to have updated since 2017, (though their Twitter account is active[6]) and fakenewswatch[2] which no longer is active, based on one of the cited papers.[3] Some of the inclusions on those sites' lists I'm not completely sure about, such as putting "ronpaulinstitute.org" under the Russian propaganda category. I'm not sure what made a source trusted. [1]http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html [2]https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20170301201107/http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20170301201107/http://www.fak... [3]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.12032.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.12032.pdf [4]https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~svitlana/posters/FakeNewsPoster.pdf https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~svitlana/posters/FakeNewsPoster.pdf [5]https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20170301201107/http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ https://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20170301201107/http://www.fak... [6]https://twitter.com/propornot/status/1295531214862815232 https://twitter.com/propornot/status/1295531214862815232