Websites: Computing C‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First sentence:

"Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website[2] that sells various dietary supplements, and promotes alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims,[3] fake news,[4][5][6] and various conspiracy theories,[7] such as "chemtrails",[2] chemophobic claims (including the purported dangers of fluoride in drinking water,[8] anti-perspirants, laundry detergent, monosodium glutamate, aspartame), and purported health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines,[3][2] including the now-discredited link to autism.[9]"

This is long as a Shakespeare-play, tells us that NN is a fake news website that promotes fake news, and brings up stuff like chemtrails that are not mentioned in the body of the article. We can do better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article reads more as a smear piece than an encyclopedic article. The author goes out of his way to describe every “alternative view” out there as lunacy and quackery. True, some are. But this article reads wrong. It is deliberately trying to paint a particular picture, and it ain’t a pretty one, all the less pretty coming from Wikipedia. Im sure this does not meet fairness standards for this site, and I call for an editorial review. K9gardner (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's written based on reliable sources, I'm not sure what you mean? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article seems very fair to me. Wikipedia is biased toward science. What "alternative views" or "alternative medicine" examples can you provide that aren't lunacy and/or quackery that Natural News covers? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]