Talk:World News Network

Noise

Well, this service is one of the most annoying providers of "noise" while doing a Google search (i.e. giving nearly 100% of nonsense results)! - 84.175.182.174 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement and the whole site is more like spam, using the aggregation to increases its page rank, or whatever algorithm Google (or Alexa) now uses. Sans Nom Reeves (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not yet prepared to nominate this article for deletion until there has been further discussion, but... http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=wn.com seems to show it only appeared on Google in the beginning of 2004 and did not reach a peak volume except in 2011. There are also very few independent articles on this website. Sans Nom Reeves (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish

It is clearly rubbish, and some form of scam. It seems to be packed with random Wikipedia article leads, and city and regional links either don't exist or are of no relevance. For example 'London' opens a website called 'London Globe', which is actually just about the programme at the reconstructed Globe Theatre in London. 'London CEO' is a parked website holding page. 'London Post' ditto (there is no such newspaper). Clearly an unedited attempt at automatic aggregation bound to fail.

Who is financing it I wonder? Where is it based? 109.144.235.52 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Spam

I'd like to know about this too. IMO it's pure trash, I added to the wiki slightly but haven't the time to research this annoyance further. I wonder if the positive quotes are even referring to the same website as it is today. I checked the Guardian one (referencing worldnews.com which now redirects to wn.com) and it was written while Google News was still in Beta (ie pre-2006).

• edit: I've now removed that line for being outdated to the point of irrelevance. Harshmustard (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

EU Disinfolab

There have been repeated attempts to delete the citation of the EU Disinfolab report or to cast unsourced aspersions on the group by an ip user and new user @Martonique: (possibly the same user.) The EU Disinfolab report is of enough interest that reliable sources (such as the Al Jazeera article used as reference, the BBC, and this Voice of America piece, and AJ is not the only source to cite the WNN information (although VOA and BBC did not). We can have a discussion about the appropriateness of inclusion of the material (although it is better sourced than most of what the article contains), but an unsourced attack on the NGO is inappropriate all around. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts to remove it for a good reason: it's not right. I've just read the full EU Disinfolab report, which BBC links to and it talks about a different "World News Network", which is hosted at worldnewsnetwork.net (page 67). It's also unclear why Disinfolab called this group of sites "World News Network", because worldnewsnetwork.net is just one of the many sites, claimed to be run by Myriad Communications, USA. World News Inc, wn.com and worldnews.com does not appear anywhere in the report, so Disinfolab clearly talks about a different entity with a similar name. This page is about the World News Network, which runs wn.com. @NatGertler: please delete the section completely or add a disambiguation section. Martonique (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Martonique thank you for looking into this, you are quite right! In my own reading of the EU Disinfolab report I had entirely missed that distinction. This is a case of mistaken identity. The logo and URL shown on the article page are for wn.com/worldnews.com which is not related to the worldnewsnetwork.net referred to in the EU Disinfolab report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:3B1:CAFE:78F8:DFE2:706B:3335 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Verified. Deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Fake news and conspiracy theories?

I've removed those assertions from the lead because I can't find any sources to support them. The source cited has a dead link. Other reliable sources cited later in the article do not make that assertion. Eyeballing the site, it seems to me to be a simple news aggregator. The Guardian reported in 2002:

WorldNews.com
One of the most powerful search tools for news junkies on the internet, WorldNews allows you to search on words within articles in newspapers all over the world; better still, none of the responses are press 
releases. Takes some getting used to. 

That's 20 years ago, so we need a fresher source. YoPienso (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, in April 2022, I made updates to this article. I agree with you, that most of the sources are outdated by at least 20 years. This is what I found regarding WorldNewsNetwork in April 2022, and it leads me to conclude that this article is a suitable candidate for XPD or PD at this point in time. The current entity is not notable. It was at one time, 20 years ago, so perhaps that is sufficient to retain it in WP, but I don't know.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)