09:4409:44, 16 August 2021diffhist−40,288
Fake news in the Philippines
List is listcruft and unreliable. How would researchers depend on an unreliable list, compiled by a religious group that has no authority to tell which websites are fake news or not?Tags: Manual revertRevertedMobile editMobile web edit
08:2608:26, 16 August 2021diffhist−40,175
Fake news in the Philippines
This section is both listcruft (contains items that are dead links which probably never existed in the first place) and its citation is unreliable (a gossip loop that cites non-expert body creating the list without providing proper evidences)Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
08:1708:17, 16 August 2021diffhist+25
Fake news in the Philippines
renaming this section because it does not discuss the history of PH fake news per se, instead it only tackles fake news related to recent politics (2016 onwards) which is quite absurd that it implies fake news never existed in the country before 2016.Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
08:0708:07, 16 August 2021diffhist+165
Fake news in the Philippines
marking the partisan tone of the article. too political and one-sided on that. it is also overall non-encyclopedic as it is more editorialized, obviously created to attack a certain political group, when fake news is a broader subject beyond politics i.e. fake news about health and science issues are more crucial to discuss during the pandemicTags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
19:4219:42, 14 August 2021diffhist−569
Rappler
the section become excessively lengthy due to a lot of unnecessary quoted texts that can be stated in simpler and more neutral toneTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
19:2919:29, 14 August 2021diffhist−563
Rappler
just summarize that those organization objecting to the ruling are allies of Rappler. it is more understandable and clearer to the reader that way. no need to listcruft all of these organizations one-by-oneTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
19:2319:23, 14 August 2021diffhist−417
Rappler
→Legal issues: cleaning up citation to the non-legal opinion crystal ball content. quite absurd and exaggerated and definitely not NPOV. multiple criminal punishments in PH are usually served concurrently and almost never consecutively. lawphil.net has a full database for such rulings for your reference. adding the content about "100 year jail time" is patently misleadingTags: Mobile editMobile web edit
19:1519:15, 14 August 2021diffhist−417
Rappler
→Legal issues: I find this intro problematic for an encyclopedia article. it almost jumps into victimizing the subject by citing opinions without further exploring the actual facts of the legal cases. also removing biased crystal ball content not made by a legal expert (see WP:CRYSTALBALL)Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
19:0019:00, 14 August 2021diffhist−275
Rappler
after reading the history, legal cases, ownership and criticism section it became apparent the bottom paragraph is redundant and still apologetic which can be reduced to simpler statement without sounding apologetic or victimizing the subjectTags: Mobile editMobile web edit