Note that the sources on the list are there due to the frequent publication of misinformation, rather than their bias alone.

As others have noted, the list can essentially be broken down into three categories: state-sponsored media outlets, clickbait-style tabloids, and extremist media outlets.

The categories themselves are just a means of summarizing what’s on the list though, as outlets in those categories that maintain editorial standards that disallow misinformation wouldn’t qualify for inclusion on the list.

For those worried about blocking certain viewpoints, it’s important to note that the sources on the list aren’t there for the unpopularity of their opinions, but rather the frequent publication of misinformation. For instance, Fox News, despite its frequent bias, is not one of the publications on the list.

As others have noted, the list can essentially be summarized as state-sponsored, tabloid, and extremist media outlets that, intentionally or not, have editing standards that result in misinformation on a regular basis.

For those worried about blocking certain viewpoints, it’s important to note that the sources on the list aren’t there for the unpopularity of their opinions, but rather the frequent publication of misinformation. For instance, Fox News, despite its frequent bias, is not one of the publications on the list.

As others have noted, the list can essentially be summarized as state-sponsored, tabloid, and extremist media outlets that, intentionally or not, have editing standards that result in misinformation on a regular basis.

Note that the sources on the list are there due to the frequent publication of misinformation, rather than their bias alone. As others have noted, the list can essentially be broken down into three categories: state-sponsored media outlets, clickbait-style tabloids, and extremist media outlets. The categories themselves are just a means of summarizing what’s on the list though, as outlets in those categories that maintain editorial standards that disallow misinformation wouldn’t qualify for inclusion on the list.

Didn’t realize that; interesting to know, thanks.

In that case the issue is that it’s user generated content. Just as you’d cite the references listed after a Wikipedia article for the source of that information rather than Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia policy favors references to established publications over those compiled by users in a manner similar to Wikipedia itself.

For the information to be verifiable, its original source has to be both clear and reputable.

I get the damage to the thumbs, but what in being a scribe would cause more damage to the jaw or hips than anyone else?

As with corporate mediators though, wouldn’t such investigation companies have a financial incentive to favor their clients, so as to improve the odds of being rehired?