Too much Ananova. September 13, 2001 10:00 PM   Subscribe

Could we have a moratorium on Ananova links for now? While other news sources have not been dead on, they seem to be way off base more than others. There are quite a few reading Mefi right now, and disinfo from what looks like a credible source could hurt.
posted by owillis to Etiquette/Policy at 10:00 PM (5 comments total)

I second this. In fact, I'm not sure if Ananova links should ever be allowed.
posted by sylloge at 11:33 PM on September 13, 2001

I dunno - for every 5 or 6 crap ananova stories, there's 1 or 2 worth seeing IMHO, maybe we should just encourage blatant sourcing on the front-page post, so you can ignore certain stories at will (without having to dig in and find out the article was from the Weekly World News). I even found a nice link there to some amazing first-person photos of the evacuation (here)
posted by kokogiak at 11:39 PM on September 13, 2001

I'm simply astounded that people would take news from Ananova at face value without trying to follow up with other news agencies -- particularly the ones who actually have reporters filing real information.
posted by briank at 9:01 AM on September 14, 2001

I've been following a self-imposed moratorium on the site for some months now.
posted by jpoulos at 2:12 PM on September 14, 2001

I'm against Ananova. The biggest I problem I have is that most of their stories are re-writes of longer, more detailed, better articles in other publications to which they don't give any credit. They remove most of the information and leave only the wacky bits, many times in a willfully misleading way.

What I usually do when I hit upon an interesting Ananova story is do a search on Moreover or similar. The original articl is usually there.
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:24 PM on September 14, 2001

« Older rationing to, say, one front-page post a day?   |   Outage thread Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments