Talk:Circular reporting

Please take a look at Talk:Silvio Berlusconi/Archive 2#Circular reporting?. -- Checco (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

More than 2,100 news sources on the web now link Berlusconi with the figures of Piersanti Mattarella and Elena Zagorskaya. More than likely, it is a case of circular reporting, caused by an inaccurated edit in Wikipedia. Would it be a good candidate for Circular reporting#Examples on Wikipedia? --Checco (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The addition of this entry here may itself be a case of circular reporting, with the article talk page about Berlusconi apparently being the only place that mentions the problem. At the very least, we need a reliable source that mentions it, otherwise this is original research! Renerpho (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Checco: The answer to your question is no, at least until the source that was given in the original edit (a 2019 book) is checked. As you said yourself, you had no chance to check the first given source. Removing the claim from Wikipedia was probably the right call, but to qualify for circular reporting, there can't be a source that existed before 12 June 2023. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The book does not contain the anything to support the details that were added. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(IP edit by Renerpho) Thanks, that info was missing. That does indeed make it a case of circular reporting. I can help adding it back to the article in a couple of days, if it hasn't happened by then. 95.222.24.215 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Still, before that edit, no source on the web connected Berlusconi with the figures of Piersanti Mattarella and Elena Zagorskaya. Now several do (as of now, about 800 Google hits). The information was made in Wikipedia! Thus, it was both original research and circular reporting. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

While the NY Times reporting on Hamas may be an example of circular reporting, it needs more than an unfinished sentence and an incorrect source (Leyland Cecco reporting for CNN? I don't think so) to be listed here. Also I think the Intercept article (https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/, archived versionhttps://web.archive.org/web/20240229043522/https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/) would be a more appropriate source. I may write something myself and put that back in, but for now I have removed this example.

MichielN (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the Intercept article, I fail to see how this would be a proper example of circular reporting. It is all about unreliable witnesses and following already debunked stories, but the only thing that comes close to circular reporting is this phrase: "At every turn, when the New York Times reporters ran into obstacles confirming tips, they turned to anonymous Israeli officials or witnesses who’d already been interviewed repeatedly in the press." In my opinion, it is not a very solid example of circular reporting and would not add a lot to the examples already given. MichielN (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Brazilian aardvark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 2 § Brazilian aardvark until a consensus is reached. Plant🌱man (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, all. An editor (M.Bitton) reverted the edit I put in that cited sources linking circular reporting to also the spreading of fake news. The edit summary in the revert reads: "Circular reporting is not synonymous with fake news." I reverted their edit since nowhere in the sources I cited is there anything about circular reporting being "synonymous" with fake news, or even that c.r. is exclusively deployed to spread fake news. The definition clearly states that it is also, or possibly more often than not, used to spread unverified or fake news. Before this escalates into something I have personally no wish to see (note to the passers by: it relates to this bit of red-misty RfC), I'd like to invite opinions & suggestions. Is the spread of fake news often using circular reporting or are we not to mention fake news in defining what circular reporting does? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have no wish for it to escalate, you respect BRD and ONUS. Let's see what others think of your addition. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Gnome: since you mentioned the status quo, I restored the pre-edit war version. I don't need to remind you that while BRD is a guideline, WP:ONUS is a policy. Let's wait and see what others have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

There has been no disrespect from my part towards the WP:BRD essay, as you insinuate, an accusation you're required to support with evidence. On the contrary, I have began this discussion precisely because I prefer consensus over the alternative, per WP:ONUS. (And WP:BRD is an essay, and not a guideline, but I can't keep score.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Starting a discussion does not give you carte Blanche to restore your edit and falsely claim that it's the status quo. Anyway, look at what your cited sources say:

1. The first one says "Circular reporting is where a piece of information appears to come from numerous sources, but, in fact, comes only from a single source."
2. The second says "False news can spread through circular reporting, where one source publishes misinformation that is picked up by another news outlet, who cites the original source as evidence that the information is accurate. This continues as other news outlets report the misinformation and perpetuate the [vicious] cycle."
3. The third says "Circular reporting happens when information of just one source is made to look like it’s coming from multiple sources, making it seem valid."

Sources 1 and 3 confirm what we already have in the article. Source number 2 is about the spread of false information (which doesn't contradict what the others are saying).

How (using these sources) did you come to the conclusion that you added to the article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Well, before I respond, why not make something clear: Are you seriously in support of the notion that the spread of fake news is unrelated to the technique of circular reporting? -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What I believe is irrelevant to the question that I asked (which is directly related to what you added to the article). M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• A reminder of what's in the sources I cited:

Source Nr 1 states, "The fake news phenomenon has caused damage to the credibility of media houses who publish dubious stories. With media trust at an all-time low, journalists need to become critical when tracing the origins of suspicious information in order to slow down the trajectory of a lie. Circular reporting is one of the most common ways in which journalists aid the spread of fake news."

Source Nr 2 states, "False news can spread through circular reporting, where one source publishes misinformation that is picked up by another news outlet, who cites the original source as evidence that the information is accurate. This continues as other news outlets report the misinformation and perpetuate the cycle."

And Source Nr 3 states, "The creation of fake news comes from the intent of spreading false and misleading information for click-bait to capture attention and profit from advertisements. As people fall for and start to share false information it creates a vicious cycle. Circular reporting happens when information of just one source is made to look like it’s coming from multiple sources, making it seem valid."

I literally rest my case, and, by this, I mean that I will withdraw from the discussion here for a few, in order to facilitate participation by other editors. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep creating reminders when a simple diff is all that's needed to show what the discussion is about.

Since you haven't answered the question, I too will rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not leave anything unanswered. Perhaps, my answers are not satisfactory for you. I take full responsibility for that. -The Gnome (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• A helpful note for everyone's convenience. This is the current version:

(A) "Circular reporting, or false confirmation, is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source. In many cases, the problem happens mistakenly through sloppy reporting or intelligence-gathering. However, the situation can also be intentionally contrived by the source or reporter as a way of reinforcing the widespread belief in its information."

And this is the version as I amended it:

(B) "Circular reporting, or false confirmation, is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source often reporting something either falsely or speculatively. In many cases, the problem happens mistakenly through sloppy reporting or intelligence-gathering. However, the situation can also be intentionally contrived by the source or reporter as a way of reinforcing the widespread belief in its information."

The whole extent of my change is underlined. (Disclosure: The word "often" was omitted lapsus calami in my original edit and I have now put it in.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with M. Bitton's version. Circular reporting does not need to be false, and indeed one of the reasons it's bad is that it damages one's ability to tell if the fact being reported on is false.
  That being said I think you both are clearly edit warring over there. Please stop. Loki (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you please clarify. Suppose there is an exclusive interview with someone to a source and he reveals something important. And suppose this revelation is replicated across other sources. The person making the statement does not repeat it elsewhere but does not deny their original statement. Is this a case of circular reporting for you? When cyclist Stefan Schumacher admitted in an exclusive interview to Der Spiegel that doping with EPO and growth hormones was routine in cycling, was the reprinting of that interview "circular reporting"? -The Gnome (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Without further details, that's unclear. If the sources all reveal their original source, it's not: it comes from one source and it's clear that it comes from one source. If they don't, it is: it comes from one source but it seems like it comes from multiple. Loki (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Gnome I don't know the Wikipedia terminology but it's almost like the first "report" is really just an "event"- an interview- rather than somebody observing something independently, and reporting it.

Multiple sources then look at that interview and then they report on what they each see in that event/interview.

I'm not sure I'm explaining it perfectly but it seems to me that this would be a very different situation than multiple sources simply copying the reporting of one source. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You did not notice perhaps that the edits in this article, at least as far I am concerned, stopped before reaching the 3-edit limit because I began a discussion in the talk page, following Wikipedia policy on disagreements. Your admonition is in good faith but misplaced. -The Gnome (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• @The Gnome I would keep the original statement the same but add this clarifying sentence afterwards.

“This can create the illusion of independent confirmation, and can amplify misinformation when unverified claims are repeated across outlets.” Emeraldflames (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The additional statement is helpful but still leaves the odious and suspect notion of circular reporting as something that includes information that simply originates from one reliable source and reprinted by others. Which is routine in the media. Shouldn't the definition make clear that circular reporting typically involves false reporting? -The Gnome (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Gnome I think your concern here is that “circular reporting” is being weaponized as a way to dismiss reporting that is factually accurate.

I think another way to address this is to add/emphasize in this article that identifying circular reporting isn’t meant to delegitimize factual reporting. It’s meant to flag when what looks like multiple sources is really one original source echoed around- which affects weight and independence, not whether something is automatically invalid or should be excluded. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Any objections to the course proposed above by Emeraldflames, please? M.Bitton, Loki? -The Gnome (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  can amplify misinformation why just misinformation? Circular reporting amplifies all information (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and misleading information). M.Bitton (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that there are many forms and manifestations of problematic information that can be amplified. They can also amplify correct information, but that isn't problematic Emeraldflames (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think we both agree on what it means, but what The Gnome said leads me to believe that they have a different perspective.

  As an aside, I stumbled upon a source that gives other names for "circular reporting", namely the "creeping validity" and the "echo chamber" effect. M.Bitton (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm fine with it. Loki (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The text cited by M.Bitton ("Measuring Attributes of Rigor in Information Analysis") relates, among other things, some eight ways the practice of shallow analysis can occur and contains the following passage, which is also the only time "circular reporting" is mentioned: shallow analysis ... treats information stemming from the same original source as if it stems from independent sources, labeled variously as "circular reporting", "creeping validity", or as the "echo chamber" effect. Τhis proclaims that shallow analysis can result from circular reporting. But not that circular reporting inevitably results in shallow analysis, i.e. that it is something bad per se. -The Gnome (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)