News publisher rankings. Elon Musk asked. We delivered.

Rankings for 250 publishers on the quality of articles they put out and their prevalence with a de-facto set of experts. #FakeNews no more!

Would you recommend this product?
3 Reviews5.0/5
Speedy turnaround from Elon's tweet to launching, nice! Did he get to see it / comment? @juicemoorthy
@abadesi they'd already made a similar product. Elon just happened to tweet about it :P
Upvote (1)Share
Looks great! Two questions: 1. How do we add a publisher? 2. Who does the analysis and how do you prevent bias?
hm "CivikOwl looks at the popularity of the article with "Owls" - CivikOwl users who are the most well read on the topics covered in the article." Well read is not the same as unbiased or accurate. People who believe the world is flat are going to be very well read on the topic, yet they're still wrong if they think an article saying the world is flat is accurate. Combined with the fact you just look at total citations that an article gives (to other pro flat earth articles) you're using two very flawed metrics for determining the rank (trustworthiness) of a publisher. This isn't an easy problem to solve, I don't have the answer.. So kudos for getting the ball rolling.
"How do you prevent bias?" They can't and there's no solution. There are myriad problems with a media credibility ratings site, the least of which is how comically easy any crowd-sourced ratings site is to manipulate. Elon knows this; I'm just not sure what his goal is here. Is he joking, knowing full well the history of Pravda? Running a thought experiment for his own personal amusement? Or is he serious (allegedly he had "Pravda Corp" set up last October)? Hard to tell with that guy. He has a quirky, Andy Kaufman style sense of humor that makes you wonder when he's being serious and when he's playing you.

Overall, a really awesome prodcut I will definitely keep using!


Great for jumping to better articles if reading poor news websites. Suggested article feature is correct 80-90% of the time.


Could be more transparent in terms of data used e.g. showing sources that you regard as low/high quality.