Pirate Wires

Pirate Wires
logo (not part of original row)
other namesPW, PirateWires
source typefoobar (not part of original row)
publisherFooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classificationGenerally unreliable Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.

Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

Notes

References

    Original table row for comparison

    (remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

    Perennial sources
    Source Status
    (legend)
    Discussions Use
    List Last Summary
    Pirate Wires (PW, PirateWires)
    WP:PIRATEWIRESWP:PIRATEWIRES 📌
    Generally unreliable Request for comment 2025

    2025

    Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel. 1 Links Spamcheck