Talk:Upworthy

Since CT school shooting Upworthy has turned into anti-gun rights left wing propaganda site

As can be noted on their Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/Upworthy) as well as their rapidly dwindling "Like" count and accusations of their politicizing the tragedy to push a left wing political agenda. This fact should probably be reflected in their wiki page. BillyTFried (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon a deeper investigation of their actual website http://www.upworthy.com/ it is clear they are a left wing political site as nearly all of their content falls under such liberal political themes. BillyTFried (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hijacked article - serious, not "left wing"

The site is clearly focused on advocating serious, vs. shallow, issues, as described in their own informationa and elsewhere, e.g. In this New York Times article http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/new-site-wants-to-make-the-serious-as-viral-as-the-shallow

However the Wikipedia article has quickly been hijacked to try to portray it as left wing. Ironically, the reference used to try to justify the cliam in turn references the above mentioned NYT article!, which says something quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.13 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They're self-admittedly left-wing (). Co-founder is founder of MoveOn, a famously left-wing site (). Others call it progressive, left-wing, and liberal (, , and ). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"viral" content?

THAT IS NOT WHAT VIRAL MEANS! it does not mean "popular"! it means "under the pretense of being unofficial" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.74.199 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I added cleanup tags here because the article relies a lot on quotations of primary sources like Upworthy's own statements, and frequently strays into taking opinions on the correctness of criticisms levied against it. The article needs significant rewriting work so that it documents the significance of the site and what reliable secondary sources are saying about it. FalconK (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone has recently gone in and scrubbed/softened all the criticism and added a lot more Upworthy PR speak to the article. The article now reads like a press release off their website. Zaqwert (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Grayfell It looks like we are not in agreement on a recent edit, so instead of going back and forth, I figured I'd post something here. This is the sentence in question: "The company simplifies issues that are controversial by nature, which are presented with from a politically liberal point of view".  I am looking at this as an opportunity to better understand Wikipedia's guidelines, and have looked further into Wikipedia's policies and per WP:NPOV, opinion statements in sources need to be presented as opinions on the page, not as undisputed facts. In this case, The New York Times article is the only source that references a political leaning, stating that Upworthy’s content was viewed as left-leaning. However, the company has always identified as non-partisan, as stated in that same New York Times article, and that full context isn’t currently reflected in the article.

Also, per WP:MOS, past tense should be used here. There are no sources suggesting the company continues to be perceived this way after its acquisition, so the language should reflect that change over time.

None of the cited sources support the opinion that Upworthy simplifies controversial issues, so that part of the sentence appears to be unsupported and should be removed.

Appreciate your help in working to improve the page! :) :) NiftySwifties (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As discussed on your talk page, as an editor with a conflict of interest, your are strongly encouraged to propose changes on the article's talk page instead of editing the article directly.

Here is the specific, disputed wording:

The company simplifies issues that are controversial by nature, which are presented with from a politically liberal point of view.

It appears by my reading that these sources support this wording.

Per the Guardian: "Upworthy's curators are encouraged to share material with a message that will resonate with their target audience of progressive young readers ... The curators, many of them 20-somethings, believe social purpose is integral to the site's success in connecting with the demographic." and "Rossalyn Warren, 24, who joined the site the same month, says Upworthy supplements traditional media rather than replaces it. "I totally think that people of our generation, they definitely go to the Guardian, New York Times for hard-hitting journalism," she says, "but Upworthy [is] about visual, sharable content that appeals, because it's created to work on social platforms.""

Likewise, the NYT which says "Then there is the path of Upworthy.com, whose goal is to make more serious content as fun to share as a “video of some idiot surfing off his roof.”" and also "First, despite the fact that Upworthy skews liberal, he says that partisanship hurts shareability." The NYT is tactfully saying that the site's non-partisanship is about marketing, and should not be presented as a basic fact. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to summarize this, but just cutting the sentence completely while retaining the citations would misrepresent what those sources are saying.

If Upworthy has changed please cite a source for that change. I see not specific reason to accept that the merging with another similar company would automatically change the company's reputation. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell I believe the current sentence, “The company simplifies issues that are controversial by nature, which are presented with from a politically liberal point of view”, goes beyond what the cited sources actually support. The Guardian and NYT articles do reference Upworthy’s appeal to progressive audiences and their goal of making serious content shareable, but they don't do so as a critique of simplification or political bias.

The Guardian quote focuses on audience targeting and content format, and while it references “progressive young readers,” it doesn’t explicitly say the company simplifies controversial issues. Similarly, the NYT notes that Upworthy “skews liberal,” but it also highlights the company’s own statements about trying to maintain shareability over partisanship. This seems more nuanced than the current sentence suggests.

Here is my proposed language that captures the tone and content of these references without overstating their conclusions.

"Prior to its acquisition, the company focused on the shareability of content and sources stated the company’s content leaned liberal, though Upworthy maintained it was nonpartisan."

Also, regarding the current state of the company, I wanted to share a source that covers Upworthy’s acquisition and the shift in direction since then. publishers/post-merger-profitability-upworthy-goods-happy-marriage/

The article notes that the focus post-merger has been on serving clients specifically, “corporations and nonprofits that want to align their brands with social causes and change”. It also mentions that “Upworthy has dialed back its emphasis on going viral” and that it “rarely needs to boost content, and most branded content hits clients' goals solely through organic distribution”.

To me, this suggests a meaningful shift in the company’s approach, and it supports the use of past tense when referring to how the brand operated before the acquisition.

I'm happy to continue to work collaboratively on updated wording if you're open to it. NiftySwifties (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not accept that AdExchanger is a generally reliable source, and that particular article from 2017 is dehumanizing corporate trash. That source does not in any way imply that Upworthy has gotten substantially better since the acquisition, it merely regurgitates corporate leadership's talking points without any commentary or pushback. It also doesn't discuss its political position at all. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so this Wikipedia article is not an extension of Upworthy's purported mission to help "brands" with their PR. AdExchanger's softball pseudo-journalism portrays Upworthy as producing advertorial churnalism for hire. Even though this grudgingly mentions the click-bait issue, it changes the topic to talk about how profitable it has become instead of saying anything of substance about it. Being strictly motivated by profit was exactly the problems, so this is basically saying nothing at all.

Unless sources directly say something has actually changed since the acquisition, or there is some other non-controversial reason to think this has changed, it is a form of editorializing to phrase the article to imply that it has changed. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)