Wee Willie Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 This is from Fox News Wikipedia bans editors from citing Daily Mail as sourcehttp://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/09/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-citing-daily-mail-as-source.html Wikipedia editors voted Wednesday to bar The Daily Mail as a source of reference in its entries, saying that the news website was “generally unreliable.” The editors said the vote in favor of the ban stemmed from the website’s “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.” The Wikipedia Foundation said in a statement that editors have discussed the reputation of the Daily Mail since 2015. “Based on the requests for comments section, volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’,” the statement read. “This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. According to The Guardian, the proposal was initiated by an editor known as “Hillbillyholiday.” Other editors then weighed arguments over the possible ban for months Those who voted against the ban said the Daily Mail was sometimes reliable and there were many other publications that were also unreliable. News of the ban came just days after First lady Melania Trump re-filed a libel lawsuit against the corporation that publishes the Daily Mail's website for reporting rumors that she worked as an escort. Wikipedia is reportedly relying on volunteers to scour through 12,000 links to the Daily Mail already on the website and replace them with a different source. _____________________ Volunteers anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I'd sooner use the Daily Mail as a source than I would Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Savage Henry said: I'd sooner use the Daily Mail as a source than I would Wikipedia. "I prefer Hitler to Pol Pot" type post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Savage Henry said: I'd sooner use the Daily Mail as a source than I would Wikipedia. The good thing about Wikipedia is if it's done right everything should be sourced, unlike the Mail who get everything off Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The good thing about Wikipedia is if it's done right everything should be sourced, unlike the Mail who get everything off Twitter. Or indeed off Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The good thing about Wikipedia is if it's done right everything should be sourced, unlike the Mail who get everything off Twitter. That's good... 18 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: Or indeed off Wikipedia. ...that's good... 20 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: "I prefer Hitler to Pol Pot" type post. ...and that's funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I don't know if it's reliable but it's absolutely fucking vile. The moral hypocrisy of the Daily Mail really is incredible. Absolutely love Facebook photos of scantily clad teen girls with some spurious news story to justify it and of course they have more ISIS execution videos over there than you can point a RPG-7 at. The comments, regardless of the story, is always an cesspool of hoggish degenerates. If you want to see just how low our culture has stooped you couldn't do any better than go to the Daily Mail website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The comments section of the daily mail is what I'd imagine the GN section of Follow Follow reads like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said: I don't know if it's reliable but it's absolutely fucking vile. The moral hypocrisy of the Daily Mail really is incredible. Absolutely love Facebook photos of scantily clad teen girls with some spurious news story to justify it and of course they have more ISIS execution videos over there than you can point a RPG-7 at. The comments, regardless of the story, is always an cesspool of hoggish degenerates. If you want to see just how low our culture has stooped you couldn't do any better than go to the Daily Mail website. I took up your challenge and went tae the website. And this is the headline news of the day. This is the first headline at the top of the page:Revealed: The drunk Cambridge University student (and relative of Nicola Sturgeon) who taunted a freezing homeless person by setting fire to a £20 note in front of him Edit: I forgot about the comment section but I shall return later. BTW dinnae ask me what that headline has to do with Nicola - ask the Daily Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejoeharper Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The Daily Hate. Pretty much everything to do with science is cherry picked, twisted, fried and pickled before they add it to the 'news'. It's almost always wrong. Even the simple things. Stories like this one: Scientists reveal the best and worst dance moves for women. Everyone knows that no woman has bad dance moves. Jesus! And it's not fucking science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 This is why you should get all your information from conservapedia. That's real. Look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I'd sooner use the Daily Mail as a source than I would Wikipedia. Then you're outing yourself as an ill-informed kind of chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejoeharper Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: This is why you should get all your information from conservapedia. That's real. Look it up. Had a quick look. It's scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfishtrombone Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Nick Davies book Flat Earth News about print and broadcast media gives a few examples showing up the Daily Mail for the hate filled vindictive paper it is, fact checking comes way down the list of reporting priorites at that rag. It's a really good book if a good few years old now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Would ye naw be ragin' if ye were a Daily Mail reader tho'? It was always a Tory paper, and biased in that regard, but it wasn't full of hysterics and nonsense (that was up to the Express) but it's just dropped so far so quickly. This was the paper that took up the Steven Lawrence story and forced widespread changes in the Met not that long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 It's quintessentially middle England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfishtrombone Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The Daily Mail Stephen Lawrence campaign was a rare case of excellent campaign journalism on their part. It's worth noting though that they had initially been fairly ambivalent about it till Paul Dacre realised he knew Neville Lawerence as he had done work as a builder in his house and then chose to be far more sympathetic to the Lawerences and promote the campaign for justice. The paper does deserve credit for pursuing the campaign for so many years though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, Cerberus said: It's quintessentially middle England. That's the Telegraph. The DM is for people who think TOWIE is a documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The Daily Mail's found its place in the market by being as deliberately provocative and outrageous as possible either with its content or clickbait headlines. Is it not the world's most read news site or thereabouts? It is utterly vile though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Comments section wise you're not going to beat the Guardian for being consistently filled with up itself intellectual racism and snobbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.