Daily Mail/ Wikipedia

[1901Phil]

It should come as no surprise to some on this board that The Daily Mail is to be banned as a source for the Wikipedia website in all but "exceptional" circumstances after it was deemed by Wikipedia as "generally unreliable" .
The volunteer editors said that the ban "centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat out fabrication" according to today's Times

Not sure why it took them 2 years

 

[Fungus]

It should come as no surprise to some on this board that The Daily Mail is to be banned as a source for the Wikipedia website in all but "exceptional" circumstances after it was deemed by Wikipedia as "generally unreliable" .
The volunteer editors said that the ban "centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat out fabrication" according to today's Times

Not sure why it took them 2 years

Good for them; hopefully this is just the first of several.

I use Wikipedia for so many things now, that I've started donating to their fund-raising campaign each year. Well worth supporting.

 

[Albumen]

It'll be the immigrants fault.

 

[beorhthelm]

I use Wikipedia for so many things now, that I've started donating to their fund-raising campaign each year. Well worth supporting.

well, in principle yes, but they have far more money than they need already and starting to fund things they dont need to just to use up the cash.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

It should come as no surprise to some on this board that The Daily Mail is to be banned as a source for the Wikipedia website in all but "exceptional" circumstances after it was deemed by Wikipedia as "generally unreliable" .
The volunteer editors said that the ban "centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat out fabrication" according to today's Times

Not sure why it took them 2 years

Because Wikipedia is 100% accurate!! Pot & kettle spring to mind.

 

[vegster]

It should come as no surprise to some on this board that The Daily Mail is to be banned as a source for the Wikipedia website in all but "exceptional" circumstances after it was deemed by Wikipedia as "generally unreliable" .
The volunteer editors said that the ban "centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat out fabrication" according to today's Times

Not sure why it took them 2 years

I am genuinely worried by the fact that The Daily Mail sells as many copies as it does. The bile filled sensationalism directed at Europe and anyone not 100% True Blue British is astounding. The blame for this can be laid fairly at Dacre's door, a nasty man with an agenda.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Because Wikipedia is 100% accurate!! Pot & kettle spring to mind.

No, but that is due to the nature of anyone being able to edit entries on Wikipedia and usually the inaccurate information on there isn't going to be referenced by sourced material.

This is specifically about sources that they link to footnotes and saying that they won't use the Daily Mail as a point of reference.

I set pub quizzes and I do use Wikipedia as a source for checking information. On the whole it is fine and to be fair, it is usually quite easy to pick up if the information on there is unreliable and not watertight.

 

[Prince Monolulu]

Yeah, yeah but you DO get a FREE Sleep Diary with the Mail tomorrow. I'm in.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Yeah, yeah but you DO get a FREE Sleep Diary with the Mail tomorrow. I'm in.

That's what you call a complementary product.

 

[looney]

This thread is of course Propagenda rubbish by a leftwing shill.

What you do on wiki is look at the edit history. The less of it and less political the more reliable, if its got something around 400 edits a month, ie an edit war like pages on pinochet/allende then avoid.

Most fake news wont show up on fact checking as its usually a form of emission.

 

[The Rivet]

This thread is of course Propagenda rubbish by a leftwing shill.

What you do on wiki is look at the edit history. The less of it and less political the more reliable, if its got something around 400 edits a month, ie an edit war like pages on pinochet/allende then avoid.

Most fake news wont show up on fact checking as its usually a form of emission.

Agree with this post but for the English syntax.

 

[BBassic]

Because Wikipedia is 100% accurate!! Pot & kettle spring to mind.

Wikipedia being occasionally incorrect or edited by people out for a laugh is a long stretch away from 'journalists' spouting bullshit, hatred and lies 7 days a week.

Just sayin.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Because Wikipedia is 100% accurate!! Pot & kettle spring to mind.

The Daily Mail, according to Press Complaints Commission figures I have seen has:
1. By far the highest number of complaints against it of any national newspaper
2. By far the highest proportion of complaints against it upheld.

Whereas I think plenty of people would acknowledge that Wikipedia is actually pretty good - depending on what you are looking for.

 

[AlastairWatts]

well, in principle yes, but they have far more money than they need already and starting to fund things they dont need to just to use up the cash.

Sorry but I'm lost here. I too donate a little money each year which according to them is needed to support them Are you saying this is for something else?

 

[looney]

Wikileaks has a rep for accuracy. I see the OP didn't link a source, like the claim about the Press complaints authority. Although with the grauniad constantly encourage their whiny readers to go crying I am not suprised if that would be true, although complaints upheld would be a better measure.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Most fake news wont show up on fact checking as its usually a form of emission.

Like a fart?

 

[Beach Hut]

They mentioned this on the Last Leg last night

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wikileaks has a rep for accuracy. I see the OP didn't link a source, like the claim about the Press complaints authority. Although with the grauniad constantly encourage their whiny readers to go crying I am not suprised if that would be true, although complaints upheld would be a better measure.

whiney guardian readers . . . shill . . .?

My, you are in a mad red baiting spasm this morning, aren't you . . . . . I have been told the Mail has excellent pages on fashion for aspirational women approaching the end of the first blush of youth, and good tips for dieting (to help the older women keep their man interested). I presume it is not these fine features that render you such a loyal and aggressive Mail reader?

As a pereson who likes to carry a grudge, I will never forgive the Mail for being the voicepiece for the National Socialists in the 30s, wuth their endless features on Mr Hit;er's good ideas for dealing with the 'Jewish Question' (the latter being a sort of 30s dog whistle term equivalent to 'fake news' that was strewn around to make fellow travellers snicker with scorn at those who fail to grasp the nature of the Real Enemy).

I hate the Mail. But if you think that gives you the right to dismiss me and others who feel similar as a guardianista (a paper I last looked at 20 years go - it is rubbish) or a shill ('an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others' according to wikipedia - I wonder who tought you that one, given you normal general level of ignorance and illiteracy?) then permit me to give you the benefit of my opinion: you are a complete ********.

 

[knocky1]

whiney guardian readers . . . shill . . .?

My, you are in a mad red baiting spasm this morning, aren't you . . . . . I have been told the Mail has excellent pages on fashion for aspirational women approaching the end of the first blush of youth, and good tips for dieting (to help the older women keep their man interested). I presume it is not these fine features that render you such a loyal and aggressive Mail reader?

As a pereson who likes to carry a grudge, I will never forgive the Mail for being the voicepiece for the National Socialists in the 30s, wuth their endless features on Mr Hit;er's good ideas for dealing with the 'Jewish Question' (the latter being a sort of 30s dog whistle term equivalent to 'fake news' that was strewn around to make fellow travellers snicker with scorn at those who fail to grasp the nature of the Real Enemy).

I hate the Mail. But if you think that gives you the right to dismiss me and others who feel similar as a guardianista (a paper I last looked at 20 years go - it is rubbish) or a shill ('an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others' according to wikipedia - I wonder who tought you that one, given you normal general level of ignorance and illiteracy?) then permit me to give you the benefit of my opinion: you are a complete ********.

I agree with you but wouldn't like to be the linesman or referee today, if they make a mistake anywhere near you. Get in there!

 

[LlcoolJ]

whiney guardian readers . . . shill . . .?

My, you are in a mad red baiting spasm this morning, aren't you . . . . . I have been told the Mail has excellent pages on fashion for aspirational women approaching the end of the first blush of youth, and good tips for dieting (to help the older women keep their man interested). I presume it is not these fine features that render you such a loyal and aggressive Mail reader? [emoji38]ol:

As a pereson who likes to carry a grudge, I will never forgive the Mail for being the voicepiece for the National Socialists in the 30s, wuth their endless features on Mr Hit;er's good ideas for dealing with the 'Jewish Question' (the latter being a sort of 30s dog whistle term equivalent to 'fake news' that was strewn around to make fellow travellers snicker with scorn at those who fail to grasp the nature of the Real Enemy).

I hate the Mail. But if you think that gives you the right to dismiss me and others who feel similar as a guardianista (a paper I last looked at 20 years go - it is rubbish) or a shill ('an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others' according to wikipedia - I wonder who tought you that one, given you normal general level of ignorance and illiteracy?) then permit me to give you the benefit of my opinion: you are a complete ********.

Well said sir.