Author Topic: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source  (Read 165 times)

Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • Gender: Male
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
« on: March 01, 2017, 11:37:56 PM »
That was the title of an article in The Guardian..

Quote
Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”. [...] The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

I am not surprised.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5245
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2017, 01:53:20 PM »
The Daily Mail "banned" Wikipedia years ago, according to the article.

Quote
A spokesman for Mail Newspapers said that only a tiny portion of the site’s millions of anonymous editors had been involved in the decision, adding: 'It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia. For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability."

His other comment was spurious, and typical Mailspeak which I think was aimed at its devoted readership rather than the public in general.

Quote
"All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press."

As if Wikipedia were attempting to stifle the free press. Reminds me a bit of Christians in the US who rage about how the government is repressing them.

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2017, 02:08:44 PM »
I use Wikipedia a lot but, if it is serious stuff I use them for a source of links onwards.

In college I tried for three confirming but independant sources. Difficult.

Got a Wiki editing account somewhere, some berk made a dog's dinner of the history of this village.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2017, 11:56:08 AM »
The Daily Mail "banned" Wikipedia years ago, according to the article.

Quote
[...] For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability."

Hmm, just came to me, "... its unreliability in not offering facts that match the stories we want to tell"?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6134
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2017, 12:24:22 PM »
WikiPedia isn't a good source. But I find very useful as a starting point, because they list a lot of good, reliable sources.

WikiPedia dropping the Daily Mail as a reliable source makes sense for them.

The Daily Mail dropping WikiPedia as a source doesn't make sense, because it should never have been one in the first place. Maybe the Daily Mail relying on unreliable sources is the reason they are unreliable? :lol:

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.