Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: 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 move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], 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. 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. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."
Because to a lot of idiots, being liberal means saying you're liberal, not living by a certain set of ideals; because those ideals are hard, and get in the way of being an asshole. Like people who talk about supporting feminism and abolishing gender roles, then react hypocritically to those who say they don't support feminism: women only do it for male attention, and men are just angry, jobless virgins.
The National Enquirer was up for a Pulitzer when they were the only paper to report on a scandal involving a Dem candidate. It's all politics, all the way down, especially wikipedia.
The Daily Fail can at least be entertaining. It's not like you can believe anything you read in the WaPo or NYT - it's all just confirmation bias - but the Mail at least tries not to be dull.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...written by a bunch of middle-aged white bigots who somehow manage to keep their rag on the newsagent shelves.
Still, a stopped-clock is right twice a day. If they get something right, there's no need for a blanket ban. Ideas transcend personality and all that jazz.
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?
Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.
It is well known that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Homicidal Russian regime. Fox news doesn't even come close to that level of depravity, though as everybody knows, hemlines and cleavage matter more in that forum than balanced reporting. CNN is a veritable bastion of virtue by comparison, though to be honest I do not waste my time with it. What really disgusts me are the trumpist shitmodders who camp on Slashdot now. Surely they are outnumbered by real people.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
So "Rolling Stones" is out? As is everybody inventing the "campus rape epidemic" lie?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.