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."
The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.
> CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.
They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.
Half of what I remember Fox faking was the Iraq war nonsense laundering phony "evidence" through anonymous administration officials and such and you can see WaPo or the NYT doing the same crap these days. Some of us aren't dumb enough to fall for that any more.
Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The federalist? Is it on your list?
I went through the first three in the list before I gave up. What was linked to did not match the conclusion the author was making.
The left have always been as partial to propaganda as the right but there is this curious situation at the moment where the right insist that facts are no longer acceptable and only right wing propaganda is "free speech". Frankly they can fuck off, along with that scumbag of an excuse for a human being Kellyanne Conway.
The Daily Mail is composed mainly of hate speech and the sex lives of celebrities, it only carries news where it supports general hatred or sex. It may or may not be worth pointing out that as recently as January this year it published an article saying that Hitler escaped the bunker in Berlin and escaped to Argentina. It is worse than a comic because at least a comic admits that it is publishing fiction.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
The Daily Mail actually has some very competent, very tenacious, not to mention ruthless, investigative journalists. It's not uncommon for them to break stories of real consequence.
The editorial spin that gets put on them, that's another matter. And their choice of subject matter is often open to question. But the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find, and I find it a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia that its politburo doesn't recognise that.
You think the NYT checks sources? Have you ever heard of Jayson Blair? Or Walter Duranty? There were numerous similar "reporters" in between. At the time of the Jayson Blair scandal it was discovered that the National Enquirer checked their reporters sources more thoroughly than the NYT did.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.
No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.
He's lied since then as well.
Maybe you need to get a hold of the truth.
Dude, that's a hardcore conservative website
Sure it's hardcore conservative. What the hell is your point ?
95%+ of CNNs political donations go Democrat. For most people that would make them Hardcore Lefty.
Do you consider that an indictment of their service ?
Half the stories on that page are 'debunking' TMZ
If by half you mean 1/16 then yes.
Now lets look at the point of the story which is these get started then don't go away
Taking your example "TMZ Trump renames black history month"
googling
https://www.google.com/search?...
We see ABC news repeating the fake story
We see Salon repeating the fake story
The Inquisitr, steveharvey. wbls, and a couple of fact checkers that get it wrong.
All off the first page without even trying.
So maybe you might want to open your mind a little, because as it stands you're guilty of the crimes you are projecting onto others.
The Daily Mail is garbage - but so is The Guardian.
The difference is that Wikipedia has been taken over by the social justice loons who agree with The Guardian.
Wrap it up. Wikipedia really is done.
Interesting example of how a bit of fake news and a willingness to believe any old shit that confirms you view that the mainstream media is unreliable.
For example, this claim that CNN interviewed their own cameraman. It originated from Stormfront. When you check the Stormfront story, it actually gives away the deception. The guy is a professional cameraman, he has done some kind of contract work with a CNN reporter once. That doesn't make him a "CNN cameraman" or suggest any kind of conflict of interest with regards to the interview. In fact, it actually lends credibility to what the guy is saying, because the claim that he had been to Rwanda was somewhat extraordinary and is now corroborated.
This is typical of the extremely simplistic take on journalism ethics that also affected Gamergate. People knowing each other is not a conflict of interest. In fact, it's how journalism works, because people are more willing to speak openly and at length with people they know. But the purpose here is not to check for ethical problems, it's to throw shit at CNN.
This whole sentence is a perfect example of how it works:
They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.
Genuine mistake, since corrected. Fake news story based on twisting some facts. Outright falsehood. Start with something true, move on to a partial and dependable lie, and then end up something vague and general to poison the reader's mind. Textbook stuff.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is fake news. There was a completely unsubstantiated claim by an NY Times reporter, which seems like a bizarre false flag op:
That's not a bizarre false flag op, that's cognitive dissonance on your part.
So at best we have a rumour
No, an eyewitness account from a reporter that matches other violence at the event that's been caught on film, such as this flag pole attack, or this woman being pepper sprayed while giving an interview, or this college Republican being attacked wearing a suit and Trump hat the morning after.
based on a story that clearly makes no sense (why would an anti-hate, anti-discrimination protester identify as Syrian as a Nazi?)
Probably because the left has been throwing around the term "Nazi" like it was confetti, and he was wearing a suit, as the reporter mentioned, something you'd associate with the right, establishment, and conservatism at a lefty protest where hate-filled thugs are violently attacking people and property to shut down another person's free speech. Also, maybe he was wearing a Trump hat that was knocked off before the reporter saw the attack.
If anything it suggests that the protest was sabotaged by Milo supporters.
You truly have your head up your ass. And I suppose the 200+ people arrested and charged as part of a gang committing violence during Trump's inauguration were Trump supporters?
What you don't want to admit is that the left has become the party of violence, openly condoning it in many cases.
This somehow became a factual report when repeated on alt-right websites. And you either didn't bother to investigate it, or didn't want to, or are too incompetent to make a sensible judgement.
*snort* Yes, because you've done such a good job investigating it yourself with your baseless claims of false flag attacks and "fake news".