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."
I would agree with you if wikipedia held other news outlets to the same standard.
They're like all media outlets in that they pander to their viewers' prejudices. Everybody loves the news when it confirms their already strongly held opinions. Wikipedia's editors are no different it seems. If they were genuinely impartial they would hold all outlets to the same standard.
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a reliable source for these purposes; you can't use Wikipedia pages as references on other Wikipedia pages.
That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.
My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.
That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.
Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.
Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.
And for that you should be ashamed.
Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.
If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.
Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.
I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.