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 is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
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.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/...
Nicely documented and sourced. Somehow I doubt wikipedia will even bother to correct the bad dentires.
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased ...
You just had to signal that you're a loyal and enthusiastic Trump supporter didn't you?
Tell me, what exactly has CNN done that makes them "unreliable and biased" in a way that doesn't apply to other mainstream media publications?
I stole this Sig
That's true: wanting factual news sources is very much a left biased thing these days.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Everyone I don't like is Hitle...err, I mean Putin.
(Also Hitler.)
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.
Educate yourself about Russia Today. Downmod this and prove that it is true.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.