Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia's 'Ban' of 'The Daily Mail' Didn't Really Happen (theoutline.com)
Earlier this year, The Guardian reported that editors at Wikipedia had "voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website," calling the publication "generally unreliable." Two months later, not only previous Daily Mail citations on Wikipedia pages are still alive, several new ones have also appeared since. So what's going on? The Outline has the story: There are no rules on Wikipedia, just guidelines. Of Wikipedia's five "pillars," the fifth is that there are no firm rules. There is no formal hierarchy either, though the most dedicated volunteers can apply to become administrators with extra powers after being approved by existing admins. But even they don't say what goes on the site. If there's a dispute or a debate, editors post a "request for comment," asking whoever is interested to have their say. The various points are tallied up by an editor and co-signed by four more after a month, but it's not a vote as in a democracy. Instead, the aim is to reach consensus of opinion, and if that's not possible, to weigh the arguments and pick the side that's most compelling. There was no vote to ban the Daily Mail because Wikipedia editors don't vote. (emphasis ours.) So what happened? The article adds: In this case, an editor submitted a broader request for comment about its [the Daily Mail's] general reliability. Seventy-seven editors participated in the discussion and two thirds supported prohibiting the Daily Mail as a source, with one editor and four co-signing editors (more than usual) chosen among administrators declaring that a consensus, though further discussion continued on a separate noticeboard, alongside complaints that the debate should have been better advertised. Though it's discouraged, the Daily Mail can be (and still is) cited. An editor I met at a recent London "Wikimeet" said he'd used the Daily Mail as a source in the last week, as it was the only source available for the subject he was writing about.
It's ironic that the Guardian is pointing the finger at someone else as unreliable or fake news. Actually, it'd be fairly hypocritical for any news media outlet to accuse another these days, except maybe Reuters, who still seems fairly neutral.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Nothing of the sort.
The terms "left wing" and "right wing" come from the times of the French revolution, and had to do with the seating arrangements in the parliament.
To the left of the president, sat the "revolutionaries" that opposed monarchy (the establishment), and to the right sat those those that supported the monarchy.
The terms came to mean:
- Left wing: strongly promotes social equality and is willing to eschew tradition and cultural values;
- Right wing: very conservative and their policies lean more on traditional values and national and cultural identity and perceived "natural order" of things.
Remember that the terms have to be understood in the historic context: the French revolution. Basically, the left supported the Republic, while the right supported the Monarchy.
These are, however, very coarse generalizations and not very useful in a "real" discussion of politics, outside the history context. The political spectrum is much more complex for these basic labels: for example, Nazis are generally called an "extreme right wing" movement, when in reality, some of their policies - like social welfare policies - were very obviously what you would call "left wing". Of course none of them would be caught dead admitting this.
Unfortunately, the terms were so misused that they just became a short-hand for anything people don't like. If you don't like someone, just call them [left|right] wing nutter, and you shut down the dialogue right quick. You can also add some qualifiers such as "alt" or "radical" or "far" to emphasize your point.
It's just a polite way of saying "go f*" yourself, really.