Wiki bans the Daily Fail

[john@staustell]

Unreliable, poor fact-checking, sensationlism and downright fabrication. Well I never!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 70856.html

Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable.

A fiery debate on its suitability as a source ended with a consensus view that the Mail, and Mail Online, were "generally unreliable" and their use "is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".

The statement added: "The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."


READ MORE
The 15 best articles on Wikipedia you have probably never heard of
One person in favour of the ban said: "It's just a mouthpiece for Paul Dacre & I remove it on sight."

But others were strongly opposed to the move.

User The Four Deuces said: "Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime. And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable."

And N-HH said: "Bashing the Mail is fun, and it doesn't look as if anyone disagrees much that it is best avoided, but that there will possibly be rare occasions when it will be a good source, given the context (eg, as noted, something about the paper itself).

"But that's the point: identifying appropriate sources is all about context, and there are plenty of rubbish websites out there that should rarely or never be used, and plenty of occasions when even broadsheet reporting isn't worth much for an encyclopedia."

The editors' statement added: "If there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead."

Editors have asked for volunteers to comb through the thousands of citations that currently rely on links to Daily Mail stories and change them "as appropriate

[iwasthere2012]

Brilliant!
But can we believe The Independent when they tell us this.....

[john@staustell]

Brilliant!
But can we believe The Independent when they tell us this.....

Well it is in a few more.

But it's not in the Mail!

[iwasthere2012]

Brilliant!
But can we believe The Independent when they tell us this.....

Well it is in a few more.

But it's not in the Mail!

It's odd, how they didn't get the sccop on that.

[Dameerto]

I'll never forgive them for making up that story about how City fans were supposed to have burnt a City shirt a few seasons ago.

[Cocacolajojo]

Thw stuff they've written about sweden and immigration over the last few years is despicable. Noone should ever read the daily mail.

[zuricity]

Thursday 9th.... shock horror. Man City players train ahead of Bournemouth clash !

[john@staustell]

Thursday 9th.... shock horror. Man City players train ahead of Bournemouth clash !

Lifted straight off SSN though. Aguero was relaxed and smiling, which surely disappointed these vultures?

[Vantage]

I would not read the Daily Mail

Brian Bilston sums up my thoughts wonderfully.

[Beefymcfc]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

What's this strange conception of 'facts' that you mention Beefy ??

Aren't facts supposed to be mere concoctions which are twisted, moulded and devised to back up the media's propaganda agenda against us ??


Facts indeed ; I think you're being a tad eccentrically misguided there old chum.

[Justified logic]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

I'm more concerned with the inferences. After all, it is a fact that Aguero hasn't started the last three games, but the Bbc City section is still leading with "Man City have no plans to sell Aguero" and "Analysis: Jesus not ready to replace Aguero yet" and the replacement of Aguero with Jesus has been the general narrative of all MSM outlets since our new striker woke their journos from their red-jizz slumber.

[Beefymcfc]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

What's this strange conception of 'facts' that you mention Beefy ??

Aren't facts supposed to be mere concoctions which are twisted, moulded and devised to back up the media's propaganda agenda against us ??


Facts indeed ; I think you're being a tad eccentrically misguided there old chum.

I love eccentric, much better than 'cunt'. For some reason, in real life, I'm accused too much of speaking my mind. The fact that reality speaks more than anything else, I'd a God send for me

The Fail though, just like any outlet is there for one thing only - self preservation. It's their readers that are the driving force.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

What's this strange conception of 'facts' that you mention Beefy ??

Aren't facts supposed to be mere concoctions which are twisted, moulded and devised to back up the media's propaganda agenda against us ??


Facts indeed ; I think you're being a tad eccentrically misguided there old chum.

I love eccentric, much better than 'cunt'. For some reason, in real life, I'm accused too much of speaking my mind. The fact that reality speaks more than anything else, I'd a God send for me

The Fail though, just like any outlet is there for one thing only - self preservation. It's their readers that are the driving force.

I'd certainly never call you that Beefy old chum; in fact I'd never, ever call anyone that as I never swear or, rather, I can't swear for the simple reason I seem to be metaphysically incapable of uttering profanities of any description.

Don't know why, but I've always been like that...........so, in future, just watch it you eccentric miscreant

In all seriousness, you're absolutely right about the Fail though :- drossheads fuelling interminable dross, purveyed by a dross newspaper provider.

[Beefymcfc]

Not sure who's worse for reporting facts?

What's this strange conception of 'facts' that you mention Beefy ??

Aren't facts supposed to be mere concoctions which are twisted, moulded and devised to back up the media's propaganda agenda against us ??


Facts indeed ; I think you're being a tad eccentrically misguided there old chum.

I love eccentric, much better than 'cunt'. For some reason, in real life, I'm accused too much of speaking my mind. The fact that reality speaks more than anything else, I'd a God send for me

The Fail though, just like any outlet is there for one thing only - self preservation. It's their readers that are the driving force.

I'd certainly never call you that Beefy old chum; in fact I'd never, ever call anyone that as I never swear or, rather, I can't swear for the simple reason I seem to be metaphysically incapable of uttering profanities of any description.

Don't know why, but I've always been like that...........so, in future, just watch it you eccentric miscreant

In all seriousness, you're absolutely right about the Fail though :- drossheads fuelling interminable dross, purveyed by a dross newspaper provider.

It must just be me mate but that word is the best word in the world, if said correctly. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much for using influential words in the right place, but used correctly, that one statement says a thousand words.

*Never in front of her in-doors though *