Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Saving For a Space Ship

 Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' Source: Poor fact checking and sensationalism

Recommended Posts

  Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' sourceOnline encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

 

Quote

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 organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred 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’. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever one thinks of the other charges, the one about sensationalism is hard to gainsay in the face of the continuing webpage top-storying about TPT, whose objective contributions to mankind still quite elude me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is often criticised for having very left of centre political leanings.

They also need to have a look at a lot of the currently alive celebs/actors/singer pages - some of whom have clearly hijacked their own pages for PR purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

Whatever one thinks of the other charges, the one about sensationalism is hard to gainsay in the face of the continuing webpage top-storying about TPT, whose objective contributions to mankind still quite elude me....

TPT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is run by morons. I don't bother reading anything on there related to politics/current affairs as it's as one-sided as the BBC.

For example: The Huffington Post is apparently a perfectly fine source, even though it's mostly op-ed pieces by feminists. Interesting that in the Wikipedia article they describe it as "progressive" - not "far-left". Compare with the Breitbart News article where it's been smeared as "far-right" in the opening sentence. Looking on the Talk page of said article, one realises it's the same 2-3 users shooting down anyone who disagrees with that epithet. It's a left-wing groupthink cabal.

Also, The Register "cannot be considered as a reliable source" because the owner, Jimmy Wales, doesn't like the way they wrote unfavourably about him 10 years ago.

I don't bother donating any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Wikipedia is run by morons. I don't bother reading anything on there related to politics/current affairs as it's as one-sided as the BBC.

For example: The Huffington Post is apparently a perfectly fine source, even though it's mostly op-ed pieces by feminists. Interesting that in the Wikipedia article they describe it as "progressive" - not "far-left". Compare with the Breitbart News article where it's been smeared as "far-right" in the opening sentence. Looking on the Talk page of said article, one realises it's the same 2-3 users shooting down anyone who disagrees with that epithet. It's a left-wing groupthink cabal.

Also, The Register "cannot be considered as a reliable source" because the owner, Jimmy Wales, doesn't like the way they wrote unfavourably about him 10 years ago.

I don't bother donating any more.

Surely opinion pieces are one thing, but fact checking is different? You could imagine Wikipedia getting into hot water on this given the reach of the Mail and their coverage of, eg celebs, many of whom maybe have a bit of money to defend themselves against lies.

 

Edit I get the mist of what you are saying though, the term 'far right' is bandied around way too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia's glory days are behind it. It was a noughties thing but many of the pages are moribund. Another ten years and it will be a curio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Surely opinion pieces are one thing, but fact checking is different? You could imagine Wikipedia getting into hot water on this given the reach of the Mail and their coverage of, eg celebs, many of whom maybe have a bit of money to defend themselves against lies.

 

Edit I get the mist of what you are saying though, the term 'far right' is bandied around way too often.

I think the point is that the Daily Mail is no more and no less full of shit than many of the preferred leftist outlets today. BuzzFeed , HuffPo etc, yet these are all allowed to stand as reliable sources because they aren't on the right. That's all it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem wikipedia has is with those who have time to populate its content and their skewed view of the world, the scientific/technical stuff is OK but the rest is becoming quite obviously tainted to readers capable of critical thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All "newspapers" are cluttered with "lifestyle" and "what if" articles.:huh: Because there are more outlets than news, and they repeat each other's articles almost word for word.

The Express is always predicting evil weather, with pictures of some previous snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

Wikipedia is run by morons. I don't bother reading anything on there related to politics/current affairs as it's as one-sided as the BBC.

....

Also, The Register "cannot be considered as a reliable source" because the owner, Jimmy Wales, doesn't like the way they wrote unfavourably about him 10 years ago.

I don't bother donating any more.

I was tempted to donate when one of their pleading banner ads kept appearing, but I couldn't get past the image of Jimmy Wales and family chumming it up with the Blair family. Apart from the fact that Tony & Cherie make my skin crawl, it hinted to me a regressive left/globalist mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in donating when they are sitting on millions of dollars that they don't spend. 

 

Funnily enough i think i first heard about that on the Mail Online website. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I donated the Wikipedia a few years ago.  No more.  We're entering a nasty phase in human history where so-called unbiased media (Wikipedia/Snopes/BBC) are nothing but biased and shutting down any opinions that counter their own biases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bugs-showdown2.jpg

If we're not talking to each other, and we're ignoring each other, we are going to shout louder and louder, until we are screaming. If people are ignored still, then actions take place. This is war on the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ironic that the notoriously unreliable Wiki which has all the journalistic reliability of the bloke down the pub and is usually banned from being used as a reference source for university essays as a consequence is calling into question a proper news source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's ironic that the notoriously unreliable Wiki which has all the journalistic reliability of the bloke down the pub and is usually banned from being used as a reference source for university essays as a consequence is calling into question a proper news source.

I'm not sure I would classify the wail as a proper news source. It's more like the kettle calling the pot black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's ironic that the notoriously unreliable Wiki which has all the journalistic reliability of the bloke down the pub and is usually banned from being used as a reference source for university essays as a consequence is calling into question a proper news source.

I think that's unjustified. I wouldn't use Wiki as a proper source for a bit of coursework but it is streets ahead of pure hearsay, and many 'proper new sources' simply because it attempts to reference it's assertions in an open manner. 

That said, the biggest howler I came across was when looking up the page of the rider who literally just crashed badly in the Olympic road race; her page had just been edited to say she had died, when she was thankfully relatively unscathed, although it took some time for this to become apparent. I guess this sort of malicious real time editing of unfolding events is a problem area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

I donated the Wikipedia a few years ago.  No more.  We're entering a nasty phase in human history where so-called unbiased media (Wikipedia/Snopes/BBC) are nothing but biased and shutting down any opinions that counter their own biases. 

There was an informative YouTube vid between Michael Shermer and Stefan Molyneux about confimation boas and the 'backfire effect' from about 9:00 - 11:00 here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   64 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.