Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

[Timbuk2]

Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable'

'Sensationalism and flat-out fabrication' are given as reasons for the move

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."

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".

A highly unusual move from wiki, especially since it still accepts publication sources like Kremlin's mouthpiece Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concerns with wiki editors in the past.

No loss so far as I'm concerned.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think the difference is that while fox and russia have an agenda, for the daily mail it was all about clicks/views. It was creating a feedback cycle that wiki was getting tired of.

1)make claim on wikipedia without source
2)daily mail publishes claim
3)add source as daily mail

Reddit in general hates how sleazy they are too, constantly stealing user submissions and misquoting.

[Aimless]

RT fills a fairly unique niche whereas the Mail is not only crappy and unreliable but also largely redundant.

[RandBlade]

While I'm no fan of the Daily Mail, the idea that its any worse than Russia Today, Fox News or Buzzfeed is quite amusing.

At least the Independent article here doesn't include the words "analysis by Buzzfeed" as reason for this like the Guardian does

[Khendraja'aro]

Again, Rand, please point out why you need to include the Guardian whenever someone mentions the Daily Rag.

I noticed that you were quite silent all of a sudden when Steely posted some title papers for comparison.

[Steely Glint]

Re: Buzzfeed. It's important to make the distinction between Buzzfeed, purveyor of shitty clickbait listicles which should clearly all be thrown on a fire, and Buzzfeed News, which is actually capable of doing some pretty good journalism, and has a number of award winning journalists with backgrounds in 'real' newspapers on their team: http://www.poynter.org/2016/how-buzz...und-up/396656/

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, once published an article claiming you could lose weight by eating chocolate.

[Hazir]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything let alone information.

[Steely Glint]

It is a reliable source of chip wrapper.

Also? The Daily Express is worse than Daily Mail. The Daily Mail makes a pretense of being a newspaper reporting the news. The Daily Express is just so blatant about it's xenophobia, there's absolutely no distinction between editorial and reporting. The Daily Mail would, like, "THOUSANDS OF FOREIGNERS SET TO COME INTO OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE OF EU SOMETHING SOMETHING" - like, that is a factual statement (the facts might be incorrect or misrepresented, but it's still a factual statement) - the fear-mongering is all subtext. The Express will just be, like, "FUCKING FOREIGNERS ARE COMING TO TAKE ALL THE JOBS FOREVER THEY SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE BACK OF A HEAD AND BURIED IN A DITCH RARRRRGHGHGGHGH"






They really are absolute scumbags.

[Ominous Gamer]

Ya'll got some weird ass papers over there. When ours go that far off the deep end they usually leave a bit of cover space for bat boy or something equally ridiculous.

[Veldan Rath]

Ya'll got some weird ass papers over there. When ours go that far off the deep end they usually leave a bit of cover space for bat boy or something equally ridiculous.

Wouldn't Bat Boy be in his 50's by now?

[RandBlade]

Again, Rand, please point out why you need to include the Guardian whenever someone mentions the Daily Rag.

I noticed that you were quite silent all of a sudden when Steely posted some title papers for comparison.

I responded to Steely.
The reason I included the comparison was that the prior post on this subject:

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

"Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’"

Has the amusing words in the link

A recent BuzzFeed analysis

BuzzFeed is clickbait shite.

[Hazir]

It is a reliable source of chip wrapper.

Also? The Daily Express is worse than Daily Mail. The Daily Mail makes a pretense of being a newspaper reporting the news. The Daily Express is just so blatant about it's xenophobia, there's absolutely no distinction between editorial and reporting. The Daily Mail would, like, "THOUSANDS OF FOREIGNERS SET TO COME INTO OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE OF EU SOMETHING SOMETHING" - like, that is a factual statement (the facts might be incorrect or misrepresented, but it's still a factual statement) - the fear-mongering is all subtext. The Express will just be, like, "FUCKING FOREIGNERS ARE COMING TO TAKE ALL THE JOBS FOREVER THEY SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE BACK OF A HEAD AND BURIED IN A DITCH RARRRRGHGHGGHGH"






They really are absolute scumbags.

Tip of the hat for the comeback. Still I think that whole faux-serious newspaper thing the Daily Mail is doing is more pervasive and harmful. On this side we've got one newspaper that does a little bit of this sensationalism, but nothing quite like what the British press does. Sometimes I am close to actually hitting that support button for the Guardian.

[Timbuk2]

Sometimes I am close to actually hitting that support button for the Guardian.

Heh. My finger hovered over it last weekend, primarily because of the following, which I hadn't quite realised about the guardian:
______________________________

Like many other media organisations, the Guardian is operating in an incredibly challenging financial climate. Our advertising revenues are falling fast. We have huge numbers of readers, and we are increasingly reliant upon their financial support.

We don’t have a wealthy owner pulling the strings. No shareholders, advertisers or billionaire owners can edit our editor.

Our owner, the Scott Trust, safeguards our editorial independence from commercial or political interference. It reinvests revenue into our journalism, as opposed to into shareholders' pockets.

But while the Scott Trust ensures our independence, we need our Supporters, now more than ever before, to help secure our future.
______________________________

Wealthy owner pulling the strings? Here's looking at you, Dacre.

[Loki]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/t...g-donald-trump

Still waiting for the Daily Mail to write a single legitimate investigative story.

[ar81]

If you want to quote a Nostradamus source, this what RT is for. If you Google "RT nostradamus", you will find these entries:

Trump plays Nostradamus with wild Syrian chemical weapon prediction
Descifran poema de Nostradamus que podrÃ*a predecir el ascenso del Estado Islámico
Las predicciones computarizadas "a la Nostradamus" de Washington: La guerra secreta siria esclarecida (Parte I)
Las predicciones computarizadas “a lo Nostradamus” de Washington: La guerra secreta siria esclarecida (Parte II)
Las impactantes profecÃ*as de Nostradamus para 2015
10 predicciones sorprendentemente precisas de Nostradamus
'Nostradamus de los Balcanes': Obama será "el último presidente de EE.UU."
¿Predijo Nostradamus la victoria de Trump y cómo esta afectarÃ*a al mundo?
"Esclerosis de la superpotencia": Las terribles profecÃ*as de Nostradamus para el 2017
"La tierra temblará con mucha fuerza": ¿Predijo Nostradamus el conflicto de Corea del Norte? (VIDEO)
Las 10 profecÃ*as más inquietantes que Nostradamus predijo para el 2016

I had curiosity and bought the original verses of Nostradamus to try to locate the so called prophecies. There is no chronological order, no topic order, just a messy text that seemed to be written by a drunk man (I understand Nostradamus was on drugs).

What a waste of money!! I found that a quartet that supposedly predicted the fall of a king in a joust, also predicted the outcome of a soccer game match in Costa Rica. Also I found a quartet that predicted the plot of the movie The Little Mermaid, and the life of George Lucas.

Followers say that apparent typos were an attempt to encrypt the name of cities, like Rapis to describe Paris, and whote Hister to describe Hitler. You know what? I would say the guy was high, because it is a very poor encryption algorithm.