Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as unreliable source

Hear, hear.

Guardian:

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

The story at the link above.

A bit of guilt here: I think I brought DM to WS, God save my troubled soul. At least I had not seen it used as a source before, back when life was young.

Tabloids can be (and are) terribly effective sources in true crime stories which, because of their sensational nature, are perfect for the red tops.

It's been that way since the 19th century.

There are many, though, beyond the pale; Wikipedia* caught this outfit bang to rights.

*and yes, there is a sort of irony here.

wfgodot said:

Hear, hear.

Guardian:

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

The story at the link above.

A bit of guilt here: I think I brought DM to WS, God save my troubled soul. At least I had not seen it used as a source before, back when life was young.

Tabloids can be (and are) terribly effective sources in true crime stories which, because of their sensational nature, are perfect for the red tops.

It's been that way since the 19th century.

There are many, though, beyond the pale; Wikipedia* caught this outfit bang to rights.

*and yes, there is a sort of irony here.

Click to expand...

I'm guilty of posting DM links here they cover a lot of missing persons cases and murders worldwide ignored by other news outlets. I don't like it when they sensationalise tragedies and hate this new policy of posting tragedy gifs of people being killed. I do not want to see these kinds of gifs and people should have the choice to do so or not.

I read Daily Mail online when it basically only covered British stories. Lots of stories on eccentric people (GB known for them), gypsies, Irish travelers. I could never get people I knew to read it though. Then at the end of 2012 they covered a Bay Area murder (not covered on WS) of a wealthy Indian-American millionaire. And guess what - they actually reported how he died which was not yet in any Bay Area media. He died by suffocation after being bound and gagged. They also had pictures taken from his daughter's Facebook page, had never seen that before. Well, anyway that got people I knew to start reading DM.

They don't seem to have the original article anymore. Interesting case with twists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mansion-masked-intruder-break-attack-him.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/sea...=Ravi+kumra&sort=recent&type=article&days=all

Wikipedia is not used as a source by anyone reputable. They have no room to talk.

Can't anyone edit Wikipedia? I'm always surprised when anyone cites Wikipedia as fact.

Daily Mail sure has a way of getting photos though...

DM's dim, plainly wrong coverage of the Amanda Knox case gave notice to first-time readers that it could not be trusted. Other news sins: marked racism and furious sexism -- not to mention pedophile-interest materials and pictures of sometimes underaged celebrities and stars.

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’.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

bbm A collection of opinions, Sort of like here. jmo


This coming from the guardian?

But unlike the Daily Mail, Wikipedia doesn't employ journalists. No, not "anyone" can edit Wikipedia. If you make an unhelpful edit, your contribution will be reverted and you'll be warned or banned. Many articles are protected so that only seasoned editors can make changes. Not saying everything on Wikipedia is true, but whatever is on there is supposed to be cited, and the citations are usually where the factual errors lie.

Gardenista said:

Wikipedia is not used as a source by anyone reputable. They have no room to talk.

Click to expand...

Yes, a wee bit of the pot calling the kettle black...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...the-future-of-online-censorship/#3f41e8f15c36

How was this decision made, what kind of data fed into this decision-making process and what does it tell us about the future of censorship and who decides what is “real” on the Internet, especially as social media platforms increasingly play the role of global censor?

When I reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment, they emphasized right at the beginning of their email that they did not agree with the Guardian’s use of the word “ban” to refer to the action, that instead links were merely “generally prohibited” except in rare circumstances.

Given the immense gender disparity among Wikipedia’s editors, I asked the Foundation what would stop those same editors from determining that feminist or female-oriented publications are similarly “unreliable” and enacting a similar prohibition on linking to any source determined to advocate for women’s rights or which supports feminist culture. While providing responses to my other questions, the Foundation notably did not respond to this query or a follow up to it.

Out of the billions of Internet users who come into contact with Wikipedia content in some way shape or form, just 50 people voted to ban an entire news outlet from the platform. No public poll was taken, no public notice was granted, no communications of any kind were made to the outside world until everything was said and done and action was taken.

Ironically, Jimmy Wales himself wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian just last week in which he decried the notion of a small group of editors at Facebook and Twitter deciding what is reliable or not: “none of us is comfortable with the social media giants deciding what’s valid or not.”

To put this into context - the absolute entirety of the body of evidence used to place a blanket prohibition on the Mail was that out of the billions of Internet users that come into contact with the platform’s content, 50 people said anecdotally that they disliked the newspaper for unspecified reasons.

We have endless arguments about Facebook and Twitter’s control over what we see online, but at the end of the day if just 50 people can make a decision on behalf of all Wikipedia users worldwide based purely on their personal beliefs without a single piece of hard data supporting that decision, how are we to ever again criticize how social media companies make their decisions regarding what is permitted on their platforms?


bbm

Cos wikipedia is such a reliable source, right? lolol

The DM is bad but it's half decent in comparison to The S*n. I'll have a party when this rag is binned full stop



https://www.facebook.com/totaleclipseofthesunpage/?fref=ts

skibaboo said:

Cos wikipedia is such a reliable source, right? lolol

The DM is bad but it's half decent in comparison to The S*n. I'll have a party when this rag is binned full stop

https://www.facebook.com/totaleclipseofthesunpage/?fref=ts

Click to expand...

The Sun is the one with the Page 3 or Page 4 girl, right? Yes, it's the worst. When I did the backpacker's Grand Tour of Europe, London was my first and last stop. I got rid of most of my last pounds by buying every single different type of British newspaper at the airport. I didn't read them on the plane, put them in my backpack for later reading.

The Daily Mail also just takes from other news sources so it's not always original. Plus I've seen it label pictures incorrectly and not bother to correct them on the updates.

SophieRose said:

The Sun is the one with the Page 3 or Page 4 girl, right? Yes, it's the worst. When I did the backpacker's Grand Tour of Europe, London was my first and last stop. I got rid of most of my last pounds by buying every single different type of British newspaper at the airport. I didn't read them on the plane, put them in my backpack for later reading.

The Daily Mail also just takes from other news sources so it's not always original. Plus I've seen it label pictures incorrectly and not bother to correct them on the updates.

Click to expand...

Yep page 3, that is right. I don't know if it still has it, I have not touched a copy of it since 1989. It's not even fit for the kitty litter tray (I won't disrupt the thread with why)

Wikipedia is actually a very reliable source because you can go to the cited sources and check the facts yourself. But that's too much work.

skibaboo said:

Cos wikipedia is such a reliable source, right? lolol

The DM is bad but it's half decent in comparison to The S*n. I'll have a party when this rag is binned full stop

https://www.facebook.com/totaleclipseofthesunpage/?fref=ts

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you what they did with the Hillsborough disaster is unforgivable. The papers not even good enough to wrap fish suppers.