maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Harumpfh. English Gentlemen hardly need lectures on manners from some rabid colonial bumpkin



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 12840
Reputation points: 2776
Especially David Rose's climate change is like swiss cheese, full of holes. And the rest is lies. "Poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication" :twisted:

But there is obviously more. But I can not comment on that so much. I have difficulties reading Mail without puking.

Jasper Jackson wrote:
Image

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

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

Image

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

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’.

Image

“This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution.”

The proposal was made by an editor known as Hillbillyholiday early in January, and fellow editors had weighed in with arguments for and against the ban over the past month. Those who opposed the move said the Daily Mail was sometimes reliable, that historically its record may have been better, and that there were other publications that were also unreliable.

Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication.

Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”

The move is likely to stop short of prohibiting linking to the Daily Mail, as there will be instances, such as when a Wikipedia entry is about the newspaper or one of its writers, when the editors believe a link is necessary. Instead a system for flagging any uses of the newspaper as a source will be introduced, asking editors not to use it and find alternatives.

The editors have also asked for volunteers to review about 12,000 links to the Daily Mail already on Wikipedia and replace them with alternative sources wherever possible.

The decision by Wikipedia comes amid widespread debate over the rise of fake news, which has widened to include concerns about misleading information in traditional publications. A recent BuzzFeed analysis claimed that there was “little appetite” for completely fabricated “fake news” in the UK because the country already had a highly partisan press.

Wikipedia was set up in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and has become one of the most popular websites in the world. It allows anyone to make edits, sometimes leading to instances of false entries and vandalism of pages, but is policed by thousands of people who regular weed out deliberate and accidental errors.

The site’s rules on reliable sources state: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published, sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered ... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.”

Representatives for the Daily Mail had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.


I am pleased to see that the counter offensive against the alt-facts has started. :mrgreen:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8824
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
Sad to see Wikipedia falling prey to the leftist cult of censorship.

Daily Mail may not be a "reliable" source, but then there are only about 15,000 other "unreliable" sources out there--including a large fraction of the "peer-reviewed" literature . . .

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 12840
Reputation points: 2776
Anthropoid wrote:
Sad to see Wikipedia falling prey to the leftist cult of censorship.

Daily Mail may not be a "reliable" source, but then there are only about 15,000 other "unreliable" sources out there--including a large fraction of the "peer-reviewed" literature . . .

Wiki accepts RT and Fox. :shock:

But is against "Poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication".

Sounds fair to me.

PS. Try reading Mail without puking. ... OK you have the magical powers. ;)

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:42 am
Posts: 3698
Location: France
Reputation points: 6383
Nothing new, after all the Daily Mail is a tabloid.

But that campaign of self righteous is a bit frightening.

Daily Mail can be a source. The stupid thing to do is to have it as the only source you follow. It is the same thing for any medium.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 12840
Reputation points: 2776
LaPalice wrote:
Nothing new, after all the Daily Mail is a tabloid.

But that campaign of self righteous is a bit frightening.

Daily Mail can be a source. The stupid thing to do is to have it as the only source you follow. It is the same thing for any medium.

"Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group 'generally unreliableä."

Not self righteous but just practical.

Sounds fair.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26293
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 15259
If I am not mistaken, some university academics have essentially said the same sort of thing about Wikipedia. That is, they do not allow it to be a cited source in papers submitted by students.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9022
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 10165
Quote:
... Wikipedia editors ...


Wait - isn't that EVERYBODY ? Even I corrected a few facts on a few pages in my time ...

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9022
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 10165
I don't use Wiki as a formal source BUT Wiki can be useful for starting a search for sources!

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:08 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8824
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
nero wrote:
LaPalice wrote:
Nothing new, after all the Daily Mail is a tabloid.

But that campaign of self righteous is a bit frightening.

Daily Mail can be a source. The stupid thing to do is to have it as the only source you follow. It is the same thing for any medium.

"Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group 'generally unreliableä."

Not self righteous but just practical.

Sounds fair.


I think you're missing the point Sneer.

We can agree RT, Daily Mail, and a lot of other ones are of "questionable" reliability. In fact ALL sources are of "questionable" reliability; it is simply a matter of "how questionable."

If Wikipedia feels that its readership is too stupid to hover cursor over a cite and see it is "Daily Mail" and take whatever the claim is with a grain of salt, then why aren't they cleaning house of all sources which are used in Wikipedia which fall below some minimum threshold? RT News and myriad other ones could easily be shown to a neutral judge to fit in that "questionable" category.

Its hypocrisy and I can guarantee you it reflects partisan power struggles among the editors and essentially reduces down to "who bitched and moaned the loudest/most frequently/most persistently." Sad that wikipedia has succumbed to the leftist cult of censorship; it would be no less sad if right-wing fundamentalist Hindi, or mid-wing Anarcho-syndicalist movements were achieving the same sort of partisan end result. Less voices is not what wikipedia needs: some years ago someone wrote an article projecting that, within 10 years Wikipedia would no longer be able to continue as a "crowd staffed" service because the attrition in editors would have led to a small overworked handful of demagogues controlling every page on it. I've seen this cultural dynamic and it is ruining what could otherwise be a fine expression of human potential.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia considers Daily Mail as “generally unreliable”
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 4902
Location: The Cockney Paradise
Reputation points: 11508
Well at least it is not as bad as The Sunday Sport...

Attachment:
30-years-of-sunday-sport-original-clickbait-kings-body-image-1473949245-size_1000.jpg
30-years-of-sunday-sport-original-clickbait-kings-body-image-1473949245-size_1000.jpg [ 199.4 KiB | Viewed 518 times ]


For those who don't know what a bellend is, its that part of your cock that stops your hand sliding off when you are having a wank. ;)

_________________
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group