Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Kettle, meet pot....

I think you are mistaken on… well, a lot of thinks.

Nice work Wikipedia. Is the Daily Express already banned? Because if not, you might want to get on that, since the Express basically IS that fake DM headline generator.

Daily Mail isn't really "banned per se." It's Prohibited on the grounds that for any story it reports there is likely another source without the Mail's reliability issues, and the Mail cannot be used to prove notability.

So in a very narrow range of circumstances, editors can still cite the Daily Mail, but it's not deemed acceptable as a standard source.

Are you guys sure the Daily Mail isn't a comedy site?

Because I'm laughing pretty hard reading these headlines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Kettle, meet pot....

I think you are mistaken on… well, a lot of thinks.

We're all like that, actually.

Each and every one of us knows things for a fact that are actually just flat-out wrong. Lots of them, too.

I think people are still confusing bias and reliability. Bias is not the issue, it is okay to have a point of view, to try and represent something as you actually saw it. What you must be is honest and reliable. Honesty means that you don't invent, misrepresent or manipulate facts, and when you are adding opinion you make sure that opinion is sensibly formed and clearly marked as opinion. Reliability means you don't rely on conjecture, of if speculation must be part of the story then you clearly state it is just speculation.

The Daily Mail absolutely fails both those standards. As a result, you never know if anything you read there is true in the slightest. Whereas a paper like The Guardian also has a clear point of view, a bias, but the stories it publishes are clearly based in fact, and speculation and opinion is obvious.

 Pouncey wrote:
Are you guys sure the Daily Mail isn't a comedy site?

Because I'm laughing pretty hard reading these headlines.

The Daily Mail isn't a comedy site, but the headlines people are printing are. They come from a random headline generator that's designed to mock the weird fixations the Daily Mail has. Immigrants, house prices, Princess Diana, homosexuality etc... Basically if you invented a parody of a middle class, fairly dimwitted Little England kind of person, and then decided to be really cruel about just how ignorant such a person might be, you'd end up with the stuff published in the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail was one of the main forces behind the British anti-vaxxing campaign.

Co siderite g the amount of extraneous rubbish in Wikipedia articles it's a bit rich. Wikipedia is also left biased which isn't surprising given the fact that some governments train people to edit articles.

Wikipedia has a 'left' bias?
citation needed.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Wikipedia has a 'left' bias?
citation needed.

Sure thing - here's something reliable.

Silent Puffin? wrote:Wikipedia has a 'left' bias?
citation needed.

Ouze wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Wikipedia has a 'left' bias?
citation needed.

Sure thing - here's something reliable.

Good one XD

To offer a more complicated answer; it depends. A lot of the topics on Wikipedia are dominated by communities of editors, and whether one would qualify as "liberal" or "conservative" varies a great deal. Some topics are war zones between the two sides. Jesus is a good example. There was a 3 year edit war over whether or not to have a section titled "Historical Jesus" on the page before everyone decided feth it and made Historical Jesus a separate article to avoid the headaches. I wouldn't say thought Wikipedia's bias is "left" so much that I'd say Wikipedia's bias is towards whatever has the weight of relevant source material (which != true, just weight of voice) behind it which is basically where you run into the problem that conservative sources are often not the most reliable, and anything that disagrees with them even remotely is automatically labeled "liberal."

It is actually true though the governments (as well as corporations, marketing groups, and even celebrities) train and pay people to edit Wikipedia. On more than a few occasions edits from unlogged users have been traced to government or corporate offices, or even private residences of a celebrity XD There was a famous incident involve Carrie Underwood years ago where some troll edited her page to say she was a red headed Irish girl by birth. Carrie herself actually tried to fix it and ran amok of Wikipedia's stuck up attitudes on self editing XD

EDIT EDIT: There's even a subcommunity on Wikipedia that is basically Editors for hire and this is allowed under specific and restrictive COIN (Conflict of Interest) guidelines.