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.
2017/02/09 17:31:32
Subject: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
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’.
Heh.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/10 17:29:26
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/02/09 18:45:39
Subject: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
You understand that Wikipedia is an aggregate site, yes?
It brings together the articles and information from those articles. It cites said articles. There's even this amazing thing where they make notations about things being potentially unreliable.
2017/02/09 19:40:19
Subject: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
Wiki might not always be the most accurate, but it at least has to have some form of accountability to the statements through references. So you can always look at the source material and judge if you think its accurate or not..
Daily Mail is just stuff that's made up by whoever wrote it to fit their own/the papers agenda at the time; with no need to state sources or be accountable to anyone. It's basically more entertainment and sensationalist views than it is news and reporting.
Read? There are words to go with the bikini pics on Daily Mail?
Besides, the Guardian is just a leftist propaganda rag to DM's centrist/right (kinda stretching here)/Hollywood propaganda rag. Neither is really a good paper. US equivalent would be NY Daily News and NY Post tabloids.
As to Wikipedia being used as source material, it isnt reliable enough to be considered as such.
Hence, kettle meet pot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/09 20:02:29
2017/02/09 19:57:21
Subject: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
1. Pick something that's happened in the world.
2. Blame it on Darkies, Foreigners, Muslims (or Jews if still 1930's), Gays, Women, Yoof.
3. Don't forget to link it to cancer somehow.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Besides, the Guardian is just a leftist propaganda rag to DM's centrist/right (kinda stretching here)
That's more than stretching.
The Daily Mail has solely devolved into little more than and slightly better National Inquirer. I remember when the Panama Papers were being reported. Top two stories on the Daily Mail? "Putin calls Panama Papers Hoax" and "UFO spotted over London!" The top two stories. The former can qualify as news, but the later doesn't. They've got an entire section dedicated to tracking celebrity kids. There's no comparison whatsoever between the Guardian and the Daily Mail. One does news (and occasionally serious news), the other likes talking about how terrible these selfies are.
And when I say its slightly better than the National Inquirer, I mostly mean that it still tries to pretend it's a news source instead of a creepy fan fiction photo gallery.
As to Wikipedia being used as source material, it isnt reliable enough to be considered as such.
Then you sorely misunderstand why Wikipedia exists, and how it (hypothetically) handles sourcing. Wikipedia probably needs to ban more "news sources" and get a reign in on fringe authors in a lot of its sections (particularly science and medicine). I just never imagined the editors would get off their "anyone can edit" high horse and realize some things are just really really bad edits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/09 20:12:59
Compel wrote: Has the Mail recently lost a court case or the like that has prompted this specific choice?
More likely a strong reaction on the part of Wikipedia's editing base. There's a cadre of editors who have wanted to tighten up sourcing expectations for years (last I checked in like, 2014? the Daily Mail and the Slate were the top two targets for banning, with Faux News being pretty hotly contested as well). The Daily Mail the last couple years has literally been like watching an addict slide into doing harder and harder drugs, and with all the stuff about "fake news" going around I guess the editors finally managed motivate themselves into navigating the convoluted processes of getting anything serious done on Wikipedia XD
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm trying to hunt down the talk page where this decision was debated to see how it played out but jesus I haven't tried navigating the back end of Wikipedia in a few years >.>
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 general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims. The oppose !votes made three main arguments:
The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: 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.
The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.
Singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted. This point is outside the scope of this RFC, which concerns only the Daily Mail. However, the discussion is closed without prejudice towards future discussions on such sources.
There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. Yunshui 雲水 12:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Countersigned. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Countersigned. Sunrise (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Countersigned with an emphasis on point #2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Countersigned. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Glad I hunted that down too otherwise I wouldn't have found this XD
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/09 20:32:51
In the looser (i.e. negative) definition of the term, there's good reason to think the Daily Mail indulges yellow journalism too much to be of much use. Though I hear they're still good for sports apparently.
To be fair, the Daily Mail is an unreliable source. The paper is massively biased on a number of issues and runs lots of stories that support its biases, twisting the facts or simply making them up when needed. It reaches the point of irrationality on things like vaccines.
It also unhappily is one of the best-read papers in the UK.
As well as this, any newspaper is at best a secondary source of information on any scientifically based topics. The first rule of research and citations is to go to the primary source.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/10 12:47:27
Wikipedia unfortunately has rather archaic rules about the use of primary sources and "original research" which actually makes sense given that interpretation of primary source material takes a degree of expertise, but Wikipedia has desperately needed a cadre of professionals on some subjects with the authority to make content decisions for a long time. That's a high horse I don't expect the editors to get off anytime soon.
...and with that one statement, you lost any argument you may have been making. Take a deep breath, and come back when you've stopped talking bollocks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/10 23:32:06
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
2017/02/11 00:05:22
Subject: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
374th Mechanized 195pts 
