Was Wikipedia Right In Banning The Daily Mail?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html

/// Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. ///

/// Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today. ///

[Zacs-Master]

what! They'll be banning Loose Women next.

[mikey4444]

The article starts by saying that Michael Cockram is "ginger haired"

As soon as I read that, I stopped reading any further.

[RandyMarsh]

Same Mikey.

[jackthehat]

You haven't really read the article properly, have you, AOG?

[Zacs-Master]

their decision to do this was based on the fact that DM articles couldn't be trusted. This cannot be denied.

[Zacs-Master]

Controversy in the DM is nearly a century old. In 1924 it published a forged letter (Zinoviev) 4 days before a general election which was a factor in the defeat of the Labour Party. Latterly, it has published such stories as an African restaurant serving human flesh steaks.

[-Talbot-]

Zac-Master
their decision to do this was based on the fact that DM articles couldn't be trusted. This cannot be denied.





Trusted enough for Michael Cockram to use Dailymail links on his Facebook page.

[Zacs-Master]

Ironic huh.

[sp1814]

There's already been a thread on this.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1537357.html

However, as the DM has reignited the story by launching a counter-attack on Wikipedia, there is value in addressing the question again.

I think it was a little unfair for the Daily Mail to be singled out, because there are other unreliable newspaper sources. The problem the Mail has is that it publishes so much on its site - on average 600 'news' articles a day. The site simply doesn't have enough editorial staff to manage that content effectively.

I assume that this was a driver behind banning the Mail as a credible source of verified information.

[EDDIE51]

Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone who cares to do it , the same can not be said of the Daily Wail !

[-Talbot-]

I's an interesting link.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2343983/Whitby-Councillor-Simon-Parkes-tells-ITVs-The-Morning-I-lost-virginity-alien-holographic-age-FIVE.html


(don't read it mikey)

[Gromit]

Wikipedia have not banned the Daily Mail.

The Mail IS inaccurate.
I know, I have spent 10 years on here pointing out the untruths on a daily basis. This story is also laced with errors and assertions that cannot be backed up.

If the Mail want to be taken more seriously then it needs to improve its journalism and up its game.

[THECORBYLOON]

Come on now MIKEY, the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year four year in a row. Politicians and the like must be quaking in their boots at the thought of being questioned by such forensic analysts...

[ichkeria]

"in the modern world, bigoted oddballs who are over-familiar with the internet can wield tremendous power — and this potty-mouthed man is a case in point"
For a moment I thought that was a direct reference to the "inauguration of Donald Trump" :-)

I don't think banning organisations is the way to go. There are probably some things that even RT would find pointless to lie about. Surely better, and less lazy, to use a weighting system, or simply to cross-check facts across different sources, which I'll be surprised if they don' do anyway.

So my answer is: "No" (as it was last time this was asked :-) )

[mikey4444]

"Hurrah for the Blackshirts"

( not fake news)

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master

/// their decision to do this was based on the fact that DM articles couldn't be trusted. ///

And Wikipedia's can?????????????

[sp1814]

AOG

Yes. Wikipedia is more reliable.

The Daily Mail has kinda proved it with this attack.

The Daily Mail was removed as a credible source by Wikipedia (except in exceptional circumstances) because of the 'poor fact checking and sensationalism'.

So how does the DM respond?

1. By calling Wikipedia 'a news site' (it is not)
2. Claiming they've been banned (they haven't)
3. Aserting that they've been censored (they haven't)
4. That it's a free speech issue (it isn't)
5. Confusing register users with site administrators

This means that the article they've written about this topic is actually too unreliable to be quoted on the Wikipedia page about this topic.

[Zacs-Master]

I'd rather trust Wiki than the DM any day. In fact I'd rather trust Loose Women than the DM. An opinion I'm sure you'll support AOG.

[sp1814]

Perhaps the real reason that DM is so unhappy, is that they're seeing the impact - the loss of links from Wikipedia means poorer Search Engine Optimisation, which means less ad revenue.

An explanation of Search Engine Optimisation:

http://searchengineland.com/guide/what-is-seo