Donate SIGN UP

Is Wikipedia Right To Single Out The Daily Mail As An 'unreliable Source'?

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 20:22 Thu 09th Feb 2017 | News
32 Answers
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Surely most news outlets now should be treated with suspicion? The Daily Mail may have its faults, but surely it's no worse than other Fleet Street publications?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I nearly asked the same question Sp.

You are right and I would sooner take the Mail than many other papers/websites.
Oh dear God yes. Unreliable doesn't begin to cover the awful reporting from this supposed newspaper.
They are not great certainly it considering some of the excuses for 'news' agencies they still rely on then I'd say yes rather unfair
'BUT' considering
The Wail is so bad it's actually fun to read as long as you remember it's all BullS**** . Definitely the most biased paper in the UK.
So that's why Cameron tried to get Dacre sacked.

They never print what the public should see..
My sister has the Sunday Mail every week and believes that it is the only paper to 'tell it like it is'.
I despair that anyone can believe ANY paper (or any media news outlet) is the *truth*
Yes if they have also included theguardian.
online encyclopaedia



?

That sounds rather worrying.
That's a bit rich coming from Wiki-widely accepted as a non-reliable source.Most of them are as bad as each other.
What sources are considered reliable? Does that not depend on your personal views? Is the 'reliable' source not the one that most closely mirrors yourself?
This is what Gromit wrote on a recent thread:-

The press has always been biased. And Governments have always controlled the news.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.

No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.

All that isn't entirely new, we have had it for 25 years
The Daily Mail,and Dacre,are awful...but..

...Breitbart....anybody?
The Guardian reports that Wiki thinks the DM is unreliable. Ha. That's a bit like Christians saying that Catholics think Jews are mean.

See tne propaganda anyone?
It is an unreliable source. It purposely omits facts that are inconvenient to its agenda. I have been on this site 11 years, and most of that time has been spent spotting shortcomings in the numerous links to the Daily Mail.

It is no stranger to the libel Courts, and would be it trouble more often if they did not fortunately have its editor as chief of the newspapers' self policing organisation, the Press Complaints Commission.
wiki has its own 'methodology'
that is they say what they think is good
( and hang the evidence )

some articles say that there is research in it ( surely that is cutting edge and not a disadvantage ? )

and others say that there ar no secondary sources which is a bad thing ( surely primary sources are better ?)

other articles about famous men
are in fact - bio-vees - biography and CVs written erm by themselves- scok puppetry at its worst
" John Smith tries to meld the best from Dickens and narrative with the lyricism of Tennyson and constructs a simple yet heart-rending account of ...."
In fact his only publication has been vanity printing etc

yes absolutely, start at the top of the dung heap and work down
starton a dung heap and work down ....

christ even I dont understand that one
it may be that I have been tainted by experience

[worked on an archeological site and working on a dung heap until there is no more dung heap to excavate is an OK activity]
I must admit I wouldnt read the Mail unless it was free but then all media otlets are biased including the one that should not be - The BBC.

I must confess I often do read the Guardian in an attempt to balance and find some truth between them. Guardian alos has it's issues too.

As pointed out above though this is very amusing coming from one of the most unreliable sources of information.
Wikipedia can actually be excellent, particularly on the more technical articles -- as long as it's treated as an introduction, of course.

As to this decision, I'm looking forward to the wiki article on the Daily Mail newspaper that doesn't cite it at all :/

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Is Wikipedia Right To Single Out The Daily Mail As An 'unreliable Source'?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.