!!!
Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as Not Credible Journalism
Thu, 2017-02-09 17:35
#1
Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as Not Credible Journalism
Thu, 2017-02-09 17:37
#2
Bravo! 
Wikipedia’s Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism
The Daily Mail, a leading conservative British tabloid, has a storied history of scaremongering, warmongering, gossip-mongering, stereotyping, and even supporting fascism. In the pre-internet era, it was mostly Britain’s problem. But over the past decade, the Mail’s online organ has metastasized into one of the world’s largest news sources, covering dubious, salacious, and sensational stories wherever it finds them—with relatively little original reporting, accountability, or regard for accuracy. Its vast readership reminds us that popularity and credibility don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand, especially on the internet.
On Wednesday, the volunteer editors of Wikipedia took a rare and widely lauded stand: They decided by consensus to “generally prohibit” the Mail’s use as a source in the online encyclopedia’s articles. Here is the notice the editors posted to Wikipedia’s discussion page on identifying reliable sources:
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.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/02/09/wikipedia_s_daily_mai...
Thu, 2017-02-09 17:45
#3
Not exactly a ban, more calling it out as an unreliable source that should not be used.
As such, good.
Thu, 2017-02-09 18:33
#4
Not exactly a ban, more calling it out as an unreliable source that should not be used.
As such, good.
Yep, good.
Thu, 2017-02-09 18:50
#5
The Guardian gets into some of the process editors used to come to their decision:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-...
Thu, 2017-02-09 19:09
#6
My only question is what took them eo long.It's shit publications like the Daily Mail that contribute to people like Trump getting elected as President of the USA.
Thu, 2017-02-09 22:14
#7
Well I'm sure it's something they didn't want to do and only acted on because it was getting to be such a problem.
Fri, 2017-02-10 18:38
#8
I was just thinking sort of the same thing. Because they're crowd-sourced, rather than owned by Rupert Murdoch or something, Wikipedia has also been criticized as 'questionable'. I can hardly blame them for wanting to cut the rope on any sources that would only fan the flames of that.
Fri, 2017-02-10 19:00
#9
To a degree, but mostly I was thinking in terms of how much work and effort was involved just to remove dodgy links.Especially, as you say, with them being volunteers.
As well, calling out media as disreputable isn't something anyone wants to do lightly because it smacks of censorship, and you have to make sure you have a solid argument, and even then be prepared for criticism.
There are other poor sources which they continue to run, and of course everything is up for scrutiny. The difference with the Mail is that for the most part there isn't much they print that isn't being covered better elsewhere (which they also pointed out).
They didn't even break the Max Mosley story. They got out-trashed by News of the World.
Fri, 2017-02-10 19:24
#10
As well, calling out media as disreputable isn't something anyone wants to do lightly because it smacks of censorship
Well, in terms of the popular vernacular, anyway. As I trust we all know, "censorship" is a state-level thing, not a website-level thing. Were it otherwise, rabble would be a censor.
and you have to make sure you have a solid argument, and even then be prepared for criticism.
Valid criticism would come from those who feel that the Daily Mail is spittin' truths.
But having discouraged their use as a source on Wikipedia, they should surely be prepared for everyone to lump on any other media outlet they disagree with, or feel is biased, or feel is deep in the pockets of Big Something.
"But I see they still allow links to the CBC, even after the CBC bowed down to fascists and refused to report that Justin Trudeau's fourth cousin is a Ukranian nationalist!!"
Fri, 2017-02-10 22:12
#11
Leon Rosselson on this theme:
Whoever invented the Daily Mail,
ought to be cut down to size.
Pulped and reduced to a nauseous juice,
and dried out at flattened 'til ready for use,
Then covered in newsprint and lies.
Because who'd do that to a tree
raising its head to the sky
Rooted in centuries, telling tall tales,
breathing a green lullaby.
And progress, is all very well,
but not when it chops down our dreams.
And it's hard to feel, at ease in the world,
when nothing is what it seems.
(from "Whoever Invented The Fishfinger?)