Daily Mail is finally thrown out of Wikipedia
You need to be careful when referring to material you use for research, or to justify ‘facts’ you present regarding subjects you may be writing about.
While many people do it, it’s actually wrong to quote Wikipedia, NOT because it may be wrong or unreliable, but because you should look at the references given there, check them, and cite THEM as the source. Most people don’t know how to use the material properly, but if you happen to come up against someone who does, then the chances are they will laugh, or mock you, for using Wikipedia.
While it may be procedurally correct, it’s a little unfair on Wikipedia, since the problem really lies with the user, not the source.
The Daily Mail’s approach to veracity has never been notable for its effectiveness, and Wikipedia has had enough:
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’.
The Daily Mail gave a response to the ban, almost as good and as laughable as one of its stories!
Like someone who lies THEN insists they are NOW telling the truth, they just don’t understand, or “Get it”.
Interestingly, the date given as “at east early 2015” by WP matches our own decision to devote a thread in our Forum to “The DM hit thread” beginning May 2015.
Like Wikipedia, we had spent the previous years laughing at various DM writers trying to… do something. This was spotted in November 2016, originally from Private Eye if comments on it are accurate:
My own take on the Daily Mail (coincidentally also from November 2016) was this – inspired by an episode entitled ‘Night of the Kill’, from a series called ‘One Step Beyond’. This was an American anthology series that portrayed events that defied ‘logical’ explanations (which the DM would probably report as ‘facts’ today).
Here we see some early footage of the Daily Mail’s founders as they hone their skills and perfect the practice of…
“Shoot first and… Questions? We ain’t bothered with no stinkin’ questions – just shoot!”
‘Creature’ rescues a lost kid, feeds him, and puts in a place of safety where animals cannot reach.
Round up the neighbours, make sure everybody has a gun, and the hunt is on for the kid’s 15-foot friend.
“It came towards us – couldn’t believe what we saw – everybody started shooting.”
“HIDEOUS! Whatever it is… it’s GOT TO BE KILLED!”
Kid: “He didn’t hurt anybody!”
Mom: “You’ll understand when you grow up… that certain things HAVE to be done… well, your friend for instance… he’s just too dangerous to be running loose.”
And as we know from even the sensible news, the world is full of people who still function on the same logic…
We’re not really that far on from the days of lynch mobs – just better at covering it up, denying, ignoring it, or launching a smokescreen to divert attention.
No comments yet.