Wikipedia Has Issued A Ban On All Citations From "The Daily Mail" From Here On Out

Submitted by: fancylad 2 months ago News & Politics


Maybe British IAB readers can help here. The Daily Mail used to be kind of a legitimate publication at one time, correct? Even Wikipedia sort of agrees. While Wikipedia has issued a ban on any usage of The Daily Mail from here on out, some older Daily Mail articles might be permissible.

Wikipedia editors go on to say that the British tabloid is "generally unreliable" and it has a history of "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."

So it looks like climate change deniers can't use The Mail to publish their questionable-at-best claims anymore, like they did in this recent article which claimed that world leaders were duped with manipulated global warming data what IAB pointed out.
There are 36 comments:
Male 730
What next, ban the National Enquirer?
0
Reply
Male 246
Good move by Wikipedia, The Daily Mail is the very definition of the gutter press.
2
Reply
Male 203
As DrCribbens says.

You really need a half-hour Google with search words "Viscount Rothermere" and "Paul Dacre"

The current owner lives in the UK but 'pretends' to live in France as a tax dodge. Lovely family, /s

The editor, Dacre, is a lying, racist, misogynist, cowardly skid mark on the underpants of Britain.

He, along with Rupert Murdoch, gives Tory Prime Ministers their orders. At least your current Great Leader is his own type of whack-a-doodle, ours are spineless toadies!

0
Reply
Female 265
The Daily Mail used to be kind of a legitimate publication at one time, correct?

Presumably you're not counting the time it was the propaganda paper for the British Union of Fascists?



Viscount Rothermere, the author of that article and the owner of the paper, was a big fan of Hitler. He used to write him letters addressed to 'My Dear Fuhrer' with sentiments such as (after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia) "I salute your excellency's star, which rises higher and higher."

So in short, the answer to your question is 'no'.
0
Reply
Male 14,791
It's known as the Hate Mail. Highly biased; sells papers based on alarmist and hate evoking editorials. Notorious for shoddy journalism.
0
Reply
Male 2,076
Draculya Hi, Drac! Nice to see you back in the threads.
1
Reply
Male 37,248
Because nothing says "free exchange of information" like censorship!
1
Reply
Male 2,076
5cats This is not censorship. This is the editorial team of a reference work setting editorial policy on what constitutes acceptable sources.

Honestly, I am fatigued beyond words by the frequency with which people inappropriately exclaim "Censorship!"  With few exceptions, censorship is when your government tells you that you cannot print something or you will be punished.

Let's review some hypothetical examples where someone is prevented from publishing something and see what does and does not constitute censorship.

1. A person writes a Letter to the Editor to their local newspaper. In his letter, the author makes the case that Jews should not be allowed to play on the local Little League teams because "everyone knows Jewish children are dirty." The newspaper declines to publish the letter. The next time the letter writer is at the bar, he screams "Censorship!" and won't shut up about how he's being "censored." This is not censorship. Newspapers can pick and choose what they wish to print.

2. In response to a call for artwork, a student makes a lude drawing of the high school cheerleaders and submits it to the school's yearbook. The yearbook staff declines to publish the drawing. In response, the teenageer screams "Censorship!" This is not censorship. The yearbook staff, under the guidance of the school's adults, can choose what they wish to publish.

3. The principal of the high school in example #2 calls the yearbook staff into his office and tells them he will not allow them to publish a satirical article that makes fun of him and his staff. The yearbook staff exit the meeting muttering "Censorship!" This is not censorship. First, the students are not adults, and second, it is reasonable that the school administration have a controlling influence over publications that are financed by, and part of the operation of, the school.

4. Wikipedia editors change their editorial guidelines to forbid the use of The Daily Mail as a source due to the Mail's longstanding disregard for accuracy. In response, an IAB'er comments "Because nothing says 'free exchange of information' like censorship!" This is not censorship. Any publication can define its editorial standards as it pleases.

5. A news website in Saudi Arabia publishes an exposé on a Saudi prince who has a penchant for underage prostitutes. The author of the exposé disappears on his way home from work and is never seen again. The next day, the offices of the website are visited by a government official, who explains that if the website publishes any more articles critical of the Saudi royal family, everyone associated with the website will be thrown into prison. THIS IS CENSORSHIP.

Please: Let's stop trivializing the word censorship by using it incorrectly.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
wikipedia is not all that its cracked up to be anyway
0
Reply
Male 2,076
monkwarrior Piffle. Wikipedia is the greatest encyclopedia mankind has created to date, and that's saying something considering how much I revere the Britannica. Is it infallible? Of course not. Is it the single-best starting point for research on practically any conceivable topic? Absolutely.

Consider the achievement. Wikipedia didn't even exist 20 years ago and has already amassed over 5.3 million articles. Granted, some of those articles are rudimentary. To be conservative, let's say just half of them are well-fleshed out and have been poured over my multiple editors, like, say this one on J. Robert Oppenheimer. That leaves us with 2.65 million articles. By contrast, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online has 120 thousand articles. This means that in just 16 years, Wikipedia has developed twenty-two times more content than an encyclopedia that's been in development for 246 years. That's like comparing a fighter jet moving at 770 MPH with a bicycle moving at 35 MPH.

When I think of what Wikipedia has accomplished, and is still accomplishing, I am in awe.
1
Reply
Male 20,030
squrlz4ever I think it's first few years were shaky, but Wikipedia, if anything else, is a great starting point if you want to get your feet wet in a subject and learn more. It's one of my favorite things about the internet. 
0
Reply
Male 246
squrlz4ever I Totally agree with you there, Wikipedia is one of the greatest projects to emerge from the internet in my opinion. I too am in awe with what it aims to achieve, a depository of all human knowledge, free to all. 
1
Reply
Male 2,076
mrteatime Spot-on. You nailed it when you wrote "Wikipedia is one of the greatest projects to emerge from the internet."
0
Reply
Male 1,901
squrlz4ever granted, if it was free of bias, i would be in awe too.  Unfortunately, that's not the case.  I would always prefer a non-biased source of information compared to a biased one, no matter how many articles it has.  But that's the problem of the internet and the 'everyone can edit' it encyclopedia.
0
Reply
Male 2,076
monkwarrior Hold on there, hombre. Elaborate a bit on what you mean by bias, please.

I've done a little work on Wikipedia. Contrary to what many think, the editorial process at Wikipedia is rigorous. Every article has a discussion page where editors review the content and call out bias. Debates over bias are often vigorous and extended, with editors of different nationalities and political viewpoints doing their level best to extirpate opinion and present material as neutrally and fact-based as possible.

Can an individual contributor temporarily introduce bias into an article? Sure. But the editors assigned to that subject area will be alerted to the changes and review them, typically within 24 hours, and delete or revise the offending text. For subjects that are controversial, like abortion, the topic is locked to prevent any edits from occurring without review.

Could you provide a link to an article in Wikipedia that you feel exhibits bias? And explain, if it isn't obvious, just what you think that bias is? I'm curious.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
squrlz4ever Also, how about Jimmy Wales, the owner of wikipedia, trying to minimize his pornography history on his own wikipedia page, but others finding that it's part of his history.  Ironically, it looks like someone has managed to currently edit reference [27] to state: Even Wales has been caught airbrushing his Wikipedia entry—eighteen times in the past year. He is particularly sensitive about references to the porn traffic on his Web portal. 'Adult content' or 'glamour photography' are the terms that he prefers, though, as one user pointed out on the site, they are perhaps not the most precise way to describe lesbian strip-poker threesomes. (In January, Wales agreed to a compromise: 'erotic photography')."

So you see, like i said, " wikipedia is not all that its cracked up to be anyway "..  more like writing on the bathroom stall, like i said previously, hmm?
0
Reply
Male 2,076
monkwarrior In your desire to discredit Wikipedia--for whatever reason--you're now taking the accusations of a trashy website at face value. Yes, one of the cofounders of Wikipedia was involved in other internet projects prior to the online encyclopedia, and one of those websites had a subsection that published nude photos. So what?

I'm also suprised to see you, again, compare Wikipedia to "writing on a bathroom stall."

What all of this tells me, frankly, is that you aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia, nor understand its editorial processes well enough, to have an informed opinion. You made a flip remark at the start of this thread -- "Wikipedia is not all that it's cracked up to be anyway" -- were called out on it, and now seem to have your ego invested in defending your original assertion, even if you have to do so by increasingly outlandish and contradictory positions.

Unless you've got something new to offer, I can't see the logic in continuing this discussion. 
0
Reply
Male 1,901
squrlz4ever i'm not trying to discredit wikipedia, i am saying clearly that wikipedia has bias.  The bias is discrediting wikipedia, not me.

You can ask "so what?" to the owner of wikipedia editing his own profile to change/soften (AKA BIAS) the facts? Might as well say "Oh wikipedia is so great, so what if someone wants to add bias and white lies to hide the truth, I'm gushing and in awe at how great and wonderful a superb perfect knowledge database Wikipedia is"  No offence to you, but that's how you make it appear.  

So again, yes i consider wikipedia like writing on a bathroom stall.  Take it as you will and you won't find the truth.. sure it may tell you all the truth, but you can't rely on it.

I will admit i don't know a single thing about the editing rules, but the fact is that if there is bias, their editing rules are not refiend enough.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
squrlz4ever I have come across and heard of bias in it, but one issue you bring up, abortion, is only mentioned once in murder, but not in genocide nor homicide, even though it has brought such a massacre of innocents like never before seen by genocide or homicides. And its mention in murder is to 'biasedly' show it as simply a 'more controversial' or 'exotic' figure in relation to murder rates.  This shows a clearly 'modern-day-liberal' bias to hide the murder/massacre of innocents as convenience.

IMHO treat wikipedia like the washroom stall writing on the wall.. it may reveal the truth, but if you think it's all truth you'll end up dead from calling a # for a 'good time'.
-1
Reply
Male 2,076
monkwarrior You are waaaay off-base here.

First of all, the main Wikipedia article on abortion is written in a neutral tone and is fact-based. There are no sermons for or against. In addition, the article links to another article, "Anti-abortion movements," which details anti-abortion movements across the globe on a country-by-country basis. The main article also links to the article "Abortion debate," which contains a section describing the concept of "Fetal personhood."

In short, Wikipedia's coverage of abortion provides plenty of fact-based, non-biased information to support or inform any number of personal views on what is a highly controversial topic. The work of the Wikipedia team here is excellent and, frankly, a great example of journalistic integrity.

By contrast, it appears that if it were your call, all information on abortion in Wikipedia that does not describe it as murder or mass genocide would be removed because you consider it inaccurate. And yet you are faulting Wikipedia for being "biased." You don't see the irony here?

As for your closing remark: Honestly, did you just compare Wikipedia to the writing on the wall of a bathroom stall? That kind of remark suggests that I have better things to do with my time than discuss Wikipedia with you further. That's not intended as an insult; it's simply an observation.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
squrlz4ever I don't care what you think of what i think of wikipedia, it still has bias.  Until i see that the 'bias' of it gone, i will continue to consider it just writing on the bathroom stall: yeah sure it may have insightful and informative information, but as long as the bias is there i'm going to need to do further research elsewhere to fill the gaps of fact/knowledge.
-1
Reply
Male 246
monkwarrior An emotive issue like abortion is a difficult thing to cover but my opinion is that Wikipedia remains fairly neutral on the subject. If you have strong feelings in either direction then any source is going to appear biased.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
mrteatime If it's 'emotive' when it comes to an issue like abortion then it's too 'emotive'/biased for me.  Killing is killing murder is murder, and abortion is killing or murder no matter what way you cut it - Life is ending.  While there are some extremely rare cases where it could be helpful, for the most part, the only ones being 'emotive' about it are those who need to justify abortion as not killing or murder to make themselves feel better about the killing/murder.  Abortion is murder: planned, meditated, executed.
-1
Reply
Male 246
monkwarrior By using the term "emotive" I'm saying the subject of abortion produces very strong emotions on each end of the scale. 

Your use of the term "murder" shows that you hold strong views on this, essentially you show a bias against abortion. I would be nearer the other end of the scale, biased in favor of abortion being a personal choice. As I see it Wikipedia aims to present facts and remain neutral. I think in general that it's the reader that often introduces bias on these subjects rather than the source.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
mrteatime it doesn't show i hold 'strong views' at all, it shows you lean towards being 'emotive'.  abortion is killing.  killing is the ending of a life.  a life is ending, someone planed it , someone executed the plan.  it is murder.  it's called a fact.   This is bias free, this is a neutral standpoint, the fact is abortion is killing, and the act of planning to kill is murder.  You can use all the fancy smanchy words you want, but the facts are the facts sir, not a 'strong view' as you assert, which is an emotive reaction against the fact.

Murder in the name of convenience is still murder, even if it is convenient to revision murder as something lesser than what it is.
0
Reply
Male 246
monkwarrior Technically the term killing is accurate under certain circumstances, I agree with that. But murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another human being, where abortion is legal it cannot be murder. 

The standpoint you hold depends upon personal views, for example an embryo, can it be classed as truly alive, sentient, human even? The term "killing" even begins to be a little shaky here. That's the thing with this subject, it isn't plain black and white.

But regardless of that I think people do hide behind words and yes a late stage abortion is indeed killing a fetus, I have no problem with that logic. But if I were taking a decision to abort a severely deformed fetus or making a decision between carrying on a pregnancy that could kill me, I'd probably not want to use the term killing.  
0
Reply
Male 1,901
mrteatime  and it's bias like that which is why i think wikipedia is not all that its cracked up to be
0
Reply
Male 246
monkwarrior I don't think you have presented a strong enough argument to support that statement but it has been a pleasure sparring with you. 
0
Reply
Male 2,380
monkwarrior
I would agree that "wedge issues" can be difficult to cover. Your insinuation that abortions should be considered murder suggests you believe they should be banned outright. How do you weigh an embryo against a rape victim?
0
Reply
Male 1,901
jaysingrimm i would have loved to answer your concern troll  question, but unfortunately you have proven yourself to be troll (a time wasting one) many times over.  In fact, an answer to your question (based on what you assumed i believed), has no bearing on anything that this post is about, nor the topic of discussion on the thread of bias in wikipedia.  So go on, back under the bridge with your brethren... 

0
Reply
Male 2,380
monkwarrior
It was you that offered your opinion that 'abortion is murder'. Is that 'murder' sometimes acceptable in your eyes then? Don't be surprised if the people working with Wiki don't share your opinions.
0
Reply
Male 2,380
monkwarrior
Exactly how many times have you been banned and come back with a new account Monk / 747Pilot / GuySmiley /?

K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules." link

Monk: "I'm not trolling now jay" ; "Yes i i am a troll to your.." ; "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." (from your links)
1
Reply
Male 2,076
jaysingrimm Generally speaking, I pay no attention at all to claims of sock-puppetry. But in this instance, I might make an exception.
0
Reply
Male 1,901
jaysingrimm troll on
0
Reply
Male 125
0
Reply
Male 1,901
xigris bias has worked its way in, been there for some time now.  But it's to be expected in an 'anyone can edit' encyclopedia - haters will hate.
0
Reply