• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

Which of the two do you trust more/would use for information

  • Daily Mail

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Wikipedia

    Votes: 48 85.7%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
1 - There is no evidence at all to suggest out various opt-outs (of which there are many, not just anything that Cameron managed to get - things like our opt out of the Euro etc) would be at risk or would lead to us "being on the outside looking in".

2 - Surely that is the situation we are going to be in anyway if we leave? From the outside looking in, but still paying the bills (either paying in the form of a fee to access the single market, or paying in terms of import / export tariffs that will be applied to us if we are not in the single market).

Except, of course, that the rest of the EU would also pay tariffs on their exports to us.

Given the trade imbalance in their favour that would make us net winners.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
What is this mythical "status quo" to which you refer?

The EU is constantly evolving into a more unified state. True, we have (had) Cameron's laughable opt outs, but even if the EU had finally passed them, within a few years the UK would have been on the outside looking in, but in that case still paying the bills.

It may have been evolving but it was a good deal better defined than the numerous "alternatives" being pushed by the Brexiters.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
What are the benefits of Brexit since we are now stuck with it at some point in the future? I know the Daily Mail are keen to tell us how the country is booming despite Brexit even though we haven't actually left the EU yet. We are going to escape the shackles of the EU and make trade deals with more sane regimes like the US, India and China.
 

sheeldz

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2013
Messages
27
Location
Glasgow
Except, of course, that the rest of the EU would also pay tariffs on their exports to us.

Given the trade imbalance in their favour that would make us net winners.

In what way? I would imagine that the EU comapnies looking to trade with us in that scenario would, quite rightly, simply increase the price that we have to pay at the "checkout" for the goods that have had the tarriffs applied to, making us likely to be net losers, not winners.

There is very little chance that being outside of the EU will get us beneficial trade with the rest of the EU - infact, put simply, that cannot be allowed to happen from an EU stand point, and we have very little to bargain with to gain such an agreement.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
There is very little chance that being outside of the EU will get us beneficial trade with the rest of the EU - infact, put simply, that cannot be allowed to happen from an EU stand point, and we have very little to bargain with to gain such an agreement.

Indeed, what would the British view if it had been France or Germany had been the ones to declare they would be leaving the EU.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Indeed, what would the British view if it had been France or Germany had been the ones to declare they would be leaving the EU.

In the case of France, we would be cheering all the way to the bank as the chance to reform the CAP would have arrived.

In the case of Germany, we would have been pushing them out of the way to get out of the door first!
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
France would be an interesting one. France is, to all intents and purposes, our main gateway to the rest of the EU. The majority of (non-air) access points with mainland Europe go through France via the Channel. It would leave us in a somewhat unusual position that we'd have a significant barrier to our trade with the rEU. I think it would have accelerated our departure.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I had a quick scan through the thread and didn't see it, apologies if I'm repeating something already posted.

This is the Daily Mail cancer list. It lists most of the things that The Mail has said causes cancer, along with links to the articles.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!

I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
A
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!

I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
A

I get your point but the Daily Mail is allegedly a Newspaper. It is difficult to discuss the stuff it prints without discussing the news.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!

I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
A

The Brexit discussion has to go somewhere whilst the main Brexit thread deals with the question of the Death Penalty!
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
At the end of the day the thread was started by someone making a comment that the Daily Mail had been judged by Wikipedia not to be a credible news source. If we stay 100% on thread then surely it would be a really short thread with 1 reply saying "Wikipedia are allowed to do that, if you don't like it carry on reading the Daily Mail and don't use Wikipedia".
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
The Brexit discussion has to go somewhere whilst the main Brexit thread deals with the question of the Death Penalty!

lol! That was exactly my thought! Although now that the main Brexit thread has further wandered - into the question of racial stereotyping - maybe we need to temporarily bring the death penalty discussion into this thread too <(
 
Last edited:

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:
The move by the online encyclopedia — which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information — was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

It reported that Wikipedia’s editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mail’s journalism cannot be trusted.

No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)

Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.

If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’.

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.

Full piece here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:

The move by the online encyclopedia — which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information — was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

It reported that Wikipedia’s editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mail’s journalism cannot be trusted.

No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)

Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.

If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’.

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.



Full piece here:

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

Ha ha ha. If the Daily Mail was like Wikipedia it would need some kind of citation to say that there was a democratic ballot or even that one was needed. As it stands I think anyone would take anything in the Daily Mail or Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I just find it amusing that Wikipedia have decided that this hate filled rag is an unreliable news source. Personally I take my information from a number of sources and make my own assessment based on them and my own experiences of the world around me.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:

The move by the online encyclopedia — which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information — was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

It reported that Wikipedia’s editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mail’s journalism cannot be trusted.

No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)

Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.

If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’.

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.



Full piece here:

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

A case of "The Empire Strikes Back"...:D
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
The Mail is far worse than most though. The ban is no actual hardship; anything even remotely true can be sourced from a more reliable source.

The Mail is infamously known for its inaccuracies and incredible bias, and we can't fix those inaccuracies. People can fix inaccuracies on Wikipedia.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
Out of interest would the Daily Mail have a democratic ballot over using Wikipedia for its information?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy.

It's all about patterns of behaviour.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
The Mail is far worse than most though. The ban is no actual hardship; anything even remotely true can be sourced from a more reliable source.

The Mail is infamously known for its inaccuracies and incredible bias, and we can't fix those inaccuracies. People can fix inaccuracies on Wikipedia.
It must be thirty years since I've seen a copy of the Mail, so can't comment on its factual verisimilitude. However it does host the redoubtable Peter Hitchens, whose on-line column is one of the few havens of good sense in a political mire. Wikipedia editing has been taken over by vested interests who commit themselves full time to removing anything they disagree with by fair means or foul.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
... However it does host the redoubtable Peter Hitchens, whose on-line column is one of the few havens of good sense in a political mire....
Having read the marriage discussion thread, in which you disagree with just about everyone else, and having read Peter Hitchens' Wikipedia entry, I can see why you would be a fan of his column ;)
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Having read the marriage discussion thread, in which you disagree with just about everyone else, and having read Peter Hitchens' Wikipedia entry, I can see why you would be a fan of his column ;)
He's a political Conservative, whereas I'm a social conservative, and a Labour voter. However I'm sure he'd agree that's a much smaller difference than the chasm between the laissez faire social and economic liberalism that dominates the political agenda of the main parties, and each other's political compass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top