Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

43021HST · 12 Feb 2017

me123 said:
^ In fact, let's look at the top five, since Paul has brought it up (I'll exclude the free papers - in this case the Metro and Evening Standard).

The Sun - 1,787,096
The Mail - 1,589.478
The Mirror - 809,147 (Its Scottish sister title The Record pulls in a further 176,892)
The Telegraph - 472,033
The Star - 470,369

It's quite depressing that only one of these five could be considered a "quality" publication. I wouldn't treat any of the other four as credible sources on anything, and even the Telegraph is not immune from sensationalism.

I think the Daily Heil nickname comes from this:

Daily Mail Circa 1934.

Headline reads "Hurrah for the Blackshirts, by viscount Rothermere

If you think about it, the circulation of the newspapers is very small compared to the population of Britain, 64.1million. Long may the decline in print media continue! The sooner the newspapers die off the better.

RailUK Forums

me123 · 12 Feb 2017

Here's a picture of Viscount Rothermore for anyone who hasn't seen him. (I'll let you work out which one he is!).

[Picture depicts Viscount Rothermore standing to the right of Adolf Hitler]

Here's another article from the newspaper at the time. Seems things haven't changed all that much at Mail HQ.

Daily%2BMail%2Banti-refugee%2Barticle%2B1938.jpeg

[Headline reads "German Jews pouring into the country", article written by the anonymous "Daily Mail Reporter"]

43021HST · 12 Feb 2017

Headline Reads: Fury over 'out of touch' judges who defied 17.4m brexit voters and could trigger constitutional crisis. Enemies of the People

Hmmm I do wonder why The Daily Mail is classed as an unreliable source ...

VauxhallandI · 12 Feb 2017

It doesn't come as a shock to me that the Brexit chanpion is championing the Daily Mail

burneside · 12 Feb 2017

klambert said:
I think the Daily Heil nickname comes from this:

Daily Mail Circa 1934.

If you think about it, the circulation of the newspapers are very small compared to the population of Britain, 64.1million. Long may the decline in print media continue! The sooner the newspapers die off the better.

People are just getting their news online instead of buying a physical piece of paper. In fact, the online version of the Mail is the most popular digital newspaper in the World.

43021HST · 12 Feb 2017

burneside said:
People are just getting their news online instead of buying a physical piece of paper. In fact, the online version of the Mail is the most popular digital newspaper in the World.

Hmm I suppose it's the premise of underage nudity, fad diets, click bait and rumour spreading that makes it a hit.

The popularity of something is in no way indicative of its quality, I mean more people at any one time will be listening to chart music than classical but it's no argument as to the genre that's most superior in quality.

yorkie · 12 Feb 2017

Just a gentle reminder of the following requirement in our Forum Rules:

If referring to an external source you should put the text in QUOTE tags(

), provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion

We ask for a quote because our blind members and users of some mobile devices, may find it hard to navigate to external sites, find the relevant information and navigate back again, so this makes it easier for them. Also in years to come, hyperlinks may no longer work or content may be deleted. Blind people cannot read text contained within images.

me123 · 12 Feb 2017

^ Updated my post, thanks for the reminder.

yorkie · 12 Feb 2017

burneside said:
As a regular user of Wiki I have contributed a few times to their fundraising pleas, not anymore though, they won't see another penny from me.

burneside said:
All newspapers have agendas and bias, Wiki's action in singling out the Mail is political and I disagree with it. Hence, no more contributions from me.

burneside said:
I really cannot take anybody seriously who refers to Mail as the Fail/Heil etc. It's just childish.

Hmm... interesting. Your views are noted. But can you give a good answer to me123's excellent points made in post #27?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

radamfi · 12 Feb 2017

me123 said:
The Sun - 1,787,096
The Mail - 1,589.478
The Mirror - 809,147 (Its Scottish sister title The Record pulls in a further 176,892)
The Telegraph - 472,033
The Star - 470,369

Those numbers show that hardly anyone cares about newspapers now so why do we keep giving them the oxygen of publicity? TV shows should stop giving them free advertising in the form of a "newspaper review" and people on forums should stop quoting newspaper articles as if they are gospel. It's all opinion and nothing more.

zuriblue · 12 Feb 2017

klambert said:
Hmm I suppose it's the premise of underage nudity, fad diets, click bait and rumour spreading that makes it a hit.

The popularity of something is in no way indicative of its quality, I mean more people at any one time will be listening to chart music than classical but it's no argument as to the genre that's most superior in quality.

I read somewhere that the Mail had the worst record of any British newspaper both with the newspaper industry's regulator (currently IPSO) and in the libel courts.

AlterEgo · 12 Feb 2017

I haven't bought a newspaper for about ten years. Not many people my age actually read a hard copy newspaper.

burneside · 12 Feb 2017

yorkie said:
Hmm... interesting. Your views are noted. But can you give a good answer to me123's excellent points made in post #27?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

So a Daily Mail hating FM trawls back to stories that are years old to make a point. Are you saying the stories are 100% fabrication? I love how the Mail winds up so many people and gets them frothing at the mouth.

AlterEgo · 12 Feb 2017

burneside said:
So a Daily Mail hating FM trawls back to stories that are years old to make a point. Are you saying the stories are 100% fabrication? I love how the Mail winds up so many people and gets them frothing at the mouth.

Indeed, it is better to ignore the Mail. As we've seen, traditional print media actually doesn't have a great deal of penetration any more.

It's a rag for the ill-informed, and best ignored, along with all the other tabloids.

The Express has much greater comedy value.

TheEdge · 12 Feb 2017

I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and agree with burneside, not because I like the Mail, an awful lot of its content is bias, fake or clickbait but for the fact it seems political from something that isn't meant to be. Why have they singled out the Mail in this way but left other similar papers (Sun, Express, even the Star!) as usable with caution. It feels like its a political move pushed by people with a similar view to a lot of posters in this thread.

In a response to me123 producing a selection of inter-war images and quotes. Firstly it is well known that there were plenty of people in the UK who thought the Nazi's were a good thing until the outbreak of WWII. In fact a founding member of the SAS thought they were brilliant up until the events of Kristallnacht. And then of course high society...

Duke & Duchess of Windsor shake hands with Hitler, 1937

Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-17964%2C_Ordensburg_Kr%C3%B6ssinsee%2C_Herzog_von_Windsor.jpg

Prince Edward inspecting men of the SS, 1937

I'm sure with enough time I could find examples from lots of UK newspapers of the time hailing the economic miracle of Germany at the time. I'm not necessarily arguing with the content, more with the fact that pre-war many abroad didn't know what they were doing or what they were going to do.

TheEdge · 12 Feb 2017

AlterEgo said:
It's a rag for the ill-informed, and best ignored, along with all the other tabloids.

This is a view that worries me greatly and I fear is one of the biggest reasons we in the UK, and all over the West for that matter, are sliding down a slippery slope to populist politics.

Rather than sitting on a high horse as a beacon of enlightened liberal perfection, sneering and belittling people with those views try engaging with people. We've seen enough that large enough numbers of people feel so alienated from politics and the political class/libral elite that the populist types are gaining ground. Trump didn't sneer and belittle, Farage didn't. It puts me in mind of a 1984 quote...

George Orwell said:
But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet-!

Okay extreme, but I do feel, especially with the victory of Trump, is that that is starting to happen. And history shows all it needs is a charismatic figurehead with a silly tache to get the ball rolling...

AlterEgo · 12 Feb 2017

TheEdge said:
This is a view that worries me greatly and I fear is one of the biggest reasons we in the UK, and all over the West for that matter, are sliding down a slippery slope to populist politics.

Rather than sitting on a high horse as a beacon of enlightened liberal perfection, sneering and belittling people with those views try engaging with people. We've seen enough that large enough numbers of people feel so alienated from politics and the political class/libral elite that the populist types are gaining ground. Trump didn't sneer and belittle, Farage didn't. It puts me in mind of a 1984 quote...

Okay extreme, but I do feel, especially with the victory of Trump, is that that is starting to happen. And history shows all it needs is a charismatic figurehead with a silly tache to get the ball rolling...

One of the problems is that the Mail - like all trash press - is actually produced by what you might call "the liberal elite" (which isn't a thing btw!). It isn't White Van Man reporting for the Sun, it's English graduates with journalism qualifications.

In many ways I do agree with you and I've posted at length about the lack of dialogue, which in my view led to Brexit and Trump. The inequality people ignore is the inequality of information and education, rather than income.

As an aside, I don't consider myself particularly liberal. I can see the damage caused by a very long stretch of social liberalism in this country. That is a topic for a different place, though.

me123 · 12 Feb 2017

burneside said:
So a Daily Mail hating FM trawls back to stories that are years old to make a point. Are you saying the stories are 100% fabrication? I love how the Mail winds up so many people and gets them frothing at the mouth.

What is an "FM"? I'm not the First Minister of Scotland, or Wales, or any other country. The Mail fabricates stories, and I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about calling them on it. And in fact, not all of the stories are years old, the latter ones were in fact very recent.

The press as a whole are quite happy to continue fabricating stories. They had an opportunity to voluntarily sign up to a scheme where they would self-regulate, which I would have suggested is a sensible solution. They declined, which leads me to say that journalism cannot be considered a profession, and hence journalists are not professionals.

Merseysider · 12 Feb 2017

Wikipedia discussion said:
...the paper is trash, pure and simple.

Couldn't have put it better myself :lol:

Some more highlights...

Wikipedia discussion said:
[as a source] politics would seem out of bounds given their continual lies and misrepresentation

Wikipedia discussion said:
Even their photography can't be relied upon

Wikipedia discussion said:
They regularly publish sexualized photos of children.

Wikipedia discussion said:
There's no area of news where it is actually reliable.

Wikipedia discussion said:
It is pretty close to a fake news source

Wikipedia discussion said:
Just because a lot of people buy it does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other than its own views.

Wikipedia discussion said:
Seems to me that if we restrict its use to anything uncontroversial we are (in effect) prohibiting it anyway.

Wikipedia discussion said:
The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism.

Wikipedia discussion said:
Kill it. Kill it with fire.

Wikipedia discussion said:
Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever.

Wikipedia discussion said:
...if the Daily Mail is the only source, it probably didn't happen.

Wikipedia discussion said:
IPSO 2016: Daily Mail was the worst publication, with a total of 17 sanctions for inaccuracy. The Sun followed with 14, the Daily Express with 12. The Independent and Guardian had none.

Wikipedia discussion said:
"using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer"

Wikipedia discussion said:
You probably know the Daily Mail as a race-baiting tabloid that once supported the Nazis. But it has another, secret identity it tries to keep hidden at all costs. The Daily Mail is possibly the biggest news media troll in history. Thanks to American outlets thinking it’s a respectable news source, the Daily Mail has managed to get the media to print more hoax stories than everyone else on this list combined.

Wikipedia discussion said:
FWIW, as I write this the Mail front page is currently informing the world that "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens."

Treating the Daily Mail as a reliable source is simply unfathomable.

me123 · 12 Feb 2017

TheEdge said:
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and agree with burneside, not because I like the Mail, an awful lot of its content is bias, fake or clickbait but for the fact it seems political from something that isn't meant to be. Why have they singled out the Mail in this way but left other similar papers (Sun, Express, even the Star!) as usable with caution. It feels like its a political move pushed by people with a similar view to a lot of posters in this thread.

In a response to me123 producing a selection of inter-war images and quotes. Firstly it is well known that there were plenty of people in the UK who thought the Nazi's were a good thing until the outbreak of WWII. In fact a founding member of the SAS thought they were brilliant up until the events of Kristallnacht. And then of course high society...

I would actually partly agree with both your points (surprisingly, perhaps).

The Mail is one of many newspapers that could easily be subject to restrictions in its use as a reputable source, and I would suggest that the Star, Express and Sun are equally useless reference sources. Where I would disagree is that I would also be quite happy for their use on Wikipedia to be restricted in the same way that the Mail is (i.e., to be used only when the specific article is the reference; for example Jan Moir's wikipedia page quite rightly contains links to the article she published about t/l Stephen Gately).

And I do of course agree that the Mail was not alone in its cuddling up to the Nazis in the 1930s. I would condone all others who have done so as well.

The Mail has been singled out for criticism largely because this thread is discussing the Daily Mail, but you'd be absolutely right to say that they are not the sole offenders.

burneside · 12 Feb 2017

me123 said:
What is an "FM"? I'm not the First Minister of Scotland, or Wales, or any other country. The Mail fabricates stories, and I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about calling them on it. And in fact, not all of the stories are years old, the latter ones were in fact very recent.

The press as a whole are quite happy to continue fabricating stories. They had an opportunity to voluntarily sign up to a scheme where they would self-regulate, which I would have suggested is a sensible solution. They declined, which leads me to say that journalism cannot be considered a profession, and hence journalists are not professionals.

Forum member.

43021HST · 12 Feb 2017

Something of interest to the good users of this thread:

Daily Mail Timeline of Shame

1924 Knowingly published forged letter "proving" communist plot to overthrow govt, to undermine labour 4 days before Election.

1938 - Refers to Hitler as Having "sound commonsense, Conservative Doctrine"

1956 - Says rock and roll "surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the n****'s revenge"

1984 - Describes Stephen Fry as "liberal pansy of the worst, most BBC-lefty type"

1991 - States that "the trouble with a 'scientific' argument is that it relies solely on empirical facts"

1993 - Encourages People to "avoid gay sons" with the headline "Abortion hope after gay genes finding"

1996 - States that if a sex worker is murdered "she has clearly been asking for it"

1997 - Describes Mo Mowlam, who was dying of cancer as an "only slightly effeminate Geordie trucker"

1999 - Supports Andrew Wakefields science-free claim that MMR vaccine causes Autism and helps over 200 children die of Measles, Mumps or Rubella

1999 - Published "shocked" report about exploitation of Britney Spears alongside 17 full page shots of provocative schoolgirl photos from her video.

2000 - Begins policy of climate change denial, which if successful could endanger the lives of billions of us.

2002 - Claims mouth wash, oral sex, Pringles, and Facebook cause cancer

2006 - Launches sidebar-of-shame

2009 - Blames Stephen Gately's sexuality for his death.

2009 - Demands a stop to the compulsory administration of the HPV cervical cancer Vaccine, endangering the health of thousands of women.

2010 - Claims asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder"

2011 - Deliberately misrepresents research into schizophrenia to suggest all sufferers are drug addicts

2011 - Asserted you could "catch gay" by watching Eastenders

2012 - Refers to the 14 year old daughter of a supermodel as "hot" and a "leggy blonde" opposite an article accusing the BBC of hiding paedophiles.

2013 - Calls Ed Miliband's deceased, anti Stalin, war hero father "the man who hated Britain", then doubles down with more hate speech in their "apology". When journalist Mehdi Hasan defended Miliband on the BB, the MailOnline published, then quickly retracted the words "if Hasan doesn't like the truthhe should go back where he came from" - they later claimed he should return to working at the Huffington Post.

2014 - Sends journalist to con a charity out of food so they can "prove" people who genuinely need charity are all con-artists, not victims of the policies the Mail vocally supports.

deltic · 12 Feb 2017

One item in that 2002 list in relation to cancer could be considered correct as NHS advice makes clear

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Feb 2017

The Daily Mail's owners must be absolutely delighted with the amount of free publicity given to them and their publication on this website.

43021HST · 12 Feb 2017

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The Daily Mail's owners must be absolutely delighted with the amount of free publicity given to them and their publication on this website.

I doubt any companies are "delighted" with negative publicity.

AlterEgo · 12 Feb 2017

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The Daily Mail's owners must be absolutely delighted with the amount of free publicity given to them and their publication on this website.

Yes, I'm sure we will all be encouraged to read the newspaper after this thread. :roll:

TheEdge · 12 Feb 2017

Klambert, how well fact checked was that list?

I find it very unlikely the Daily Mail claimed Facebook caused cancer in 2002, if only because Facebook didn't exist for another 2 years.

Ironic.

[edit]

Infact the more I look its quite interesting.

Asbestos and talc, they both are silicate minerals, naturally they occur together and its not unknown for commercial talc products to be contaminated with asbestos. I'm not a chemist so I'm not sure how different chemically these two formulas are but I think the only real chemical difference is that asbestos is a bigger molecule.

Talc: Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
Chrysotile (White Asbestos): Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4

They are not identical but its not like they are all that different chemically at least.

And 1999, 17 full page shots of Britney. In a print newspaper, 4 years before it had a website. I doubt the truth of that one.

Again, I don't like the Daily Mail, just noticed a few things...

me123 · 12 Feb 2017

^Yes, I would suggest that some references would have made that a more useful list (FWIW Klambert, I know you've just found that on the internet, and it is broadly accurate as far as I can see, but clearly not entirely so).

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Feb 2017

klambert said:
I doubt any companies are "delighted" with negative publicity.

"Any publicity is good publicity"....Oscar Wilde

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Feb 2017

AlterEgo said:
Yes, I'm sure we will all be encouraged to read the newspaper after this thread. :roll:

Amazing. From the amount of references to the Daily Mail made over the years on this website, there must have been many readers of this publication who have rushed to make postings on this website after reading what they had read....

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

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

Daily Mail

Wikipedia

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member