Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

[Andyjs247]

Well well, according to the Guardian, Wikipedia has 'banned' Railforums' favourite newspaper The Daily Mail.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’

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.

Much as I dislike the Daily Fail it comes to something when Wikipedia, not always noted for its accuracy itself, takes such a stand. At least Wikipedia can be edited and corrected and I applaud the decision, even if it did cause me a wry smile.

 

[yorkie]

No hardship as any article worthy of citing will be quoted in a much more reputable publication than the Daily Mail.

 

[DasLunatic]

...and here's the Wikipedia debate for those so inclined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC

 

[me123]

At last, it's been recognised as the work of fiction that it is! An absolutely correct move. One should, of course, consider any source on its merits. But it's amazing how often the Mail frankly lies or exaggerates the truth in order to further an agenda (this can often be obvious by simply reading the article, rather than just the headline).

Example from yesterday:

Mr Coyne, a distant relative of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon...

He is believed to be the nephew of the First Minster's sister-in-law's ex-husband.

(To give them some credit, it has been updated overnight. The Nicola Sturgeon "connection" was actually in the headline at one point).

 

[deltic]

I am no fan of Daily Mail but this seems to be a purely political move - the Mail seems to be no less accurate than most other papers and probably more so than Express and Sun.

 

[Hornet]

Anyone using Wikipedia as a reliable source should be publicly flogged. People should research the validity of their arguments through various sources, rather than any single source. I never use wiki as a research tool. It is far too flawed.

 

[Howardh]

If you do the direct opposite of what the Daily Mail want you to do, you know you're doin' it right....

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Pot, Kettle, Black.

 

[SS4]

Wikipedia may not be as reliable as we'd like but at least it tries unlike the Daily Hate. Good decision from the editors

 

[edwin_m]

I am no fan of Daily Mail but this seems to be a purely political move - the Mail seems to be no less accurate than most other papers and probably more so than Express and Sun.

I don't think anyone would take a story in the Sun seriously enough to believe it unless corroborated elsewhere - essentially entertainment rather than news. Has anyone seen Wikipedia ever cite a source from that paper? Whereas the Mail claims to be a serious publication but the twist and bias that is imparted to stories is less easily detectable.

The Express is somewhere in between.

 

[Groningen]

Pot, Kettle, Black.

A saying that is also used in the Netherlands.

 

[Busaholic]

At last, it's been recognised as the work of fiction that it is! An absolutely correct move. One should, of course, consider any source on its merits. But it's amazing how often the Mail frankly lies or exaggerates the truth in order to further an agenda (this can often be obvious by simply reading the article, rather than just the headline).

Example from yesterday:



(To give them some credit, it has been updated overnight. The Nicola Sturgeon "connection" was actually in the headline at one point).

Regrettably, the 'Times' also stated that Coyne is a distant relative of Mrs Sturgeon. On the other hand, it did point out that David Cameron and Boris Johnson were members of the Oxford Bullingdon Club at a time when an alleged initiation rite was the burning of a £50 note in front of a homeless person.

 

[D365]

... at a time when an alleged initiation rite was the burning of a £50 note in front of a homeless person.

Surely that's not the most notable example.

Is it a ritual in Cambridge as well?

 

[fowler9]

The good thing about the Express is its weather reports. If it tells you to expect a heat wave then wrap up warm, and vice versa.

The Daily Mail on the other hand is a hysterical load of rubbish. Now I'll admit to being a big leftie but I'll admit when the likes of the Guardian are being a bit biased. The Mail on the other hand is a joke.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Pot, Kettle, Black.

I see your point, but if you notice an error on Wikipedia you can change it. When you see an error or a downright falsehood in the Daily Heil, there's nothing doing.

The two are fundamentally different in both their aims/purposes and methods.

 

[507021]

The Daily Mail on the other hand is a hysterical load of rubbish. Now I'll admit to being a big leftie but I'll admit when the likes of the Guardian are being a bit biased. The Mail on the other hand is a joke.

I completely agree, this is a very good move from Wikipedia.

 

[burneside]

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.

 

[fowler9]

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.

Can I ask why that is?

 

[burneside]

Can I ask why that is?

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.

 

[me123]

But not all newspapers outright fabricate stories in order to appeal to their agenda. It has been pointed out that the Heil is far from alone in this (I'd agree that the Sun and Express could also be banned in a similar fashion), but I think it's correct to say that the newspaper cannot be considered a reputable source, so it is entirely reasonable that its use as a reference is restricted.

 

[burneside]

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

 

[me123]

I can't take that "newspaper" (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) seriously, given that it calls anyone slightly to the left of Hitler a "luvvie" or "snowflake". And I don't really care if you take me seriously or not, but I shall continue calling it the Daily Heil. I think it is an accurate description of a newspaper that is essentially a far right propaganda piece.

 

[D365]

I really cannot take anybody seriously who refers to Mail as the Fail/Heil etc.

I can't take anyone who refers to the Mail as a newspaper seriously.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can't take anyone who refers to the Mail as a newspaper seriously.

May I enter this debate at a somewhat late stage to ask if anyone can give the top five British newspapers in terms of average daily circulation figures that will also show those numerical figures in addition.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can't take that "newspaper" (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) seriously, given that it calls anyone slightly to the left of Hitler a "luvvie" or "snowflake". And I don't really care if you take me seriously or not, but I shall continue calling it the Daily Heil. I think it is an accurate description of a newspaper that is essentially a far right propaganda piece.

An interesting insight of reasoning. Could you therefore, using the same reasoning, give your similarly based thoughts on a newspaper that you see at the opposite end of the political spectrum by citing its actual name then the name that you would use it in similar fashion as you do above.

NOTE : Any RMT press release is not allowed to be used in this instance.

 

[deltic]

But not all newspapers outright fabricate stories in order to appeal to their agenda. It has been pointed out that the Heil is far from alone in this (I'd agree that the Sun and Express could also be banned in a similar fashion), but I think it's correct to say that the newspaper cannot be considered a reputable source, so it is entirely reasonable that its use as a reference is restricted.

In your view what fabricated stories have appeared in the Daily Mail?

 

[me123]

In your view what fabricated stories have appeared in the Daily Mail?

As a start, we can talk about the hordes of Romanian immigrants that were going to flood our country when they joined the EU in 2013. They claimed flights were selling for thousands of pounds (which they weren't) and that there were no available tickets from Romania to the UK (which there were). And of course, in January, a grand total of one person arrived off the first flight who intended to move here. A lot of corrections at the bottom of the article.

Then there's the cancer stories, many of which certainly don't appear in any reputable medical journals that I read.

What about "swimmers plunged into darkness... to protect muslim women's modesty", which even the article confirms to be a lie.

'There were also requests made by some non-Muslim users as well.'

The continual lies about immigrants causing the NHS crisis, when we know that the causes mostly lie elsewhere.

And that's before we start looking at deliberate misrepresentation of facts (a recent story suggested that 92% of left wing activists still lived with their parents, when it was actually 92% of people arrested for disorder at a left wing protest rally). This one's actually a great example of why it's been banned by wikipedia - it's taking a statistic and using it to represent something that seems similar but is in fact entirely different.

An interesting insight of reasoning. Could you therefore, using the same reasoning, give your similarly based thoughts on a newspaper that you see at the opposite end of the political spectrum by citing its actual name then the name that you would use it in similar fashion as you do above.

NOTE : Any RMT press release is not allowed to be used in this instance.

Well, the Morning Star kind of doesn't lend itself to any additional commentary, it generally does what it says on the tin. I dislike a lot of what's written in there, as I'm not actually far left (although I'm sure the Mail probably thinks I am).

 

[edwin_m]

May I enter this debate at a somewhat late stage to ask if anyone can give the top five British newspapers in terms of average daily circulation figures that will also show those numerical figures in addition.

These are readily available as you are no doubt aware. But this topic is discussing accuracy not circulation figures.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

But this topic is discussing accuracy not circulation figures.

A good point; after all The Sun has a hefty circulation despite being another publication of highly dubious accuracy.

 

[me123]

^ 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.