Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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...

Noting the matter of both Wikipedia and the Daily Mail, then also noting the denial of a number of people on this thread that the Daily Mail is a newspaper, it is therefore interesting to note how that matter is viewed by Wikipedia, their article on the Daily Mail begins...."The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-class tabloid newspaper"

Make of that what you will.

 

[najaB]

Make of that what you will.

I think the apparent contradiction is because while the Daily Mail is a newspaper (as a matter of fact), some people don't think it deserves that title (as a matter of belief).

Problems only occur when people are unable to distinguish between the two (as is increasingly common in political discourse).

 

[Howardh]

Wikipedia wont publish links to Daily Mail stories, Daily Mail is asking for evidence of facebook untruths.

OK< here's the senario, you are on a desert island and you only have two choices for accurate information, the Mail or Wikipedia

Which do you go to??

 

[yorkie]

If it was a choice between the two, obviously Wikipedia because you can at least check the sources. Inaccurate information can be corrected.

With The Mail, you can virtually guarantee it's either inaccurate or incredibly biased and that's just the way it is.

Edit: as discussed via PM, I have merged the poll thread into the pre-existing one.

 

[SS4]

Wikipedia may not always be accurate but at least it tries unlike the Daily Mail.

 

[deltic]

I would do without either thanks

 

[D365]

I'm quite afraid to read that two people (at the time of posting) would rather go to DM

 

[DaleCooper]

The only source I trust is Viz.

 

[najaB]

I agree with yorkie - I wouldn't *trust* either, but at least with Wikipedia you can normally check their sources.

 

[me123]

Absolutely Wikipedia. Wikipedia has strict editorial guidelines and demands sources which are made publicly available, so more dubious statements can be independently fact checked. It doesn't mean it is 100% effective, but you have the ability to verify just about every single sentence on Wikipedia.

The Mail, on the other hand and as we've already discussed, has proven itself to be not only untrustworthy but in many instances deliberately deceptive and biased. Sources are not ready available. Why would anyone go to the Mail for facts? Opinions, perhaps, but not facts.

Plus, if I was on a desert island, I'd much rather have access to Wikipedia which is undoubtedly a much more comprehensive resource than probably any other website on the planet.

 

[dosxuk]

Noting the matter of both Wikipedia and the Daily Mail, then also noting the denial of a number of people on this thread that the Daily Mail is a newspaper, it is therefore interesting to note how that matter is viewed by Wikipedia, their article on the Daily Mail begins...."The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-class tabloid newspaper"

Make of that what you will.

It's important to recognise the difference between the Daily Mail, and Mail Online. The former is a British daily middle-class tabloid newspaper, the later is a click-bait, celebrity-tits, populist and provocative cess pitt designed solely to get advert views. The former has to tread carefully around libel laws and has to print corrections when they get things wrong, the latter just removes the offending lines and pretends they were never there (often resulting in a headline that completely contradicts the article).

Wikipedia can only link to the Mail Online (although you can reference items in print, online sources are always preferred), and Mail Online has no desire to be a reputable source when they can make more money from posting pictures of boobs instead.

 

[Hornet]

The Poll is pointless as it does not have a neither option.

 

[najaB]

The Poll is pointless as it does not have a neither option.

The question is which of the two - if you wouldn't use either then don't vote.

 

[Busaholic]

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.

Useful for checking whether somebody whom you've not heard of lately, but formerly in the public eye, has died, but otherwise I tend to agree.

 

[Hornet]

The question is which of the two - if you wouldn't use either then don't vote.

I didn't, as neither options reflect my, (or I suspect many others) views. It should be truly reflective of Public Opinion, which it isn't.

 

[najaB]

Useful for checking whether somebody whom you've not heard of lately, but formerly in the public eye, has died, but otherwise I tend to agree.

It's also useful for getting links to primary sources. I find it's generally okay as long as you are looking for factual information and stay clear of sections with titles like 'Controversies' and 'Politics'.

 

[backontrack]

The only source I trust is Viz.

Private Eye.

 

[185]

Not all the journalism in the Mail is bad, some of it is the best in the industry imo - the news can be excellent.

Where it falls down is on the 'columnists opinions' and biased political sections - these just go unchecked and are simply one sided, hate filled and biased.

 

[najaB]

Not all the journalism in the Mail is bad, some of it is the best in the industry imo - the news can be excellent.

Where it falls down is on the 'columnists opinions' and biased political sections - these just go unchecked and are simply one sided, hate filled and biased.

As posted upthread, there's a huge difference between The Mail Online and The Daily Mail.

 

[DaleCooper]

A little while ago I was listening to Marvin Gaye's "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" which has a bit of advice relevant to this thread and life in general.

People say believe half of what you see
Son and none of what you hear

 

[Andyjs247]

Saw this on my Piccadilly Line train this afternoon...

Daily Mail Free Zone

Please show consideration for fellow passengers by not reading or leaving copies of the Sun, Daily Mail or Express newspaper in this coach.

Hadn't seen one of these before but it brightened up my day!

 

[fowler9]

Saw this on my Piccadilly Line train this afternoon...



Hadn't seen one of these before but it brightened up my day!

Ha ha, quality.

 

[meridian2]

A little while ago I was listening to Marvin Gaye's "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" which has a bit of advice relevant to this thread and life in general.
"People say believe half of what you see
Son and none of what you hear"

As Marvin's father shot him dead, not the best source of advice perhaps?

 

[Firesprite]

There is only one use for the Daily Fail and thats for lighting fires.

 

[DaleCooper]

There is only one use for the Daily Fail and thats for lighting fires.

It's certainly no good for "fighting liars".