Wikipedia Votes to Ban Daily Mail

[NigelFargate]

so in other words, anybody can edit it, like i said

 

(to a greater or lesser extent)

 

BUT

The daily mail, is a national newspaper that should tell the truth and give facts rather than make things up to suit their warped ideals

 

But the implication of what you said is that anybody can add whatever they like to wiki and that it would stay there, which is clearly not the case. It is rather like saying that anyone can write whatever they like on Sheffield Forum - which may be true up to the point that posts which break forum rules are removed by the moderators.

 

Comparing the Mail to Wiki is like comparing apples and oranges. Wiki is an online encyclopaedia and as such has a completely different function to that of a national newspaper.

[Penistone999]

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

 

 

 

 

 

funnily enough they also bring up Russia Today, and Fox News for raising concerns with Editors, gonna ruffle a few right wing feathers

 

The irony in Wiki accusing others of being an unreliable information source. :hihi:

[999tigger]

The irony in Wiki accusing others of being an unreliable information source. :hihi:

 

Its considerably more reliable than the DM. I didnt realise you actually read anything.

[melthebell]

The irony in Wiki accusing others of being an unreliable information source. :hihi:

the irony is that it actually is more reliable :hihi:

 

[Revel]

How deeply ironic this is. One of the first things academics tell their students is not to rely on Wikipedia as a source of information. Perhaps Wiki is attempting to make the site a 'safe space' for today's student snowflakes.

 

We aren't told not to rely on Wikipedia because it's untrue. We're told not to rely on it because it discourages conventional in-depth reading (ie: books and journals).

At least the majority of Wikipedia articles have an element of truth, which is more than can be said for the Daily Fail.

[I1L2T3]

The irony in Wiki accusing others of being an unreliable information source. :hihi:

 

Hmmm, the info on Wikipedia is generally correct although it would be wrong to rely on any page on it at any time as a cast iron source, or a primary source or the only source of info. Quite simply because the system allows anyone to edit and there is inevitable an element of subjectivity in any page on it. But like I said it is generally correct and ok for background.

 

The Daily Mail on the other hand.........just full of deliberately poisonous xenophobic crap.

[Andbreathe]

I didnt realise you actually read anything.

 

 

Now that's good journalism...:hihi:

[NigelFargate]

We aren't told not to rely on Wikipedia because it's untrue. We're told not to rely on it because it discourages conventional in-depth reading (ie: books and journals).

At least the majority of Wikipedia articles have an element of truth, which is more than can be said for the Daily Fail.

 

Well, not quite. Entries in Wikipedia are not equivalent to peer-reviewed articles in academic journals or in textbooks (which are also likely to have been peer-reviewed before publication).

 

I am not against Wiki per se. Some of its articles contain good bibliographies, including references to specialist articles and books. In fact, I am mentioned on it for stuff I have written. However, there is undoubtedly a tendency for students to rely on Wiki too much, because it is much more accessible than having to trawl through complex articles in academic journals. It's the lazy student's untrustworthy friend.

[the_bloke]

The irony is that over the years on SF I've been told by various left wing posters that information I quoted from Wiki was untrue as anyone can edit it, and they then went on to give links to the Daily Mail to support whatever point they had.

[cgksheff]

I treat Wiki the same as I treat the Daily Mail.

 

Wiki is an excellent "first stop" for information.

A quick decision on authenticity can be made and follow-up checks made elsewhere.

If you are not sure what you are looking for, Wiki can provide quick guidance.

 

The Daily Mail online is often one of the first sites to come up with new stories.

Again, a quick decision can be made regarding veracity and other news sources used as follow-up.

 

The Mail does often publish stories that contain the truth. It may be disguised under a provocative headline and biased insinuation, but often the truth is in there for an intelligent reader.

(There is also a lot of rubbish)

 

A classic example would be their typical headline of "Mother 'to be evicted for late payment", and then after a long tale of woe with sad-face photo and lot's of stuff in quotation marks ... down at the bottom a Council spokesman says that after reviewing this case the computer generated eviction notice was cancelled and Mrs Sad-face notified.

 

Doesn't stop them being a stirring rag, though!

Edited February 10, 2017 by cgksheff