BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Yes, sorry all. It was introduced thus by Iains -

Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament?

And I tried to point out that was false equivalence for all the reasons stated before. It was a side track and we should now forget it.

What is interesting though is that the question I had asked as to why the Guardian should be included in the ban was never answered. I gather from that there is little or no evidence of them purposely misreporting for political gain?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:11 AM

I can't for the life of me think why Hansard has been invoked in this discussion. It is not a newspaper with an editor who decides what goes where, if at all, and how many column inches each item gets, and it contains no editorial opinion. Apart from redundancies and repetitions and occasional correcting of mistakes, it is, in effect, a comprehensive transcript of debates. It is an exceptionally reliable source of what is said. In complete contrast, the Mail's reporting routinely includes elements of campaigning for one side of an argument, with a tendentious style that, in effect, mixes news and comment. If plain facts are what you want, that approach is in danger of misleading. The soldier who murdered the Afghan insurgent isn't just involved in an appeal against his conviction (the neutral fact of the matter), he has "hopes for justice," the clear implication being that he has so far been denied justice. That is the paper's view, mixed together with the news report. The same reporter has another item in the paper which clearly implies that the conditions at the military camp in Afghanistan contributed to the state of mind that made him do the murder. The whole is intended to get us to side with him. There's no mention of the fact that all this was going on in the insurgent's own region or that their family had lost a son. Of course, that would have been tendentious the opposite way. But it might at least have provided balance. CP Scott said that comment is free but facts are sacred. Had he been around today he might have campaigned for full, not deliberately partial, facts, and that no-one should be in the slightest doubt as to whether it's fact or comment they're reading. Because the Mail can't seem to dispel such doubt, it has been correctly branded unreliable. And there are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq

I am sure they were Iains but that does not alter the fact that Hansard only reports what actually happens in parliament. Hansard does not try to lead peoples opinions as the newspapers do.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM

D the G.
"Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said."

Very true but I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq, and later shown to be a massaged pack of lies. These conversations/debates were based on a false premise. Parliament was mislead and dodgy dossiers were used as a basis for the voting.
In reality that was a far greater crime than the daily wail getting things wrong on occasions.
Anyway if in search of quality reporting there exist other papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well, I buy it Monday to Friday. I never read a word. I only extract the double page of puzzles, crosswords and Sudoku, which keeps me quiet for an hour (and gives my husband a bit of peace) The rest of the thing goes under the cat litter tray, (probably the best place for it!) and is also used for wrapping up food leftovers before putting in the bin.
I couldn't even tell you what the articles are about, who their columnists are or what so-called News it purports to convey.

So please don't have me executed... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:10 AM

So what? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM

Daily mail
It had an average daily circulation of 1,510,824 copies in November 2016. Between July and December 2013 it had an average daily readership of approximately 3.951 million, of whom approximately 2.503 million were in the ABC1 demographic and 1.448 million in the C2DE demographic.

That Mr Shaw is a lot of people in the ABC1mdemographic that do not share your opinion. and unlike you they buy Andrex.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Well as I think I may have mentioned before, I occasionally pick up a free copy of the Daily Mail with my Waitrose card (I could get the Guardian, but I already get that, or the Times or Telegraph, but I already have enough bog paper). Yesterday's front page was about the soldier who murdered an injured insurgent in cold blood in Afghanistan. By the time you've read the first two tabloid-length paragraphs of the "report" it's crystal clear that the paper is solidly on the side of the convicted murderer. When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it. I want to see that only in separate, clearly-defined opinion columns. Of course, the Mail isn't unique in employing that dishonest approach, and it's why it and its fellow tabloids can't be trusted. So if Wiki wants to exclude the Mail, that's fine by me. I wouldn't expect Wiki to glean aspects of education policy from the Bash Street Kids in the Beano either.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:24 AM

D the G I disagree that Hansard is a false equivalence. You can read coverage of the same event in say the guardian or russia today. Two very different perspectives giving two very different accounts. It is very hard for any news source to have true independence. Someone some where pays the wages and generally they have an agenda that they will promote whenever possible. Truth is a very elusive beast and requires sifting and sorting of sources to come close to finding it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:16 AM

Dave Ro. Dangerous purely on the basis that it disseminates news(of a sort) to the greatest number.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: DaveRo
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:12 AM

Iains wrote: According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

I agree about the un-wisdom of a blanket ban, but why does the fact that a newspaper is widely read make a ban 'more dangerous'? Just curious.

Seems likely to me that there is a correlation between circulation and inaccuracy - which may make the Mail an unauthorative source, and therefore deprecated - though not banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:11 AM

Well mr patronising red, if the vetting process we can all participate in works so well there is no need for a blanket ban now is there?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/09/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/
maybe it is more to do with the munnee.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

:-) was for Steve.

As to where does it all end. Well, I think the answer to that lies in common sense. If a source is regularly wrong in its reporting then it should be doubted and double checked at all times. The editors of Wikipedia have a job to do and if they spend a large proportion of their time checking the Daily Mail sources, which should have been checked by the paper in the first place, then it makes sense for them to stop using it and save themselves a lot of work.

Hansard is false equivalence. They report what the MP says. Whether the MP is right or wrong is a matter for people to make up their own mind about but the fact remains that the MP said it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:02 AM

Who polices the policemen? We do, you certainly do.

But put your truncheon away, you might hit yourself on the backswing. Dearie.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

A blanket ban is the start of a slippery slope. Who polices the policemen?
Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament? Should it include any newspaper that is partisan?
Where does it end?
I regard it as a very dangerous development, and further censoring of the internet.
According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:40 AM

He's scared that Wiki will end up being edited only by soft-centred inky-pinky sandal-wearing bearded guilt-ridden liberal apologists, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

The Grauniad presumably has committed crimes against spelling (historic).

There has to be some oversight. I have had source references refused because of copyright reasons.
And for a blanket ban, consensus is the way. The Wikipedia way.
Another way would be a Snopes quotient.

All Newspapers print falsehoods. Some, occasionally by mistake, some regularly by policy. We call the latter comics.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

What has the Guardian misreported then, Iains? Do you have any recent examples?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM

Can't wait for the guardian to be put on the list as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:06 AM

I would guess so too, Nigel. Hopefully they will come next, closely followed by the Stun.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:49 AM

Interesting to read the link, which is from The Guardian:
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.
I think that last sentence is intended to mean "Wikipedia's editors have raised concerns about quoting from both Russia Today and Fox news" I'm fairly sure that it is not Russia Today, or Fox News, which have raised the concerns.

Subject: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:30 AM

Take heed!

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

and

NOT FIT FOR FACTS: 20 TIMES THE DAILY MAIL WROTE RUBBISH IN THE PAST YEAR

I am never sure of Wiki 'facts' anyway but at least they seem better at checking sources and making corrections than some of our gutter press.

Cheers

DtG