3 ms·

I didn't bother to read this article after remembering that wikipedia considers dailymail an unreliable source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/

I didn't bother to read this article after remembering that wikipedia considers dailymail an unreliable source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...

sverige 10y ago
Well, yes, of course, wikipedia is the authority on reliable sources.
DanBC 10y ago
It's not just Wikipedia. It's the UK press self-regulatory body; also the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; also the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-david-cameron-nigel-farage-council-of-europe-report-racist-violence-intolerance-hate-speech-a7345166.html#commentsDiv http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-david-...