5 ms·

There's a reason Wikipedia has banned this site as a source, and that's because their articles make The Onion look accurate and fact-checked.

barry-cotter 10y ago
You can disapprove of the Daily Mail's accuracy and politics without saying things that are actually lies. That what you wrote is hyperbole is clear to me but it certainly isn't clear to everybody. The author's point about Wikipedia still taking Chinese, Russian and Persian state media as trustworthy sources should be tackled by anyone who actually wants to take part in this cesspit of a debate about a cesspit of a paper. While on the topic of journalistic integrity have the Guardian retracted their piece on the "backdoor" in WhatsApp yet? No, and they're not going to. No matter how ideologically congenial any particular newspaper may be for any particular person journalists generally have minimal time for fact checking, will twist a story to make it more entertaining, and know very little about what they're writing about.
- Smaug123 10y ago
  The fact that other news sources are untrustworthy doesn't make the Mail trustworthy.
- nl 10y ago
  The Guardian article[1] isn't inaccurate. It identified a way in which WhatsApp messages could be read, and the author wouldn't know what had happened. The HN discussion of the WhatsApp response[2] shows that this is a pretty serious problem. It's not a hole in the WhatsApp protocol - more a UI problem. That doesn't make it any less serious, and it is unclear to me what you think they need to withdraw. The third paragraph in the article itself makes it clear this is a trade-off: Some security experts say that the vulnerability is a known and acceptable “trade-off” that makes sense for the majority of WhatsApp’s users, since it makes the app easier to use on a day to day basis. They describe the risk to most users as “remote” since the vulnerability only allows the targeting of individuals or groups of individuals at specific times, rather than widespread mass surveillance of WhatsApp users, and urge users not to switch to less secure platforms. I think this is pretty good reporting of a complex issue in trading off ease-of-use vs security. I think it is worth noting that most think WhatsApp's mistake was to go too far to the "ease-of-use" side. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900
- vacri 10y ago
  > Persian state Where is the Persian state? There hasn't been a Persian state for almost 40 years.
vixen99 10y ago
Some examples please! I guess you're a daily DM reader who fact-checks your own facts scrupulously before making wild statements. Separately, I am always surprised by the number of folk who evidently can't stand the DM but seem well-informed about its contents.
bigbugbag 10y ago
There's probably a reason for the ban, but I sincerely doubt it's this one. Simply because other similarly reliable or worse sources are not banned. More like one individual started a RFC "Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?"[1] where 78 expressed themselves at correct time and place and the result was 54 for the ban and 26 against the ban. So Ban it is. Had 55 people voted against the daily mail would still offer the same reliability but it wouldn't be banned. Sort of a usual case of how wikipedia is run behind the scenes where a small minority of self-selected (white? male?) people with knowledge of the internal mechanisms of wikipedia decides in the name of all wikipedians to apply rules to the whole wikipedia and beyond (though those rules may not apply to themselves or their friends or people in the power structure)[2]. This case just got a little extra publicity because it concerned a known newspaper. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... [2]: If a majority at Wikipedia decided that 2 + 2 = 5, then that's what Wikipedia will publish. Similarly, if a majority decides that "4" shall not be mentioned, then it will not be mentioned. On Wikipedia, fact, and truth, have no validity in themselves. This means that they are subject to political determination, i.e., the process of obtaining agreement. Those who believe that 2 + 2 = 4 will need to lobby for 4. Wikipedia has an exhaustive set of rules that purport to guide such discussions, but those rules are routinely ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Facts_.26_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los... -edit- interesting timeline here: - 2014: daily mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source because of its unreliability. - 2015: wikipedia adds the daily mail to "should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists, or in place of such a source."

barry-cotter 10y ago

You can disapprove of the Daily Mail's accuracy and politics without saying things that are actually lies. That what you wrote is hyperbole is clear to me but it certainly isn't clear to everybody. The author's point about Wikipedia still taking Chinese, Russian and Persian state media as trustworthy sources should be tackled by anyone who actually wants to take part in this cesspit of a debate about a cesspit of a paper. While on the topic of journalistic integrity have the Guardian retracted their piece on the "backdoor" in WhatsApp yet? No, and they're not going to. No matter how ideologically congenial any particular newspaper may be for any particular person journalists generally have minimal time for fact checking, will twist a story to make it more entertaining, and know very little about what they're writing about.

Smaug123 10y ago
The fact that other news sources are untrustworthy doesn't make the Mail trustworthy.
nl 10y ago
The Guardian article[1] isn't inaccurate. It identified a way in which WhatsApp messages could be read, and the author wouldn't know what had happened. The HN discussion of the WhatsApp response[2] shows that this is a pretty serious problem. It's not a hole in the WhatsApp protocol - more a UI problem. That doesn't make it any less serious, and it is unclear to me what you think they need to withdraw. The third paragraph in the article itself makes it clear this is a trade-off: Some security experts say that the vulnerability is a known and acceptable “trade-off” that makes sense for the majority of WhatsApp’s users, since it makes the app easier to use on a day to day basis. They describe the risk to most users as “remote” since the vulnerability only allows the targeting of individuals or groups of individuals at specific times, rather than widespread mass surveillance of WhatsApp users, and urge users not to switch to less secure platforms. I think this is pretty good reporting of a complex issue in trading off ease-of-use vs security. I think it is worth noting that most think WhatsApp's mistake was to go too far to the "ease-of-use" side. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900
vacri 10y ago
> Persian state Where is the Persian state? There hasn't been a Persian state for almost 40 years.

vixen99 10y ago

Some examples please! I guess you're a daily DM reader who fact-checks your own facts scrupulously before making wild statements. Separately, I am always surprised by the number of folk who evidently can't stand the DM but seem well-informed about its contents.

bigbugbag 10y ago

There's probably a reason for the ban, but I sincerely doubt it's this one. Simply because other similarly reliable or worse sources are not banned. More like one individual started a RFC "Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source?"[1] where 78 expressed themselves at correct time and place and the result was 54 for the ban and 26 against the ban. So Ban it is. Had 55 people voted against the daily mail would still offer the same reliability but it wouldn't be banned. Sort of a usual case of how wikipedia is run behind the scenes where a small minority of self-selected (white? male?) people with knowledge of the internal mechanisms of wikipedia decides in the name of all wikipedians to apply rules to the whole wikipedia and beyond (though those rules may not apply to themselves or their friends or people in the power structure)[2]. This case just got a little extra publicity because it concerned a known newspaper. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... [2]: If a majority at Wikipedia decided that 2 + 2 = 5, then that's what Wikipedia will publish. Similarly, if a majority decides that "4" shall not be mentioned, then it will not be mentioned. On Wikipedia, fact, and truth, have no validity in themselves. This means that they are subject to political determination, i.e., the process of obtaining agreement. Those who believe that 2 + 2 = 4 will need to lobby for 4. Wikipedia has an exhaustive set of rules that purport to guide such discussions, but those rules are routinely ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Facts_.26_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los... -edit- interesting timeline here: - 2014: daily mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source because of its unreliability. - 2015: wikipedia adds the daily mail to "should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists, or in place of such a source."