3 ms·
It's too bad this article is criticised because of the place where it's published (typical logical fallacy), because Wikipedia accuracy has been going down the
by Grue3 10y ago
It's too bad this article is criticised because of the place where it's published (typical logical fallacy), because Wikipedia accuracy has been going down the drain for a while. And I say that as an (inactive) Wikipedia admin.
- vacri 10y agoWhen a source builds a reputation for being untrustworthy, it's unreasonable to demand that each of its articles be considered as a separable item from the rest. Indeed, cooper12 below points out a ridiculously gross error in the first sentence of the article. Not to mention that even if it were the right number, the idea itself is false: that a quorum of all active editors is needed to mark a source as poor quality.
- bigbugbag 10y agoWell this 'gross error' is actually a citation from wikipedia itself. And the daily mail has been among those marked as unreliable sources since 2015, so this fails short of explaining this very targeted ban. In general, any tabloid newspaper, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television show, or a site like The Register, should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists, or in place of such a source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources&oldid=642377260#News_media https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Potenti...