3 ms·

The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and i

The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.

troydavis 7y ago
Fair point. 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... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived. Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’" They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
- adger 7y ago
  Sorry, but this is becoming embarressing for you. You are not disagreeing with the information in the article, merely smearing the organisaton it is published by. Then you provide opinions of organisations that are equally unreliable. You have been abusing your downvoting privilege and flagging comments. Down thread you resorted to lying. Amusingly you accused a commenter of assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should go and read the guidelines you cited?
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious. As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow! My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.

troydavis 7y ago

Fair point. 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... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived. Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’" They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."

adger 7y ago
Sorry, but this is becoming embarressing for you. You are not disagreeing with the information in the article, merely smearing the organisaton it is published by. Then you provide opinions of organisations that are equally unreliable. You have been abusing your downvoting privilege and flagging comments. Down thread you resorted to lying. Amusingly you accused a commenter of assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should go and read the guidelines you cited?
romaaeterna 7y ago
The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious. As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow! My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.