6 ms·

I was about to say, this article makes perfect sense to me. The Daily Mail is one of my last choices of news, and I generally don’t use it as a source at all. I

by jquery 6y ago

I was about to say, this article makes perfect sense to me. The Daily Mail is one of my last choices of news, and I generally don’t use it as a source at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google’s algos have figured out the same thing many of us have…

walshemj 6y ago
And remember that search results are personalized unless you browse incognito.
hkt 6y ago
Wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... tl;dr best quote (imo) "The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy."
- throwaway4china 6y ago
  Wikipedia's editors are significantly biased. Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning. God forbid you have to use it for research of any political topic, always check the references and compare to right leaning sources. It's funny because their critique of DM can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    > Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning. I've seen that same argument before to argue how the Nazis, and modern neo-Nazi groups are supposedly all "left wing", their categorization on Wikipedia as right wing and far right is allegedly only the result of that very same "left leaning" bias you are claiming. Which, as a German, is just a tad bit weird, because it wasn't Wikipedia that defined these groups as such, those results come out of the political sciences. Nazis being right-wing, and neo-Nazis having moved further into the far-right is a very established fact in Germany.
    - throwaway4china 6y ago
      You can pick out a single article that we may all agree on, but my point still stands that overall Wikipedia's political articles are biased to the left. Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
      - freeflight 6y ago
        > Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees Those are some odd examples... On one hand he complains Obama's article doesn't mention the Benghazi Attack, when that's actually listed as one of the events during his first term. On the other hand Trump's article doesn't mention the 2019 attack against the US embassy in Baghdad. The choice of topics after that doesn't help dispel the notion of the author having a bit of an bias issue himself: Abortion, Jesus (a whole lot of that), global warming and vaccines. It's like a best-of of the deeper ends of American conservative talking points, the only thing missing is 2A and some good old "teach the controversy". Particularly that Jesus part is very difficult for me to take serious: Recognizing that the biblical Jesus is mostly a myth is not "bias", as much as it might offend some religious sensibilities.
        throwaway4china 6y ago
        You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. Possibly you don't notice the biases because you agree with them, but it's there. There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bi... This situation pretty much reflects the state of all outlets, there's few if any places with no bias, you have to cross reference sources with each other and decide for yourself, especially for politically charged topics. Wikipedia cannot be trusted by itself because they usually do not allow right leaning sources or edits even if they are factually correct. They are very lenient to liberal sources even if they are blatantly false. - edit: replying to the commenter below - I did not say Conservapedia is the arbiter of truth or a non-bias source. This is where their religious biases show, at least they are honest about it in the naming and function of their site. The problem with Wikipedia is they masquerade as a bias-free collection of sources, which is false.
- CountDrewku 6y ago
  Yes because Wikipedia's opinion and some random quote on there should be what matters above all... You realize Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable or credible source for anything right?

by jquery 6y ago

walshemj 6y ago

And remember that search results are personalized unless you browse incognito.

hkt 6y ago

Wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... tl;dr best quote (imo) "The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy."

throwaway4china 6y ago
Wikipedia's editors are significantly biased. Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning. God forbid you have to use it for research of any political topic, always check the references and compare to right leaning sources. It's funny because their critique of DM can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole.
- freeflight 6y ago
  > Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning. I've seen that same argument before to argue how the Nazis, and modern neo-Nazi groups are supposedly all "left wing", their categorization on Wikipedia as right wing and far right is allegedly only the result of that very same "left leaning" bias you are claiming. Which, as a German, is just a tad bit weird, because it wasn't Wikipedia that defined these groups as such, those results come out of the political sciences. Nazis being right-wing, and neo-Nazis having moved further into the far-right is a very established fact in Germany.
  - throwaway4china 6y ago
    You can pick out a single article that we may all agree on, but my point still stands that overall Wikipedia's political articles are biased to the left. Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
    - freeflight 6y ago
      > Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees Those are some odd examples... On one hand he complains Obama's article doesn't mention the Benghazi Attack, when that's actually listed as one of the events during his first term. On the other hand Trump's article doesn't mention the 2019 attack against the US embassy in Baghdad. The choice of topics after that doesn't help dispel the notion of the author having a bit of an bias issue himself: Abortion, Jesus (a whole lot of that), global warming and vaccines. It's like a best-of of the deeper ends of American conservative talking points, the only thing missing is 2A and some good old "teach the controversy". Particularly that Jesus part is very difficult for me to take serious: Recognizing that the biblical Jesus is mostly a myth is not "bias", as much as it might offend some religious sensibilities.
      - throwaway4china 6y ago
        You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. Possibly you don't notice the biases because you agree with them, but it's there. There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bi... This situation pretty much reflects the state of all outlets, there's few if any places with no bias, you have to cross reference sources with each other and decide for yourself, especially for politically charged topics. Wikipedia cannot be trusted by itself because they usually do not allow right leaning sources or edits even if they are factually correct. They are very lenient to liberal sources even if they are blatantly false. - edit: replying to the commenter below - I did not say Conservapedia is the arbiter of truth or a non-bias source. This is where their religious biases show, at least they are honest about it in the naming and function of their site. The problem with Wikipedia is they masquerade as a bias-free collection of sources, which is false.
CountDrewku 6y ago
Yes because Wikipedia's opinion and some random quote on there should be what matters above all... You realize Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable or credible source for anything right?