3 ms·
I thought Daily Mail was close to tabloid status (or a bit above). Aren’t they banned from being a citation on Wikipedia?
by cj 10mo ago
I thought Daily Mail was close to tabloid status (or a bit above). Aren’t they banned from being a citation on Wikipedia?
- stooart 10mo agoThe Daily Mail is definitely tabloid, although some might describe it as a comic. There are reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow it as a source.
- slowmovintarget 10mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- reliabilityguy 10mo ago> There are reasons why Wikipedia Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source [0]. [0] https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia
- 4bpp 10mo agoIt is by no means a good publication, but at the same time being accepted as a citation on Wikipedia or not is not necessarily a particularly objective measure of quality. I recommend reading https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... for the critical perspective on Wikipedia's integrity in this regard.
- Digit-Al 10mo agoThe Daily Mail is frequently referred to as either 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (referring to the fact they supported Oswald Mosley and his fascist ideals, and remain very right wing). It is not a quality publication by any means.
- jjgreen 10mo agoTFA: https://review.gale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/hurrah-for-the-blackshirts-mail.jpg https://review.gale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/hurrah-fo...
- autoexec 10mo agoThey are a trash paper so skepticism is warranted but care should be taken not to dismiss facts just because of who reports them. Thankfully, we don't have to depend on the word of the Daily Mail for evidence that the UK doesn't value the ideal of free speech and are far too comfortable punishing and silencing online speech. It's a problem, and it makes their efforts to tie people's online activity to an individual worrying.
- DANmode 10mo agoBest reply of siblings, by far.
- phatfish 10mo ago[flagged]
- knorker 10mo agoPeople have been arrested for silently praying in their head. And for saying "not my king".
- andsoitis 10mo agoWhat do you think about the attempt to ban VPN (this story)?
- pydry 10mo ago>this nonsense about the UK being some authoritarian hell hole is getting silly. Not really. They're arresting people for protesting a genocide. >i don't mean some obnoxious twat bulling teachers over Facebook. I mean speech that actually matters Just a holocaust, nbd.
- rounce 10mo agoThey're not being arrested "for protesting a genocide", they're being arrested for showing support for a group which has been declared to be a terrorist organisation. Regardless of your views on the latter, the former is an important distinction you seem to be unaware of. The fact there are thousands of people regularly protesting against Israeli actions in Palestine and yet not being arrested completely undermines your point.
- sys_64738 10mo agoIt's a chipwrapper.
- 984635026859846 10mo ago[flagged]
- wasabi991011 10mo agoScientific publishing is a decentralized system, there's no specific ban in place, just that publishers will likely not accept to publish your paper. And the reason for that is accuracy nor bias, just that Wikipedia is not a primary source. You don't generally cite any encyclopedias in scientific papers.