More pig ignorance regarding Daily Mail

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

More pig ignorance regarding Daily Mail

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:47 pm

The happy consequence of the Daily Mail somehow having become Wikipedia's gold standard for a shit source, because politics, is that it is now a regular occurrence to see on the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", reminders that they actually know next to FUCK ALL about what is still, despite the best efforts of these assorted leftist wikiwanks, the most popular and most right wing mainstream newspaper in Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1018778117

Take at look at sheer ignorance of these walking, talking, should have been aborted in the womb, retards......
The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity.....Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Someone tell this stupid fuck the sky is quite often not blue, for reasons of science, and "sky is blue" is specifically called out even by the low intelligence monkeys of Wikipedia as an example of a common misconception of a basic fact that is supposedly so true it doesn't even need a source.

And oh yes, the Daily Mail lied about it's own statements when exactly? And what the fuck does lies about it's own writers even mean? As usual, this is an example of a highly defamatory claim being published on Wikipedia about the Daily Mail, that isn't sourced. Which is, as EVERYONE THERE SHOULD KNOW, is a violation of the BLP policy (it applies everywhere, not just in articles). And yet I am quite sure if the Daily Mail's lawyers took issue with that and asked the Foundation for the IP address of "Vaticidalprophet" so they could sue his bitch ass, the Foundation would cite some bullshit about American's right to Free Speech. Pricks.
The Federalist is a significant voice on the Republican right and is therefore usable as opinion. But it is a source for opinion, not for fact. As far as I know, the Daily Mail publishes minimal opinion. feminist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Lolwut? As anyone with working eyeballs knows, the Daily Mail is packed with opinion, having a whole slew of highly respected commentators, diarists and reviewers. Indeed, it's hated by the limp dicked left precisely because it doesn't just stop at giving an opinion on the day's news, it proactively forces the news agenda of the next day by telling the world what it thinks should be the next big thing for the right wing. Not for nothing, does it regularly have columns written by current and former prime ministers, from both the left and the right.
I grew up with The Federalist being a standard conservative publication that I read fairly often, but their readership and standards have long since changed and the willingness to publish mistruths and conspiracies. Those preferring option 1 or 2 above have not convinced me of that at all. That said, I don't know that this rises to the Daily Mail level and my reading of the relevant policies/the DM RfC doesn't get me there. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Ha. The DM RfC was noteworthy for just how few of the actual "mistruths" identified therein, had their origin In the Daily Mail newsroom. Invariably, it was a case of a piece of deliberate bullshit managing to fool all newspapers, including those considered reliable by Wikipedia, and indeed, it was often the Mail that would then get to the heart of the matter, because a by-product of commercial success is that you can actually afford, y'know, FUCKING JOURNALISTS, not wire monkeys.

The Mail has always been a mainstream publication. It is a properly regulated British newspaper, and in Britain, that actually means something. If anyone has any actual proof that the Mail now publishes conspiracies as if they were fact, which is what The Federaist was being called out for here, by all means, make yourself known. It is the sort of highly defamatory claim about the Mail that the Wikishits have certainly never backed up.
The Federalist has become a dumpster fire of purposefully fake news of late, I only have a slight hesitation of putting them all the way down at the bottom of said dumpster alongside the Daily Mail. ValarianB (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Clearly this Wikishit is using the later definition of "fake news" that the Wikipedians came up with as their excuses to ban the Mail, namely, stories I don't like. Recall that "fake news" originally literally meant, made up stories, published just for clickbait. Unsurprisingly, any and all times I have ever heard a Wikishit claim a story in the Mail was fake news, excluding stories that wouldn't be used in Wikipedia anyway, like celeb gossip, they mean their definition, not the original one.
Yes you are correct about the Canary, IMPRESS is viewed as much stricter than IPSO, fully implementing the Leveson Inquiry. My mistake. IPSO on the other hand regulates such paragons of virtue as The Sun, The Star and the Daily Mail, which are deprecated on this website. IPSO membership is not an indicator of reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
IPSO of course, also regulates the Times and Telegraph, and "most of the UK's national newspapers". I have put that claim in quotes because it came from a highly questionable source, Wikipedia, citing, you guessed it, IPSO. And also according to Wikipedia, regarding IMPRESS, "No national newspaper has signed up to the new regulator".

On a side note, you will no doubt recall a rather telling aspect of the DM RfC, was that the proposer very early on ran with the impressive sounding statistic.....
Independent Press Standards Organisation from 2014 to 2015: Mail 11 breaches, Guardian 0 breaches; reparations by Mail 34 times, Guardian 0 times. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

IPSO 2016: Daily Mail was the worst publication, with a total of 17 sanctions for inaccuracy. The Sun followed with 14, the Daily Express with 12. The Independent and Guardian had none. --Hillbillyholiday talk 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Very impressive, considering ISPO don't regulate The Guardian.

That lie was noticed eventually, but quite a few people voted in the four days it took for ANYONE on Wikipedia to investigate this EXCEEDINGLY SUSPICIOUS claim at all. Because as anyone knows, The Guardian makes some actual pretty spectacular fuck ups, and unlike the Mail, they're so bad they do genuinely turn into legit media scandals. It fit the desired narrative, it confirmed their pre-existing biases or indeed their deliberate agendas, so of course nobody really even thought to question if Hillbillyholiday was being a deceitful immoral game playing prick when he said it.

He is all those things, which is why he was, eventually, and for nothing to do with the Mail at all, banned from Wikipedia. He can be found a Wikipediocracy these days, because of course he would be there. It is the natural home of people whose desire to push leftist wankery by foul means and even fouler means, exceeds even the capacity of Wikipedians.

To date, that false claim has never been struck from the record, nor has Hillbillyholiday ever been asked to apologise for apparently deliberately misleading the community (he would later infamously describe this as him having used "Daily Mail tactics"), and of course, no mention was made by the panel of closers as to whether they had factored in the influence of this four days of fake news going undiscovered, on their weighing of consensus.
"The rare error which is promptly corrected" is very different from "frequent errors that are rarely corrected". FN, DM and the like have a fundamentally different editorial process from real news sources, resulting in a vastly different standard of "truth". François Robere (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
There has never, of course, been any proof provided on Wikipedia that this highly defamatory claim is true at all, other than the usual Daily Mail haters chucking up the usual grab bag of examples that they like to cobble together in the own analysis to come up with their own conclusions (and they invariably never ever include in that, statistical comparisons to these so called "real" news sources).

The Daily Mail is real news. They print corrections when someone other than the aggrieved party or some activist wankers ask them to do the decent thing. What they print, usually happened. If it didn't, the reason is quite often the same as it is in any news room. Trying to get a Wikishit to actually admit this, to admit that this is what their OWN EXAMPLES often only prove, is harder than getting them to admit they have sex with their own mothers, because who the hell else would have them? That is how devoted they are to trying (trying and failing) to cancel the most prominent voice in the right wing press in Britain.

There are of course reliable sources out there which talk about how the Daily Mail's business model is different to the sort of titles who have had to resort to subscription models or just plain Wikipedia style begging to make ends meet. But of course, the identified differences are not of the form described here by this sister fucker.

Still, when has what reliable sources have to say about the Daily Mail ever been a factor in what Wikishits say about it? Other than in their time honoured tradition of cherry picking and misinformation.

How many days has it been since Wikipedia declared the Mail to be "generally reliable", and literally no reliable source has been prepared to print it (so they can actually include it as a fact in their so called encyclopedia). Gotta be over a thousand now, surely.

It is almost as of the rest of the world, specifically that part of it dedicated to academic study of the media, realises Wikipedians are lying partisan scum. And to be fair, it isn't exactly hard to come to that conclusion.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: More pig ignorance regarding Daily Mail

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:23 pm

There you go, you lying Wikishits......

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rn-britain
This development might suggest grounds for optimism, were it not for a key political fact: continued Conservative dominance of England, partly based on a set of essentially cultural ideas with loud echoes of the 1970s and 80s. Back then, the brilliant writer and thinker Stuart Hall said that Thatcher authentically spoke “for those people who felt they were left behind by permissiveness, threatened by affluence, challenged by the sexual revolution, who never wanted a libertarian society, who believe in greater authority, in the family, in paternal authority”. Boris Johnson might not believe in that kind of Conservatism, but in a modified form it remains at the heart of his party, and the wider interests it speaks for. It is the credo of such activists’ favourites as Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg; it enters the national conversation on a regular basis via the Daily Mail.
There's your favourite UK "reliable source" confirming that the Daily Mail is still a highly influential newspaper, not just reflecting, but driving, the agenda of the right.

It establishes the basic realities of the bullshit Daily Mail Wikipedia ban.

It firstly starkly supports the reason why Wikipedia banned the Mail - they do not want to give the opinions or indeed the news agenda of such an influential right wing newspaper any recognition in the myriad of historical, political, cultural and current event articles in their pretty obviously left biased "encyclopedia".

Secondly, it starkly discredited their nominal reason for banning it, the Mail's alleged history of fabrication and fake news. Because this piece here, is not a news piece, its opinion, it doesn't have to be strictly factual, it cannot easily be cited as defamatory.

It is a Guardian political/culture columnist writing his own opinion piece. And in this context, if it were considered relevant and remotely true, you better fucking believe this pinko twat would have found some way to note how the Mail has ceased to be a real newspaper, and is actually these days, nothing but a peddler of fake news and conspiracy theories, and that is why the left keep losing elections here.

In some sad half baked attempted parallel to the actual rise of an actual bare faced liar and conspiracy theorist in a country which laughably did used to claim it was the greatest democracy in the world.

But it doesn't say that does it, wikishits. It doesn't support your invented claims about what the Mail supposedly is now. It doesn't support the idea that The Federalist, the long established and establishment right wing paper that is actually now writing pieces that support Trump's stolen election narrative, as NEWS, is, while problematic and not usable for factual claims, still apparently in your eyes at least more useful to Wikipedia for OPINION, than the Mail.

Everyone knows what you are. Biased isn't even the half of it. Halfwitted, is more like it. Typical American ignoramuses. You successfully banned the Mal, simply because there are less British right wingers on Wikipedia, and a hard core of dedicated UK lefties, deluded into thinking it is new media. Americans are dumb, there will be plenty of people on the American right who genuinely believe fighting the left on Wikipedia is a good use of their time. Not so much in Britain. We see it for what it is. A rigged game. An irrelevance.

Nobody in the now smashed Red Wall is an avid reader of Wikipedia. And those who are, are not so dumb as to not realise it's clearly biased, but not in the fair and transparent way that the UK newspapers are. In a highly deceitful taking you for utter mugs kind of way. And they don't like that. Believe me.

Ask the last Labour Leader, our version of Bernie Sanders, who honestly thought he could lie to them (via The Guardian), about the merits of renationalising our supposedly "jam packed" trains. Got caught out. Blatant political stunt. Wikishits tried their hardest to bury that news on Wikipedia. Didn't work.

Our Trump is not Johnson, it is Farage. We dealt with him, because we know how to do democracy and good government, and we do have a functioning and well regulated media, and thus a fairly well educated population of voters. Those who don't know, don't vote, believe me.

A well educated population and a functioning democracy, and a free but well regulated press, can never be influenced by the obvious lies of a bunch of biased wankers screwing around on a fake news platform like Wikipedia.

You can only influence American minds, if you can influence anyone, and congratulations there, because all you seem to have achieved, is show the less educated voters that yes, there is reason to believe the media is biased, is lying to them, and is in league with the white metropolitan elites, of which your corporation amd your most active editors are such a perfect example. And so you got Trump. Well, fucking done.

Dumbasses.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2412
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: More pig ignorance regarding Daily Mail

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:22 am

oh, man, don't bring up Rees-Mogg on a Wikipedia forum.....not only do the Wikiasses hate him intensely, they hate him incoherently. Traces of long-ago editwars on that article have completely disappeared, which I suspect to be the work of David Gerard when he still had oversight powers. The "cream" of the Wikipedian UK right wingers and shrieky leftists (yes, including Guy Chapman) squabbled over it for 5+ years. Even that consummate maniac Kittybrewster, who was STILL editing as recently as last year. Why isn't he permab&?

The current top editor of the article is this neeb. Who literally has a photo of himself with Jimmy Wales on his userpage. Sucking up much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodw

Post Reply